What is Evangelism?

Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2021 02:42 pm
Those whom you have judged are a matter between you and God.
True, but you seem willing to pitch in.

It seems clearly evident that your twisting of the scripture facilitates you with an excuse to not show pity whenever you damned well please.
Then I wish you would point out how it is that I am twisting them.

You suggested that my error about following Jesus was that the man's father had died of natural causes. I don’t see how that changes the moral dynamic. I would suggest that Jesus knew the heart of the man and that he was using his dead father as an 'out' and would not have followed through. Which seems more plausible to you?

So much for the Bible giving people morality...
. I have a difficult time deciding if you are for or against the Bible. You seem to switch sides as needed.

That slippery slope also allows for racism, gender discrimination, misogyny and a whole slew of other hateful judgments to be used against anyone you hate.

Using the Bible to justify hate is pitiful, yes.
Yes, if I had done that it would be. But 'hate' is another word used in various ways in the book. Jesus sometimes used it in hyperbole to illustrate moral priorities. Jesus would have us hate only (and anything) that would separate us from God.
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2021 03:04 pm
We live in "man's day" and man (men and women) does the judging, not God.

Maybe someday God may do the judging but today we are the ones with stoned to throw at the lawless. In Donald Trump's case these stones are ballots.

His attempt to limit voting only shows his truly insidious character.

Society does the judging today, not God, even the Bible acknowledges that.

The majority of society does not find two same sex individuals who want to marry, sinful...

But racism, misogyny and stealing from the poor to give to the rich. It would seem the ballot box finds these sins to be worthy of a few stones.

As for my faith, I am an agnostic. I used to be a fundamentalist believer and I am ordained clergy. I saw too many contradictions in my studies even though I may find comfort in many scriptures, I find many more that are troubling and devoid of morality and "truth".

I became honest.

Does God exist? I tend to think God is more likely to exist within the earth and sun, a higher power than some invisible image of man spouting out bigotry and warmongering.

Does God exist? I don't know. Does bigotry exist within the Bible? Yes. And this bigoty is not "my" God.

I separate the God from the "holy" books written by errant people with devious agendas.

I have been set free by setting aside this troublesome book of many contradictions.

It was a long process to unlearn and free myself from this book but I am happier and a better person because of this change.
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2021 05:09 pm
I became honest.

You were just then. Thank you.
0 Replies
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2021 06:46 pm
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2021 11:36 pm
Why do I think the New Testament was written in Aramaic first?

Matthew 27:46:
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a
loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?
that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?

Why didn't the translators just translate Jesus' words here? Why did they leave them in Aramaic also?

Perhaps they were not certain of the correct translation of the words because it appears as if God had abandoned Jesus. So they left the words there for future scrutiny.

The correct translation of Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani is: "For this purpose was I spared." To "leave" something does not always mean to abandon or forsake, it can sometimes mean to reserve something. I have 5 sheep left in the back pasture. They are not abandoned or forsook, they are spared or reserved.

There are a few more examples in the New Testament where the translators have allowed the Aramaic words to remain:
Matthew 5:22; Mark 5:41; Corinthians 16:22.

I will come back with more information on this topic.

I have mentioned that the ancient Greek language is very precise. Well, it is mathematically precise in some areas and it is very imprecise and crude in other areas.

These crude areas are very pivotal in the understanding of spiritual matters that require precision. When you only have one word to describe a myriad of different states and operations then the understanding can become obscured and mired in confusion.
Reply Thu 1 Apr, 2021 03:49 am
I will give some examples,

In the English language we have one word for love.

Love... One could use empathy, desire, passion, affinity. But overall it is rather limited. Love is love...

In the ancient Greek language, There are many words for love.

Eros, Agape, Ludus, Pragma, Philautia, Philia, Mania...

And there are many more when combined, these words with other words precisely define hundreds of specific kinds of love.

But the ancient Greek word "pneuma".

This single word is translated into English as, spirit, soul, mood, disposition, attitude, temper, wind, fire, breath, air, ghost, humor...

So when you read the ancient Greek word, pneuma in the biblical texts you have to guess which meaning it is referring to. The is the epitome of imprecise language.

Let me ask you a question.

Do you know the precise difference between soul and spirit?

If you don't know the answer, this is the reason why.

The soul and the spirit ARE different things.

But since the ancient Greeks did not have unique words for each of these they confused the meaning to such a degree that today the difference between soul and spirit is obscured.

This is why I believe the Bible was first written in Aramaic. Because the language had words that more precisely defined the human condition.

While the Greeks defined the psyche, the spirit and soul may have been better defined in the Aramaic language.

So it would seem that the only way to define the soul and spirit would be to look beyond the Greek into the Aramaic.

Or, try to look at the context where pneuma is used in the Greek scriptures and try and isolate the possibilities.

Once you understand the difference between soul and spirit, then you can make an educated decision whether if you believe in them or not...
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2021 08:40 am
Well of course. If you bless guns, theyll be effective against the zombie hordes later on. Those gays don't need the church's blessing, theyre gonna do what they want with or without it.
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2021 09:04 am
I don’t know enough about the subject to say one way or another, but I thought you deserved a reasonable answer.

I can’t fault your argument at all and you’re more than entitled to your belief, but other than your Biblical verse there’s no supporting evidence.

It could be argued that the reason the original Aramaic was used was because it’s a pretty important quotation. In the same way that red letter versions of the Bible print words directly attributed to Christ in red.

If you want to convince anyone you really need more supporting evidence.
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2021 10:20 pm
From Google:
Most religious scholars and historians agree with Pope Francis that the historical Jesus principally spoke a Galilean dialect of Aramaic. Through trade, invasions and conquest, the Aramaic language had spread far afield by the 7th century B.C., and would become the lingua franca in much of the Middle East. Mar 30, 2020

From Wikipedia:
Language of Jesus
Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic, the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem. This is generally agreed upon by historians.

The Catholic Church, Google and Wikipedia are the largest religious sources for information.

They all state that Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic.

It only takes a little deduction to question, if they spoke Aramaic how did their words end up in Greek? "Those red letter words were spoken in Aramaic". And there a lot of other words that could have been left in Aramaic for emphasis sake.

Someone must have translated them...

Therefore, the Greek scriptures were translated from Aramaic. How can one get around that considering they were originally spoken in Aramaic?

The other alternative is they spoke Aramaic and God transmuted their words while in mid air and the people miraculously heard them spoken in their own tongues.

I prefer the former explanation. Smile
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2021 10:24 pm
Gays don't need the church's selective condemnation either.
0 Replies
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2021 10:43 pm
The progression of logic starts with the spoken words.

The spoken words were for the most part spoken in Aramaic.

Some scribe probably wrote those Aramaic words down.

Then someone translated those Aramaic words into Greek.

The Aramaic writings could have been lost or they could comprise of the modern Peshitta.

The Peshitta could be from the original Aramaic or it could be translated from the Greek.

Though it is not likely that it came from the Greek and I have not seen any critical analysis stating that it was derived from the Greek translation.

In fact, the Peshitta is more precise when it comes to defining the spirituality of the 1st century church.

Now both the Greek and the Peshitta may have come from much earlier sources and over time each gone through revisions.

But the Apostles state in the Bible that they first wrote the scriptures in Aramaic and then personally saw to their translation into Greek.

Why modern theologists dispute this is something I think they need to explain.

Modern theologists also rejected the Hebrew Old Testament sources preferring a Greek Old Testament to instead translate from so, go figure.

Perhaps there were simply more Greek translators at hand.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 5 Apr, 2021 11:42 pm
0 Replies

Related Topics

  1. Forums
  2. » What is Evangelism?
  3. » Page 35
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 07:53:24