Tags for This Article:

Fundamentalism (470) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s):
Add to My Group
June 23, 2007 at 11:38:05

Questions Your Pastor Will Dislike Part Four

by Dennis Diehl

www.opednews.com

 
Tell A Friend

View Ratings | Rate It  

A Few Questions About the Actual Crucifixion Pastor. Thank you so much for your patience with me.

Question. Pastor...Just who was it that carried Jesus Cross? Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32 and Luke 23:36 all say that someone named Simon of Cyrene helped him with it, but John seems to not know this part and says in John 19:17 that Jesus carried it the whole way himself. I know one can say that they each did a part of it and John is just going for the big picture, but John often seems to no know the details the others did and does imply Jesus was alone in this. Seems important to me.

Question. Pastor...these two thieves have always puzzled me. Mark, being the first Gospel and most simple, mentions them but tells nothing of them at all. (Mark 15:27) But then Matthew makes the story more interesting and in Matthew 27:44 has them taunt Jesus to save them all and at least himself. Then the story gets even better in Luke 23:39 by having the one tell the other one to leave Jesus alone and they deserve to die but not Jesus. With this, Jesus promises him that he would be with him in Paradise that day. Or perhaps, he meant he told him that day he would eventually be with him in Paradise, but it sounds like Jesus meant that very day. This story keeps getting better in the order of the writing. Since Jesus didn't ascend for 40 days, where was Jesus telling this man he and Jesus would go together and when? John and Luke don't have this detail and John doesn't even call them thieves. Some say rebels against Rome and run away slaves were crucified, but not thieves as we know them. And Jesus was labeled on the sign, King of the Jews, which seems to be why Rome and not the Jews crucified him....the Bar-Abbas thing remember? At any rate, it always seems like there is an outwardly bad person, like the thief or the Roman Centurian admitting that Jesus is the Son of God and seems contrived. You know, kinda like props in a play.

Question. Pastor...Wow, this is good one for you. In Matthew 27:51-53 we see Jesus dies on the cross and there is a great earthquake. If it was this big, how did the city and the temple survive intact as it said the “rocks split.” That's a big quake! The curtain of the Temple tore from top to bottom as well. I would think if a curtain could tear that would mean the walls holding it up separated, but the temple seemed fine. Besides, no one else seems to notice this event in the the other Gospels or in history.

Question. Pastor....What about these “saints” who rise from the dead and witnessed around Jerusalem? Again, it is only Matthew that mentions this and this seems like a rather huge event! Why were they called Saints, which is more of what Christians are called much later in the history of the Church? They might have been followers, but Saints sounds like it was written long after the real events. Maybe even longer than just a few years. The graves were opened for three days until “after his resurrection,” as it says because I know we can't have the saints rising before Jesus, so were they just laying in the holes for three days alive but couldn't move? Or if they were just bones and not fresh bodies, didn't anyone notice the open holes all over the place and think to fill them in?

And wouldn't raised people make a great story about Jesus power all through the New Testament, but it is never mentioned again? And would not raised saints be honored and revered in the early Church and get important positions we never hear about? Or did they die quickly a second time. That would be a bummer I would think after seeing family and friends again. Is this a real story or did only Matthew make it up?

Question. Pastor...I am wondering how Jesus is called the “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah 53 when he really got off pretty easy being on the cross for just a few hours of one day, getting a nice removal by a rich friend and all prepared and buried in new tomb? Crucifixion is a process of days and tens of thousands died terribly by it before Jesus did. They stayed on the cross until they suffocated and then were left for the birds and dogs to eat. Burial was not much of an option or very rare. Jesus seems to get the best treatment in the history of crucificxion, not the worst. Then he is dispatched with a spear thrust, which again, was merciful, not terrible considering how long it could have taken to die.

Question. Pastor...as long as we are at it. How is it such a big sacrifice for Jesus to die if he knows that in a short time he is God again? And how is Jesus death such a sacrifice on God's part knowing that in a very short time He gets his son Jesus back? I have buried a lot of children that are still dead and the parents would not grieve so much if they knew they'd see them again in a mere three days after death. It seems like going through the motions if Jesus and God knew all this, but not a real sacrifice. Doesn't a real sacrifice stay dead? Now that's real to me if Jesus stayed dead and did not get to be back with God, for us. Now that would be amazing, but he's just dead for a short time and then back in business. Maybe it's me.

Question. Pastor...This three days and three nights in the tomb thing has always puzzled me. I thought I had it down pat with Jesus being crucified on a Wednesday and Resurrected on Sunday morning leaving time for the three days and three nights, you know 72 hours. But that still doesn't work well as it was a Passover thing and not an Easter weekend thing. No matter how you cut it, there are no three days and three nights between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning, no matter if we just do parts. Mark 10:34 says it would be “after” three days, so that includes them all. Matthew 12:40 says it will be the full three days and three nights, but no account ever gets him there for anywhere near that time. What gives? I like the Wednesday idea with Passover being on a Thursday that week, or First of Unleavened Bread for the Jews, but then even that is debatable.

Mark, Matthew and Luke call the meal a Passover, but John says the supper happened before Passover, and doesn't have any references to bread and wine (John 13). Jesus can't have kept the Passover before the Passover and as a Passover too as the other Gospels say could he? It's all very confusing. And even so, this is Passover stuff, not the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring Equinox that marks Easter! And what's with Easter ham? I thought it was Passover Lamb?

What's going on here with the Church? Jesus is not the Ham of God. He is the Lamb of God, or so I thought. It's all so confusing and I'd think these Jewish men would know how to agree on these simple observances. I won't even ask about Bunnies and Eggs! Would you give a sermon on this? Oh...sorry, sounded good to me at least.

Question. Pastor…Matthew 27:62-66 tells us that a Roman guard was placed at Jesus tomb to insure that no one stole the body. It's a good thing they feel down as dead when the Angel showed up. At least they could tell their commander they were knocked unconscious and didn't know what happened to the body. No other Gospel writer says this and the women don’t seem to have to deal with a Roman guard in their trip to the tomb. These guards take money from the elders to say that the disciples came and stole the body. The very thing they were there to prevent. I doubt they would survive, no matter what since this would be such an embarrassment for the Governor. And once again, a great earthquake that rolls stones sideways but does not damage to the city.

Question. Pastor…Ok, just who, what kind of and how many men did the women find at the tomb? Mark 16:5 meet one young man at the tomb. Matthew 28:2 says an bright shiny Angel arrives causing the earthquake and opening the tomb and sits on the stone. Luke 24:3-4 says that the women enter the tomb and two men appear either inside or outside the tomb. And in John 20:12 the women don’t enter but find two shiny Angels sitting inside. Now come on, they can’t be one man, two men, one Angel, two shiny Angels, inside, outside, sitting or standing can they? There seems to be a problem here with both counting and perceiving men from Angels. Can’t be all of the above and if I saw an Angel, I would not just forget and call him a man.

Question. Pastor…Now it gets interesting. No matter what happened, it must have been a real shock to these women. But why, in Mark 16:8 we find the women fleeing in absolute fear and telling no one? In fact, the Gospel of Mark really ends with no resurrection account at all! It just ends with the women running in fear and telling no one about what happened. Most scholars say that is where the story ends and the little ending of Mark was added later just because it had no ending. Also, isn’t it strange that the Gospel of John has TWO endings? I want to ask you about this later….one Gospel with no resurrection story and one with TWO. Hmmmm. I'll ask you more about this in a bit.

Anyway, in Matthew 28:8 the women run and tell the disciples. In Luke 24:9 they tell the disciples and the rest, whoever that is. And in John 20:10-11 Peter and John race to the tomb, John wins the race but doesn’t go in, Peter shows up and goes right in, but Peter is perplexed and John says this is because Peter did not know of the scripture that said Jesus would rise. I find it hard to believe that Peter did not know Jesus said he would rise again do you? This sounds like a political story to me. John knew and Peter was a dolt, but that’s what John does to Peter every chance he gets in Gospel. These men leave and then Mary sees two shiny Angels in the tomb. Why did they not appear to John and Peter who just left? It certainly would have helped Peter. I think John is saying, “I believe the scripture, Peter is stupid and doesn’t and it takes bright shiny Angels to convince women. “

Ok, just a few more questions about the resurrection accounts.

Question. Pastor…Who did Jesus first appear to? In Mark 16:14-15 it is to Mary Magdalene first. I think she liked Jesus and he her. You’d think he’d first appear to James, his brother, or Peter or John. Matthew 28:8-9 says he appears near his tomb but Luke 24:13-15 says it was on the road to Emmaus, a town no one knows what happened to it, but is several miles from Jerusalem evidently. John 20:13-14 has him back at the tomb first. Just seems these four always disagree on events is why I am asking in the first place. It's not like a car accident at all. It seems more like a play that no one can agree what it was about, when, where or who was in it.

Question. Pastor…I guess I was just wondering who Jesus appeared to? Mark says it was Mary Magdalene and Luke says Mary Magdalene and then the other Mary and then the Eleven. And why all the people with similar names? Hard to keep the Marys apart. Luke says “the two” along the road who were just folks and not disciples, then to Peter, then to “the eleven.” And John says to Mary, then to the disciples minus Thomas and then to Thomas later. John would have said , “the ten” I guess and then “the eleven” since Judas was out of the picture. Something remember Paul didn’t know anything about when he said Jesus was seen by the Twelve? I think he should have just gone to see Mary, his mom, first because she would be credible for sure! What do you think? END PART FOUR

 

 

Dennis Diehl is a former pastor of 26 years,  who outgrew the Literalism of Fundamentalism.  He writes about Pastoral and Church abuse and is available to speak on such topics or be helpful to any church suffering under abusive religion or pastors. 

 

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
9 comments

Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me
pratliff94Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me

I will answer the first false accusation you make

Here we go again, another hate the Bible, hate Christ and hate Christian article on a political blog. You sound like George W. Bush on the reverse side of a bad record.

They have always hated us and will always hate us. Have you not read any church history? Let me see if I can answer these attacks for they are attacks coming from an anti-Christian not just a non-Christian. They attack the crucifixion as being contradictory, therefore, unbelievable.  

Let me deal with them in Canonical Order not as, you, Mr. Diel deal with them.

Matthew 27:32. What is wrong with Matthew's statement?

"And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear His cross."

Did they come out of the city? Yes, Mr. Matthew is right there.

Did they find a man from Cyrene, Simon by name? Yes, Mr. Tax Collector is right there.

Did they force Mr. Simon to carry Jesus' cross? Yes, Mr. Levi, the Tax Collector is right here, too. 

Now, let us look at Mr. Mark's story as he paints Jesus as the Suffering Servant.   Mark 15:21.

"And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear His cross."

As Jesus was coming out of the city carrying His cross and fell under its load, did they compel one Simon a Cyrenian to bear His cross? Yes, they did compel him to bear it.

Was this Cyrenian coming out of the country to enter Jerusalem? Yes, he was.  

Well Mr. Matthew and Mr. Mark seem to agree that as Jesus was coming out of the city and the soldiers forced Simon from Cyrene to carry His cross. We are half way home, Mr. Diel. This leaves Luke and John.Luke first:

Luke 23:36.Uh, Oh. Mr. Diel!!! It seems that unlike the four Evangels, you have made a dire mistake. You said that Luke 23:36 says that the soldiers made Simon of Cyrene to bear the cross. My goodness sake, if you are wrong here, I bet your are wrong in other places. He who claims the Written Word of God to be wrong is wrong instead. You should have read much more closely. I bet you meant 23:26 and it was just a scribal error. We will permit you this one.

Luke 23:26."And as they led Him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus."

Did the soldiers lead Jesus away? Yes, they led Him away. Mr. Luke is correct, too.

Did the soldiers lay hold on Simon of Cyrene to make him bear Jesus' cross. Mr. Luke is correct here, too.

Was Simon coming out of the countryside to go into the city? Yes, he was. Correct again.

Was he made to bear the cross following Jesus down the Mountain across the creek and up the next Mountain called "Skull" Mountain. Yes. All correct.  

Mr. Diel. It just leaves one, John the Beloved, John the Divine, John the one who leaned on His breast, John one of the sons of Thunder, John the Evangel.

John 19:17."And He bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha"

Well, well let us see if John writes anything completely contradictory to the previous three Evangels as Mr. Diel so loudly claims.

Did He (Jesus) bear His cross?  Yes, He did.

Did He go forth to the place called Skull Mountain or "Golgotha?" Yes He did. There is no disagreement.

We know when Jesus left Gabbatha for that is the scene or context of John 19:17, we know He carried His cross through the streets out the city gate where He fell beneath the load for they had tortured Him mercilessly all night from the time they brought Him from Gethsemane on Mountain Olivet. It is a wonder that He was not already dead, and He fell in exhaustion. He did all this for you, Mr. Diel. It was your sins that marred and murdered Him. Would you turn from your Satanic religion and all religions and ask this Living Lord Jesus Christ to be your Lord and save your soul. He loves you as much today as He loved you on that terrible day two thousand years ago.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments) on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 6:31:13 PM
 


Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me
pratliff94Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me

Do not love your scarcasm, but I will not kill you.

My rancor or your scarcasm. You started the fight not me. Dare you to say what you say about the Quran. Stand up and do it, or are you part of the gouging out of eyes and cuttin off left feet and right hands?

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments) on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 8:21:23 PM
 


Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me
pratliff94Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me

Love your bitterness and sarcasm

He absollutely does not. The thieves, malefactors and Simon of Cyrene are not the center focus of John's story; the Lord Jesus is the center focus. Those are just by way of passing. What a silly way to try to prove the fallibility of the Bible.

Matthew, Mark and John do not record His words to the women in the crowd which does not mean it did not happen. John is writing to state that Jesus is the God-man, perfect God, perfect man, "and the Word which was God became human flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth." I forgot. Sorry. You believe God is One and He has no Son, don't you?

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments) on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 8:32:33 PM
 


Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me
pratliff94Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me

Thieves and Malefactors

Mr. Diel, the thieves nor the malefactors trouble me. They only trouble me if I try to make them the same two men instead of the four different men they were. Let us see if we can deal with them for they are worth the effort.

By the way, only in your mind is Mark the first Gospel. I reject that Mark was the first Gospel and the others were copied off that, so let us kill that idea right at the start. We do not even know if John, Luke, Matthew and Mark were aware that the others wrote a Gospel let alone read it. Let us just take them for what they say. Please excuse my sarcasm when commenting. It is hard to resist since you are so sarcastic—"contrived," "props and the like." 

Again, I prefer to deal with these four portraits of Jesus in canonical order.

Matthew 27. Notice that Matthew does not record the account until after they offered Jesus a narcotic which He refused to drink, after they divided His garments and gambled for His robe.  It does not say when the sign, "This Is Jesus the King of the Jews," was put above His head. It was sometime between when He nailed to the cross and their sitting down to watch Him. I wonder why they were not watching the dozens of others being crucified on that execution day. 

Matthew 27:38, "Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left."      

Mr. Diel, please notice the time frame. It is important. "Then," which indicates after these events just mentioned. Notice the criminals crucified after He is crucified, "thieves." The Greek word is "archilaystays."  The Greek dictionaries tell you that this word means "a robber," "a freebooter," "a plunderer." Notice their position in relation to Jesus, "one on the right hand, and another on the left." The "thieves" are not mentioned again until six verses later: Matthew 27:44," The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth."Notice that the same word is used, "thieves," and both were cursing Him. Matthew does not mention them again. The Gospel is about Him Who died for us and not two criminals.  

Now let deal with Mark who paints just a little different picture. There is a world of difference between "different" and "contradictory." Mark 15 tells us how that they beat Him, put a royal robe on Him with thorns for a crown and scourged Him while making fun of Him for He was accused of being King; they led Him out of the Judgment Hall, down the streets and out the city gate where they encountered Simon the Cyrenian coming and made Simon drag Jesus cross to the execution site where He is crucified and a sign was put above His head, "The King of the Jews." As any competent writer does, Mark choose what part of the story he wishes to tell and what part of the sign he wishes to record. We allow any author that same privilege. 

Mark 15:27."And with Him they crucify two thieves; the one on His right hand, and the other on his left."

It is after all the things that we have all ready looked at in Matthew; after the gambling for His outer robe, and dividing His clothes, they bring  two thieves to crucify with Him. The Greek word for "thieves" is the exact same word used by Matthew including the preposition. 

Luke 23:32. "And there were also two other, malefactors, led with Him to be put to death. 

"33. " And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. 

38. "And a superscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 

39. "And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on Him, saying, If Thou be Christ, save Thyself and us.

40. "But the other answering rebuked him, saying, 'Do you not fear God, seeing you are in the same condemnation? 

41. "'And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this Man hath done nothing amiss'"

42. "And he said unto Jesus, "Lord, remember me when thou come into Thy kingdom.'

43. "And Jesus said unto him, 'Verily I say unto you today, you shall be with Me in paradise." 

I left verse 34-37 out because they do not regard you attack on Luke's account of the "malefactors."  

Luke 23: 32. "And there were also two other, malefactors, led with Him to be put to death."

Notice the words "two other" the word "other" is the Greek word "heteros" which means "another, not of the same nature." It is over against "allos" which is other of the same nature. We get the English word, "heterosexual"- "not of the same kind of sexual gender." So here are two that are really different.

Notice the next word, "malefactor" is the Greek word, "kakourgos" which means the same as the Latin word malefactor,  a compound word consisting of "male" or "evil" and "factor" or "to make." Here it is maker of evil.

"kakourgos" is made of two Greek word, also; "kakos" which means "evil" or "bad" and "ergo" which means "to work," resulting in "workers of evil." These two men were not just "thieves" they were really evil men. They were not brought to "Skull Mountain" after the gambling for Jesus' robe and tearing up of his garments. They were led to Skull Mountain with Him. The scene is of at least five crosses and may have been a hundred, but the story is not about "two thieves" and "two malefactors." It is the story of Him Who is dying for you. 

Your other major accusation is in Luke 23:43. If you knew a little about ancient Hebrewisms, this is a common saying during the inner Biblical period and at the time of Jesus for emphasis, "This day." It is much like "evening and morning" which means a twenty-four hour period while day can mean any period of time. "I say to you this day, you shall be with Me in Paradise."

Bring the Malefactor's request into the light of Romans 10:9-10. This verse is really why the Muslims despise St. Paul.

9. "That if you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is LORD and believe in your heart that God raised Him form the dead, you will be saved.

10. "For with the mouth confession is made unto salvation and with heart man believes (trusts) and is made righteous."  

Islam denies that Jesus died on the cross. Mohammed says that Lucifer took His place on the cross and died in His stead, and the Jews say He was in a swoon. Boy do they have a surprise when He comes back and every eye shall behold him.

The Malefactor called Jesus LORD, and said "when you come into your kingdom, remember me." He knew very well Jesus was dying and believed fully well that He was going to be raised from the dead for a dead man comes into no kingdom. As a Jewish boy who passed bar Mitzphah, he knew Psalms 66:10, "For Thou will not leave My soul in the grave; neither will You suffer Your Holy One to see corruption."

The Lord Jesus said, "As Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be in the grave three days and three nights."

He was a dead sacrifice Who is alive forever and coming in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know Him not. If you think Hell is an eternal, constant torment as Muslims believe and most Christians, you are gladly mistaken, but that  is another story.  

John's account is the same as Luke's without the details. It is about Him Who died and arose again and is alive forever more, not malefactors and thieves.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments) on Monday, June 25, 2007 at 9:56:49 PM
 


Dennis Diehl is a former pastor of 26 years,  who outgrew the Literalism of Fundamentalism.  He writes about Pastoral and Church abuse and is available to speak on such topics or be helpful to any church suffering under abusive religion or pastors.   
Dennis DiehlDennis Diehl is a former pastor of 26 years,  who outgrew the Literalism of Fundamentalism.  He writes about Pastoral and Church abuse and is available to speak on such topics or be helpful to any church suffering under abusive religion or pastors.   

Malfactions

Many Biblical scholars and theologians place Mark first and note that Matthew and Luke copy Mark 91% and 53% verbatim.  They were four of hundreds of circulating gospel accounts written decades after the events.  I also am not confident the names ascribed to them are the authors in fact.  Four were selected by the church because there are four winds, directions and four beasts around the throne of God.  They probably felt 12 was a bit too many.

 I am just noting deficiencies in the not so harmonious accounts. You have certainly added a lot more to the stories than I noted.  I would assume that all men cruxified by the Romans to be "evil men"   One did not mess with Rome nor the peace they expect to be kept in Jerusalem during the Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread...a time of massive Temple Mount activity.

You still scribally err in the spelling of my name so now it's me 1, you 2  :)

I appreciate your perspectives and not seeing eye to eye is just fine in a time where so much information is available on various theological and Biblical perspectives. 

by Dennis Diehl (68 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 55 comments) on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 6:46:07 AM
 


Dennis Diehl is a former pastor of 26 years,  who outgrew the Literalism of Fundamentalism.  He writes about Pastoral and Church abuse and is available to speak on such topics or be helpful to any church suffering under abusive religion or pastors.   
Dennis DiehlDennis Diehl is a former pastor of 26 years,  who outgrew the Literalism of Fundamentalism.  He writes about Pastoral and Church abuse and is available to speak on such topics or be helpful to any church suffering under abusive religion or pastors.   

Intent

The questions are not an attack on Christianity.  They are questions that hundreds of thousands of people ask all the time and after 30 years soaking in them, deserve to be asked as the average layman would see and ask them of the text.  Also, one does not have to read liberal theology or politics if it serves no good to them personally.  We're all different and we all filter our experiences differently.  I am well aware of the apologetics involved but , from my perspective, there is far too much apologizing for what is not, in fact, a harmony of the Gospels.

by Dennis Diehl (68 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 55 comments) on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 6:54:21 AM
 


Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me
pratliff94Don'pigeon hole me or sterotype me

My Intent, too.

When you put all the sarcastic words you use in your article, it ceases to be an innocent inquiry but an attack article. I am a fundamentalist in theology. I am not a Fundamentalist. By fundamentalist I mean there are certain fundametals of the faith I believe. I sometimes say there is my bedrock faith or foundational beliefs which I hold; then there are my second story or secondary beliefs; then there are my tertiary things I believe and then there is my  "I guess so" or "I hope so" or "maybe" or "what if" beliefs.

My primary or fundational or fundamental beliefs are:

1. The New Testament is my sole authority for all faith and practice; not my denomination, not Christian tradition, not my opinions or anyone else's opinions. I believe the Bible is totally reliable in all its parts of both the Tanakh and the New Testament.

2. Jesus Christ is Who He claims to be and He does what He claims to do. He is perfect God and He died on the cross to pay for my sins and purchase a place of me in Heaven.

3. I believe salvation only comes by personal trust in Who He is and What He has done.

4. I believe the Church is universal and not confined to any one denomination such as Baptist or Roman Catholic.

5. If there is to be a Kingdom on earth with Israel as the head of all nations, it will be done by God alone and anything we do to try bring that about is inteferring with what God will do Himself. I leave the Covenants made to Abraham and David to them and God.

6. I believe the Church called the Body of Christ has a hope only in Heaven and not on earth.

7. I believe in the physical resurrection of the dead when time on this earth is over. If Einstein was right and time is relative; time had a beginning and will have an ending. You mentioned Revelation; this book tells us "time shall be no more."

8. I believe the New Testament never allows a Christian to be violent to another human for any reason whatsoever. There is not one verse in the New Testament that condones hurting anyone let alone killing someone.

9. I believe the world is at least twenty billion years old and was created by God in Genesis 1:1, was destroyed by Lucifer's rebellion in Genesis 1:2; and the rest of the Genesis Story is a recreation of the destroyed universe.

10. I do not believe in the traditional and popular view of either Hell or Heaven. I believe Hell is not a place of agony and torment, but a place of annihilation or extermination; therefore I do not believe in the eternity of the soul without belief in Jesus Christ.  I do not believe Heaven is a city foursquare with golden streets where we will spend eternity singing in some choir. How boring. I believe Heaven will be a place and state of being where we will know each other without Satan, sin, sickness or death. It willl be a place were our our God-given talents will be realized and developed to the fullest degree. The Apostle Paul says, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor entered into the imagination of mankind what God has prepared for those that love Him." Dream your greatest dream that your imagination will allow and it will still be better than that. "New Jersusalem" is a city coming down out of Heaven. The smaller comes out of the larger. How can that city be heaven when it comes down from Heaven?

Beyond that. I believe government should serve and protect the people. I believe in an absolute wall of separation between religion and government.

The Roman Catholic Church attempted to keep fourth century culture in practice for a thousand years by force. They ended up utterly failing to do that and hurting both themselves and thousands of innocent people.

I see radical Islam attempting to keep seventh century culture in vogue by force and they are destroying both Islam and themselves. The Roman Catholic Church did all they did against every teaching of the New Testament; hence the Reformation; however, most groups quit too soon.

There could be a Reformation because there was a New Testament to return to; however, Islam does not have anything like the New Testament to fall back on. There is not a second part of the Koran. If they follow Koran that is not even counting Hadith, they still must stone people to death, behead them, cut off hands or feet, and kill any Muslim who changes religion. 

I hope the moderates in Islam can develop a way for their people to be free and keep their religion with a separation of Islam and government. I just do not know how it can happen.  I see hope in some Islamic areas where there are secular governments which seem to have free elections. Radical Islamist threaten this happening and President Bush has coalesced these radical groups by making us the common enemy. 

I believe Christians should be about telling the Gospel to a hurting world, helping the poor, defending the powerless, being a father and/or mother to the "fatherless" and  setting an example of what the love of God is really like. 

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments) on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 2:32:01 PM
 

 

9 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

The Mailer That Put the Final Nail in the McCain Campaign Coffin by Rob Kall

Obama Must Appoint a Consumer Protectionist as FDA Commissioner by Stephen Fox

On Naomi Wolf's Sounding the Alarm by Dr. Dennis Loo

Race in the 2008 Election by Sally Liuzzo-Prado

FEMA Official States Bush Is Planning To Implement Martial Law by William Cormier

Capitalism Condemned in Scriptures; Let's Dump It by Jay Janson

Sarah Palin; Secessionist-- powerful new Youtube Video by youtube

Aries Full Moon October 14, 2008 by C.L. Pagano

Resignation letter from the McCain Palin Campaign by Robyn Crane

Cindy McCain Blames Vets for PTSD by Stuart Steinberg

Go To Top 50 Most Popular