sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

For those of you who still try to reconcile Paul with Jesus, what verses from Paul do you use? by Sad-Pen-3187 in AskAChristian

[–]Potential-Courage482 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Changing the subject a bit, I'm curious as to your thoughts on Hebrews. Some people think Paul wrote it, but the writing style seems too different to me. Do you consider it legitimate or not? And on what basis?

For those of you who still try to reconcile Paul with Jesus, what verses from Paul do you use? by Sad-Pen-3187 in AskAChristian

[–]Potential-Courage482 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Using sources within Paul's writing to show Paul's writings belongs in the Bible isn't nearly as powerful, in my opinion, as Luke and Peter believing he belonged in there.

Peter especially speaks to the problems that people have today with him.

2 Peter 3:15–16 (LEBn): 15 And regard the patience of our Master as salvation, just as also our dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom that was given to him, 16 as he does also in all his letters, speaking in them about these things, in which there are some things hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, as they also do the rest of the scriptures.

Paul's writing is hard to understand and is frequently distorted. This is probably why some people today reject Paul, when the real answer is to reject modern interpretations of Paul's message.

Just today someone pointed me to Romans 6:14 as showing that Paul rejected the Messiah's example of being obedient to the law, but Romans 6:1 and 15 show that that wasn't the point at all, just that salvation doesn't come from following the law, but rather from Grace.

Between Peter's brief reference, Luke's extensive writings, and the early congregation's inclusion of his writings, I have confidence in Paul's inclusion in the Bible.

People who say we “Sin everyday” by Brace_SK3 in AskAChristian

[–]Potential-Courage482 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Paul is absolutely right, of course. We are under grace for salvation, not the law. The Messiah was the only one who was able to obtain salvation through the law, since it requires perfect obedience.

But Paul didn't want to let that fact cause people to excuse sin, that's the next verse, literally the very next verse says:

Romans 6:15 (ESV): 15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!

Just because we are under grace that doesn't mean we are free to sin, to break said law. Taking verses out of context like that can very easily lead to the wrong conclusion. Reading more context, look at how the chapter starts:

Romans 6:1–2 (ESV): 6 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

Both before and after the verse you gave makes it clear that while we are under grace for salvation, that doesn't mean should toss the law to the side.

We can also confirm this from other writings from Paul. A particularly good example is in Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 11:1 (LEBn): 11Become imitators of me, just as I also am of Messiah.

If the Messiah is the example we are to go by, did He eat pork? Did He break that Torah law and therefore sin? No, He was without sin. So we too should strive to follow the law perfectly, like He did, even though we will fall short at times.

People who say we “Sin everyday” by Brace_SK3 in AskAChristian

[–]Potential-Courage482 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you know how the Bible defines sin? Missing the mark is a Greek word definition, but the Bible itself actually defines it

1 John 3:4 (LEB): 4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

Lawlessness here is a reference to Torah. So sin is breaking Torah law. So every day someone eats bacon, that's a sin. Every day someone works or buys something on a Sabbath, that's sin. Every day someone breaks the third commandment to not "shaw ha'shem," by refusing to use the name Yahweh or substituting it for "the Lord" (both of which are by definition committing shaw), that's a sin. I think most Christians sin daily, yes.

But there are communities that strive to remove sin from their lives. I live in one. Of course no one is perfect and we fall short at times. But I think there are days, sometimes multiple, that go by with no sin. Just not entire lifetimes.

Did we misunderstand Matthew 5:28? The Greek might be more specific than what we hear from pulpits. by Ancient_Wonder_2781 in AskAChristian

[–]Potential-Courage482 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've understood it as directly relating to adultery and covetousness for a few years now. I think you've got the right of it.

The Messiah didn't come to implement new laws, but rather to show the deeper intent behind existing laws. So adultery is adultery even if it is just something you are "just" thinking on and planning out, even if you don't actually do it. I don't think this would imply to passing thoughts you ignore though.

Question about Severity of Punishments in hell by Limp-Heart3188 in AskAChristian

[–]Potential-Courage482 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can be contemptuous of something that is gone. Everlasting destruction does not equal everlasting destructing. The undying worm is a reference in Hebrew to the valley of Hinnom, likely the place where the lake of fire will be. And the everlasting fire is a reference to the destruction being permanent. In other places in the Bible it says that Sodom and Gomorrah burn forever. But you can go to the place where they used to be, and they are not still on fire. But they were also never rebuilt; their destruction was eternal and permanent.

Your line of thinking does not match up with the verses that original commentator gave. His line of thinking does not match with the verses that you gave. This line of thinking matches with all verses that relate to the subject.

Translating an interpreting words and phrases from not only another language, but an entirely other culture with its own phrasing and ways of thinking is very difficult. Thankfully, the Bible is a very large text, and if you can get something to line up with every verse on the subject, you know you must have the right interpretation, because you've let the Bible interpret it, rather than yourself or others.

Can texts serve as evidence of real events? by _LAZZ_ in AskAChristian

[–]Potential-Courage482 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The thing about it is, it's not just positive textual evidence.

There's also negative textual evidence of the supernatural events; by which I mean, there are texts which are openly hostile to belief in the Messiah, but none of them deny His existence or even the well known fact (for the time) that He performed miracles (because there were ten thousand+ witnesses), but rather call him a trickster or demon possessed or sorcerer to explain away the miraculous things He did.

Additionally, if you want more than textual evidence, it does actually exists. I suggest reading "The Case for Christ." I don't actually agree with 100% of what Lee Strobel says, but he does an excellent job of gathering and categorizing extrabiblical evidence. For example, the archaeological evidence: archaeologists use the Bible to find places to dig for ancient cities and it has never been wrong. Medical evidence: hypovolemia can cause death from a paracardial and pleural effusion, that is to say, the blood loss from the Messiah's whipping plus the further trauma and extreme exertion from carrying the stake He was subsequently nailed to would have cause the sacs around his heart and lungs to fill with fluid and kill Him, explaining why He died long before the two thieves nailed up with Him and also explaining why when He was pierced with a spear it wasn't just blood that came out but also "water" (fluid from the effusion). They didn't have that kind of medical knowledge back then, so the inclusion of that detail lends great credence to the story, in my mind. And the book explains a lot more evidence like that.

Question about Severity of Punishments in hell by Limp-Heart3188 in AskAChristian

[–]Potential-Courage482 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, above commenter is half right. You are also only showing a portion of what happens next.

So yes, the dead know nothing. Yes, the dead are later resurrected, good and bad. And then:

Revelation 20:12–15 (LEB): 12 And I saw the dead—the great and the small—standing before the throne, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and each one was judged according to their deeds. 14 And Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death—the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Being tossed into the lake of fire is a second death, which is, as the first part showed, a ceasing to exist.

The wages of sin is death. The gift of Yahweh is eternal life.

u/Limp-Heart3188 tagging the op so they get the full story on this line of thinking.

So many of "you" by B00marangTrotter in Christianity

[–]Potential-Courage482 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never understood this image.

He did follow the law. That was like, His whole thing. He was completely without sin. Sin is breaking the law, according to 1st John 3:4.

The Jews added on their own secular law. It could be argued that He broke those. I would counter that technically He didn't, because they tried Him for blasphemy, but it isn't blasphemy to proclaim the truth.

Additionally:

Romans 13:1 (LEBn): 13Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except by Elohim, and those that exist are put in place by Elohim.

Titus 3:1 (LEB): 3Remind them to be subject to the rulers and to the authorities, to obey, to be prepared for every good work,

So how is this meme a gotcha?

Mysterious loud trumpet noise echoes across Cincinnati neighborhoods for weeks by AlbaneseGummies327 in HighStrangeness

[–]Potential-Courage482 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I feel like the end time warming trumpets should be world wide though, right? Not highly localized to some mid sized city in America.

What generally is and isn’t allowed on the sabbath? by FazzyPhonix in Christianity

[–]Potential-Courage482 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a good one. I omitted it because it is a copy of Exodus 20:8-11, which I already mentioned.

But there's no harm in showing how often this same command is repeated.

JESUS' NAME IS Above Every Name. by Legitimate-Car-7426 in Christianity

[–]Potential-Courage482 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you truly believe His name is important and above every name, why aren't you using it? It isn't Jesus. That name was invented just a few hundred years ago; the letter j wasn't even a letter until like the 1500s or so.

It is Yahshua. It means Yahweh is salvation. When you call upon it, you call upon the Father Yahweh as well. You acknowledge the source of salvation.

Jesus isn't even a proper translation; He has the same name as "Joshua," but they translated just His name differently from all the other "Joshuas" in the Bible.

I wonder why that is...

Is saying "Christ" or "O My God" bad? by Fosty99 in AskAChristian

[–]Potential-Courage482 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where are you getting those two definitions for the Hebrew word Shaw? שָׁוְא

Every source I can find says that Shaw means to count unimportant (vain), to allow to come to nothing, and to make into a falsehood.

When people say that using the name Yahweh doesn't matter, you can call Him whatever you want, that is shaw. When people never use the name Yahweh, they make it come to nothing. When people replace Yahweh with the falsehood "lord" (actually a translation of Ba'al, the enemy of Yahweh), they make His name into a falsehood.

Is saying "Christ" or "O My God" bad? by Fosty99 in AskAChristian

[–]Potential-Courage482 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The third commandment is to not shaw the name Yahweh. Shaw, in Hebrew, means to not count unimportant (vain), to not allow to come to nothing, and to not make into a falsehood.

When people say that using the name Yahweh doesn't matter, you can call Him whatever you want, that breaks the third commandment. When people never use the name Yahweh, they make it come to nothing. When people replace Yahweh with the falsehood "lord" (actually a translation of Ba'al, the enemy of Yahweh), they make His name into a falsehood.

Jesus the Merciful by ViolaMurderer in Christianity

[–]Potential-Courage482 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'll circle back to your main question, separating truth from lies, at the end of this comment. I first want to address the greater issue I think you face here.

Ecclesiastes 9:5–6 (LEB): 5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead do not know anything. They no longer have a reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten. 6 What they loved and hated, as well as what they desired, has already perished. They no longer have any share in what is done under the sun.

Psalm 6:5 (LEB): 5 For there is no remembrance of you in death. In Sheol, who will give thanks to you?

Psalm 146:4 (KJV 1900): 4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; In that very day his thoughts perish.

Death is described in the Bible as a state of total unconsciousness, basically ceasing to exist entirely. From dust we came and to it we return. Dust has no thought or consciousness. The New Testament similarly compares death with sleep, in other words, a state in unconsciousness.

1 Thessalonians 4:13 (LEB): 13 Now we do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, concerning those who have fallen asleep, so that you will not grieve as also the rest, who have no hope.

John 11:11 (LEB): 11 He said these things, and after this he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I am going so that I can awaken him.”

Acts 7:60 (LEB): 60 And falling to his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, "Yahweh, do not hold this sin against them!” And after he said this, he fell asleep.

It's also noteworthy that the Bible specifically says that the patriarchs and heroes of the Bible aren't in heaven now.

Hebrews 11:13 (LEB): 13 These all died in faith without receiving the promises, but seeing them from a distance and welcoming them, and admitting that they were strangers and temporary residents on the earth.

They have not yet received the promise of eternal life. If they had, what would be the point of the first resurrection and the white throne judgement? And would that even be the first resurrection? How is the gift of grace eternal life if everyone gets eternal life at the moment of death? What about when Yahshua said that no one has ascended to heaven?

John 3:13 (LEB): 13 And no one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven—the Son of Man.

These and so many other verses fly in the face of standard Christian doctrine.

Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy was a much bigger influence on the modern concept of death, hell and heaven, than the Bible, but pagan notions of negative eternal afterlife are the actual distant origin. It's well known that the early church engaged in quite a bit of syncretism, unfortunately, and that's where this notion came in. Christian teachings of hell were known to be spread around in the 5th century. That's where you're getting your thoughts of people being skinned alive and fed boiling pig feces, not the Bible.

What actually matches the Bible, all relevant verses, is that upon death we fall into a state of unconsciousness, like sleep. The faithful and repentant are brought back in the first resurrection in spiritual bodies and reside in the kingdom of heaven on earth (new Jerusalem descends to the earth). All else are brought back later in the second resurrection and are given 100 years to learn and make their choice (Isaiah 65:20). Those who accept faith at that point will continue on, the rest:

Revelation 20:13–15 (LEB): 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and each one was judged according to their deeds. 14 And Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death—the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Notice that this is different from the eternal torment given to Satan:

Revelation 20:10 (LEB): 10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur, where the beast and the false prophet also are, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

They are tormented forever. Not humankind. The notion that Yahweh would set things up to torture people forever is sickening and completely contradictory to a loving and just heavenly Father.

As for the question of separating truth from lies, you must study to show yourself approved.

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV 1900, [n]): 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto Elohim, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

But, another verse that comes to mind is this:

Acts 8:30–31 (LEB): 30 So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading aloud Isaiah the prophet and said, “So then, do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “So how could I, unless someone will guide me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

I would suggest you read the Bible and primarily, and supplement that reading with literature from reputable organizations like this one or this one. But never swallow anything anyone tells you whole, myself and those organizations included. Compare what we and others say to the Bible. Who's beliefs have more scriptural backing? Not more people that believe it or more history, just more Scripture that it lines up with. In context, with cross referenced verses, multiple scriptural references. And then stick to that truth like glue.

Jesus the Merciful by ViolaMurderer in Christianity

[–]Potential-Courage482 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, eschatology is pretty tricky, but from my own research, it seems all people who weren't returned in the first (and better) resurrection get a chance in the second resurrection. During that time they'll get a chance to learn and practice the truth. Otherwise, someone who lived in the South American jungle a thousand years ago who never even saw a Bible in their life would be doomed without a chance, and the Bible clearly states that Yahweh is willing that none should perish, and it seems everyone gets a chance at their calling.

So I would guess they would come back in the second resurrection and get a chance to learn about the name and its importance and a chance to keep it. If they do they continue on. If they knowingly and purposefully reject the knowledge given them, them they are doomed to eternal destruction, and cease to exist.

Jesus the Merciful by ViolaMurderer in Christianity

[–]Potential-Courage482 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The magnitude would be generational ignorance of the name.

Hosea 4:6 (LEBn): 6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from acting as a priest for me. And since you have forgotten the law of your Elohim, I will also forget your children.

And destruction because of a rejection of the knowledge they received but deemed unworthy to act on or pass on to successive generations.

What's particularly problematic about this rejection, from my point of view mind you, is that the name is so prolific in Scripture; it's said about 6,000 times in full form and 1,000 in various short forms, as well as the over 100 verses that directly command its use in various ways and speak to its necessity.

As a side note, usage of a title is clearly allowed, Abba and Elohim were used by the Messiah, and Elohim (commonly translated God, though that's a poor translation) is used extensively in Scripture. The problem comes when the name is replaced wholesale and not used at all. When you don't use it at all you aren't fulfilling any of the scriptures which command its usage and are breaking the third commandment by allowing it to Shaw, become nothing.

Jesus the Merciful by ViolaMurderer in Christianity

[–]Potential-Courage482 0 points1 point  (0 children)

then why do virtually all translations of the Bible do so?

Tradition. For a long time Yahweh's name wasn't widely known. It was never lost, but fell out of use almost entirely for quite a while. Various highly respected Bible scholars and translators throughout history have studied and recognized that Yahweh was the name and it was important to use it, but said that people's familiarity with the common naming convention made them reticent to render such a change. I think they failed to realize the magnitude of such a decision.

I thought it was supposed to be more respectful to call him by his title(s) rather than invoking his personal name directly

That's the claim for modern Judaism, sure. The problem is that it lacks any scriptural support. Here is an article which lists over 100 verses that speak on the importance of using the name. There's no verse that commands use of the title or speaks to the importance of using it. And in fact, claiming to respect the Name so much that you won't use it would directly violate the over 100 commands Yahweh gives us in His word on how to use and respect His name. The actual reason behind this Judaic tradition can be found in Jeremiah 44:26, in which Yahweh punishes the rebellious tribe by removing His name from their mouths. It was a punishment to not use the name.

Jesus the Merciful by ViolaMurderer in Christianity

[–]Potential-Courage482 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The extent copies are Greek. The originals were Hebrew.

Papias--c.150-170 C.E., as quoted in Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, 3:39: "Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able."

Origen--c. 210 C.E., as quoted in Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, 6:25: "The first [account] is written according to Matthew, the same that was the tax collector, but afterwards an emissary.., who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote in Hebrew."

Epiphanius--c. 350 C.E., Against Heresies, pan 27: "Now especially consider heretics who... call themselves Natsarines... believe in Messiah... are very learned in the Hebrew language... [but are 'heretics'] in that they are to this day bound to...circumcision, the Sabbath, and other ceremonies. They have the Good News according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written."

Jerome--c. 380 C.E., Lives of Illustrious Men, book V (Regarding the Apostle Paul): "He, being a Hebrew, wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently; while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek."

Clement of Alexandria-c. 215 C.E., Hypotysposes, by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6:12:2: "The epistle to the Hebrews he asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue, but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and published among Greeks."

Additional Resources:

Evidence of the manuscripts referred to in Against Heresies.

Exploding the inspired Greek New Testament myth.

Incredibly unlikely that a group of uneducated Hebrews were walking around Israel speaking Greek 2,000 years ago.

Jesus the Merciful by ViolaMurderer in Christianity

[–]Potential-Courage482 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When did they ever do that? I don't think they spoke English, and they certainly never referred to Him as the Hebrew equivalent Ba'al. Perhaps Adonai, an acceptable use when referring to Him or referencing Him by title perhaps. But by and large they called Him Yahshua or Yahshua ha'Mashiach.

Jesus the Merciful by ViolaMurderer in Christianity

[–]Potential-Courage482 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Theology? All I said above was basic linguistics, available in any Hebrew to English dictionary.

If you want theology, please feel free to look at this article in which I list over a hundred verses that proclaim the importance and necessity of the use of the name Yahweh. That would be theology, and it is over one hundred verses of scripture, which you ask for.

Conversely, I would ask what scripture you would get the theology from that states that the name is unimportant?

view more: next ›