Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male

Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Is this ignorance?
    #7701604 - 12/01/07 01:19 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Christian: In order to be saved, the name Jesus must be invoked.

Me: Does a rose by another name still smell as sweet?

Christian: In my experience, the name Jesus is the only one that works.

----------
The postulation is that Jesus is the only way to salvation. Yet when asked if another name would suffice, the response is that "in my (limited) experience...". So what the Christian says is that they do not know for sure that Jesus is the only way, yet they state, unequivocally, that Jesus is the only way.

To ignore the fact that they do not know, and claim that they do know. Is this not ignorance?


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMokshaIs
everywhereeverpresent

Registered: 11/29/07
Posts: 476
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: Rahz]
    #7701626 - 12/01/07 01:37 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Jesus means many things...and ignorance is inevitable... Perhaps in the scenario you've presented its more of a will to ignorance...than JUST ignorance...which is an inevitable...


--------------------
in all of Infinite
there is but One
and it is nOne
ever and always
in every and all ways


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMiddlemanM

Registered: 07/11/99
Posts: 8,399
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: Rahz]
    #7701655 - 12/01/07 01:57 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
Christian: In order to be saved, the name Jesus must be invoked.

Me: Does a rose by another name still smell as sweet?

Christian: In my experience, the name Jesus is the only one that works.

----------
The postulation is that Jesus is the only way to salvation. Yet when asked if another name would suffice, the response is that "in my (limited) experience...". So what the Christian says is that they do not know for sure that Jesus is the only way, yet they state, unequivocally, that Jesus is the only way.

To ignore the fact that they do not know, and claim that they do know. Is this not ignorance?




Yes, it is not, not.

Though there is a magical name of power based on the Christian mythos:

Hebrew name of God: Y H V H

Hebrew name of Jesus: Y H Sh V H (Yeheshua / Joshua)

The "Sh" is the letter Shin which means "Spirit" and is the fifth element descending into Quaternary matter.

This is one of the secret meanings of the pentagram...




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMiddlemanM

Registered: 07/11/99
Posts: 8,399
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: Rahz]
    #7701929 - 12/01/07 07:09 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Btw, Christ + Satan = Two sides of the same coin.

 

Just like Republicans and Democrats. :tongue:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: Middleman]
    #7701939 - 12/01/07 07:18 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

placeholders:

zero +zero=zero
infinity+infinity=infinity

but the opening issue is very small minded
I would ven diagram that with racism etc.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male

Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #7702501 - 12/01/07 11:37 AM (16 years, 2 months ago)

>>>>but the opening issue is very small minded. I would ven diagram that with racism etc.

Can you explain?


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: Middleman]
    #7702567 - 12/01/07 12:00 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

The postulation is that Jesus is the only way to salvation. Yet when asked if another name would suffice, the response is that "in my (limited) experience...". So what the Christian says is that they do not know for sure that Jesus is the only way, yet they state, unequivocally, that Jesus is the only way.




If they said this then they're not Christian.

middleman:

Quote:

Yes, it is not, not.

Though there is a magical name of power based on the Christian mythos:

Hebrew name of God: Y H V H

Hebrew name of Jesus: Y H Sh V H (Yeheshua / Joshua)

The "Sh" is the letter Shin which means "Spirit" and is the fifth element descending into Quaternary matter.

This is one of the secret meanings of the pentagram...




Quote:



Yehoshua


I would like to begin our search with the Hebrew name Yehoshua. This is the name that was given to the man who took the place of Moses after his death, to lead the children of Israel. It can be found in the book of Numbers 13:16 which reads:

These are the names of the men which Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Oshea the son of Nun Jehoshua.


Here Moses calls the name of the son of Nun - Jehoshua - or without the English letter J we have the name Yehoshua. Yehoshua’s name beforehand was Oshea spelled in the Hebrew language – הוֹש73;ֵעַ. The significance of this is that the name change, made by Moses, was a very minute name change. Moses actually added only one single letter to Oshea’s name. This letter is the Hebrew letter yod. The name Yehoshua in the Hebrew language appears as follows: יְהו65;שֻׁעַ. Once again, notice, that the letter at the beginning of this name (Hebrew being read from right to left) is a very small letter and this letter in Hebrew is called a yod. What Moses did was take a man’s name that meant deliverer or salvation, and changed it to mean YHWH delivers or YHWH saves.

The name that Moses gave to the sun of Nun in Numbers 13:16 can be directly transliterated from Hebrew to English quite easily, and we can come up with the name Yehoshua. This is done by taking each letter in the Hebrew name and bringing them down into the corresponding letters in the English language, and also bringing down the appropriate vowel pointing from Hebrew to English.

What we need to do now is acknowledge that the name Yehoshua itself is definitely not the name of a pagan deity at all, but rather a name which means YHWH saves or delivers, and is the name chosen by the man Moses for the sun of Nun.



Yeshua


Now that we have established Yehoshua as the name of the son of Nun we need to also establish that the son of Nun’s name is Yeshua. “Wait a minute!” you may say, “That’s a double standard!” Before you make such an assertion and accusation, please allow me to explain why I believe both Yehoshua and Yeshua is the name of the son of Nun. Let us begin here by quoting the text of Nehemiah 8:17:


And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths: for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness.


Notice that the son of Nun is mentioned in this Nehemiah passage. Yes, this is the same man mentioned in Numbers 13:16, spoken of as Oshea and Yehoshua. Here, the KJV of the Bible refers to him as just - Jeshua. Once again, by removing the English letter "J" and replacing it with a Y causes us to get the name Yeshua. In the Hebrew language this name reads as follows: יֵשׁ93;ּעַ. This name in Hebrew has the meaning of “he will save”. What we are looking at here is simply a contracted form of the name Yehoshua into Yeshua. Some comparisons may be found in the name Robert to Bob, Jonathon to John, Samuel to Sam, etc. The son of Nun was called Yeshua in Nehemiah 8:17, and because of that Hebrew rendering we know it was an appropriate practice for people to call him that at the time of the restoration of Jerusalem upon the Jews return from the Babylonian captivity, as recorded in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Evidently, when they said Yeshua, meaning “he will save”, they understood the he had the meaning of YHWH will save, as is the definition or meaning of the name Yehoshua. For those who may be skeptic of my saying that Yeshua is a contraction from Yehoshua, allow me to quote from Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament.


יֵשׁ93;ּעַ [Jeshua], a contracted form of the pr. n. יְהו65;שֻׁעַ used in the later Hebrew, Gr. Ίησοΰς – (1) of Joshua, the leader of the Israelites, Nehemiah 8:17 – (2) of a high priest of the same name; see יְהו65;שֻׁעַ No. 2, Ezra 2:2; 3:2; Nehemiah 7:7 – (3) pr. n. of other men, mentioned in the books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.


Here we see that not only can we know that Yeshua is a contraction of Yehoshua from Hebrew Scripture, but we also see that much more learned men, such as H.W.F. Gesenius’ (a Hebrew linguist) understand this as well. Therefore we see that Yeshua is simply a shortened form of the name Yehoshua, much as we said before, as Sam is a shortened form of the name Samuel. We should also add that this name – Yeshua – is not a name of paganism, but rather a name used in Scripture that means “he will save.” (Nehemiah 8:17)

Yehoshua & Yeshua in the Septuagint



We need to now turn to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, which began to be accomplished around the middle of the third century B.C. A brief explanation of the reason for the Septuagint will now follow; being taken from the book entitled How We Got the Bible:



The following seems either factual or plausible concerning the Septuagint. Aristeas describes the origin of the Septuagint with the translation of the Pentateuch. This was done in Alexandria, where there was a large Jewish population and where a translation from Hebrew to Greek would be needed. Ptolemy II in some way may have been connected with the translation; he was well known as a patron of literature. Demetrius likewise may have been involved. He may have suggested the translation to Ptolemy I, but the project may not have been completed until the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy II. There are other factors to consider. According to Aristeas, the Pentateuch was translated in the third century B.C. This date is quite reasonable. The names of the translators fit in with known names in the third century B.C.; and Philo reports that in his day, the first century A.D., an annual festival was still being held on Pharos to honor the place “in which the light of that version first shone out”.



Basically, we see that around 250 B.C. in Alexandria, Egypt there was a mass of Jewish people who spoke Greek rather than Hebrew and therefore the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek would be very beneficial to these Greek-speaking Jews. Knowing this we should take note that those men who made the translation must have known both the Hebrew and the Greek language, and would therefore be scholarly men, able to make the translation. How did these men treat the names Yehoshua or Yeshua when transliterating them from Hebrew to Greek?

We will use both Numbers 13:16 and Nehemiah 8:17 to make the proper comparisons in the transliterations. In Numbers 13:16 where the name יְהו65;שֻׁעַ appears in the Hebrew Scripture, the name Ίησοΰς appears at this place in the Septuagint. The only difference being that the last letter of this Greek transliteration is the Greek letter nu, which is simply the case ending of the name of Numbers 13:16. What we see here is that this is the transliteration that Hebrew/Greek scholars of the third century B.C., over two hundred and fifty years before Christ, chose to use in transliterating this particular name from Hebrew to Greek.

In looking at Nehemiah 8:17 where we find the contracted form of the Hebrew name of Numbers 13:16 we also find the Septuagint, once again using the Greek name Ίησοΰ, which is simply another form of the above Greek name with simply a different case ending because of its use in the grammar of the Greek language.

Now we need to better define how this particular Greek name is pronounced. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible gives ee-ay-sooce as the pronunciation of this Greek name. Most other Greek lexicons give Iesous as the exact English transliteration of the Greek name. The most proper pronunciation we could give would most likely be pronounced yey-sooce (Yesous). Notice particularly that this transliteration does not come from someone transliterating with the Messiah in mind, but from Jewish scholars of the 3rd century B.C. which transliterated the name of Moses’ successor. These scholars weren’t trying to pull some kind of “switch-a-roo” with the text of Scripture when they came to such passages as Numbers 13:16 or Nehemiah 8:17; they were simply transliterating the Hebrew name into the Greek language, using the corresponding Greek letters in the best possible way. Why would Jewish scholars transliterate the name of the leader of Israel after Moses incorrectly?

It may be needful at this point to define what exactly transliteration is. Here are the definitions of transliteration in a couple of English dictionaries:



Transliterate… 1: to represent or spell (words, letters, or characters of one language) in the letters or characters of another language or alphabet… {Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1981}



Transliterate… to represent (a letter or word) by the alphabetic characters of another language… {Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary, V2, 1984}



Here we see that transliteration consists of taking a word in one language and spelling it with the corresponding characters of another language. Nothing is stated in these definitions about the sound of the original word being retained as some would suggest, only the letters as best as possible. There is nothing in the meaning of the word transliterate showing that the sound is retained from one language to the next. The sounds from one language to the next may remain the same or similar in many instances, but this is not always the case for all languages do not contain the same sounds. Such is the case with the name at hand. How did the name Iesous come from the name Yehoshua? It did so by the process of transliterating the short form of the name Yehoshua – Yeshua – from Hebrew into Greek. The process would go like this:



יְ - Ίη / שׁ – σ / וּ - οΰ



Here we see the transliteration into Greek as Ίησοΰ but we are missing the final letter of the Greek name. This is known in Greek as the final sigma, and is placed often on the end of male names as it is a Greek ending for masculinity. Thus we get the name Ίησοΰς. Mr. John K. McKee in his article entitled Is the Name of Jesus Pagan explains the transliteration process thusly:



1. y (yod – “ye”) becomes Ih (iota-eta – “ye” or “ee-ay,” Koine or Attic dialect)

2. v (shin – “sh”) becomes s (sigma – “s” [there is no “sh” sound in Greek]

3. w (vav – “u”) becomes ou (omicron-upsilon – “oo”)

4. It is necessary for a final sigma (ς) to be placed at the end of the word to distinguish that the name is masculine

5. Greek grammar rules require that the (ayin – “ah”) sound be dropped



Mr. McKee goes on to write the following:



It is important to note that this same name is used for the title of the Book of Joshua in the Septuagint, which serves as definitive proof that Iesous is not of pagan origin, but rather is indeed a Greek transliteration of Yeshua developed by the Jewish translators! For, Iesous is also the Greek transliteration of Yehoshua [יְהו465;שֻׁעַ] as demonstrated by the Septuagint.

In Old English, “Iesous” was rendered “Iesus” (pronounced Yesus), which is remarkably close to Yeshua. However, it was spelled with a beginning letter “J,” which at the time had a “Y” sound. Later, when the “J” began to have a harder sound, the name became “Jesus.”

Transliteration is not an exact science. However, it does prove that the Greek name Iesous from whence we derive the name “Jesus” is not pagan. Ίησοΰς is the Greek transliteration of [יֵשׁ493;ּעַ], and the English transliteration of Ίησοΰς is Iesus, which became Jesus.



Another author, Dr. Daniel Botkin, in an article entitled, The Messiah’s Hebrew Name: “Yeshua” or “Yahshua” writes the following in association with the issue at hand:



The English form Jesus is derived from the New Testament Greek name Ίησοΰς, pronounced “Yesous.” According the Strong’s, Yesous (Strong’s #2424) is “of Hebrew origin” and can be traced back to Joshua’s Hebrew name, Yehoshua (#3091, יְהו65;שׁוּעַ). But how do we get the Greek Yesous from the Hebrew Yehoshua? Someone armed with nothing more than a Strong’s Concordance may have difficulty answering that question. Someone who reads the bible in Hebrew, though, knows that the name Joshua sometimes appears in its shortened form, Yeshua (יֵשׁ493;ּעַ). In Nehemiah 8:17 it is apparent even in English: “Jeshua the son of Nun.” (The letter J was pronounced like a Y in Old English.) Strong’s does not tell the reader that the Greek Yesous is actually transliterated from this shortened Hebrew form, Yeshua, and not directly from the longer form Yehoshua. The process from “Yehoshua” to “Jesus” looks like this:



Hebrew Yehoshua – Hebrew Yeshua

Hebrew Yeshua – Greek Yesous

Greek Yesous – English Jesus



There is no “sh” sound in Greek, which accounts for the middle “s” sound in Yesous. The “s” at the end of the Greek name is a grammatical necessity, to make the word declinable.

In Nehemiah 8:17, Joshua’s name is 100% identical to the name which today’s Messianic Jews use for the Messiah, Yeshua… Strong’s confirms this pronunciation, and tells us that there were ten Israelites in the Bible who bore this name (#3442). Therefore the shortening of Yehoshua to Yeshua predates the Christian era by at least 500 years, and cannot be the result of a Jewish conspiracy to hide the Savior’s true name. To claim that the shortened form Yeshua is the result of a Jewish conspiracy is to ignore the facts of history and the facts of the Hebrew Scriptures. The form Yeshua existed for several hundred years before the Messiah was even born. Even in the pre-Christian Septuagint we see the Greek form… (Yesous) in the title of the Book of Joshua. (This is also proof that Yesous has no connection to the pagan god Zeus.



We can now conclude that this Greek name Ίησοΰς is not of pagan origin, but was developed by Jewish scholars in the third century B.C. as a transliteration of the Hebrew name Yehoshua or Yeshua into the Greek language. This then is the name that the Christ was given in Matthew 1:21. In Hebrew we could say his name was Yehoshua or Yeshua, in Greek his name would be Yesous, and in English we could legitimately say that his name was Jesus. These names mean YHWH is salvation or just simply salvation. I feel inclined at this point to show the similarity of the transliteration in the Hebrew name for Moses. In Hebrew this name is Moshe, but when transliterating it from Hebrew to Greek you must drop the –sh sound and then add an s at the end for masculinity and/or declinable purposes. This allows us to get the Greek name Μωϋσής and in turn from Greek to English the name Moses. Even though we do not see a complete and exact pronunciation in English as in Hebrew we do see that Moses is a proper transliteration from Hebrew to Greek to English. The same applies with Yeshua, to Yesous, and finally to Jesus.





http://www.ministersnewcovenant.org/print.nameJesus.htm

Quote:

This is one of the secret meanings of the pentagram...




Who cares what they have made the pentagram to mean. Man has constructed this imaginary connection himself. Man drew the pictures himself.

Quote:


The "Sh" is the letter Shin which means "Spirit"




I'd like to see sources. From what I understand it is a prefix that is used in a number of ways used like the pronouns "that", "which" and "who" . Among other things (and I havn't definitively researched this definition, as to whether it was used in o.t. times, as modern judaism is not the same as it was 2,000 years ago) it can also stand for the word Shaddai which is a name of God given in the Hebrew Scripture. There are several ideas what it might mean, it has been in the past defined as "almighty". I havn't researched it a whole lot, but no where do I see it translated as explicitly "Spirit". But if it is, there's nothing wrong with that.

However, this statement:
Quote:


and is the fifth element descending into Quaternary matter.




Is absolutely ridiculous. Quaternary structures and quaternary chemistry wern't even discovered until just recently in history. I'm pretty sure even traditional kabbalism (which is nonsense anyway)doesn't even define it as such.

Quote:

This is one of the secret meanings of the pentagram



Quote:


1)Masonic writer Manly P. Hall (33o)-just recently deceased (9/90) and eulogized and lionized at great length in the SCOTTISH RITE JOURNAL-stated that Baphomet was another name for the satanic "Goat of Mendez" whose picture is featured prominently in the tract. The Goat of Mendez is, of course, the god of the witches. (Mendez is another spelling of Mendes, a city of ancient Egypt where fertility worship-Ba'al worship-was practiced).

This god, also known as the Horned God, is evidently the oldest fertility god in human history. His representation is found on paintings from cavemen in Ariége, France. Nimrod, the founder of Baëal worship, is often represented wearing a horned headdress. The leader of [one of] the most powerful occult/Masonic organization in the world (the Ordo Templi Orientis-Order of Eastern Templars), Kenneth Grant, says that Baphomet actually means Bapho-Mitras-son of Mithras. Mithras was the bull-god (Bull = Ba'al?) worshipped in the Roman empire about the time of Christ. Again, the Horned God of witchcraft.

Thus, while Ba'al was not actually called "Baphomet" until well after the time of Christ; even Masons admit readily that Baphomet is a pagan fertility god-and more importantly, that Freemasonry is a fertility cult religion. Supreme Masonic leader of the Scottish Rite in the 19th century Albert Pike also clearly equates Freemasonry with "occult science" and Templary.





http://www.saintsalive.com/freemasonry/goatofmendes.html


Edited by jonathan_206 (12/01/07 12:37 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMiddlemanM

Registered: 07/11/99
Posts: 8,399
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7702577 - 12/01/07 12:03 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

I didn't read all of that but Fire, Water, Air, Earth, and Aethyr have deep spiritual significance.

Those sites quoted could not be any more obtuse and incorrect.

Ever hear the one about the blind men and the elephant?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7702588 - 12/01/07 12:07 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

You are soooooo going to hell for not believing in Bob:



--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMiddlemanM

Registered: 07/11/99
Posts: 8,399
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: Silversoul]
    #7702597 - 12/01/07 12:10 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

When I praise Bob I get stars in my eyes...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMiddlemanM

Registered: 07/11/99
Posts: 8,399
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: Rahz]
    #7702603 - 12/01/07 12:14 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:

>>>>but the opening issue is very small minded. I would ven diagram that with racism etc.

Can you explain?




I think he was referring to the type of people you mentioned and not your post.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleClean
the lense
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/03
Posts: 2,374
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: Silversoul]
    #7702606 - 12/01/07 12:15 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

all priases to bob
watch out for that church of the subgenius though, they'll take your money.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male

Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7702622 - 12/01/07 12:21 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

"The postulation is that Jesus is the only way to salvation. Yet when asked if another name would suffice, the response is that "in my (limited) experience...". So what the Christian says is that they do not know for sure that Jesus is the only way, yet they state, unequivocally, that Jesus is the only way."

>>>>If they said this then they're not Christian.

Can we establish that a human is only capable of limited experience? If so, can you explain how the person in question is not Christian?


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: Rahz]
    #7702650 - 12/01/07 12:28 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
Can we establish that a human is only capable of limited experience? If so, can you explain how the person in question is not Christian?



Simple.  Being a "true" Christian implies that anything other than your interpretation of the Bible cannot POSSIBLY be true, despite your limited perspective(which you also must deny, because if you're wrong then means God is wrong, since you know the true meaning of God's word). :rolleyes:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMiddlemanM

Registered: 07/11/99
Posts: 8,399
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: Clean]
    #7702668 - 12/01/07 12:33 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Clean said:
all priases to bob
watch out for that church of the subgenius though, they'll take your money.




They took my wife! I am pleased.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: Middleman]
    #7702707 - 12/01/07 12:46 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:


"The postulation is that Jesus is the only way to salvation. Yet when asked if another name would suffice, the response is that "in my (limited) experience...". So what the Christian says is that they do not know for sure that Jesus is the only way, yet they state, unequivocally, that Jesus is the only way."

>>>>If they said this then they're not Christian.

Can we establish that a human is only capable of limited experience? If so, can you explain how the person in question is not Christian?




People are limited in knowledge, but you can't be a Christian and not believe that the God of the bible is the only God by which you can be saved. Scripture defines what it means to be a Christian, and if you don't fit ,you're not a Christian.

Christians arn't limited in knowledge when it comes to faith. Being a Christian isn't best guess. Faith itself is spiritual comprehension, the evidence of things not seen. Recognition of God (who is eternal) gives finality to our search for a personal God and Savior.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7702738 - 12/01/07 12:54 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Scripture defines what it means to be a Christian, and if you don't fit ,you're not a Christian.



By that definition, Christianity did not exist before the first Christian scriptures were written(long after Jesus' death and apparent resurrection).


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: Silversoul]
    #7703004 - 12/01/07 02:29 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

No, they had means of teaching doctrine, including written gospel and oral preaching.We don't have the apostles here with us today, so we go by the gospel.

p.s. - no, you're wrong that it was not written until long after Christ died. All of the epistles were written within the 1st century, and it and the rest of scripture were circulated well before constantine.


Edited by jonathan_206 (12/01/07 02:51 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejonathanseagull
Cool!
Male

Registered: 10/28/05
Posts: 993
Last seen: 10 years, 11 days
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7703054 - 12/01/07 02:53 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

"Faith is evidence of things not seen".... sounds like rationalization and justification to me. Faith is evidence of nothing but a willingness to believe. It reflects an internal reality, not external.


--------------------
Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show, That the dear She might take some pleasure of my pain: Pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know, Knowledge might pity win, and pity grace obtain.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: jonathanseagull]
    #7704131 - 12/01/07 07:50 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

"Faith is evidence of things not seen".... sounds like rationalization and justification to me. Faith is evidence of nothing but a willingness to believe. It reflects an internal reality, not external.




I already said what Faith is. This is how the bible defines faith itself. There is nothing unreasonable in a Spiritual perception of God's nature. It's greater evidence than what you know with your 5 senses.

Spirituality is perception of spiritual things. If you believe in Spiritual experiences, or can have consideration for those that claim to have them, then consider that this is no less reasonable.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejonathanseagull
Cool!
Male

Registered: 10/28/05
Posts: 993
Last seen: 10 years, 11 days
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7704177 - 12/01/07 08:03 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

I have had spiritual experiences myself. But Faith never became involved. I never extrapolated my experiences into full blown theologies, or connected them with an already existing one. I just took it for what it was. It wasn't evidence of anything that can be defined by a religion of man. Neither is Faith evidence for anything other than hope and a will to believe... a coping mechanism.


--------------------
Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show, That the dear She might take some pleasure of my pain: Pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know, Knowledge might pity win, and pity grace obtain.


Edited by jonathanseagull (12/01/07 08:05 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: jonathanseagull]
    #7704481 - 12/01/07 09:33 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

If you choose to deny something that's so evident that is your choice. There is a lot of evidence that goes along with it that can be shown in the real world also, that helps to guide one Spiritually. But I know, and also a lot of other people are convicted of the existence of God.

You're not getting it. Faith IS a spiritual experience. It's not just simple belief. It is Spiritual sense and perception. Will you consider that there's more beyond the flesh? I think not to is rather foolish, especially considering all the evidence there is to the contrary.


Edited by jonathan_206 (12/01/07 10:24 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinejonathanseagull
Cool!
Male

Registered: 10/28/05
Posts: 993
Last seen: 10 years, 11 days
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7704678 - 12/01/07 10:42 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

It appears as denial to you because it is evident to you. It is not evident to me. The experience was evident. The rest is wherever you choose to take it.

And of course, I not only consider, but believe there is more than flesh. There is a transcendence. But I disagree there is any evidence for others other than your own subjective experience. So, while you may have tons of evidence to the contrary, others may have no evidence to the contrary. They may have evidence OF the contrary.

That is the nature of faith. Subjective reasoning. A hope that the experience is some sign of the reality of what you are hoping for. I wouldn't faith is a spiritual experience. I would say it is a longing for a spiritual experience. But I wouldn't push that definition on you. That's mine, and yours is yours. You not sharing my view isn't a threat to my existence, because I don't identify with a belief system. I identify with experience. And nobody can deny me my own experiences, just as I cannot deny yours. But I cannot share them, either.


--------------------
Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show, That the dear She might take some pleasure of my pain: Pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know, Knowledge might pity win, and pity grace obtain.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: Is this ignorance? [Re: jonathanseagull]
    #7704736 - 12/01/07 11:17 PM (16 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

But I disagree there is any evidence for others other than your own subjective experience.





First of all, if your experience is subjective then why are you stating objective statements about my belief and experience?

We are all human. And we all have to face reality. It cannot be avoided. The evidence in the outside world tells us we all have minds reason and human emotion. There is much evidence to support that we have a common perception. It is how we communicate thoughts and feelings to others. And in practice it works and we can sympathize with others.

I think you overlooked another statement I made. I said that there are only 2 ways to be sure of what you know of what you perceive in the natural world. One is to know everything. The other is to have spiritual comprehension of God's nature. Since God is eternal we can trust that he is the end all and standard by which we determine all things. And we can trust what he shows us because he is all knowing and all wise.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Where does ignorance come from? Droz 1,040 11 09/22/04 05:53 PM
by IamHungry
* Ignorance and Socrates Rahz 2,196 10 11/29/07 04:38 PM
by Noetical
* Ignore Implications
( 1 2 all )
fireworks_godS 4,025 27 01/30/07 05:21 PM
by fireworks_god
* Is Ignorance Bliss?
( 1 2 all )
dblaney 3,271 36 10/09/05 07:28 PM
by MushmanTheManic
* Ignorance is bliss TonguesInAspic 2,198 19 05/03/06 08:12 AM
by fearfect
* Ignorance is bliss.
( 1 2 3 all )
psyka 3,669 51 11/20/07 02:54 PM
by Ego Death
* ignorant bliss or an enlightned nightmare ?
( 1 2 all )
lucid 2,734 26 05/28/03 11:56 AM
by atomikfunksoldier
* Ignorance is bliss…
( 1 2 all )
Gomp 1,821 21 10/06/06 02:00 PM
by wahtdafuk

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,642 topic views. 2 members, 8 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.