Religious debate (split from main board)

[KB5252]

Denying you know the man and handing him over to his enemies is just different to me. Not sure why
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Would you not agree that denying the light and THE way is tantamount to denying your religion and beliefs, especially given the circumstances surrounding it, Jesus' sacrifice?

 

[ridethelightening]

Would you not agree that denying the light and THE way is tantamount to denying your religion and beliefs, especially given the circumstances surrounding it, Jesus' sacrifice?

Peter went on to do incredible things and was paramount in spreading God's word and the story of Jesus. Denying him may have been the right thing to do.

Nonetheless, their acts of "betrayal" are completely different
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Nash270]

as i read through this interesting topic of Judas, i cant help but ask myself why did Jesus have to come and die? Did God get tired of animal sacrifices? Did God make a mistake and jesus had to come die to make up for it? Was it all just some symbolic gesture to make us feel bad that our all powerful creator had to kill his/her son for us?

Sorry if its off topic, but I cant enjoy debating the details if i dont see the big picture.

 

[KB5252]

Peter went on to do incredible things and was paramount in spreading God's word and the story of Jesus. Denying him may have been the right thing to do.

Nonetheless, their acts of "betrayal" are completely different
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Judas was denied that right either at his own hand or the hand of others depending on what account you believe. The only real difference in the outcomes is one was dead soon after and the other was not.

Their acts of betrayal are different but much the same as sin is sin, betrayal is betrayal.

 

[KB5252]

as i read through this interesting topic of Judas, i cant help but ask myself why did Jesus have to come and die? Did God get tired of animal sacrifices? Did God make a mistake and jesus had to come die to make up for it? Was it all just some symbolic gesture to make us feel bad that our all powerful creator had to kill his/her son for us?

Sorry if its off topic, but I cant enjoy debating the details if i dont see the big picture.

See you are on to something, keep this question in mind when you read the Bible and keep an open mind, look at it from different points of view. The answer won't jump out at you right away in most cases and your opinion may very well change over time as well. IMO this is what God wants us to do, engage the word and think, study and seek the answers that aren't spelled out right in front of you.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

1) I'm making a rational thought. Peter denied that he knew Jesus to save his life. Judas sold Jesus to his enemies for monetary gain. Clearly there is a difference.

2) I'm talking about Matthew compared to Acts
Posted via VolNation Mobile

1.) Maybe it is just me but Jesus teaches us that thinking about killing is equal to murder and thinking about sex is adultery. So you think, denial of Jesus three times is a walk in the park?

2.) Why limit it to Matthew and Acts?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I don't accept that Peter betrayed Jesus.

I think Peter was showing his weakness, his lack of faith.

At the time Peter denied knowing Jesus. Jesus had already been captured. Peter was scared for his own safety/life therefore he denied being one of the twelve.

You don't accept Peter's betrayel, yet you acknowledge it in your second and third statement.

Something has to give some where.....

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Denying you know the man and handing him over to his enemies is just different to me. Not sure why
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Christ told us thinking is as bad....... how do you get around this?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

1.) Where did what come from, Judas was a sicarii.


Where in the bible does it say Judas Iscariot was a member of the sicarii ?

Some scholars have a theory that the name Iscariot, if derived from Latin means assassin or bandit. If bandit is the meaning he and his father Simon may have been members of the Zealots.

Most scholars believe that it is a Hebrew name meaning "Man of Kerioth" referring to the town of Kerioth.

Wow, so because it is not stated in the bible then it is not true?

Again, 50+ texts corroborate the historicity of Christ. These authors also tell us the story of Judas and the other apostles.

So we ignore the passages Judas and accept the others?

:blink:

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Peter went on to do incredible things and was paramount in spreading God's word and the story of Jesus. Denying him may have been the right thing to do.

Nonetheless, their acts of "betrayal" are completely different
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I would love to hear the thought process for this.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

as i read through this interesting topic of Judas, i cant help but ask myself why did Jesus have to come and die? Did God get tired of animal sacrifices? Did God make a mistake and jesus had to come die to make up for it? Was it all just some symbolic gesture to make us feel bad that our all powerful creator had to kill his/her son for us?

Sorry if its off topic, but I cant enjoy debating the details if i dont see the big picture.

Don't apologize, the whole point of this thread to get various viewpoints and ideas surrounding, Christ and the Bible.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Judas was denied that right either at his own hand or the hand of others depending on what account you believe. The only real difference in the outcomes is one was dead soon after and the other was not.

Their acts of betrayal are different but much the same as sin is sin, betrayal is betrayal.

+1

Exactly what Jesus teaches.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

See you are on to something, keep this question in mind when you read the Bible and keep an open mind, look at it from different points of view. The answer won't jump out at you right away in most cases and your opinion may very well change over time as well. IMO this is what God wants us to do, engage the word and think, study and seek the answers that aren't spelled out right in front of you.

Agree 1,000,000%...... this is how he made us.

 

[zach0105]

Here I thought all one had to do to be a true Christian was accept Christ as your savior and recognize him as the one true path to heaven. All details after that are up for debate and largely irrelevant to the central message.

...never knew there was a difference between being Christian and "True" Christian.

Yeah, the difference between being a Christian and a "true" Christian is one that aggravates me to say the least.

Let's start with the easy one.

Normal Christian: One who believes in Christ, God, heaven and all that good stuff. They attend church every now and then, like easter and Christmas. Believe in morals and the requirements of being a good person. But the enjoy fun and listen to reason.

"True" Christian: One who believes in Christ, God, heaven and all that good stuff. Attend church every chance they get. Live by the moral required by the commandments. And do not enjoy fun and reject reason. But the most aggravating thing they do; they look down on all who do not view the approach to Christianity exactly like they do. Especially "Normal Christians"

Do you think Christ looked down upon those who did not believe his word? I'm sure Christ also spared the time to listen to the retorts of others to his word.

"I like you Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike you Christ"
-Mahatma Gandhi

 

[tvolsfan]

Yeah, the difference between being a Christian and a "true" Christian is one that aggravates me to say the least.

Let's start with the easy one.

Normal Christian: One who believes in Christ, God, heaven and all that good stuff. They attend church every now and then, like easter and Christmas. Believe in morals and the requirements of being a good person. But the enjoy fun and listen to reason.

"True" Christian: One who believes in Christ, God, heaven and all that good stuff. Attend church every chance they get. Live by the moral required by the commandments. And do not enjoy fun and reject reason. But the most aggravating thing they do; they look down on all who do not view the approach to Christianity exactly like they do. Especially "Normal Christians"

Do you think Christ looked down upon those who did not believe his word? I'm sure Christ also spared the time to listen to the retorts of others to his word.

"I like you Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike you Christ"
-Mahatma Gandhi

Not so sure he was the great person people make him out to be, either.

 

[zach0105]

Not so sure he was the great person people make him out to be, either.

Not a Gandhi supporter or anything.

But, just curious as to why you say that?

 

[Gramps]

You don't accept Peter's betrayel, yet you acknowledge it in your second and third statement.

Something has to give some where.....

No I do not accept that Peter betrayed Jesus....
I acknowledge that after Jesus was arrested, Peter lied about knowing Jesus in order to save himself... His denial of Christ was a cowardly act which showed his lack of faith... What Peter did was a sin, it was not an act of betrayal.

 

[bam15]

Not a Gandhi supporter or anything.

But, just curious as to why you say that?

I'm sure the man had flaws, but I have yet to see anything that changes my opinion of the man.

 

[Gramps]

Wow, so because it is not stated in the bible then it is not true?

Again, 50+ texts corroborate the historicity of Christ. These authors also tell us the story of Judas and the other apostles.

So we ignore the passages Judas and accept the others?

:blink:

Did you read my post ?
I stated some scholars have a theory that Judas was a Zealot, while most do not.

The deciple Simon is described as being a Zealot.

 

[tvolsfan]

Not a Gandhi supporter or anything.

But, just curious as to why you say that?

It's a few things. I'm not saying all of this is 100% fact, as it was a long time ago, but I've heard a lot about him which makes me at least think about another, less known, side of him.

1. You may want to look up the Brahmacharya experiments. (I find this especially disturbing)
2. I've commonly heard he actually ate food when he claimed to be fasting. (This doesn't really bother me much if true, but I thought I'd share anyways)
3. Some of the stuff he wrote while in South Africa comes across as unbelievably racist. I'll say that it was earlier in his life and he may have changed later on. However, I feel like it was worth noting.

Keep in mind I'm not attacking his personal viewpoints about non-violence, or saying he didn't really believe what he preached. I'm just pointing out other things I've heard about him. It's up to you to make judgments about that.

I'd also like to add that although his non-violent approach to independence may have been inspiration for many around the world, I'm not in any way convinced it would be the best thing for India.

 

[gsvol]

+1

Exactly what Jesus teaches.

Good point about Obama being a Judas goat!!

:good!:

It's a few things. I'm not saying all of this is 100% fact, as it was a long time ago, but I've heard a lot about him which makes me at least think about another, less known, side of him.

1. You may want to look up the Brahmacharya experiments.
2. I've commonly heard he actually ate food when he claimed to be fasting.
3. Some of the stuff he wrote while in South Africa comes across as unbelievably racist. I'll say that it was earlier in his life and he may have changed later on. However, I feel like it was worth noting.

Keep in mind I'm not attacking his personal viewpoints, or saying he didn't really believe what he preached. I'm just pointing out other things I've heard about him.

I'd also like to add that although his non-violent approach to independence may have been inspiration for many around the world, I'm not in any way convinced it would be the best thing for India.

I thought much more of Ghandi before reading his autobiography than afterwards.

His greatest crime that has done the whole world a disservice was his total and complete cowardice in standing up to muslim aggression.

When you get down to the basics, Mahatma Ghandi was a liar of the first order.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Did you read my post ?
I stated some scholars have a theory that Judas was a Zealot, while most do not.

The deciple Simon is described as being a Zealot.

I did, every thing you stated is untrue.

The overwhelming majority believe he was a Jewish Zealot.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Great job with Judas, now the question is, why was Jesus arrested?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

My take, the "conspiracy" against Jesus had been building for at least 3 years,and sources record seven instances of official plotting against him, two efforts at arrest, and three assassination attempts before this time. This intrigue was no spur of the moment idea. What pushed it over the top or help spur on the indictment, the cleansing of the temple.

A formal decision to arrest Jesus had in fact been made several months earlier. The Jewish religious officials were afraid that if Jesus were to continue performing his signs, he would win over the people and the Romans would come in and destroy the Temple and nation.

According to legal custom at that time, a court crier had to announce publicly or post an official "wanted" handbill in the larger towns of Judea about forty days prior to a trial. Small wonder that there was some debate over whether Jesus would dare appear in Jerusalem for the next Passover. This discussion ended abruptly on Palm Sunday.

There were political reasons for dealing with Jesus. There had been a dozen uprisings in Palestine in the previous 100 years, most of them subdued by Roman force. Another Messianic rebellion under Jesus would only shatter the precarious balance of authority, break Rome's patience, and might lead to direct occupation by Roman legions.

Religiously, Jesus was a dangerous item. The people were hailing the Teacher from Galilee as something more than a man, and Jesus was not denying or blunting this blasphemous adulation. Personally, the Pharisees had been bested by Jesus in public debate, being called vipers, whitewashed tombs, and devourers of widow's houses. Humiliated, they would be only too happy to conspire with the scribes, elders, and chief priests.

 

[KB5252]

It was a combination of factors. His radical ideas (that is exactly what they were considered at the time)threatened the religious establishment, the religious establishment was the authority for the Jews at the time and they could be counted on by the Romans. Any rift in the arrangement would threaten the peace.

This is the most obvious reason of course, please throw some others out as well.