Religious

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by Actor

Deut 18:11 uses the word necromancer, which is of Latin origin and dates back to the 3rd century C.E. What word was used in the original Hebrew and Greek?

הַמֵּתִים .....hamaytim

(The) dead

[thaskalos]

"Eggastrimythos kai teratoskopos"...in Greek

(it means ventriloquist and fortune-teller)

[PaceAdvantage]

Boxcar was probably out catching Son of God at his local cinema.

BTW, I hear that movie sucks big time, as far as movies go...

I just watched The Passion of the Christ for the second time the other day. I don't think anyone will be brave enough to tackle the last 12 hours of Christ's life again after that (boy, was justice swift back then...12 freakin' hours from capture to crucifixion)...whatever you think about Mel Gibson, that was one brutal yet amazing movie on many levels.

I also think the Jewish response to it, while quite understandable, was overdone especially when you read the actual Gospels. Most everything controversial that is in that movie is also in the Bible, albeit perhaps not at the same intensity.

Yes, Gibson took liberties, as all Hollywood productions do. But to think what was portrayed in that movie could NOT have happened during those times (the priests repeatedly calling for Christ to be executed and appearing "bloodthirsty") isn't thinking clearly.

Boy, did I just attempt to take this thread off on a tangent or what?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

What I get from these is that the false prophets will not be subtle, but instead will be obvious. Meaning that a false prophet would never do something like declare himself the second coming of Christ. Therefore those who make such declarations must be true prophets.

You're more shot through than Hcap if that's your interpretation. For example, how would a Christian know who is a false prophet and who isn't?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Boxcar was probably out catching Son of God at his local cinema.

No, I don't do movies at any cinema.

BTW, I hear that movie sucks big time, as far as movies go...

See that: This is one of the reasons why I don't do cinemas.

I just watched The Passion of the Christ for the second time the other day. I don't think anyone will be brave enough to tackle the last 12 hours of Christ's life again after that (boy, was justice swift back then...12 freakin' hours from capture to crucifixion)...whatever you think about Mel Gibson, that was one brutal yet amazing movie on many levels.

I also think the Jewish response to it, while quite understandable, was overdone especially when you read the actual Gospels. Most everything controversial that is in that movie is also in the Bible, albeit perhaps not at the same intensity.

Hmm...what in the "actual Gospels" would lead you think that death by crucifixion was anything by horrific? And why would you limit accounts of Christ's death to only the Gospels?

Boy, did I just attempt to take this thread off on a tangent or what?

Not really. You don't hold a candle to the two JWs I encountered today.

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Hmm...what in the "actual Gospels" would lead you think that death by crucifixion was anything by horrific? And why would you limit accounts of Christ's death to only the Gospels?

I wasn't trying to say that the crucifixion wasn't portrayed accurately.

In fact, I don't think I tried to indicate that the brutality of the movie did not reflect what might have actually occurred.

While we will never know for sure just how brutal it was, I have no issue with what was portrayed in Gibson's movie, and can fully accept what he put on the screen could have easily occurred. Well, except for the fact that most men would have been dead before time came to carry the cross. And most men, even if still conscious when it came time to carry his cross, would have NOT been able to carry something, that in the movie, required at LEAST two to three NON BEATEN/WHIPPED HALF TO DEATH men. I thought that was quite unbelievable.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

For example, how would a Christian know who is a false prophet and who isn't?

Boxcar

That was my question! And you came up with these two passages.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I wasn't trying to say that the crucifixion wasn't portrayed accurately.

In fact, I don't think I tried to indicate that the brutality of the movie did not reflect what might have actually occurred.

While we will never know for sure just how brutal it was, I have no issue with what was portrayed in Gibson's movie, and can fully accept what he put on the screen could have easily occurred. Well, except for the fact that most men would have been dead before time came to carry the cross. And most men, even if still conscious when it came time to carry his cross, would have NOT been able to carry something, that in the movie, required at LEAST two to three NON BEATEN/WHIPPED HALF TO DEATH men. I thought that was quite unbelievable.

A few thoughts on the crucifixion: The Romans were anything but saints. In some ways, they were more brutal and violent than the barbarians they often fought. Rome didn't have any laws on their books that prohibited cruel and unusual punishment. Quite the contrary. The Romans dreamed of ways to make capital punishment as cruel, horrific, torturous and violent as possible. "Cruel and unusual" punishment was very much in vogue 2,000 years ago.

And there are a few eye-opening texts in the the Book of the Isaiah that speaks to Christ's death, specifically the lengthy messianic prophecy in Isa 52:13 - 53:12. Verse 14 of chapter 52 reads:

Isa 52:14
14 As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
KJV

The word translated "marred" literally means disfigured. Probably to the point of being unrecognizable. In fact, in 53:3, it states:

Isa 53:3
He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face,
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
NASB

Whenever we see something that is most unpleasant or highly offensive to our eyes, the first reaction we have is to avert our gaze away from that object. So, I think Gibson's movie was probably the most accurate portrayal of the crucifixion that was ever brought to the screen.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

That was my question! And you came up with these two passages.

Which you, evidently, don't understand. The criteria by which Christians determine error or falsehood is to shine the light of truth upon it, which is God's word. If what is being taught or preached is inconsistent with the truth, then it's a lie. Very simple concept to understand.

Boxcar

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Which you, evidently, don't understand. The criteria by which Christians determine error or falsehood is to shine the light of truth upon it, which is God's word. If what is being taught or preached is inconsistent with the truth, then it's a lie. Very simple concept to understand.

Boxcar

Not quite...

Which Christian faction, in your opinion, would be able to withstand having the "light of truth" shone upon it?

There are many factions of "Christianity"...and ALL of them claim to abide by "God's word".

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Not quite...

Which Christian faction, in your opinion, would be able to withstand having the "light of truth" shone upon it?

There are many factions of "Christianity"...and ALL of them claim to abide by "God's word".

Yeah...I know. Even the JW's claim that.

Boxcar
P.S. Read Luke 8:4f again. It's a parable and you'll probably struggle with it, even though Jesus interpreted it.

[Overlay]

Originally Posted by boxcar

P.S. Read Luke 8:4f again. It's a parable and you'll probably struggle with it, even though Jesus interpreted it.

Wouldn't the parable of the tares (or weeds) (that immediately follows the parable of the sower in Matthew 13, but not in Luke 8) be more relevant to the subject you're addressing? (Or am I misconstruing your point?)

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah...I know. Even the JW's claim that.

P.S. Read Luke 8:4f again. It's a parable and you'll probably struggle with it, even though Jesus interpreted it.

False prophets are stuck in the literal.
Excerpts from THE MARK
Maurice Nicoll

http://www.innerstream.net/Maurice-Nicoll-The-Mark.pdf

IΝ the Lord's Prayer, we are told to say: 'May thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven, the idea, let us say, that time is a dimension in which the past and future is extended, and it will make nothing of it, because it can only think from what it sees. This lowest level of the mind which thinks naturally, from appearance, is the first mind formed in us. And it is of the greatest importance, because it relates us to external life.

But this level of mind must be used for what it is meant to be used for. It must not be used for ideas that are not derived from appearances. There are other levels of the mind, not opened up by the external senses and to these levels other ideas and ways of thought belong.

Let us take the simplest possible example of what it means to think from the senses - that is, naturally, literally, or from appearances — and what it means to think from a slightly higher level of mind. From appearances, that is, according to the evidence of our senses, the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. A man, thinking naturally, would swear that this is so. Yet, thinking from a slightly higher level, and so against appearances, this is not true. The Earth rotates and makes it appear that the sun rises and sets. But no one sees the Earth rotating. We see instead the sky apparently rotating and therefore naturally think it swings round the Earth every twenty four hours. This is natural or mechanical thinking, based on what the senses hew - that is, on appearances: it belongs to the literal mind that thinks in terms of things and the ideas derived from them.

Let us take the movement of the children of Israel out of Egypt and their journey towards the promised land, not liter- ally but as a parable having a psychological significance quite apart from any historical significance. Let us take it in other words as referring to man moving away from some power signified by Pharaoh and Egypt, and journeying towards a new state of himself. All esoteric teaching concerns a lower and a higher level, and the essence of esotericism consists in the fact that man is capable of undergoing a transformation and attain- ing a new level of himself. Man has to escape from the power of Pharaoh and Egypt and move in another direction first signified as the wilderness and eventually as the promised land. One can see in the allegory how difficult this is, for it is shown how Pharaoh will not let the children of Israel leave Egypt, although plague after plague is brought upon him. Man glued to the senses, to visible reality, to external life, can only move with great difficulty to a level of comprehension which lies beyond the facts of the senses and their power over him. This is the first problem of esoteric teaching and in the parable the emphasis is put upon the power of Pharaoh which Moses tries to overcome. Pharaoh represents the power of the lower level and Moses the power of the higher level, Moses having been told by God to get the children of Israel out of Egypt, Egypt representing a psychological state of humanity.

A PARABLE is a medium of connection between a lower and a higher meaning. But it is necessary to look more closely at the basis of parables and the reason they exist. In ancient teaching, Man is taken as a link b etween a higher and a lower world, between 'heaven' and 'earth'. Man lives physically on earth by the light of the sun but psychologically he lives by the light received by his level of understanding, which is light from 'heaven', a far more wonderful light. As a man grows in understanding, he stands more in this light and it can be said that it is only by means of receiving some fraction of this light that a man can think at all. A language exists, that was once known, that connects Man on the level of the Earth with Man on the level of Heaven. It is in this language that parables are cast. It is a specific language, speaking, in terms of earthly objects, of meanings that these earthly objects represent at a higher level. In this language everything on earth represents something belonging to the higher understanding.

A parable is an example of "objective art". By being rightly arranged it conducts permanent or eternal meaning: and it will be understood by everyone strictly according to his level of being. That is, it will grow in meaning as a man grows in the level of his understanding. At the lowest
natural level of the mind a parable will be understood literally.

It will seem merely to be a story about some shepherd or some spendthrift son, and so on, and an actual king or shepherd or son will be thought of and perhaps a scholar will make researches to find out who, historically, is referred to. One has only to read the more modern commentaries on the New Testament to realise how literally everything in the Gospels can be taken. In ancient times there was better understanding. Let us begin with what is called the parable of parables in the Gospels. It is the first parable given in Matthew and appears in the thirteenth chapter. Up to that point in this gospel the teaching of Christ is presented in the form of discourses, such as the Sermon on the Mount. Then quite abruptly, Jesus begins to teach in parables. The first parable is a key parable, because Christ says to his disciples unless they can understand this parable how can they expect to understand any other parable? This is not recorded in the version given in Matthew but in the account of the same parable in Mark iv where Christ says to the disciples: 'Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all the parables?' (v. 13). This key parable is the Parable of the Sower and the Seed. It is given in Matthew xiii, Mark iv and Luke viii, but not in John, because the gospel of John is quite differently written and came from another school. Let us begin with the version in Matthew. It is sometimes important to notice the introduction to a parable. In this case, the introduction is as follows: On that day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side. And there were gathered unto him great multitudes, so
that he entered into a boat, and sat; and all the multitude stood on the beach. And he spake many things to them in parables. Now this can be taken literally, but it has another meaning. That is, apart from its literal sense meaning it has a psychological meaning. The sea is sometimes used, in the language of parables, as meaning something distinct from the 'Earth' — that is, the meaning here is that Christ is speaking of things not belonging
to the earthly literal understanding of Man, but of things at first sight incomprehensible to the sense-based understanding. He is speaking from another level and so is represented as not being on earth, but on the sea, close to the beach. Different categories of ideas belong to different levels of understanding, and these different levels, in the natural language of the senses, are represented in different ways, as by a mountain as distinct
from the ground, or by the sea as distinct from the land. The opening of the Parable of the Sower as given in Matthew is: 'And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow: and as he sowed some seeds fell by the way side, and the birds came and devoured them' (xiii.3, 4).

Let us take only this part of the parable and try to understand its meaning. It so happens that this parable is one of the parables that is given some interpretation by Christ. The disciples ask what the parable means, and also why he speaks in parables. Let us leave out for the moment Christ's explanation of why he speaks in parables, and take his interpretation of the
first part. It is as follows: 'Hear ye then the parable of the sower. When anyone heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the evil one, and snatcheth away that which hath been sown in his heart. This is he that was sown by the way side.' You will notice that in the last line it says: 'This is he that was sown by the way side.' (ούτος έσην
ο παρά τψ όδον σπαρεις..) It refers to Man - to a certain kind of man. Man is the seed. Yet seed is also defined as 'word of the kingdom', (ο λόγος της βασιλείας.) This, of course, refers to the teaching of the Kingdom of Heaven which is expressly said elsewhere to be in a man. Christ said to the Pharisees on being asked when the Kingdom of God would come:
'The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, lo there! for behold, the Kingdom of God is within you' (Luke xvii.20).

[hcap]

[YT="The Mark"]/do_MckpQHO4?[/yt]

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yeah...I know. Even the JW's claim that.

Boxcar

And even the Calvinists claim that.

So what makes the Calvinist more valid than the JW claim, or the Catholic claim, or the Methodist claim, or the Southern Baptist claim. etc., etc., etc.?

So if only one claim is true that means that out of 40,000 claims 39,999 are false. If that many are false why not take it one more step and say they are all false?