Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Prior to the destruction of the second temple, commandments had thier roots in Spirituality. Earthly manifestations of the commandments was an expression of corrections that had been made within the Spiritual desire, The physical act of carrying out a commandment and the Spiritual correction that preceeded the act were considered one action.
Following the destruction of the second temple, man fell from the level of Spiritual understanding, this is what the destruction of the 2nd temple means. From this point on, man continued with the physical traditions of the commandments, but they were no longer interwoven with Spiritual corrections.
Maybe the verses you cite show a lack of Pauls understanding as they seem to disagree with Luke 1:6
All the best to you, you Swansea Jack. BLUEBIRDS, BLUEBIRDS
Not really, St. Paul himself noted that the Resurrection is key to the Christian faith, or else we might as well sing today for tomorrow we die.
I know many here that would be enraged by your remark (I see it as a friendly gesture).
It is in treating the bible as some kind of scientific text or historical accounting of factuality that one gets into trouble.
I completely agree with this. In my opinion, such an interpretation reduces the value of the text.
. . . St. Paul himself noted that the Resurrection is key to the Christian faith, . . .
It might be key, but there is nothing that provides any proof that it actually occurred. . .
I suppose I'm a fringe element, because I think the resurrection is symbolic. :flowers:
On the resurrection.
It does seem that the new testament promotes a physical resurrection, but . . .
Yes, I would agree the resurrection is central. I would not agree that it has to be a physical material bodily resurrection. I think many in the modern age, and even in the age of the actual events, saw the resurrection as a resurrection or persistance of spirit.
Even for the most skeptical there can be little argument, that the events surrounding the life, death and resurrection have had a major impact on the world and that "something" of great significance ocurred.
It is in treating the bible as some kind of scientific text or historical accounting of factuality that one gets into trouble. . .
Luke4:13,14- But when you spread a feast, invite poor people, crippled, lame, blind; and you will be happy, because they have nothing with which to repay you. For you will be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous ones.
Luke 18:29, 30- He said to them; "Truely I say to YOU (plural), there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of god who will nt in any way get many times more in this period of time, and in the coming system of things everlasting life." (non-capital mine)
Luke 22:16, 18- for I tell YOU, I will not eat it again until it becomes fulfilled in the kingdom of god. And, accepting a cup, he gave thanks and said . . . for I tell you, From now on, I will not drink again from the product of the vine until the kingdom of god arrives."
Luke 24:39- See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; feel me and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as YOU behold that I have.
In the case of Moses for example, Moses wrote what the Lord God said to him. And Moses was insistent that this was not of his own mind.
dpmartin wrote:In the case of Moses for example, Moses wrote what the Lord God said to him. And Moses was insistent that this was not of his own mind.
Yeah I bet if you asked anyone with a good case of psychosis if the voices in their head are real they will almost always tell you yes. So how do we know if Moses didn't have some form of psychosis? Besides that the crap that actually he recorded is just plain silliness. Climbing to the top of a mountain to talk to god and god gives him some rules and then he brings them down only to find out that the people have quickly started worshiping some other idols. How freaking long was he on the mountain? Then after all that he smashes them in his annoyance? It is nothing but childish rhetoric. If you actually take a few steps back and don't look at the story with your religious bias you can easily see that the story is complete and utter nonsense. As well as pretty much everything that is supposedly written by Moses. No one today would ever take what he would claim to be real and in fact if they did, they would be put into a hospital.
A burning bush? Seriously? come on.
Parting of the red sea? Seriously? come on.
again thanks for the reply
In the intent of not being completely rude. I guess your posting warrants some kind of response.
As I am sure by your posting, you agree that a man can insist in his own place without God. And if you noticed it is granted, one can have his own place in the flesh without God. But God insists in His Place with man, and if one so desires, it is granted by the power of the Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ.
I don’t see the need to be hostile about that do you?
So what you are saying is, let the adults have their make believe invisible friend if they want a make believe invisible friend?
Okay that is fine with me. They can have their invisible friend if they want. However; I will not accept it if they are trying to push society to adopt some kind of standards based off what their invisible friend tells them.
Yet almost never does this kind of respect take place. I get approached probably every other day by someone trying to hand me some pamphlet or brochure for their church and get preached at. When I don't accept their pieces of propaganda paper I get branded as being rude or inconsiderate. If I request that it keep to itself as it should, people claim I am being unfairly critical of religion.
The day that religion does not get an excuse to being criticized and analyzed is a day that I might actually respect it, but until then I see it doing nothing but trying to impose it's will to force someone into believing in invisible friends.