unworthyservant

Oh.my Debp. When I said NO! above, I didn't explain. I mean no the consultant is not being paid but volunteering her services.

First, NO! Matter of fact the whole idea is to use the social media platforms to keep administrative costs low and to recruit highly qualified volunteers to help with content, management and logistics. As for organizations who might benefit from any monies raised, I feel that's it's early in the process to begin the vetting process of recipients but as I noted, I will set up a trust with very specific vetting guidelines and organizations such as the one you reference would certainly be welcome to apply at the proper time. At present, we don't even have all the expertise necessary to get anything off the ground, much less plan any further. As I noted, before going any further, I must find someone who can handle media video production and filming as well as folks to help with actual media logistics should the need arise. (and it would be the first thing to have ready in preparation for success. For now, I'm starting with a few small calls to action. Trying to assemble a complete and highly qualified management team and get a feel for how much support we might expect when we do. Anyway. would you like to join us and then when we raise a lot of money, you can inform your charity that you know where there's funds available? Do you possess any of the above mentioned talents? If not, would you be willing to use whatever your talents may be blessed with to help the cause assuming that you see that the principles can be trusted to administer such a endeavor?

I guess arbitrarily wasn't exactly the best choice of words there and you are correct many are relying on what they are taught by their church as opposed to what Christ taught.

I must say that I've enjoyed the conversation here for the last few days and while I'm new I actually came here for a purpose. For the past couple of weeks I have been using my limited internet skills to get a feel of the Christian community's presence on the internet. While I've only scratched the surface, I can see that there is a vast presence. In my search I came across this place and decided to hang out awhile. I have come to believe that many on here are sincere and seeking truth. I also feel that many are doing their best to serve God and it shows in the conversations here. So, given that I wish to reveal the purpose behind my search and get your feedback. The whole concept is what I'll call a Christmas challenge. It's based on all the crazy challenges I see all over the internet these days only this challenge is for Christians everywhere to simply cut their spending by 1/3 this Christmas season and then give the difference to the poor and the needy (as Christ commanded anyway). Now here are some numbers I have compiled. 1. Last years Christmas retail sales in the US were in the neighborhood of 1 Trillion dollars. 2. Approximately 75% of Americans identify as Christian. 3. If you assume that Christians are average Christmas spenders then Christians accounted for about 750 Billion of that total. Now math isn't my strong suit but even I can see that a third of that going to the poor and needy could do a whole lot of good. The concept is to create a trust where the rules would be simple. Every dime collected must go directly to the needy and not to any organization's administrative or operational costs. (If they can't meet administrative overhead without the money, I have to worry if they could properly handle the administration of the funds anyway) The plan is to use social media to go viral and then get social media followers to present the idea to their friends and even to their clergy in order to hopefully get some to share and endorse it to their congregation. I have done my own independent research on the things that go viral on the internet and have on board someone whose profession is what you call "Social Media Manager" She has advised me that she will assist in getting the message to the proper "Christian Influencers". (I think that's the new internet lingo for messengers). At any rate she has told me that the best way to get something started that will go viral is to make targeted videos about the message. She will also assist with targeted content recommendations. I am currently looking for someone with making social media videos as we speak. Will also need a Facebook page where we could direct supporters and provide info and have a platform whereby to reach the Facebook crowd. Point is I would also need folks who could build and manage Facebook. (so, far no luck on video production or Facebook manager, so if anyone has any ideas) I will also have to find someone who is above reproach to be the trustee of the fund. (Don't really want to nor have time to set up our own charitable foundation). Now I'm not naive enough to believe that it could take in 250 billion dollars but I'm going off the theory, think big and see what God will do. Anyone have an opinion? Anyone want to join in and help get the ball rolling? Anyone think I've lost my ever loving mind?

By the way Seasoned By Grace. I just want to add that I agree with most of what you say and that the only reason I didn't go on and quote or discuss the rest of the Chapter is that, in case you didn't notice, I already had a mini novella on my hands with just the portion I did discuss. Also, since the point was simply to remember and not concentrate on a certain word or phrase but look at the meaning of what Christ was teaching, I felt that the few verses that I included should make the point and hopefully prompt someone somewhere to go and read the entire Chapter (or better yet book) to see the whole picture. As I mentioned to someone else it's something like not seeing the forest for the trees. Thanks again

Unique look at the situation and may have validity. As for my definitions of the Aramaic and Greek, I tried to use literal definitions but you are correct that just as today these words were used as slang insults with different meaning that the ;literal translation of the words and that's my point if we get too hung up on certain words we might miss the point or "not see the forest for the trees". And yes the word that was translated brother actually was gender neutral in the Greek. God bless you

Amen. A point I've attempted to make on many an occasion. You've boiled it down to what it really is, simple! Sometimes I too get involved with a lot of details just in order to clarify what I believe but fortunately God always brings us back to the simple truth if we only have faith enough to listen.

More succinct, but the same basic idea. Yes most agnostics that I've ever encountered say they don't discount but since they can't have actual physical knowledge they can't believe anything on faith alone.

While I'm not familiar with the book that you quote, by the title (and your quotes from Paul that you ascribe to Jesus in your post.), I assume that it is somehow ascribing the Epistles of Paul,Peter, James, and John either directly or indirectly to Christ. I'm curious and will check out the book. I would only say for the sake of those who might get the wrong idea that these quotes should be attributed to the person who wrote them and if you wish to ascribe to Christ passages that were written after His ministry then it should be noted that this is the case.

Amen, Kristin. I simply posed the question due to that recent fiasco with the Presbyterian church. You hit the nail on the head when you say MOST of the world is lost. I believe that it's also the case that many who think they are saved are among those. By the way, my understanding of agnostic is that it is a opposite of the word Gnostic. The Gnostic believed that everything was spiritual and didn't take much stock it actual physical things. On the opposite end are the agnostics. A true agnostic believes in nothing spiritual. Matter of fact they don't believe in anything that they can't see, hear or feel.

Sorry, JustPassingThrough, the question was rhetorical. I was being facetious. Thanks and God Bless

As opposed to trying to answer all the replies individually, I'm going to make one general reply. It is this. I see where many still missed (or because of it's length and monotony didn't read to the end where I made the point) so I'm going to restate the point without all of the reasoning. The point is simple. It has NOTHING at all to do with calling someone a fool. That was simply the example I chose to illustrate how people tend to take things out of context and more to the point how sometimes the translation of a word or two can lead some to these misconceptions. I did go quite into depth to make the point so maybe some of the confusion is my own fault. The entire post was purposely long and rambling to show that unless we are grounded in the teachings of the law and those of Christ we can become distracted by dilemmas that if we would just dig a little deeper aren't really the dilemmas we thought but when taken in their full context aren't really what they seem if we just read the words. I wasn't about Grace vs. the law or old vs new covenant. It wasn't even about calling someone a fool. It's all about how we get hung up on different interpretations of something when all that is necessary is to put them in their correct context and trust that God will show us the truth if we seek it. As to the person who made the snide remark about arguing with a fool, I don't believe that is the sort of conversation that we as Christians should engage in. As for arguing with fools, I personally believe that the "fools" are the nonbelievers that we should not argue with but show by our lives the example of God's love and Christs teaching. I hope this clarifies most of the questions. I will pray that God will help me to be more succinct in the future.

Thank you Justin. I didn't go into some of the details that you mention but you are the first to recognize the meaning of what I was saying.

As to who the fool is, my post has nothing to do with who the fool is. The Bible has much to say on that subject but you miss the point. THERE IS NO FOOL in my post. It is about how we can get hung up on a word and how a couple of simple translation choices have made some people believe that Jesus is condemning the use of a single word. I was simply pointing out how this kind of misunderstanding could come about because of the translation of just a couple of words that may or may not have the meaning which many ascribe to them.

Sorry, somehow I copied your reply twice. I have received so many replies to this post that I will not be able to answer each individually. I am answering yours because I'm puzzled as to why you think my post has anything to do with being saved by grace. I totally agree. As for calling someone a fool, my point had nothing to do with calling someone a fool except to note how by a simple translation of a couple of words "Fool" and "but" many have come to the belief that somehow calling someone a fool is a greater sin than some others, when in reality the word "Fool" has nothing to do with it. Christ was simply pointing out to those who thought they were so righteous because they didn't murder that it's also a sin to call someone names in anger. The point of the post was to point out that we should take the entire context of what Christ said before zeroing in on a word and making it the subject. That's all. Has nothing to do with grace or following the Commandments.

Good point pinacled! When I read the first post, it seemed like (and is) sound reasoning. Your point reminds us to always look at both sides of any subject and especially the ones where Christ is using metaphors in a parable.

When I create a new topic on here, I always see a little tab called tags. Just curious what it's for. I see all kinds of subjects there but not sure what I'm supposed to do. All my topics seem to get posted, so do I even need to worry about it?

I'm curious what others think of the instance in Matthew 5:22 where Jesus says "whosoever shall say "thou fool" shall be in danger of hell fire. For years I've heard people who believe that you can call folks all kinds of things but calling them the word "fool" is at least worse than the others and in the extreme can doom one's soul to hell. I believe this is a classic example of taking a phrase or word spoken by Jesus out of context and that's how many misnomers begin. Now, before looking at the entire discourse and putting this phrase in context, allow me to divulge on the idea that there is a word (fool) that is at the heart of the matter. First, Jesus never said the word fool. It didn't even exist in his day. it is a word that was in use in 17th century England and first appears in the Bible when the writers of the KJV of the bible used it as a translation from the Greek moros, from the earliest know transcripts. Now Jesus spoke Aramaic, so we don't actually know the exact word that the Greeks translated moros but the point is, does anyone think that God entrusted the writers of the King James Bible to translate a word that's use would damn one soul? What if they had decided to translate the word as "idiot"? Then, by that reasoning it would be OK to call someone a fool but not an idiot? And while we're on words what about Raca? I've never heard anyone call someone raca. Actually, while raca is actually the word used in the original Greek and was left untranslated in the KJV. It is actually not a Greek word but believed to be a Greek spelling of the Aramaic word reka which literally meant "empty one" but was probably a slang for empty headed or or in other words foolish. So why would they choose to translate moros to foolish and leave raca, which is a Greek word with very similar meaning untranslated. Now to look at the context, I'll not reprint the entire chapter here but will quote from Verse 17. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven 21Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ will be subject to the council. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be subject to the fire of hell." (The underlining has nothing to do with anything other that when I copied and pasted the verses from the Study Bible online, that is how it came out). So looking verse by verse we first see that in verse 17, Christ states that He did not come to abolish the law (another subject in itself) but to fulfill it. Then in verse 18 He goes on to state that " Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."(KJV, sorry about the use of multiple translations but it seemed appropriate given the subject) This should put to rest the question as to whether we should obey the "law". Christ came to fulfill the law but Himself stated that He did not come to abolish it. But to the point at hand, it's simply context. He goes on the state that "whoever breaks one of the least of the commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of Heaven and whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven". So, Jesus is admonishing us that we must do our best to obey the Old Testament commandments. In verse 20 He says (as he often did) that unless our righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Notice He doesn't say if we have more faith but unless we are more righteous. (Again, another discussion for another day). Now comes the question at hand. Christ begins with quoting the law about murder and then says, "I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to punishment. Again, anyone who says to his brother raca, will be subject to the council, but anyone who says "you fool" will be subject to the fire of Hell." Some translations use the word and instead of but in the last line. Since the earliest existing Greek manuscript only says δ, which isn't really an and or a but as we know them but what's called by scholars a conjunctive discourse marker and is in itself neither adversative (but) nor continuative (and). Most scholars agree that it should be considered to be continuative as usually in the Greek the adversative would appear as the conjunctive αλλά. That said, all Jesus is doing here is clarifying the underlying meaning of the law. He begins with the Law concerning murder and then goes on to explain that not only is murder a sin but the anger and it's manifestations, such as the calling of names is also sin. Just as when He taught us that not only is fornication and adultery sin but so is the underlying lust that leads to them. So, it's not a comparative about words or punishment either for that matter but simply Christ further explaining sin. And to think that all this controversy is due to a little word that had it's beginnings in the KJV, BUT.

As for the Trinity, I believe in God, our Heavenly Father. I believe that Jesus Christ is indeed the Son of God. I believe that the Holy Spirit is sent of God. That said, I don't believe that means that God is a Trinity comprised of the three. Matter of fact I resist all attempts to define God in any way other than the words of Christ "God is love". There's also the description of omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Any any rate, I believe that God is much more than can be described by human catch phrases.

I will ad my voice to Dave's. I've been on several sites where I have espoused the same beliefs as I have here and this is the first one where I haven't had to leave due to the mass amounts of hateful replies and judgements.

It is my opinion that while the Bible doesn't teach abstinence, this particular incident brings up another point. That being the idea of not doing anything that would negatively affect your testimony to those who are lost. So, since drinking could negatively affect your testimony with certain people, isn't it more prudent to eschew something that "you enjoy" in favor of having one less thing that folks can use to dismiss your efforts at sharing the Gospel. Another way to look at the issue is that each six pack you purchase could buy a meal for 5-10 hungry people. In 2016, US alcohol sales were in the range of 25 billion dollars. About 75% of Americans identify as Christian. Using these simple numbers, if you then conclude that 75% of the alcohol sales are to Christians that's over 18 billion dollars a year. Now, lets assume that Christians drink less that the average population and only half of the sales are to Christians. That's only 12.5 billion, but think of the difference in peoples lives if there were an extra 12 billion dollars per year going to the less fortunate (as Christ directed us).

Wow, that is quite a thorough investigation of the "mystery" and sure takes it places I couldn't have ever imagined. I don't mean to nitpick but you use historical data to get to certain conclusions and it's my understanding that at the time of the 1st Council of Nicaea there was no edict issued making it the official religion of the Empire. I believe that Constantine did give the Roman church preferred status which made it tax exempt but it was later, in 380AD when the Emperor Theodosius issued what is know as the Edict of Thessalonica that Nicene Christianity was made the official church of the Empire. Small detail in the overall picture but it's just one more reason I usually don't try delving too deeply into mysteries, especially those concerning Revelations. You can dig through the Bible from cover to cover (we should do that anyway) and gain historical perspective for years on end it's it's still basically a "mystery". I personally believe that since these sorts of things don't affect one way or the other our daily walk with God, we need to be careful not to find ourselves spending so much time delving into them that we take away from our efforts to do His will. That said, I thought I'd add my understanding of the historical reference simply for historical purposes. Has little to do with your reasoning or conclusions. You end with the question "what is the true church?" and in my humble opinion, while most everything you quote seems valid and/or Biblical, I have a much simpler idea of the "true Church". The true Church exists in the hearts of those who have faith in Christ the Savior AND spend their time and efforts doing their best to FOLLOW HIS TEACHINGS. When Jesus said upon this rock I will build my church, he was speaking of a person (Peter) not a building or a denomination.

I couldn't agree more. Part of the problem today is that man has had 2000 or so years to add to or work around the teachings of Christ. There are so many interpretations of the scriptures that many lose site of the simple truth.

It's not coming to an end. It's just another example of the truth in Christ's teaching that straight is the gate and narrow the way...and few there be that find it. It's not that it's coming to an end, it's that these days there's so much commotion that you have to look pretty hard to find the remnant of the followers of Christ's teaching.

Recently, there was some controversy within the Presbyterian church over same sex marriage. It seems that like many denominations there are several ruling bodies within the umbrella of the church. One of them changed the wording in their marriage requirements in order to accommodate same sex marriage in the churches under their purview. I happen to know of one of those churches where a group of the congregation split off and joined another association which did not approve of same sex marriage when their church voted to accept the change. This brings up a couple of general questions. First, if God never ordained same sex marriage, why would the church want to follow societal norms and preform marriages that they know are not ordained of God? And without explicitly saying it, isn't the church putting out the notion that since they ordain the marriage that homosexuality must not be a sin. Whether or not it's the case, if I can draw the conclusion then I'm sure there are others including those who seek the church for their same sex marriage. I have an idea why people would want their same sex marriage to be preformed in and sanctioned by the church. It's the same reason many sinners seek out a church that doesn't condemn their particular sin. It makes them feel free to continue in it. It's quite a conundrum