unworthyservant

Don't feel bad. American ones don't either

You took the words right out of my mouth. I figured it's just to illustrate the point that is made so well in the Elephant and the Blind Men story. It's just hard to beat those old classics at demonstrating a point. When they were written the written word was the only means of conveying such things so folks then sure were more creative writers.

A great old teaching tool and thanks for posting. I hadn't heard it since I was a kid (and that was a while back)

Justin, I was with you until this closing remark. You are absolutely correct in that truly understanding the NT Scripture requires a pretty thorough understanding of the OT and especially prophecy. I don't believe that the NT is simply a "commentary" of the OT as it is the chronicling of Christ's fulfillment of the Law and the teachings of the Apostles on that matter. While much of it could be seen as commentary on certain OT texts (only because it is the basis for much of the teachings) it could also be seen as a continuation that simply refers to the texts.

It shouldn't in a perfect world but in the world in which we live it does and perhaps that why Christ said "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required," Luke 12:48 KJV. What the country needs is less politicians and more statesmen. I forget who said it but it's true. The 19th Century theologian James Freeman Clarke said “The difference between a politician and a statesman is that a politician thinks about the next election while the statesman think about the next generation.” With that in mind I think more statesmen are definitely what we need.

I don't believe that he's changing Jesus word but rather he approved of a change to a French translation of a Vulgar Latin translation of an earlier Greek text. The new translation doesn't sound heretical or anything and it doesn't really change the meaning much at all, so I don't see it as a problem. For future reference on such matters of translation, I recommend starting with the commentaries of Matthew Henry and Adam Clarke. Then with those as reference you can better understand where the newer commentaries are coming from since many reference them. Now, if you want another conundrum from the translation of the Lord's Prayer that's puzzled scholars for centuries, look at the translation of the Greek word ἐπιούσιον or the transliterated epiousion. It's at the end of the phrase that in the KJV reads "Give us this day our daily bread." It was translated "daily bread" but if you look back the actual word appears in NO other known Greek writings. It's only known use is in that very verse. (no where else in the NT either). Scholars as far back as the early Church writer Origen, have debated it's meaning and origin. Origen even went so far as to suggest it was just a word that the early church leaders or disciples (or even Matthew himself) made up. Some have surmised that it's a conglomeration of two Greek Words, transliterated epi and ousios. Then they jump through hoops to determine what the meaning of such an hereto unknown word conglomeration could possibly be. Although I'm not Catholic, I kinda like the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom the 4th century Archbishop of Constantinople who thought that the bread for which we pray is only “bread for today.” He said that "it is not for wastefulness or extravagant clothing that we pray, but only for bread and only for bread on a daily basis so as not to worry about tomorrow" This was at a time when many Catholic leaders insisted that it was about the Eucharist. This doesn't fly in my opinion since the word part "ousion" refers to substance of a thing or sustenance and so daily sustenance or daily bread wouldn't refer to the Eucharist as it's more general. This theory is derived from the fact that epi, when used alone actually is a comparative adverb that indicates excellence and so excellent sustenance or bread must be the Eucharist. Scholars to this day still can't find any empirical evidence of even the words existence much less it's meaning in any other ancient Greek writings and so still debate the word. Sorry, didn't mean to get off on such a tangent but since I'm not concerned by the French translation change, I thought I'd throw out another bone just for discussion.

Only God can remove hate from anyone and I'll pray He'll replace hate with love.

I too checked it out (I'm just naturally curious) and while I won't put it quite in the same category as GotQuestions, like you, there's not much there for me. There is a little 1st Century historical primer but it's interlaced with rhetoric and theology and one must be careful to discern the difference. I saw a couple of what looked like accurate maps and they had a good little Herods 101, but there's not enough real detailed historical data (and nothing new that I saw) for use as a serious reference for 1st century historical purposes and certainly not worth the bother of vetting the source. That said, to their credit, I saw nothing totally outrageous anywhere.

It's called AutoTune and it's a bane to singers everywhere who can really sing. I feel like God might appreciate the off key singing more than the electronically perfect pitch. I'm an also singer. In case you're not familiar, if you ever notice the tiered choir lofts at church you'll see that many have 5 rows. They put the ladies who sing up high in the front and say, "You sing soprano" then they put the ladies who sing a little deeper in the second row and say "You sing Alto" The guys who sing up high are in the third row and are told, "You sing tenor" Then the guys who sing lower go in the fourth row and are told, "You sing Baritone or Bass" Then the folks like me go in that fifth row and they tell us "you sing also".

I agree but when faced with the question if I had to choose, I chose based on transparency and only because it's easier to root out the corruption if there's more transparency. I believe that something in between with a finely tuned balance would probably be able to take the best from each system and make a better one. But since I have no control over that I'll just learn to live and do my best with whatever those who control such things saddle me with.

We are technically a Republic with a Democratic political system which I called a Democratic Republic. Just semantics.

I believe that it's the inherent desire for wealth and the idea that if one works hard they will achieve it that drives the folks to work. Either way, there is an underlying truth that it's the "love of money" or greed that corrupts both systems and as I've already stated, under those circumstances, I prefer the transparency of the greed that's built into the Capitalist system to the lack of it in Socialism.

I'm easy. I'm grateful every morning when I can get up and make it to the breakfast table. Starts the day off right and breakfast is indeed a blessing. I know of folks in some parts of the world who for the first meal of the day eat the unborn young of one animal with the belly of another and a little smushed up grass with possibly some roots.

If only it were that easy but Christ warned us that it isn't. McDonald's recruiting plan just wouldn't even work. BTW, I just realized that your logo is a dog and not a lioness.

I see it as a statement on the urgency of doing God's work and recruiting workers to do the same while we can.

Don't know. I never said it. All I say is I don't feel it's productive to spend time worrying about such things when "The harvest is great and the laborers few" and my comments were simply to demonstrate that it's not the particular economic system that's the problem but the greedy human nature that will inevitably corrupt either.

Wow. I just corrected someone on the difference between a economic system and a political one and in my haste made the same error. Capitalism is an economic system and has nothing to do with who is in control. I should have said Democracy which is our political system instead of Capitalism. (We are a Democratic Republic and Capitalism is only the economic system) So, in fairness and to avoid confusion, I'm commenting on my own comment to correct my own wording. Sorry.

I don't understand. If you're asking if I want to live under Socialism, I prefer Capitalism only because the greed is a little more transparent. If it weren't for the human factor that cripples both systems I wouldn't care which system I was under as long as it didn't have rules that would prevent my freedom of worship. I'd be happy if the poor were better taken of whether that care came from the dollars I give to the Government to distribute or by personal distribution. The end result is what matters. Christ told us where our money should go and didn't mention any particular mechanism to distribute it but as long as corruption is rampant in both systems, I prefer the more transparent greed and corruption of Capitalism.

First, I believe that even in Capitalism the elite few want to be in control of the many, it's just that they have to convince the many to allow that control. Problem is they don't usually do it honestly. I subscribe to the theory that "Those who desire political power are most often by their very nature those we should least trust to wield it." I believe that applies to any social order or economic system. You put Marxism, Nazism, Socialism, and Communism into one category. I'm not really sure what category that is but one distinction should be noted. While Marxism, Nazism (or Fascism in general) and Communism are political ideologies, Socialism isn't a political system but an economic one that was adopted by Marxists and Communists in general. (the Nazi's hated Communists and didn't subscribe to anything like true Socialism) Socialism itself makes no distinction about the political system under which it is administered and so could be implemented in a Democracy as well as a Communist Dictatorship or a Monarchy.

As reliable as my research can find. (From sources known for solid Academic research) If you have numbers that you feel are more reliable, I'm happy to research them as well.

Both Socialism and Capitalism demonstrate the love of money. In Socialism it's the ruling elite who skim money and in Capitalism the desire for more money (or the things it can afford) is what drives economic prosperity. The biggest difference is that while Capitalism encourages the accumulation of personal wealth and uses greed to drive folks, pure Socialism puts the state first and if properly managed would distribute wealth more evenly. (It actually doesn't distribute it exactly evenly but does attempt to assure that everyone has enough for their circumstances) That said, the problem with either system is greed and while one uses greed as an impetus for growth the other discourages it and the accumulation of personal wealth is "under the table" as they say. So I say, they are both corrupt because the heart of men is corrupt so let's concentrate on eliminating the corruption in whatever system we find ourselves under. Don't worry about which system is better but how to make the one under which you find yourself better and on sharing the fact that God's love knows no economic system or boundaries.

Rephrase, Reliable Economic Research sources. There are many good studies and many conclusions based on scholarly research focused on Economic systems and their effectiveness. I'm by no means a Economist but I found the research curiously enlightening.

It is true that the corporate church structure couldn't exist without the support of individuals and individual churches but for sake of discussing it as a separate issue, it has nothing to do with changes in any individual's giving habits as even if everyone doubled their giving tomorrow the corporate structure would still be there to get an even greater piece. I think we should take it personal but it's not about anyone's personal giving (that's between them and God and Christ laid out plainly what and how we should give) but about where the money goes once it is given.