| Submit an Article : Advanced Search : Site Statistics : Directory : Contact Us : Disclaimer : The Hot Seat : Web Resources |
|
|  |
About US
Authored by: ERWIN on
Saturday, October 11 2008 @ 10:22 AM CST
Check out FAQ on this site. Tim is not the Miracle Channel Review. It is a website administered by Tim. The website is about all of us who read and post to it so there are probably as many 'statements of faith' for the Miracle Channel Review as there are users.
About US
Authored by: defend_the_faith on
Wednesday, November 26 2008 @ 03:43 PM CST
I guess what I am looking for is a doctrinal statemnet of faith from Tim as the figure head of this accountability I would like to know what he believes? example Tim Do you believe the bible to be the inspired word of God do you believe it is the final authority? Also that the original text is without error? Do you believe in the virgin bith of Jesus Christ? Do you believe Jesus was God come in the flesh 100% God and 100% man without sin? Do you believe in the concept of the Holy Trinity One God and three co eternal co existent persons God the father, God the son, God the Holy Spirit 1 God three persons? Do you believe in Salvation by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ our Lord? Do you believe in the eternal punishment and Judgement of all who deny and reject Christ? Do you believe in the bodily ressurrection of Jesus Christ? Do you believe that Jesus will return to judge the quick and the dead? Do you believe in one Big C Catholic church (Universal Christian Church body)? Do you accept the creeds of the church Niceean, Apostalic creeds? defend the faith About US
Authored by: societyvs on
Friday, November 28 2008 @ 09:27 AM CST
Here is what I believe: Do you believe the bible to be the inspired word of God do you believe it is the final authority? Also that the original text is without error? I believe the bible is authoritative but not without error (Hebrews can attest to this one). Also in many places like John 8 and Mark 16 passages have been ‘added in’ – and they are stated as such (oldest manuscript do not contain the passages). It is also well know that a ‘trinity’ verse in 1 John was removed because it was ‘added in’. So without error – no – that’s not very logical according to the facts. Do you believe in the virgin bith of Jesus Christ? I do not – but that does not mean it did not happen (I think it is highly unlikely though). One must note that this idea is based on Isaiah 7:14 and that passage is translated ‘young woman’ – not ‘virgin’. I think the Gentile people of the days took a story they were familiar with from their current society and kind of associated it with Jesus. It s worth noting – the virgin birth only appears 2 times in the gospels (2 out of 4 ain’t bad I guess) – but no letters or even Acts re-call the story. How much weight should someone give a story with little backing within it’s own scriptures? Do you believe Jesus was God come in the flesh 100% God and 100% man without sin? I believe Jesus was the Messiah come in the flesh 100% - as for the God part – I doubt that. If Jesus is God (as in actually God) – then it is a walking away from scripture also. Exodus 20 – 1st commandment – is ‘you shall have no other gods beside/before me’. If Jesus is God – then we have 2 gods (beside each other). Also we never see the idea the Messiah is God in the OT – not according to the Jewish faith for more than 2600 years (at the least). Also how can Jesus be God when he is ‘sent from Him, anointed by Him, promoted by Him’ etc? Do you believe in the concept of the Holy Trinity One God and three co eternal co existent persons God the father, God the son, God the Holy Spirit 1 God three persons? No – and neither is their proof in scripture for such a claim. Trinity, as a term about God, appears 0 times in the whole bible. When the Jewish faith said ‘God is One’ – they really meant ‘One’. Do you believe in Salvation by Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ our Lord? Yes. I believe Jesus was the ‘anointed one’ to bring about the inclusion of the Gentiles into the presence of God – as a mediator for us. Salvation in the senses (a) we as Gentiles can now fully access God and (b) God allows us to deal with our personal lives with Him. Do you believe in the eternal punishment and Judgement of all who deny and reject Christ? I believe in a judgment – in the end of it all. As for eternal punishment – I cannot believe a loving God would hold such an extreme measure for sins of maybe 70 years? That’s quite unjust a measure (70 years being punished for eternity). Do you believe in the bodily ressurrection of Jesus Christ? Yes. Do you believe that Jesus will return to judge the quick and the dead? Yes. Do you believe in one Big C Catholic church (Universal Christian Church body)? Yes. Do you accept the creeds of the church Niceean, Apostalic creeds? No…evidence has not been presented and it was a rush to judgment by those councils – to help solidify Christianity as a Roman religion. What about the Jewish perspective our faith was supposedly based on – that evidence was not even used in a single council. I wonder if any Jewish person had presented if we would hold to a Trinity at all – or the Messiah as God. Things do not add up – if this religion is based on Judaism? Question – is it? --- About US
Authored by: Spidey on
Monday, December 01 2008 @ 11:03 AM CST
And you have the gall to accuse TMC as having bad theology??? Unbelievable.
About US
Authored by: tim on
Monday, December 01 2008 @ 06:11 PM CST
And Spidey, you think by jumping in with your quick shot, you have completely disproved what societyvs has said? He provided evidence for what he can and everything else is based on his personal faith and walk. Where is the problem? If you think his theology is bad, I would challenge you to prove it wrong and provide evidence just as he does. Short comments such as yours are far from the Biblical mandate of being "edifying", and don't do much for the dialogue that has begun. So please, edify us. BTW, this is exactly why I have not responded to the question at hand. If my response were to be used in a deeper search for truth and an open, honest dialogue where we truly examine what we believe and how we arrived at that belief, then maybe I'd consider stating what I believe. Since people like yourself automatically condemn someone else's theology because they don't see things the way you have been taught and you're just too darn lazy to really search out the matter for yourself, or you're fearful of what you may really find to be true, there's not much point for a response from me. About US
Authored by: Spidey on
Monday, December 01 2008 @ 07:34 PM CST
Tim, enough is enough. Do you honestly think the majority of comments and articles on this website ARE edifying? I think not. The whole tone of the site is one of strife and division, and has nothing to do with edification of the Body of Christ. Over and over again, you and others on this site have questioned whether or not certain individuals, who either work for TMC or have programming on it, are true believers; you've called them heretics and all sorts of other names - ie: prositutes, etc.; you've openly mocked those who don't believe the same as you do - particularly in the area of finances or prosperity... none of which are particularly edifying. My intention was not to be unedifying, I was merely pointing out my opinion that the beliefs of TMC are certainly far more in line with established, traditional beliefs that are held by the vast majority of Christians, than those of societyvs. About US
Authored by: societyvs on
Friday, December 05 2008 @ 03:28 PM CST
“My intention was not to be unedifying, I was merely pointing out my opinion that the beliefs of TMC are certainly far more in line with established, traditional beliefs that are held by the vast majority of Christians, than those of societyvs.” (Spidey)
I agree, the views at TMC are far more in line with established traditional beliefs held by the vast majority of Christians – but if God’s truth is decided by popular vote – let me know so I can leave this faith ASAP.
My brother – who is a pastor (or has been – 3 times) – told me not answer those questions – the person who wrote them was not interested in the answers – but only in setting what they thought was a ‘trap’ How did he know – he read the questions and said ‘the questions are the answers’. I see he was correct in his assumption.
But Spidey, I could of easily answered your questions with one simple word ‘yes’ – and this would have been sufficient enough for you concerning them…but I figured that was dishonest and I serve God – not you or the TMC – so I figured I’d be honest in my answers. But I see saying ‘yes’ would of got me the hand of acceptance – should I stay ‘in line’ or be ‘honest’? Which do you prefer? Do I vote with the majority even if my conscience and studies do not lean in that direction? You tell me Spidey – you looking for the ‘yes men’ or ‘integrity’?
You have given 10 questions of beliefs from the church – and I disagree with a lot of them – on the basis of study and rationale…did I lose faith in Jesus or God – no. Those 10 questions you gave mean very little with regards to who someone is in this faith – they are putting God’s characteristics in neat place holders. I didn’t join this faith for a set of beliefs on who God is – but for the direction and guidance of God.
I tend to think what someone does is more important than what someone believes – the teachings are of vital importance – not what someone can theorize the atonement means or the messiah being equal to God…those are fine theological ideas but what do they do for the listener? Not much. But tell me about ideas like ‘love your neighbor’, ‘forgive 70 X 7’, ‘where your heart is so is your treasure’, and ‘blessed are the peacemakers’ and then we are getting into writing a fine doctrinal statement that means something.
Show me your faith by your actions – this is the key to the Christian life (tying beliefs to actions – which is a very biblical idea). Talking about God as a Trinity doesn’t matter all that much – what virtue is gained by holding to that position? What actions do you take that makes you more moral from that belief? I can’t think of one thing. It’s a matter of perspective in some ways.
In the end, many of the things you posted as questions – find little to no precedence in Judaic circles – and that makes me wonder where they came from. We claim in this Christian faith we are based on the teachings within the Tanakh (OT) and I feel to find many Christian ideas about God in the Tanakh – from asking in Jewish circles. Am I to believe our statement of faith is without question because some majority ‘says so’? Well historically, Judaism and Christianity are quite separate in beliefs concerning God, messiah, and some of these events of Jesus. I have to weigh all evidences – not just some. --- About US
Authored by: marina on
Sunday, December 07 2008 @ 11:47 AM CST
Most Christians don't really know what they believe much less "why" they believe what they say they do. Every Christian should be able to give an answer as to why they have this hope of Christ, without the circular reasoning of "Because the bible tells me so" or "It's what my parents believe." The bible is truly fraught with error and contradictions. To deny this is to be fraught with delusion. I do not think Christians should shy away from controversial literature that conflicts with traditional beliefs of Christianity or anything that challenges their faith. So before blindly professing a host of indoctrinated bible-based beliefs contrived by a church council under state pressure to do so, I would suggest for all to read, "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman. It will truly challenge your faith, possibly take you to a new level of your journey and in the end, hopefully, help to boldy answer the "whys" of what you believe. Or - it could entirely shatter your faith. I guess it just depends on what your foundation has been built on... About US
Authored by: societyvs on
Monday, December 08 2008 @ 04:24 PM CST
I own that book by Bart Ehrman - found it very interesting (liked it and learned a lot). I would suggest people look at the Jewish faith and do some serious study from Jewish scholars or sites (like BeliefNet) and learn how different our Christian faith is from Judaism. I think it is healthy to read all agruments concering the faith we hold - and to to stick in some 'box' of like minded people...we won't grow if this is the case.
--- About US
Authored by: Spidey on
Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 12:34 AM CST
Lee Strobel has written several books, such as The Case For Christ, The Case For Faith, and The Case For Creation, in which he has interviewed some of the foremost experts in biblical linguistics, archaeology, the accuracy of the Bible, etc. and has come to what sounds like a very different conclusion than some of you. His conclusion, after extensive research, is that the Bible IS completely reliable, Jesus IS God, and there is extremely good evidence that the miracles described in the Bible, such as the virgin birth and Jesus' resurrection are not only well documented, but took place exactly as described. I would encourage you to read these.
About US
Authored by: marina on
Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 09:35 AM CST
The fact that you defend The Miracle Channel doesn't help the case for Christ. --- About US
Authored by: tim on
Thursday, December 11 2008 @ 09:53 AM CST
Again Spidey, you're thinking inside the box... I can name you thousands similar to Stroebel but for every "opinion" out there, there's always one, two or many that will be contrary. Just do a search for "The Case For Christ" on Google and you'll find enough refutation of Stroebel's supposed "investigative journalism" that you could read your entire life away. The same is true of Stroebel's other published works. Aside from arguing the validity of some of the writings you refer to, I must ask, have you ever taken the time to actually read something in opposition to what you believe? After all, how can you truly believe something unless you know every argument against it and by knowing such, you can substantiate your own belief? Right now, all I'm hearing from you is that you believe what you believe because someone else says it's so. If you really want to put your god to the test, I challenge you to go down the path so few go down and seek evidence for yourself. Stop drinking water from everyone else's well and dig your own. Then when you can demonstrate you have arrived at your belief system through longsuffering trial and tribulation, much time on your knees and a whole pool of tears because of what has been ripped from you and you've come to realize there's so little left that is true, you might actually have a voice that changes lives. Until then, it's all prognostication and meaningless babble. The earth is flat, the earth is flat... no... don't sail there... you'll fall off... THE EARTH IS FLAT!!!! Sounds silly? Try this one... The Bible is true because it says it is... Have you ever heard the saying, "you can't see the forest for the trees"? When applied to Christianity, or any religion for that matter, I think it could read,"you can't hear the truth for the voices"... The funny thing is that I am answering the original question by providing comment to others such as yourself... My statement of faith could probably be summed up by this: I believe what I believe because I know I have truly searched it out and if there really is a God, He can't possibly fault me for the things I've done and continue to do because deep down in my heart I know I am doing everything I can to find Him. Therefore, I have faith that some day, if He's really there, I may see Him. If not, then what have I lost by pursuing truth at all cost? Heck, I think that's even biblical... About US
Authored by: peter on
Friday, December 12 2008 @ 12:16 PM CST
...and for those who are up to having their faith and beliefs challenged, there is going to be what sounds like a very interesting debate between Dr. Bart Erhman and Dr. James White on the thesis: "Can the New Testament be Inspired in Light of Textual Variation" It's scheduled to take place January 21 in Ft. Lauderdale. There is some info at http://sovereigncruises.org/AO2009/debate.htm. I'm fairly sure the debate will be posted to youtube or aomin.org shortly thereafter, at which point I'll post the URL. About US
Authored by: The Last Spike on
Saturday, December 13 2008 @ 01:51 PM CST
Thanks Peter! It does indeed sound like a good one to watch. How about Texe Marrs' "Cauldron of Abaddon"; has anyone else watched it? Personally, I believe what I believe as it is revealed to me daily by God. My entire life has been spent in communication with the almighty. I was cradled in Yahweh's arms and blessed with an unusual awareness of our Abba before my earthly birth, and continue to be held and to receive revelation through divination. More concisely, I believe the Bible to be the most complete and accurate historical and contemporary account of humankind's existence. However, it is not written without narrative or agenda. Therefore it is subject to the vagaries of it's various authors and translations. Still, other than personal revelation from the almighty, it is the best blueprint for our lives we have to go on. As well, I will admit to being a bit of a relativist in so much as I believe the "Ancient of Days" imbued other peoples (found worldwide) with variations of understandings as Christians too have received knowledge peculiar to that faith. Hence the existent conflicts inherent between various belief structures. Equally I abhor the total intolerance, ignorance, rejection, and hostility of any religion toward another. For there is, to be sure, good and bad found within each. You have only to read and understand your own Holy book, and trace your own history to discover this truth about within your own belief structure. Go ahead - hold my feet to the flames, I will not change nor recant! Spike (I am Berean) About US
Authored by: societyvs on
Monday, December 15 2008 @ 10:39 AM CST
"His conclusion, after extensive research, is that the Bible IS completely reliable, Jesus IS God, and there is extremely good evidence that the miracles described in the Bible, such as the virgin birth and Jesus' resurrection are not only well documented, but took place exactly as described. I would encourage you to read these." (Spidey) Grand - I have little to no problem reading Strobel - and I even likely agree with some of the things he says. But that is not the question at hand concering these doctrinal statements - let me add a little more into the discussion. You say Lee says the bible is reliable - relaible for what? It is accurate so therefore...? What does your reliability afford you with regards to the use of scripture - I am interested to know. Lee can claim Jesus is God as many times as he wants - or the virgin birth is an actual event - a miracles did occur...answer me this - how does this change what you do in your personal life? Does knowing the virgin happened help you be a better father somehow? Does knowing Jesus walked on water help you with discussing issues of responsibility to a group of young adults? I am not wrong to suggest those things means 'little' in the scale of what the 'good news' really is...so I debate doctrinal statements and their 'focus'. But I will say - Spidey's point about us reading Strobel is accurate also - we need to read all sides (as Tim would agree) - and for me - Stobel is someone I do not read very often ( not as much as Ehrman for example). I am open to the idea of a dialogue that seeks openness. --- About US
Authored by: Blinkety on
Wednesday, January 14 2009 @ 11:10 PM CST
Tim, If Jesus was not born of a virgin, His father was not God. In
that case, you might as well throw out the worth of the death, burial
and resurrection of Christ, as He was just a mortal man, born with a
sin nature like the rest of us. His sacrifice for us would be
useless.
If Jesus was not born of a virgin and is not God, why is He called Immanuel, "God with us"? (Isa 7:14) If Jesus is not God, why is the child "born to us" in Isa 9:6, 7 called ".....the Mighty God, the everlasting Father....." Of course there is at least 2000+ years between Isa 9:6a and 9:6b, as we are expecting Him to return and sit on His throne to rule and reign for 1000 years. Since the bloodline is through the father, Jesus was able to be fully human ("born of a woman") and fully God, as the "the Holy Spirit will come upon (Mary), and the power of the Most High will overshadow (Mary): and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35) Jesus said "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father" (John 14:9) and "I and My Father are One." (John 10:30). So much for the 2 gods side by side theory. He was "the express image of the Father" (Hebrews 1:3). Trinity as a word can not be found in the Bible. But as a concept it is there right from Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God (Elohim, a plural form of the Hebrew word for God) created the heavens and the earth." vs. 2, ".....and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." vs. 3 "Then God said,......" Compare that with John 1:1-"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God...." John 1:14 - "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." It seems pretty clear that Jesus in the days of the creation was the Word, and when He became flesh is when He came to earth. About US
Authored by: marina on
Sunday, January 25 2009 @ 04:47 PM CST
Blinkety, I’d like to present some information regarding the comments you’ve made – information they won’t teach you in church or Bible College. Blinkety said - "If Jesus was not born of a virgin and is not God, why is He called Immanuel, "God with us"? (Isa 7:14)" Actually, throughout Jesus’ life, He was never called
“Immanuel”. Back in the days of Isaiah, there were hundreds of Hebrew names
with references to God in them, Immanuel just being one of them. I am sure
there were many Immanuels back then. Being named Immanuel doesn’t prove that
you are anyone special, much less the Messiah. As for using the meaning of a
name to denote one’s identity, in this case connecting Jesus the Messiah to the
Immanuel in Isaiah, wouldn’t a name like, “Abiah”, which means, “God is my
father”, have been a much more appropriate name for the Son of God? The
argument in relating the Isaiah passage to Jesus breaks down further because
it says that the mother “shall call his name Immanuel”. If we take the woman to
be Mary, did she actually name her child “Immanuel”? No, she called him Jesus.
What’s more, the Hebrew word “almah” (H5959 Strong’s Dictionary) is used in
this passage, which means “young woman”, not necessarily a virgin. The Hebrew
word for virgin is “bethulah” (H1330). The NRSV bible also uses the words
“young woman” rather than virgin. One would think Isaiah would have used this much more specific word to announce
in no uncertain terms that it will be a virgin who gives birth to the
Messiah centuries later. This would have obviously avoided much confusion. But, as problematic as all that may seem, there is an even bigger problem when relating the Isa 7:14 passage to the birth of Jesus, and that is the whole context of his message – who was Isaiah speaking to and what was the immediate situation that invoked this prophecy? It is quite clear that this prophetic word was fulfilled long before the birth of Jesus and that the writer of Matthew (or an interpolator) deceptively connected the two events. If you read the whole chapter you will see that at the time, two rival armies were threatening to besiege Judah, and king Ahaz was getting nervous about the imminent threat. So along comes Isaiah with a word from the Lord that this attack will not happen and that the enemy armies will be disbanded. To confirm this, Isaiah tells Ahaz to ask for a sign from God. Although Ahaz initially refuses to “test” the Lord by asking for a sign, Isaiah tells him that the sign shall be when a “young woman” gives birth to a son, and before the child is old enough to be able to know good from evil, Judah’s enemies will no longer have a grip on the land. If you read on into chapter 8, it is most likely that Isaiah’s prophecy/sign is fulfilled in verses 3 and 4. Blinkety – "If Jesus is not God, why is the child
"born to us" in Isa 9:6, 7 called ".....the Mighty God, the
everlasting Father....." Of course there is at least
2000+ years between Isa 9:6a and 9:6b, as we are expecting Him to return and
sit on His throne to rule and reign for 1000 years." It would be
helpful for you to do a study of the Hebrew translation of Hebrew names. You
will be surprised at how many people in old Jewish culture were called “God” or
given titles that referred to God, who were not divine in any way. As I
mentioned earlier, someone whose name means, “Mighty God”, for instance,
doesn’t mean they actually are THE Mighty God. I referred to this
earlier. If Isaiah really meant that there was One coming who actually was
the Almighty God, he would have been more articulate with his words not
to misconstrue the prophecy by saying something like, “He will be the
God Almighty”. And since there are no textual references in the New Testament
linking Jesus to Isaiah 9:6, it is highly improbable that this passage was
referring to Jesus. No one ever called Jesus, nor did He ever refer to Himself
as, the “mighty God”, “Wonderful Counsellor”, etc. in the gospel
accounts. So whom, then, was Isaiah referring to here if not Jesus? Once again, the answer can be found when we look at the context – who was being spoken to and what were the circumstances. The Jews have always maintained that it is King Hezekiah who has been graced with these names and it stands to reason when considering his character and achievements. Once again, if this prophecy truly heralded the coming of Jesus some 700 years later, why the ambiguity? Why not clearly state the details to avoid any misconception for future readers? Shouldn’t the simple truths of a sacred manuscript that carry such magnitude of consequence be as plain and unambiguous as possible? Unfortunately, the bible contains hundreds of contradictions and mistranslations - little wonder there are 10,000 denominations out there! Is this the same book that says that God is not the author of confusion? Here is one example. Which one’s right? Guess it depends on what branch of the tree you swing from. Romans 10:13 (NIV) "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." OR Matthew 7:21 (NIV) "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven.” Blinkety - "Since the bloodline is through the father…" I’ve
discovered that bringing up the bloodline of Jesus according to the gospels,
presents a host of problems. Notice first of all that the genealogy is very
different in the two texts, with Matthew stating Joseph’s father is Jacob and
Luke stating his father is Heli and lots of differences in between. Which
genealogy is right? Anyway, for Jesus to be the Messiah, His bloodline (seed)
must be traceable to the house of David. And yes, the bloodline is traced
through the father, literally through his sperm or sperma. As such, the gospels
of Matthew and Luke (though very different) both trace the lineage of Joseph
to King David. That being said, it is impossible for Jesus to be a bloodline
descendant of David through Joseph, His stepfather, AND be immaculately
conceived. The relation to David must be through BLOOD, not adoption. So that
leaves Mary. Now it is possible that if Mary was of Davidic ancestry, Jesus
could claim Davidic lineage through a loophole that God apparently provided in
the event there were no male heirs to carry on the family bloodline (Numbers
27:8 and 36:2). However, Luke confirms in 1:5 and 1:36 that both Mary and her
cousin Elizabeth were descendants of the tribe of Aaron (hence Levi) and not of
Judah. The line of David hails from the tribe of Judah. So, I ask, how is it
that Jesus can claim legal rights to the throne of David as Messiah when His
only blood relative has no connection to David? I believe this is also a point worth considering. History tells us that most pagan religions in the Mediterranean region in the ancient world also featured their founder and/or saviour as having been born of a virgin. It seems as if by late in the first century, early Christians assimilated the common and familiar doctrine of virgin birth by mistranslating, into Greek, the original Hebrew passage in Isaiah, in order to be competitive with other contemporary religions in gaining new converts. I’m not a scholar or historian. Nor have I intentionally set out to disprove the claims made in scripture. I am just a person with a lifelong hunger for truth, looking for answers other than the shallow, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it!”. We no longer live in an age or nation where questioning the religious powers that be lands us in a steak pit. Nor can knowledge be withheld from the masses to keep them easily manipulated through indoctrination any longer. We live in an insightful age. Teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically is a form of fascism, which depends on instilling fear and ignorance. With all the liberty and information available to us in our day, it doesn’t’ take a scholar to see that the bible cannot be the infallible word of a Perfect God - there are just too many errors in it. Granted, there is a lot of truth contained within it, but it is by no means infallible. No one can deny that it contradicts itself and contains errors of both nature and history, while lacking in moral integrity. (Every hear of the “Flat Earth Society?” Where do you think they got their doctrine from?) Honestly, ours has become a more tolerant, more civilized and intelligent society not because of the bible, but in spite of it. Here’s the question – How can a perfect God hand down an imperfect message and still expect us to get it right? I, for one, can’t contently believe something unquestioningly, knowing full well that there is a mountain of evidence contradicting it. Once you learn something that is true, you can’t unlearn it or ignore it as if it’s not there. After a while it’s pretty hard to keep sidestepping around that elephant standing in your living room…. At least I can’t turn a blind eye to facts. That would be living a life of fear in having to deal with the fact that a belief that was once written in stone, breaks down upon closer inspection. It’s like all those people who still adamantly support the ministry and doctrine Kenneth Copeland or Benny Hinn, who can’t see or don’t want to see the truth for what it is despite the plain evidence staring them right in the face. Although it is a delusion, that delusion is part of their mindset – it encompasses their whole lives. It would be too traumatic, to painful, like a death of a loved one, to admit that they have been duped. The scary thing is that people who have such an unquestioning belief in something are capable of almost anything as well. I realize my comments to Blinkety have gotten off track, but this issue opens up a whole new can of worms that I think provides some clues as to why the church is in such a sad state. I got to this place by experiencing the unscriptural errors in every church and ministry I’ve been apart of, including the ones I’ve followed on television over the years. Leaving the system was the best thing I did to clear my head and see things as they really are. Christianity is a smorgasbord of theology – every branch believes different in some way and they each choose which parts of the bible to adhere to. Of course they all pretty much stick to the tenets contained within the Nicene Creed, since towing the party line doesn’t invoke exclusion or scrutiny and it’s much easier to get away with the more unscrupulous “unchristian” activities when you look like everyone else. I’m convinced that many if not most of the leaders in the big churches here in the west aren’t really too passionate about the statement of faith their ministry proclaims anyway. It’s the standard in the industry. But I don' t read anywhere in the bible where reciting a statement of faith guarantees a ticket to heaven. (Nor does having "good" theology that is in line with traditional mainstream Christianity, Spidey.) Some ministries are much more corrupted and estranged from Jesus’ teachings than others. The programs aired by the Miracle Channel are a prime example of the ones that lean toward the “more” estranged. But what has shocked and disappointed me most is the laziness and indifference of so many people who call themselves followers of Jesus, push for strong biblical influence to prevail in our society, and yet do not show a strong desire to prevent biblical text from being exploited by charlatans who twist the passages to prey on the gullible. Tell a believer that the bible is just an ancient manuscript written by mere men and they will most likely fiercely defend the bible as the word of God. And yet when a passage is blatantly misused and twisted in the pulpit or on TV by the preacher, few ever seem to notice much less sound an alarm and confront the user about his error. So few have taken the biblical admonition to “prove all things” and tested the words of the man or woman of God to see if they line up with the written word. Convenient resources are not in short supply anymore, but it takes time, energy and effort on the part of the individual, to study the bible for themselves. Not many seem to think it’s important enough. So I have to wonder, really, how important is the bible to Christians anyway, when they keep allowing their sacred, written word of God, to be butchered, ground up and spewed out until its original meaning is really no longer recognizable? If you want to see for yourself how the bible, both Old and New Testament, are used by people who have something to gain by taking scripture out of context, contorting the meaning of clear passages and ignoring other parts of the bible that don’t support what they are doing and saying, just tune into the next Miracle Channel fundraiser. It starts on Monday, January 26 and it is called, “Fresh Oil”. Of course, unless you know your bible really well, you might have to do more than just watch the broadcasts to spot the use of the bible to coerce donors – you may actually have to do some studying for yourself.--- Fresh Oil?
Authored by: BlastFurnace on
Tuesday, January 27 2009 @ 11:17 PM CST
"Fresh Oil." As in, fresh oil and new wine. What does that even MEAN? Maybe Marina or Tim can explain it, but it seems to be a favourite expression of the blab it and grab it crowd. Bob Tilton used to use it quite frequently on his show before he got caught by ABC News. I can barely watch this week's telethon without laughing. How can people even believe this stuff? The lack of discernment is beyond depressing. I pray those who are watching will actually read their Bibles and see the so-called "Word of Faith" for what it is. Little gods? Jesus died spiritually? Sowing seed? It was the late Charles Farah, I think it was, who said the Word of Faith was more about presumption than faith. Going beyond that, it's incredible to see these people saying that sickness is a product of sin and lack of faith. There is no question that in some cases, the mental and spiritual can have an effect on the physical. But Jesus also told us that those of us who are sick need a physician (Matthew 9:12) -- not a televangelist. I happen to think that we should pray that we prosper and be healthy but we can't presume that God will just give it to us because we've bought Him out. I've written it on this board before but I'll say it again, I'd rather give some of my spare money to a faith based group that helps in the community (such as the Salvation Army or a rescue mission), than a group that says God's blessings are for the taking if we just "sow our faith." As we pray for mercy we're supposed to render the deeds of mercy to the less fortunate -- and you don't hear about that all that much on TMC, 100 Huntley Street, etc. About US
Authored by: Blinkety on
Thursday, January 29 2009 @ 01:50 AM CST
Marina
-
Actually, throughout Jesus’ life, He was never called “Immanuel”. Marina, while it's true that there are many people by the name of Immanuel I believe this is referring to a position, rather than a name. There are many names for Jesus in the Bible. These generally describe some aspect of Him or His character and are not necessarily names that He is addressed by.eg. The Branch, Root of Jesse. Marina- wouldn’t a name like, “Abiah”, which means, “God is my father”, have been a much more appropriate name for the Son of God? Perhaps God was trying to convey a certain point in a pattern that pleased Him. Have you heard about the Bible Codes? (in Grant Jeffrey's book "The Signature of God") God has hidden intricate messages in the O.T. that they are finding out by taking for eg. every 50th letter in certain books or perhaps every 3rd letter. These many hidden codes have relevance for today. If God had used Abiah obviously the code wouldn't have worked. Let's just say He's smarter than the lot of us. Marina- The argument in relating the Isaiah passage to Jesus breaks down further because it says that the mother “shall call his name Immanuel”. You are correct that nothing is recorded about Mary saying that. That doesn't mean she never acknowledged it. In Luke 1:35 the angel tells Mary that the Holy Spirit will come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her and for that reason the holy offspring would be called the son of God. I suspect she would have acknowledged that in private. I can't imagine in that culture a young virgin girl who was pregnant shouting that on the housetops. But she knew she had been visited by an angel, knew that she was pregnant and had asked how this could happen since she had not been with a man. She must have known that it was a miraculous conception. But it's highly unlikely that people in her little town would have accepted that as fact. There are some things Mary pondered in her heart. Marina- The NRSV bible also uses the words “young woman” rather than virgin. One would think Isaiah would have used this much more specific word to announce in no uncertain terms that it will be a virgin who gives birth to the Messiah centuries later. This would have obviously avoided much confusion. Almah can mean virgin or young woman. God reveals things in His way and I have to believe He had a purpose in using that word. I think He rather enjoys making us dig and search. Proverbs 25:2 says "it is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honor of kings to search it out." Rev 1:6 says He "has made us kings and priests to God and His Father." BTW, who would God be in this context if not Jesus? Besides when you compare scripture with scripture, as in the Luke account it is obvious that Mary had not known a man. Marina- But, as problematic as all that may seem, there is an even bigger problem when relating the Isa 7:14 passage to the birth of Jesus, and that is the whole context of his message – who was Isaiah speaking to and what was the immediate situation that invoked this prophecy? It is quite clear that this prophetic word was fulfilled long before the birth of Jesus and that the writer of Matthew (or an interpolator) deceptively connected the two events. If you read the whole chapter you will see that at the time, two rival armies were threatening to besiege Judah, and king Ahaz was getting nervous about the imminent threat. So along comes Isaiah with a word from the Lord that this attack will not happen and that the enemy armies will be disbanded. To confirm this, Isaiah tells Ahaz to ask for a sign from God. Although Ahaz initially refuses to “test” the Lord by asking for a sign, Isaiah tells him that the sign shall be when a “young woman” gives birth to a son, and before the child is old enough to be able to know good from evil, Judah’s enemies will no longer have a grip on the land. If you read on into chapter 8, it is most likely that Isaiah’s prophecy/sign is fulfilled in verses 3 and 4. Marina, I don't know if you can accept this or not, but I believe there are many scriptures with dual (or more) fulfillments. This would fall into this category. I do hope you ask God the Holy Spirit to reveal truth to you when you read the Bible. If you just try to understand it with your intellect alone, you're likely going to miss the meaning. Marina- No one ever called Jesus, nor did He ever refer to Himself as, the “mighty God”, “Wonderful Counsellor”, etc. in the gospel accounts. Perhaps not, but millions have since that time. And the Holy Spirit, the Counselor is the spirit of Christ. Marina- Shouldn’t the simple truths of a sacred manuscript that carry such magnitude of consequence be as plain and unambiguous as possible? Unfortunately, the bible contains hundreds of contradictions and mistranslations I'm curious Marina, if you see all these contradictions, why do you keep looking in the Bible and even give it the time of day? Frankly I believe that some of the so-called contradictions should be able to stand up to scrutiny if examined by people who know the original context, languages. There may not be so many contradictions if all those things are known. You're never going to know it all. It's more important to know the One who inspired holy men of old to speak forth, under Holy Spirit unction, the scriptures. If you just believe some old codgers wrote down a story you're not going to get it. Romans 10:13 (NIV) "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." OR Matthew 7:21 (NIV) "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord,
Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven.” Marina- I love this question
because I can actually tell you the answer. Michael Rood used to be a
Messianic teacher on Miracle Channel. He explained it and I took note: I believe this is also a point worth considering. History tells us that most pagan religions in the Mediterranean region in the ancient world also featured their founder and/or saviour as having been born of a virgin. It seems as if by late in the first century, early Christians assimilated the common and familiar doctrine of virgin birth by mistranslating, into Greek, the original Hebrew passage in Isaiah, in order to be competitive with other contemporary religions in gaining new converts. This I didn't know but it shouldn't surprise anybody. Satan manages to counterfeit pretty well everything that God does. am just a person with a
lifelong hunger for truth, looking for answers other than the shallow, “God
said it, I believe it, that settles it!”. I applaud you if you are truly looking for
truth. Jesus Himself claimed to be the Truth. I used to have a long
list of questions and brought it to my pastor many years ago. I had
so many doubts too. It wouldn't have mattered how he answered I would
have more questions. At some point the major things have to be
decided. Is Jesus the Son of God as the scripture says? Did He come
in the flesh as it says? If so, then you need to submit (awful word
that means He becomes Lord of your life) your will and life to Him (it
was a big fight for me). When I finally made the decision, I can't
tell you what peace came to me. I still have questions but now I
tackle them from the perspective of knowing Him. He rescued me. He
changed my heart. He gave me His awesome love. His love came to me
one evening and entirely changed me and gave me a new understanding of
both Him and myself. It was a life changing encounter in the solitude
of my bedroom that totally changed the direction of my life many years
ago. Kenneth Copeland or Benny Hinn, - Marina-If you want to see for yourself how the bible, both
Old and New Testament, are used by people who have something to gain by taking
scripture out of context, contorting the meaning of clear passages and ignoring
other parts of the bible that don’t support what they are doing and saying,
just tune into the next Miracle Channel fundraiser.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| Copyright © 2010 The Miracle Channel Review All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. |
Powered By Geeklog Created this page in 0.71 seconds |