James 2:18, "I will show you my faith by my works".
Demons apparently have faith, and yet they apparently shutter as well (James 2:19).
"Christian" "faith" is not all it is built up to be. They all die, and in general, among the walking dead.
Keep the sabbath holy
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
- Status
James 2:18, "I will show you my faith by my works".
Demons apparently have faith, and yet they apparently shutter as well (James 2:19).
"Christian" "faith" is not all it is built up to be. They all die, and in general, among the walking dead.
Right. You reject Paulusm in favour of Jamesism? And so the question has to follow: What are your works? Are your own works enough to save you?
Sorry, but it's automatic?
EDIT
You've obviously invested a lot and thought deeply about the question. So I ask it with respect
I like the Epistle of James. I like the qualities it encourages the reader to develop.
Of course, it may speak differently to me than to a believer, in some passages.
I appreciate the third chapter in particular.
Which James do you think authored it, @2ndpillar? The son of Zebedee? James the Just? Or the brother of Jesus? Or simply someone called Yaakov, as it was likely a popular name in that time and place?
Of course, it may speak differently to me than to a believer, in some passages.
I appreciate the third chapter in particular.
Which James do you think authored it, @2ndpillar? The son of Zebedee? James the Just? Or the brother of Jesus? Or simply someone called Yaakov, as it was likely a popular name in that time and place?
No, I don't think so, and if you'd be willing to debate the issue, I think I can demonstrate that.
Again, your opinion is not proof of anything.
Now, if you want to return to the question I asked, about Paul's faith, I'm here when you are ready.
Ah, once again, a reference to a text taken out of context.
I assume you mean the references in Acts 2 and Acts 4? It seems you're reading rather more than what the text says. No-one was compelled to sell anything, it rather comes across as a spontaneous act of communal generosity. and there's no mention of Peter 'compelling', I'm afraid your 'apparently' is an attempt to stain someone's character by unfounded insinuation. Furthermore the gifts given up were not for Peter's benefit, but rather: "Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need." (2:45) and "For neither was there any one needy among them. For as many as were owners of lands or houses, sold them, and brought the price of the things they sold, And laid it down before the feet of the apostles. And distribution was made to every one, according as he had need." (4:34-35).
So shame on you.
,
The "works" that Yeshua did were in line with the will of his Father. Those who do the will of God are the children of God. Paul's followers think they are "saved" by following the rules of Paul. Well, Paul is dead, and while living, he had to suffer from a present given to him by Satan (2 Cor 12:7). My observations are that all followers of Paul have their own presents/messengers from Satan. Yeshua will slay the nations with his "sharp sword" from his mouth, his tongue, or in other words, the Word of God/Scripture. (Revelation 19:15). Followers of Paul have no such resource, for Scripture without the Spirit of God is not a "sharp" sword, but a dull blunt instrument. As for the "elect", well, while they may be deceived for a while, they get pulled out of the fire in the end. The "wicked"/lawless rant until their end, and will presumable join their leader, the false prophet (Revelation 20:10), except that the false prophet and the devil can not die.
What is important is what was written. As for your earlier question as to the Sabbath, I will try and quote the 4th commandment below.
Bible reference - Exodus 20:8-11: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”
I don't think Yeshua said sell your possessions and give to the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:17, who is Peter, but he did say sell and give to the poor if you want to become perfect. Peter's supposed heir, the pope, took money from widows and built a monument to Peter, the Saint Peter's cathedral. No, giving to churches, of either Peter or Paul, is a waste of resources, even if not making a true account will supposedly end in death, such as in the case of Annias. "Communal generosity", doesn't mean sell "all" your possessions and give to some apostle of the Gentiles, who of course have requirements/needs of their own, and have access to the funds to fulfill those needs. It is doubtful that Peter's supposed heir, the pope goes hungry, or is without shelter. As for Paul's protestant clergy, they rarely are found out in the cold. Their needs seem to overly met in some cases. What, does Franklin Graham receive around $350,000 per year to run his charity for the poor? I think the clergy takes care of themselves, and are rarely found "perfect".
Do you go hungry or without shelter?
Where the Catholic Church money actually goes. Repeat posting, because you seem to have missed it?
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/february-17th-2017/a-worldwide-force-for-good/
... The Church operates more than 140,000 schools, 10,000 orphanages, 5,000 hospitals and some 16,000 other health clinics. Caritas, the umbrella organisation for Catholic aid agencies, estimates that spending by its affiliates totals between £2 billion and £4 billion, making it one of the biggest aid agencies in the world.
Even these numbers only tell half the tale. Caritas does not include development spending by a host of religious orders and other Catholic charities, while most of the 200,000 Catholic parishes around the world operate their own small-scale charitable projects which are never picked up in official figures. Establishing like-for-like comparisons is hard, but there can be little doubt that in pretty much every field of social action, from education to health to social care, the Church is the largest and most significant non-state organisation in the world....
https://m.csmonitor.com/World/Afric...e-against-AIDS-a-key-player-hits-a-crossroads
... Catholic Church administers 25 percent of all AIDS treatment worldwide, especially in hard-to-reach rural areas. But it's facing new obstacles as funding declines and African governments are under pressure to provide services themselves...
https://www.johnbradburne.com/
He was shot, murdered for his work. He was one of thousands of Catholic missionaries working in the most dangerous and difficult places with the most helpless and lost of people, whose own governments have abandoned them.
So I'm just trying to see how you are finding Satan and the whore of Babylon here?
So I'm just trying to see how you are finding Satan and the whore of Babylon here?
Last edited:
And the gospel of Paul is in line with the Revelation of the Son.
Well this is just nonsense. There are no such 'rules'.
Here's the thing: Where does Scripture say the early community gave their wealth to Peter who grew rich thereby?
Nowhere. Quite the opposite, in fact. So your assertion is founded on a fantasy of your own conjuring.
Where does Scripture say that the worthless shepherd is Peter? Nowhere. People have been 'identifying' who's who in such prophecies for millennia, and every era has its favourites.
The truth is: No-one knows.
But we know it simply can't be Peter. He doesn't tick the boxes spoken of in Zechariah, in Daniel, in the Book of Revelation, so I can only assume you've chosen Peter beforehand, and then look for anything to 'prove' your assumption, and dismiss the rest.
The Bible shows that Peter proved his worth. Read Acts. When did the Spirit of God descend upon anybody not a direct disciple? When Peter preached of the Cross and the Resurrection ... so go figure ... without Peter (and without Paul) it's likely there would never have been a Church, and you would never have heard of Christ.
The gospel of Paul, is the gospel of grace/cross. The gospel of Yeshua is the gospel of the kingdom of heaven. These are two antithetical gospels. As for Paul and the "Revelation" of the son, Paul never heard a word Yeshua spoke, in spite of the varied writing of some unknown author which describes and angel of light blinding and deafening any potential witnesses. Keep in mind it is Paul who says Satan/devil comes as an angel of light.
The gospel of Paul is that you simply believe that Yeshua is Christ and you are saved, or call on the Lord to be saved. Nonsense. The false prophet and his minions of Matthew 7:22 called on the "Lord", and he said "I never knew you.. you who practice lawlessness. The demons know that for a fact that Yeshua was anointed (Christ), yet now they are in an uproar because their time is coming to an end whereas they will be locked up in the abyss with Satan/devil (Revelation 20:1-3). During that same period, those with the "mark of the beast" will perish (Revelation 19:20-21).
Who said Peter grew rich? As a member of his socialist type community, he had access to whatever he needed. Socialist communities are generally poor and generally fail. Probably why you don't sell all your property and give it to Peter's supposed heir, the pope. Catholic widows on the other hand often think indulgences are real, and they think that what shekels they may have could go to pay off their sins. And Peter does fit the mold of Zechariah. Yeshua quoted Zechariah 13:7 with respect to Peter's denial of knowing Yeshua (Matthew 26:31). Per Zechariah 11, there were 3 shepherds/apostles chosen who were to die in the same month/generation. One of those shepherds/apostles was identified in Matthew 27:19 as Judas Iscariot by noting a quote from Zechariah 11:13, with the note that the quote was attributed to Jeremiah, which of course had no such quote. The other shepherd listed as being called "Favor"/Paul, who was to break my covenant which I had made with all the peoples, which would be the covenant made with Abraham, the covenant of circumcision. Note that Abraham means "father of all the people". Peter had a "sword" on "his right arm" in which he cut of the ear of a servant (Zechariah 11:17). Yeshua told Peter to feed, care and tend the sheep, and Zechariah 11:16 says the 3rd shepherd/apostle/Peter, would not tend, feed, or care for the sheep, just as Peter said he would not deny Christ, yet denied him 3 times. There is more, but long discourse is generally of limited value.
Without Peter and Paul, the Roman "Christian" church initiated by Constantine, the beast of Revelation 13:11, would have have not been established. Yeshua came to fulfill the Law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17), and one of those prophesies was to pick 3 shepherds, one of which was the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:17. Keep in mind one of the first things Constantine (7th head of the beast) did, besides establishing the false trinity doctrine, was to build basilicas for both Peter and Paul. Basilicas are buildings in the form of the pagan cross. Constantine was big on the cross, and went out to conquer under that sign given to him by Sol Invictus in 312 AD in a vision. The Conquistadors followed this same procedure when they followed clerics holding a cross when destroying the natives of the Americas. Once the natives were conquered, they were used as slaves in the gold mining operations. You will find the cross in or on many of your "Christian" churches. Believing the message of the cross/grace will supposedly save you from death, and is the same message of the serpent, whereas he said, "you surely shall not die"(Genesis 3:4) if you believe what I say, and just go ahead and eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Of course, like Paul and his followers, Adam and Eve eventually died.
Good Lord! You know this whole conversation reminds me of a skit they did on "Hee Haw" years ago. Teacher asks the class what 2+2 equals. Everyone in the class answers 4 except for one kid in the back who insists 2 and 2 is 22.... 
Good Lord! You know this whole conversation reminds me of a skit they did on "Hee Haw" years ago. Teacher asks the class what 2+2 equals. Everyone in the class answers 4 except for one kid in the back who insists 2 and 2 is 22....
Namaste is a Hindu greeting mean "I bow to you"/giving respect to others. Jesus is a Greek based name used in Christianity, and "Christians" call him Lord. Chai/tea comes from China. Indra/Sakra is lord of the Hindu 33 gods. How do these 4 things add up, or is just the imagery of a mixed up life?
This is very telling that you do not understand what this forum is about.
It's time you reviewed our Code of Conduct and decided if you really want to participate here.
Miken
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 110
- Points
- 43
Namaste is a word in the Hindi language. It is not a religious term unique to Hinduism. Hindi is not Hindu.
Jesus is derived from Ἰησοῦς which is a Greek approximation of the Aramaic ישוע
This is probably pronounced eeso, although it is debatable how closely the no longer spoken Galilean Aramaic resembles Eastern Syriac.
Chai is of course 'life' in Hebrew. Is that the extent of your Googling skills?
And why are you asking Namaste Jesus about Indra? You should be asking Aupmanyav. Or is this the result of Googling Hindu instead of Hindi?
Last edited:
Did Namaste loose their tongue? I doubt if they wrote "enjoy the life" (enjoy the chai). The common and most likely meaning of "chai" would be for tea. In which the phrase means enjoy the tea, which is how she probably enjoys her life by drinking tea. A tradition born in China. Namaste means respect those who they are meeting/greeting. Since Namaste's note was not done with respect, but with an attitude of denigration, I would suspect that could be a problem. As they wrote "Praise the Lord", and the Lord of the Hindus is a pagan god, there is some confusion as to what Lord/god Namaste follows. As "Jesus" is a word that didn't exist before the 16th century, as that is when the letter J was introduced, your language juggling is only a circus act. Yeshua means YHWH saves, or that God saves, or the Lord is salvation, much in the manner Isaiah means "Yahweh is salvation". Unfortunately for the Christian and Hindu beliefs, Yeshua is not Yahweh, and while there are multiple gods, such as Satan, the sun god, there is only one Yahweh. The word Jesus means nothing. It is a construct of men and will neither save nor heal you. And Syriac would more closely resemble Aramaic than would be a Latin-Greek-English translation. You are not going to be saved believing in the name "Jesus", or calling him Lord Lord (Matthew 7:22). In fact you will only find his disdain, as he will say "I never knew you". Your so called scholarship seems to be leading you into the depths of George Orwell's twisting of language. The better translation of Jesus from Latin would be "earth pig". Somewhat along the lines of Titus, Pompey, and Antiochus offering pigs to their gods at the Jerusalem Temple, or a primary chose of "Christians" to eat when thanking God at Thanksgiving. As for Hindi, it is the official language of India, which is predominately Hindu, which worships many gods, whose chief lord is Indra.
You take yourself way to seriously. Isn't an atheist mystic an oxymoron? Throwing veiled threats seem to be the common modus operandi around here. The topic is "the sabbath day". I addressed the topic and gave reasons why the "sabbath day" is no longer held holy. The response has been obstruction, veiled threats and denigration without reputable reason. From my viewpoint, a broad path to destruction Matthew 7:13.
Taking myself seriously: I am an admin here, so the welfare of this forum is close to my heart. I also do some moderating. Serious enough?
Atheist mysticism: a topic for its own thread, I'll be glad to discuss and debate. Just start one if it interests you.
Veiled threats: Nothing veiled about my request to you to review the Code of Conduct, or any other moderator actions I may have performed more discreetly. You can behave yourself like everyone else.
- Status