Is everyone equal in heaven?

[yearofthenick]

Originally Posted by Flower
http:///forum/post/3111275
Original Christianity was in fact Judaism, they believed Yeshua (Jesus) was the promised Messiah, that and allowing Gentiles to worship and eat with them was the only difference. I am a Christian according to those standards.
I just want to clarify what you mean... when you say "Original Christianity," you mean those who were followers of The Way... right? They were converted Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah.
Pretty much after the book of Acts, there was a line drawn where those who were Jewish were the ones that rejected Jesus as the Messiah. When Paul spoke, however, he did say that the Holy Spirit was for the Jew (and then for the Gentile - I can get into that later if you want), which basically means he was telling the Jews they were version 1.0 and The Way was version 2.0, designed specifically for them (and eventually the Gentiles too).
To this day, Judaism is still OT stuff. Jewish people do not accept Jesus as their Messiah. The word "Christianity" has been so horribly bastardized by modern cultures that I don't feel comfortable calling myself that either. Come to think of it, aside from being "A Believer in Jesus," I wouldn't know what to call myself......
Except perhaps a member of the Ekklesia, which very simply means a member of the church that will stand for Jesus. You see it in greek language as "Church" but it actually means a "called out assembly" of people who wanted to seek the truth about their beliefs. To give a modern example, if a pastor at a church decided that his/her church should start dancing with poisonous snakes, the members would call an "ekklesia" to study the scriptures and really hammer out if that's what God is calling them to do and move forward based upon what they found in the truth of the Gospel. Kind of a neat idea.
P.S. If I ever started a church, that's what I would call it... Ekklesia Church. I have to admit that it's not an original idea though... there are already plenty of churches out there who call themselves Ekklesia. They're usually pretty grounded in the bible and it's teachings.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Flower
http:///forum/post/3111462
You never mess with the Mezuzah, we are commanded to write the commandments on the doorposts of our houses and gates. The scroll inside is written in Hebrew and very expensive. The Mezuzah is the container of the commandment written on the scroll that you attach to the door.
Some believe to have it attached prevents evil from entering the house. Some believe that when a righteous person is very sick and about to die, you remove the mezuzah so death can enter. Death nor evil can enter the home of the righteous who post the mezuzah as commanded.
So you did very bad to remove it.
Reminds me of the movie The Ten Commandments. So instead of lambs blood on the doorstep during Passover, you nail your version of those 'commandments' on the door to ward off Death? Yet another part of the Jewish religion I don't understand.
So what do you do with your Mezuzah when you move? Do you leave it there to protect the next resident that lives there, and 'create' another one for your new home, or do you take it with you wherever you go? Can you even leave it because the next person may not be Jewish, and someone that doesn't believe in Jewish tenets is not worthy to have one? I expect that will be your answer, since you've already stated anyone who is not Jewish is considered 'less a person' in the rankings of religious faith.

 

[flower]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3111779
Reminds me of the movie The Ten Commandments. So instead of lambs blood on the doorstep during Passover, you nail your version of those 'commandments' on the door to ward off Death? Yet another part of the Jewish religion I don't understand.
So what do you do with your Mezuzah when you move? Do you leave it there to protect the next resident that lives there, and 'create' another one for your new home, or do you take it with you wherever you go? Can you even leave it because the next person may not be Jewish, and someone that doesn't believe in Jewish tenets is not worthy to have one? I expect that will be your answer, since you've already stated anyone who is not Jewish is considered 'less a person' in the rankings of religious faith.
No, you remove the Mezuzah and take it with you to the next home you live in. The next resident may not be Torah observant, and may defile the Holy Scroll inside by tossing it in the garbage. The scroll must be treated with such care because it contains the name of G-d written in Hebrew, the original language of the Torah.
It is not to ward off death, I said some believe that.
The Mezuzah is simply a case to hold the scroll. We are commanded to attach the commandments to our doorposts and gates. The Mezuzah protects the scroll from the wear and tear of being exposed. The commandment to not take the name of G-d in vain is why the Holy Name is never defiled.
Anything with the name on it is buried with a righteous person, it is never burned or destroyed out of respect for his name. That is not so hard to understand.

 

[flower]

Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/3111707
I just want to clarify what you mean... when you say "Original Christianity," you mean those who were followers of The Way... right? They were converted Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah.
Pretty much after the book of Acts, there was a line drawn where those who were Jewish were the ones that rejected Jesus as the Messiah. When Paul spoke, however, he did say that the Holy Spirit was for the Jew (and then for the Gentile - I can get into that later if you want), which basically means he was telling the Jews they were version 1.0 and The Way was version 2.0, designed specifically for them (and eventually the Gentiles too).
To this day, Judaism is still OT stuff. Jewish people do not accept Jesus as their Messiah. The word "Christianity" has been so horribly bastardized by modern cultures that I don't feel comfortable calling myself that either. Come to think of it, aside from being "A Believer in Jesus," I wouldn't know what to call myself......
Except perhaps a member of the Ekklesia, which very simply means a member of the church that will stand for Jesus. You see it in greek language as "Church" but it actually means a "called out assembly" of people who wanted to seek the truth about their beliefs. To give a modern example, if a pastor at a church decided that his/her church should start dancing with poisonous snakes, the members would call an "ekklesia" to study the scriptures and really hammer out if that's what God is calling them to do and move forward based upon what they found in the truth of the Gospel. Kind of a neat idea.
P.S. If I ever started a church, that's what I would call it... Ekklesia Church. I have to admit that it's not an original idea though... there are already plenty of churches out there who call themselves Ekklesia. They're usually pretty grounded in the bible and it's teachings.
I am afraid you have so many misconceptions…I don’t even know where to start…
What Paul, a very religious and observant Jew wrote, and what Modern Christianity thinks he taught, are as far apart as night is to the day.
Here is an example:
Think on the eagle…what comes to mind? In America the eagle is majestic, and strong.
This following verse is used by Christians to show that the righteous are going to fly away to heaven and be with Jesus.
Luke 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Luke 17:35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 17:37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.
What eagle means in Hebrew thought is a vulture…now go and reread the verse you thought you understood. Jesus was teaching that the wicked are removed and the vultures circle the dead. Nothing at all about flying away to be with Jesus.
To Americans…the lion is a kingly beast…So what comes to mind when you read..the lion of the tribe of Judah? Because throughout the entire Bible the lion is death and destruction..it is never a symbol of a king anywhere.
Jewish thinking is not Western thought. We read the same verses, but you come up with an entirely different meaning. The author was a religious Jew..so that should be your mindset.

 

[reefforbrains]

And never forget when hanging it, to always hang it crooked. I at least remember this much. I bet I can still recite the prayer all these years later.
Also point the top slightly in towards the inside of your home.

 

[flower]

Religion has been debated for centuries, we fight a religious war in Iraq right now. So in conclusion…I submit the following….
James 2:17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
James 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
James 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder.
James 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren?
James 2:21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
James 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works.
James 2:23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God.
James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
James 2:25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road?
James 2:26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.

 

[reefforbrains]

But Flower. To someone outside the church your quotes while heartfelt are pointless as they are as if quoting any other book.
Great intentions but fruitless to recite to a believer of different roads.
The tone and softness will not come through my message but I can quote many people I have met at different points in my life that have made great sense...but were not to be considered enlightened beyond my vantage point at the time.
The impass is there. Believe that you will NOT budge the rock you are determined to break yourself upon. Be happy and enjoy your life but quoting scripture just falls on deaf ears. Deaf through rebellion, or deaf through enlightenment that the path different than yours is correct for them. Deaf none the less.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Flower
http:///forum/post/3111869
I am afraid you have so many misconceptions…I don’t even know where to start…
What Paul, a very religious and observant Jew wrote, and what Modern Christianity thinks he taught, are as far apart as night is to the day.
Here is an example:
Think on the eagle…what comes to mind? In America the eagle is majestic, and strong.
This following verse is used by Christians to show that the righteous are going to fly away to heaven and be with Jesus.
Luke 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Luke 17:35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 17:37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.
What eagle means in Hebrew thought is a vulture…now go and reread the verse you thought you understood. Jesus was teaching that the wicked are removed and the vultures circle the dead. Nothing at all about flying away to be with Jesus.
To Americans…the lion is a kingly beast…So what comes to mind when you read..the lion of the tribe of Judah? Because throughout the entire Bible the lion is death and destruction..it is never a symbol of a king anywhere.
Jewish thinking is not Western thought. We read the same verses, but you come up with an entirely different meaning. The author was a religious Jew..so that should be your mindset.
This is one of the fallacies of the bible. You have admitted that Jews and Christians intepret the passages in this book in totally different ways. So whose version do you believe? All the 20,000 counts of 'hearing' Jesus could in fact just be different interpretations of the name. There could have been thousands of guys during that time whose name translated to Jesus just because of the language barriers.
At least I can see where the h0m0sectual references come from the bible. 'Two men in one bed'? 'Two women shall be 'grinding' together? Are these two women in bed, or are they making coffee?

 

[flower]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3111907
This is one of the fallacies of the bible. You have admitted that Jews and Christians intepret the passages in this book in totally different ways. So whose version do you believe? All the 20,000 counts of 'hearing' Jesus could in fact just be different interpretations of the name. There could have been thousands of guys during that time whose name translated to Jesus just because of the language barriers.
At least I can see where the h0m0sectual references come from the bible. 'Two men in one bed'? 'Two women shall be 'grinding' together? Are these two women in bed, or are they making coffee?

I am so sorry…I didn’t realize you were of THAT persuasion. LOL…It has been ages since anyone twisted the writings that bad. If a religious Jew wrote the letter or book…than that is the mindset to reach for if you really want to understand the author.

 

[flower]

Originally Posted by ReefForBrains
http:///forum/post/3111896
But Flower. To someone outside the church your quotes while heartfelt are pointless as they are as if quoting any other book.
Great intentions but fruitless to recite to a believer of different roads.
The tone and softness will not come through my message but I can quote many people I have met at different points in my life that have made great sense...but were not to be considered enlightened beyond my vantage point at the time.
The impass is there. Believe that you will NOT budge the rock you are determined to break yourself upon. Be happy and enjoy your life but quoting scripture just falls on deaf ears. Deaf through rebellion, or deaf through enlightenment that the path different than yours is correct for them. Deaf none the less.

You are such a sweetie…I know I can’t make headway. I knew that from the very start. It has been years since I even bothered to try. There people all over who really haven’t even given stuff like this a thought, maybe it will get them thinking. Maybe it can cause someone to look hard at their beliefs and study a bit deeper.
There have been a few here who really have tried to quote scripture and look some things up. Bless them all, even the silly ones who think they learned nothing at all. Ah well…back to talking about fish and ocean critters. I quite enjoyed this little friendly debate.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Flower
http:///forum/post/3111930

I am so sorry…I didn’t realize you were of THAT persuasion. LOL…It has been ages since anyone twisted the writings that bad. If a religious Jew wrote the letter or book…than that is the mindset to reach for if you really want to understand the author.
What 'persuasion' is that? It's just an interpretation using present day thinking. What's sad about your attitude on the subject is you actually think any other religion besides Judaism is baseless, and unless you look at the bible in 'the eyes of a Jew', you obviously don't understand its meaning. Pretty arrogant attitude in the 'eyes of a non-believer'. You may deny it, but it is quite apparent in the tone of your replys.

 

[yearofthenick]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3112154
What 'persuasion' is that? It's just an interpretation using present day thinking. What's sad about your attitude on the subject is you actually think any other religion besides Judaism is baseless, and unless you look at the bible in 'the eyes of a Jew', you obviously don't understand its meaning. Pretty arrogant attitude in the 'eyes of a non-believer'. You may deny it, but it is quite apparent in the tone of your replys.
But that's just the nature of those in the Judaic faith. I still have yet to come across a Jewish person who doesn't think he/she is better/smarter/more 'blessed' than everyone else.

 

[yearofthenick]

Originally Posted by Flower
http:///forum/post/3111869
I am afraid you have so many misconceptions…I don’t even know where to start…
What Paul, a very religious and observant Jew wrote, and what Modern Christianity thinks he taught, are as far apart as night is to the day.
Here is an example:
Think on the eagle…what comes to mind? In America the eagle is majestic, and strong.
This following verse is used by Christians to show that the righteous are going to fly away to heaven and be with Jesus.
Luke 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Luke 17:35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luke 17:37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.
What eagle means in Hebrew thought is a vulture…now go and reread the verse you thought you understood. Jesus was teaching that the wicked are removed and the vultures circle the dead. Nothing at all about flying away to be with Jesus.
To Americans…the lion is a kingly beast…So what comes to mind when you read..the lion of the tribe of Judah? Because throughout the entire Bible the lion is death and destruction..it is never a symbol of a king anywhere.
Jewish thinking is not Western thought. We read the same verses, but you come up with an entirely different meaning. The author was a religious Jew..so that should be your mindset.
You know what's funny? You say that I am wrong on so many levels, and then you go off talking about allegory in the scriptures. It's completely unrelated to what I'm trying to say. Are we having the same conversation? seriously dude, this is like the 4th time we've had an exchange that totally goes into left field.
By the way, your quotes are KJV, right? IF you check other translations (Like, oh I don't know... NIV? NASB? Heard of them? The most popular translations in modern society?) they don't use the word "eagle"... they use the word "vulture." Sorry dude, this particular tangent doesn't have much ground.

 

[uneverno]

Ah, the vagaries of translating one dead language into an archaic language into another dead language into King James (archaic) English into modern English, let alone the political pressure of appeasing the Kings (or Caesars, or Popes) along the way...
It's tough enough to translate modern into modern, as anyone who owns a piece of electronic equipment made in Asia knows.
Let's try to glean 3,000 year old context from a 5,000+ year old language which has not only been dead for 2,000 years, but interestingly, doesn't use vowels in print...
And nothing got lost or changed in translation along the way?
I'm not saying anything's right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate - I'm saying there's ample room for speculation.

 

[tangman99]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3112223
Ah, the vagaries of translating one dead language into an archaic language into another dead language into King James (archaic) English into modern English, let alone the political pressure of appeasing the Kings (or Caesars, or Popes) along the way...
It's tough enough to translate modern into modern, as anyone who owns a piece of electronic equipment made in Asia knows.
Let's try to glean 3,000 year old context from a 5,000+ year old language which has not only been dead for 2,000 years, but interestingly, doesn't use vowels in print...
And nothing got lost or changed in translation along the way?
I'm not saying anything's right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate - I'm saying there's ample room for speculation.
Very well said and probably the most useful post in this whole thread in terms of being something that most everyone would have to agree upon.
I'm no expert in religion so I don't pretend to be. There are obviously some very intelligent people on the subject posting in this board, but they even support a big part of the argument on a small scale. They are very knowledgeable but do not agree. Both can't be right.
You can almost say that even the most prominent religions today are "man made" in the sense that it was a person who disagreed with something base on their own interpretation that split off and started another religion or branch of the same religion. Sort of how the catholics refer to the protestants as the split P's. When they don't agree they split and start their own form of the religion which I once heard a reference of being over 28,000 now.
Whether you believe in evolution or creation, you have to agree that at some point there was only two people or at least a single group that shared the same beliefs if they had a language at that time. We also know that it is human nature to want to get ahead so it doesn't take long for someone to disagree and a separation occur. Some go one way, some go the other. You made this decision base on which you thought was correct and each wanting to be right would have to influence the others. Whether this be over a God, the Sun, Moon or what side of a mountain to live on, the pattern is the same.

 

[flower]

Originally Posted by TangMan99
http:///forum/post/3112634
Very well said and probably the most useful post in this whole thread in terms of being something that most everyone would have to agree upon.
I'm no expert in religion so I don't pretend to be. There are obviously some very intelligent people on the subject posting in this board, but they even support a big part of the argument on a small scale. They are very knowledgeable but do not agree. Both can't be right.
You can almost say that even the most prominent religions today are "man made" in the sense that it was a person who disagreed with something base on their own interpretation that split off and started another religion or branch of the same religion. Sort of how the catholics refer to the protestants as the split P's. When they don't agree they split and start their own form of the religion which I once heard a reference of being over 28,000 now.
Whether you believe in evolution or creation, you have to agree that at some point there was only two people or at least a single group that shared the same beliefs if they had a language at that time. We also know that it is human nature to want to get ahead so it doesn't take long for someone to disagree and a separation occur. Some go one way, some go the other. You made this decision base on which you thought was correct and each wanting to be right would have to influence the others. Whether this be over a God, the Sun, Moon or what side of a mountain to live on, the pattern is the same.
Originally Posted by uneverno
"Ah, the vagaries of translating one dead language into an archaic language into another dead language into King James (archaic) English into modern English, let alone the political pressure of appeasing the Kings (or Caesars, or Popes) along the way..."
I have to chime in…Hebrew is not a dead language…every practicing Jewish child learns to read and speak ancient Hebrew from the Torah scroll. Boys 12 yrs old and girls at 13
If you want to know what the original scrolls are saying…like me…learn to read Hebrew.

 

[mantisman51]

I was taught only from KJV and have always been told the reference of the eagles was about vultures by another name and was under the impression all Christians and Jews knew it. Bionic, the King James translators used the original Aramaic writings, rather than the very flawed Latin writings. And (again) they risked their lives to transliterate rather than interpret. King James wanted the provision on adultury and fornication removed to justify his divorce and remarriage. The translators refused, risking their lives, to save the integrity of the text. Your lack of Bible history is showing. Flower, you need to quit believing everything the JDL is feeding you.

 

[t316]

If we were not interested in religion, to some level or degree, none of us would be on here posting. So I don't think that this discussion is bad. If you are "wondering" what's out there, or questioning these things, then you have to start somewhere. I don't like the bashing of one religion over another, or one person's belief's over another's, but discussion will help bring you closer to your own conclusions. I know where I stand, but in Scouts, I cannot push my views, or my God, rather I just have to impress upon them that there is a higher being. I respect that.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Flower
http:///forum/post/3112649
Originally Posted by uneverno
"Ah, the vagaries of translating one dead language into an archaic language into another dead language into King James (archaic) English into modern English, let alone the political pressure of appeasing the Kings (or Caesars, or Popes) along the way..."
I have to chime in…Hebrew is not a dead language…every practicing Jewish child learns to read and speak ancient Hebrew from the Torah scroll. Boys 12 yrs old and girls at 13
If you want to know what the original scrolls are saying…like me…learn to read Hebrew.
Hebrew is the only dead language to have been resurrected. To compare modern Hebrew to the ancient is equivalent to comparing today's English with that of Chaucer. It's a tough read, even if you can understand it, and context is extremely difficult to ascertain w/ positivity. Even Shakespeare's English, which is much closer to today's, is difficult and that was only 500 years ago. Now multiply that by 10.
The ability to read an archaic language, and to understand the context within which it was written are two very different things. Idioms, in particular, don't stand the test of time.
(Just as a trivial aside, while Jesus' native language was Aramaic, the New Testament was originally written in the language of the eastern Roman Empire, which was Greek.)

 

[mantisman51]

See my last post. I addressed it to Bionic, but I meant you unever.