The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Justice Hog wrote:

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

Justice Hog wrote:No, I have yet to read the entire Bible. That's something I really want to do some day, however.

I recommend you begin by reading the Gospels. Since you are an attorney, I'm sure you'll love the way that both Matthew and Luke present the Gospel of Jesus Christ (So many details, so many intricacies in their "arguments"). If you want all the good parts, the action, so to speak, read through Mark. John will tell you of Jesus as the son of God.

Since you have time (while your practice gets off the ground) you might wanna consider starting today. With TDVC coming out in theaters soon, the gospel will be a hot topic, and you might be able to impress people with your knowledge on the subject.

Hope this helps.

So, you're suggesting I don't read the OLD TESTAMENT and follow it by the NEW TESTAMENT?

Since TDVC is the hot topic of the month, I think you can afford to skip over Noah and the ark, and read about Jesus' ministry and His message for the world.

If you wanna know more about "JC", start with them gospels. You can always catch up with a lot of the history found in the OT after you read that.

JC is the fulfillment of the Old Testament (Old COvenant) and through Him the New Covenant (New Testament) was established between God and mankind (that means men and women --everybody!!! ).

I agree with redeemed, if you have not read the bible before, you will probably wind up very confused, bored, and frustrated if you start in the old testament.

Start with the gospels like redeemed said. As far as the rest of the new testament is concerned, I would avoid revelation until you have read other things and know a little more. Revelation is fun to read because there is so much crazy stuff going on, but it is complicated and can be misleading.

Thanks for the encouragement to read case for christ redeemded, as soon as finals are over next week, i'm on it.

redskins12287 wrote:Thanks for the encouragement to read case for christ redeemded, as soon as finals are over next week, i'm on it.

Enjoy your summer break. Good luck with your finals. - TRO

redskins12287 wrote:

nuskins wrote:It is fiction but I beleive that most of the Bible is fiction or shall I say, loosely interpreted. The Davinci Code is a great work of FICTION with some of the story based on research but it is fiction at the end of the day. I read the entire book in less than 24 hrs b/c I couldn't put it down and I was home sick.

I am a christian but I do not interpret the Bible literally and beleive that faith is more important than fact when it comes to religion.

Mary Magdalene (sp?) is an important figure in Jesus's life there is no question. There is also no question that the Catholic church has manipulated religion for their own agenda since the dark middle ages.

My $.02 anyways.........

If you believe the Bible is fiction, then what is your faith based on?

Good point and I did not mean for that to come across as plainly stated as it does. I guess what I meant by that statement is that the Bible is a collection of stories, passed on by countless generations of mankind, each interpreting it as they see it. It has been translated and scribed so many times over thouasands of years that one would think that basing your faith on a word for word interpretation of it would be inaccurate. I beleive in the messages of the Bible, and base my faith on those messages, but at this point do not accept it word for word verbatim.

I hope that makes more sense versus my previous statment you commented on.

I defintely can share what I've researched but not at the moment. I'm at work and don't have time to do it. I will post it this evening.

Redeemed, the issue does not have to be black in white. It's not either the bible is wholely true or there is not good. I will explain that as well.

In my opinion, the bible (specifically the new testament) is a collection of stories based in fact, but that does not mean the writers did not embellish things or write metaphorically in some aspects. It also doesn't prove that JC was actually who he claimed to be, only that people believed him.

I guess that's why they call it faith.

As far as The DaVinci Code, who knows. I think its a plausible theory. I don't really have a dog in the race so to speak, so I don't have a strong conviction either way.

I do enjoy watching shows like Mysteries of the Bible on the various discovery and history channels. Its fun to here speculation on both sides of the argument.

JansenFan wrote:In my opinion, the bible (specifically the new testament) is a collection of stories based in fact, but that does not mean the writers did not embellish things or write metaphorically in some aspects. It also doesn't prove that JC was actually who he claimed to be, only that people believed him.

I guess that's why they call it faith.

As far as The DaVinci Code, who knows. I think its a plausible theory. I don't really have a dog in the race so to speak, so I don't have a strong conviction either way.

I do enjoy watching shows like Mysteries of the Bible on the various discovery and history channels. Its fun to here speculation on both sides of the argument.

The Gospels were also writen sometime after the time of Jesus, so even if they THOUGHT they were being 100% factual, there are things that were surely distorted in the oral history (as with all oral histories).

Religion? Religion to me is a cold beer served with pretzels. I could care less.

Except, I would say "couldn't care less".

Don't care about DaVinci Code, and don't much care about the Bible. Tried to read it once, and gave up. And that was the large print version.

well dan brown said him self that it is a work of fiction.. he also said that the church has survived many other sceptics, including leo, i think they can survive an author from new hampshire..



i was raised christian and i dont call my self one for separte reasons but if this movie is going to shake your faith then you arnt in it for the right reasons

I grew up in southeast NC (the biblebelt) I went to a Southern Baptist Church all day Sunday, Wednesday nights, Friday and finally Saturday nights. Oh, and lets not forget the random nights we would go in for bible class. I was on the Bible Team. Where you compete against other churches in referencing bible versus the fastest. Anyways to get to my point, I myself am a Christian. Do I go to Church, No!

Why? I feel that Churches have lost the reason for religeon. There seems te be an agenda in all types of religon so I just keep the faith myself. I've read the bible front to back several times and feel that I have a good understand of the overall meaning and its this in one sentence. "If you have to question a decision that you are making, then its probably not a good idea." Be a good person. Don't break laws and above all be respectful.

I also have watched and read several books on christianity and have formed I guess a simi-uneducated opinion or a Theory. Christianity was created post roman empire as a book of laws for people. Hell was used to keep people in line so that they feared things. The onld testiment was writed in a language that can only be read by 4 or 6 people today. It was translated by the Greeks several years ago and there were many things written wrong for example: Moses fled with the Jews and split the Red Sea. Well the correct translation was Moses fled with the Jews over the REED SEA. Now where is this REED Sea today? Who knows but thats just one mistake.

I've read the book and it sure does make it interesting. I'm facinated with all types of religion but one thing that I've noticed they all have the same foundation: FAITH AND LOVE. Be a good person. Don't break the law and you'll get into heaven.

Oh, and like many others, Davinci Code is a great book and all should read it b/c its a hell of a story. But it is a story of Fiction.

And if your intersted, look into the other Chronicals that don't accompany Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There are over 30 that date back to 200a.d.

This is proven by Oxford in England's school of Artifacts.

I can go on for days but I'll shut up now.

frankcal20 wrote:Do I go to Church, No!

I guess you had enough of it at such a young age, huh?!?!?

frankcal20 wrote:Why? I feel that Churches have lost the reason for religeon. There seems te be an agenda in all types of religon so I just keep the faith myself.

That's exactly the same reason why I haven't been to church in years, with the exception of my two (cough) marriages.

I consider myself a Christian, to be sure. I pray a lot and I feel I have my own personal relationship with God. I don't need the structured environment of a church to validate my belief system.

frankcal20 wrote:I've read the bible front to back several times and feel that I have a good understand of the overall meaning and its this in one sentence.

This is where I am starting to envy you a little. I really do want to read this book and, after participating in this thread (a very interesting thread I might point out), I think I'm gonna be starting that sooner rather than later.

frankcal20 wrote:"If you have to question a decision that you are making, then its probably not a good idea." Be a good person. Don't break laws and above all be respectful.

And there you have it! Not much more needs to be said. It's the whole "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" kinda thing. Truly wise words to live by, I think.

frankcal20 wrote:Christianity was created post roman empire as a book of laws for people. Hell was used to keep people in line so that they feared things.

I remember when I was young I was told that religion was created so people could try to understand what happens when we die. In other words, people created religion in the first place to try to come up with a story of what happens to our "souls" when we're no longer around. Anyone else here this?

Where I went to church they mainly tought Hell fire and damnation. They spoke of the Revelations or The ending of the earth. You better have repented of your sins or else. It seemed as though they were preaching fear not happiness. I just couldn't understand why religion and death was something to worry about. You should be happy to go to Heaven. I don't know.

I just purchased a book called "The Jesus Papers" by Michael Baigent. He wrote the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" which is similar to The DiVinci Code. This author assisted Brown in writing the Divinci Code so I would imagine he has some interesting views.

frankcal20 wrote:"If you have to question a decision that you are making, then its probably not a good idea." Be a good person. Don't break laws and above all be respectful.

Who needs a book to tell them that?

This is another plug for the Lee Strobel books the "Case for Christ" and "The Case for Faith." These are such well written books that they really throw a wrench into the works of our increasingly secular and materialist society.

JansenFan wrote:It also doesn't prove that JC was actually who he claimed to be, only that people believed him.

I guess that's why they call it faith.

As far as The DaVinci Code, who knows. I think its a plausible theory.

Jansen Fan, I just felt it necessary to point out that not only did Jesus' disciples believe that he was the Messiah, but that Jesus thoroughly believed it as well. This means he was either truly the Messiah or a complete mental case.

And remember those people who witnessed Jesus miracles were either victims of mass delusion, or it was indeed true.

cvillehog wrote:The Gospels were also writen sometime after the time of Jesus, so even if they THOUGHT they were being 100% factual, there are things that were surely distorted in the oral history (as with all oral histories).

Please realize that the Bible is the most historically verifiable document that we have ever uncovered. There is more primary source material in the bible than in any other historical document....not to mention the numerous archeological finds that have later confirmed biblical writings. There is a great deal of disagreement about exactly when the first Gospels were written but the general belief is that Either Mark or Matthew were first and could have ranged from 50 A.D. to 125 A.D. Remember Christ died in 32 A.D. So it is possible that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark just 12 years after his death.....I'm sure he remembered what happened. Some (though admittedly few) scholars beleive that Mark actually wrote the Gospel of Mark himself. The fast are these however. If you don't believe the historical accuracy of what is recorded in the Gospels and Book of Acts, then you also have to through out everything that you believe about Ceasar in Rome, Alexander the Great, The French Revolution, etc.

The Da Vinci Code is a well crafted tale that plays on peoples inability to critically reveiw the evidence for themselves....it rewards the person who will do casual research by citing sources that can be found, but are unable to be confirmed. The only degree of historical accuracy that TDC presents is "evidence" that some people had some really wacky thoughts about Christ, not that any of it was accurate. With enough "evidence" one can cause the Dodo bird to fly and Bigfoot to show up in thier backyard. A thorough review of the real facts reveals that the only really verifiable facts support what was said in the Bible. Its true that alot of fols had weird thoughts about Christ but that doesn't make what they say anymore true than what the Westborough Baptist Church says about Coretta Scott King. We aren't the first generation to have conspiracy theorist.

Chad

Well, I started my journey with the Bible tonight, reading the book of Matthew.

Interesting stuff. After everyone begot everyone else, it told a very interesting story of Jesus' life. The one thing that strikes me (and I've already known this) is how it really focuses on Jesus, the baby and then, all-of-the-sudden, the adult. No mention of Jesus, the "troubled youth years". Wonder why?

I'm not sure how fast I'll get through the New Testament but I hope to read a chapter a night.

Justice Hog wrote:Interesting stuff. After everyone begot everyone else, it told a very interesting story of Jesus' life. The one thing that strikes me (and I've already known this) is how it really focuses on Jesus, the baby and then, all-of-the-sudden, the adult. No mention of Jesus, the "troubled youth years". Wonder why?

Justice, as you read through Matthew, keep in mind that the intention of the book is primarily a theological / spiritual one; it's not meant to be a history book in the way we (contemporary Westerners) might understand a history book. One of the main themes in Matthew is understanding Jesus as the Messiah (that is, the fulfillment of the law), who initiates the kingdom of heaven on Earth.

The first few chapters of Matthew--the genealogy, his birth and the events surrounding it--are are kind of prologue to the rest of the book, and it's meant to help establish that Christ is who he claims that he is.

The only New Testament author to write about Christ's childhood was Luke, who simply states that Jesus "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men."

nuskins wrote:

redskins12287 wrote:

nuskins wrote:It is fiction but I beleive that most of the Bible is fiction or shall I say, loosely interpreted. The Davinci Code is a great work of FICTION with some of the story based on research but it is fiction at the end of the day. I read the entire book in less than 24 hrs b/c I couldn't put it down and I was home sick.

I am a christian but I do not interpret the Bible literally and beleive that faith is more important than fact when it comes to religion.

Mary Magdalene (sp?) is an important figure in Jesus's life there is no question. There is also no question that the Catholic church has manipulated religion for their own agenda since the dark middle ages.

My $.02 anyways.........

If you believe the Bible is fiction, then what is your faith based on?

Good point and I did not mean for that to come across as plainly stated as it does. I guess what I meant by that statement is that the Bible is a collection of stories, passed on by countless generations of mankind, each interpreting it as they see it. It has been translated and scribed so many times over thouasands of years that one would think that basing your faith on a word for word interpretation of it would be inaccurate. I beleive in the messages of the Bible, and base my faith on those messages, but at this point do not accept it word for word verbatim.

I hope that makes more sense versus my previous statment you commented on.

Alright, I see what you are saying, but I can't say that I agree. I'm on the side that says the New Testament is the most accuate historical document we have, as others have explained better than I can.

FanfromAnnapolis wrote:

Justice Hog wrote:Interesting stuff. After everyone begot everyone else, it told a very interesting story of Jesus' life. The one thing that strikes me (and I've already known this) is how it really focuses on Jesus, the baby and then, all-of-the-sudden, the adult. No mention of Jesus, the "troubled youth years". Wonder why?

Justice, as you read through Matthew, keep in mind that the intention of the book is primarily a theological / spiritual one; it's not meant to be a history book in the way we (contemporary Westerners) might understand a history book. One of the main themes in Matthew is understanding Jesus as the Messiah (that is, the fulfillment of the law), who initiates the kingdom of heaven on Earth.
The first few chapters of Matthew--the genealogy, his birth and the events surrounding it--are are kind of prologue to the rest of the book, and it's meant to help establish that Christ is who he claims that he is.

The only New Testament author to write about Christ's childhood was Luke, who simply states that Jesus "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men."

This is one theme that really does not make sense to me. I have attended service for the majority of my life, mostly protestent, and the theme that Jesus initiates Heaven doesn't add up for me. It is my understanding that we as Christians must repent our sins and beleive in Jesus in order to reach Heaven.

However, what happened to all those humans for 25,000 + years before the birth of Jesus? Were they not admitted to Heaven since their was no Jesus to believe in? Humans have been around since evolution dictated or God created Adam and Eve, whichever you beleive is irrelevent in this argument. Since the dawn of humankind what were the guidelines concerning Heaven or Hell if there was no Jesus? Is Heaven exclusively only for those humans who are fortunate enough to be born after the messiah?

What about the Neandrathals and those sub species of Humans before them? Are they not children of God?

The old book does not give us much to go on in the beginning of life but science has documented the progress of organisms here on this planet, you don't even have to call it evolution, but there have been changes to life ever since it arrived or spawned on Earth, across all life forms, including animal, plant, and humans (if you don't consider us animals)

So in the beginning of man, before Christianity what were the options? Moses and the ten commandments? What about before that? Was everyone just accepted into Heaven by God? What was this religion called then? There was Christianity persay, only it could not have been called that as there was no "christ" before 2000 years ago. Humans have been on the planet for 25,000 + years, so what is the situation for those that lived in the first 23,000 years before Christ came to Earth to show us how to get into Heaven?

nuskins,

I am not expert on any thing old testament related, but that is what it is, the old testament, the old "covenant." If you belive mankind started with Adam and Eve, then the original covenant was that we are already perfect and are born with salvation, but Adam and Eve messed that one up and brought sin into the world, so God created the sacrifice system, and the prohpets.

When Christ came, he became the new testement, the new "covenent," the new deal God has offered us to obtain salvation.

I hope this helps a little. Like I said, I am no expert and don't pretend to be.

I just don't understand why the church won't recognize the other 30-some gospels writtend, and scientifically dated to back then.

I've read that the reason that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were chosen because they were the easiest to teach and felt that they had the greatest message. One of the others is the Chronicles of Judas, which was just on Discovery Channel. It was very interesting.

All I'm saying is that it is funny the way the christianity handles situations. If they don't like it then they refuse to believe it or cover it up. Mainly, why wouldn't the Cathlic church want procicution for Priest who molest children? I mean, thats just common sense.

If an article is found and scientifically dated back to the days of the other documents in the Bible, why not take that into concideration.

And lets not forget about miracles. The church never acknowledges miracles yet the new testiments is founded on miracles.

These are the things that I just don't understand and every time you speak with an official from the church they give you a politically correct answer but really they didn't answer the question. You leave more confussed than before you asked.

Just my $0.02

chaddukes wrote:

JansenFan wrote:It also doesn't prove that JC was actually who he claimed to be, only that people believed him.

I guess that's why they call it faith.

As far as The DaVinci Code, who knows. I think its a plausible theory.

Jansen Fan, I just felt it necessary to point out that not only did Jesus' disciples believe that he was the Messiah, but that Jesus thoroughly believed it as well. This means he was either truly the Messiah or a complete mental case.

And remember those people who witnessed Jesus miracles were either victims of mass delusion, or it was indeed true.

Thousands of people see faith healings in revivals all over the country. Perhaps Jesus and the disciples all truly believed he was the messiah and they staged these to get other people to believe as well. Besides, other than the apostles that wrote the gospels chosen for inclusion, who of these masses that witnessed his miracles wrote their proof.

You have to take the word of the apostles, and therein lies the problem, and again, the necessity of faith.

As I stated earlier, the basis of the ne testament is historically accurate, but that does not mean that every piece of information is accurate, or even accurately translated.

Remember Reggie White, before he passed away, learned ancient Hebrew to read the books for himself, rather than the King James translation. It could have been just an act of showing his faith and conviction, or maybe he wanted to see what differences there were. Only he truly knows.

I don't profess the to know the truth of what is accurate and what is not, I only believe that over the course of a thousand years and countless translations, it would be easy to change, modify or embellish even further the writings.

frankcal20 wrote:I just don't understand why the church won't recognize the other 30-some gospels writtend, and scientifically dated to back then.

I've read that the reason that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were chosen because they were the easiest to teach and felt that they had the greatest message. One of the others is the Chronicles of Judas, which was just on Discovery Channel. It was very interesting.

All I'm saying is that it is funny the way the christianity handles situations. If they don't like it then they refuse to believe it or cover it up. Mainly, why wouldn't the Cathlic church want procicution for Priest who molest children? I mean, thats just common sense.

If an article is found and scientifically dated back to the days of the other documents in the Bible, why not take that into concideration.

And lets not forget about miracles. The church never acknowledges miracles yet the new testiments is founded on miracles.

These are the things that I just don't understand and every time you speak with an official from the church they give you a politically correct answer but really they didn't answer the question. You leave more confussed than before you asked.

Just my $0.02

Well, you've got a number of questions so I figured I'd try to help answer from what I know. The Gnostic gospels you refer to were not ratified for induction into the Bible for various reasons. Firstly, Josephus indicated that various heretics of his day (before the NT was organized) were publishing books under the names of various disciples who were long since dead. Additionally, ALL of the gnostic gospels, including the Judas book you refer to, are dated hundreds of years even after John & Paul's books. The documentary said so --- I also watched it. Additionally, while the NT books completely compliment the OT, these heretical texts did not add up.

OK -- Q2: Christianity is not reflective of the Catholic church's molestation cover-up. It's not even reflective of the Catholic church's own teachings. That's like saying Muslim radical terrorists reflect the true nature of Islam...which I believe they do, but that's another discussion.

The Church also acknoledges miracles. In fact, they are extremely important. God often uses miracles to magnify his Name and they are very scriptural. Both OT and NT believers were the recipents and channels of God's supernatural power. God allowed Moses to part the Red Sea and healed those who passed through Peter's shadow. Sects and denominations that disavow miracles are putting God in a box.

Sorry to have jumped in but hope it helps.

redskins12287 wrote:nuskins,

I am not expert on any thing old testament related, but that is what it is, the old testament, the old "covenant." If you belive mankind started with Adam and Eve, then the original covenant was that we are already perfect and are born with salvation, but Adam and Eve messed that one up and brought sin into the world, so God created the sacrifice system, and the prohpets.

When Christ came, he became the new testement, the new "covenent," the new deal God has offered us to obtain salvation.

I hope this helps a little. Like I said, I am no expert and don't pretend to be.

Yes is does help a little, and brings to light the sacrificial aspect that I had not considered.

Thank you.

frankcal20 wrote:I just don't understand why the church won't recognize the other 30-some gospels writtend, and scientifically dated to back then.

I've read that the reason that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were chosen because they were the easiest to teach and felt that they had the greatest message. One of the others is the Chronicles of Judas, which was just on Discovery Channel. It was very interesting.

All I'm saying is that it is funny the way the christianity handles situations. If they don't like it then they refuse to believe it or cover it up. Mainly, why wouldn't the Cathlic church want procicution for Priest who molest children? I mean, thats just common sense.

If an article is found and scientifically dated back to the days of the other documents in the Bible, why not take that into concideration.

And lets not forget about miracles. The church never acknowledges miracles yet the new testiments is founded on miracles.

These are the things that I just don't understand and every time you speak with an official from the church they give you a politically correct answer but really they didn't answer the question. You leave more confussed than before you asked.

Just my $0.02

In modernized cultures, miricles can be very hard to see...I'm not quite sure how to explain this. In third-world countires where people basically live simpiler lives then we do, miricles, the hold spirt, and satan are easier to see.

This past summer I spent a month in Guatemala on a mission trip. We stayed at an orphanage and built them a basketball court. While there, we got to know the two younger missionaires that serve there. This past January, the orpanage was involved in a revivial in a city in Nicaragua, and one of the missionaries we got to know, Sarah, went. When she got back, she sent an e-mail explaining the trip. All kinds of crazy spiritual stuff happened during over the trip. I wish I still had the e-mail on file, only a hard copy I printed out, but crazy stuff. I'd go into more details now, but I gotta run, perhaps latter if anyone is at all interested.

Okay, just finished reading the Gospel of Mark tonight. To me it seemed very repetitive of the Gospel of Matthew. I am wondering whether the reason for that is to make both more worthy of belief, corrobrating each other or is there some other reason? Redeemed? Care to help a brutha out?