This video is the second of Bishop John Shelby Spong's lectures at the "Future of the Progressive Church" conference held on August 3, 2013 at the Community Christian Church in Springfield, MO.
I am not religious but would go to Bishop John Shelby's church and listen to his common sense about the bible and religion. And I am sure I would come out of his church, a better person than I went in.
A lot of people feel the same way you do. It's now time in this world for people who have the ears to hear, that they have been lied to. Not deliberately but unknowingly. Fear has played the biggest part about the misinterpretion of the Bible. I'm happy people are realizing this and asking questions. You know the real truth when you hear it! It radiates deep down in your soul. God is only Love and nothing else. Only Love is real ❤
This is the FIRST TIME that any Christian preacher has ever made any sense!!! Bishop Spong, THANK YOU for being courageous enough to voice your thoughts. This is the INTEGRITY expected of an authentic Christian, as opposed to deluding ourselves with Cognitive Dissonance and Confirmation Bias in order to justify a literal interpretation of the entire Bible, as though the Bible itself is God !!
25 years ago people thought Spong was the devil. He was blamed for divisions within the Episcopal Church and the demise of its seminaries. Today, his same way of thinking sounds reasonable. Anglicanism has always relied on scripture, tradition, and reason. I think he has made strides to make reason the predominant. Im glad he is still alive today.
Spong is one of the few Christians who scientists can honestly respect. He is still compartmentalising his beliefs to some extent. It would make more sense to take a hard look at ourselves and strive to be the best that we can be by modelling ourselves on only the best traits of the stories told of Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, Mandela, Tutu, Geldof, matin Luther king, Socrates, Einstein, etc This I suspect will mean that humanity lets go of the need to believe in gods and embraces what is best about humanism, art, philosophy, science and reason whilst respecting that we are emotional creatures with emotional needs and frailties. Only then will we realise that we are all related, all connected, all part of a complex ecosystem. Perhaps then we will strive for the benefit of all mankind, leaving a better world for the next generation of our species. That is a worthwhile legacy to live for and to leave the next generation.
@@jeremywilliams3465 That’s a false dichotomy. I don’t do either so I don’t fall into either set. I certainly don’t believe or act “as if” I were a god and I don’t believe in any of the gods imagined by mankind.
I am a Baha’i, a follower of Baha’u’llah (1817-1892). I found this the most cogent, intelligent, reasonable and believable interpretation of the Bible, Christianity and humanity outside of the Writings of Baha’u’llah. Bravo! I am inspired.
Bless you for your loving vision of humanity and of God. Bishop Spong you have restored the God of Love to his throne in our hearts, and freed us to rejoice in the Love of Christ, our elder brother and friend, not the sacrificial lamb of ancient blood thirsty religious tribes, but the open, wondrous example of who we really are, of who we really can be if we have the faith and courage to love one another as He has loved us. Amen. Thank you for freeing Christianity from the tyrants of history.
It seems to me that anyone not willing to research the text, not willing to study who and when and under what circumstances the texts were written, but is instead willing to take them at face value, is not interested in truth.
Great lecture. I would highly recommend to Bishop Shelby to read about Sufism in Islam. His concepts of the artificial dichotomy between the human and the godly are the basis of Sufi philosophy and way of life that has been addressed for hundreds of years. As he was ending his lecture, I thought I was hearing a Sufi teacher, (Rumi, Hallaj, Ibn Arabi and the great Sufi poets) speaking.
I wish all Christians were as loving and compassionate. The hatred in some of the comments here remind me of the hatred the Jews had towards Jesus in his time. Jesus spoke a new message of forgiveness, hope, mercy, etc., but the Jews had their traditions, and nobody was going to change that. Jesus was accused of being a drunk, eating with sinners, blasphemous, and much more. According to the gospel, Jesus while being crucified said, "forgive them for they no not what they do." This type of unconditional love and compassion has escaped the church throughout the ages. We need the true love of Jesus in churches today! What Jesus seemed to despise most was the hypocrisy of the ultra-religious.
kind of a long talk... I think his point of darwin summarizing the most recent development of humanity was good. And then Jesus is leading us beyond those animal instincts into a life that is not focused on survival but a life that can embrace what it was previously afraid of. This is what makes Jesus divine. he is in that next phase of humanity. I wonder if historical context could provide a strong case for that being what John means by his references to divinity?
he's some brilliant scholar, even Augustine knew before the beginning there was no time and no space. The big bang didn't hurl matter out into an infinite space. There was no space.
Brian, scholarship is not done by assertion…. that is just childish argument. Spong reflects the main stream of higher biblical criticism. Being dismissive in a comment board is insulting and misleading.
A few scientists now think the Unified Field may actually BE consciousness. Even if it's not, we need to realize that everything in this universe came forth from the unified field. The unified field exists EVERYWHERE, even in the empty space inside the electron shell of an atom. Think about that. There is a part of YOU that exists EVERYWHERE.
Even most liberal scholars agree that Mark was written before 69 AD. 40 years after the event no eye witnesses? Many people lived in their 60ies, 70ies and 80ies... Philo (20BC- 55 AD) Josephus (37-100AD)
I have not been able to get this video out of my mind. It has some flaws, but the overall message is what matters. The big bang was not matter exploding into space, it was the expansion of all things INCLUDING space. Space didn't exist prior to the big bang. Research the unified field, and you will find something much more amazing than the common concept of God. The unified field literally exists EVERYWHERE, including the empty space between the atoms that make up our bodies. We are ALL literally part of the unified field. We are one thing, physically. Some scientists think the unified field may actually BE consciousness. In that respect, we are also a single consciousness.
"Sky-superman" has two distinct traits that God does not have. 1) He has a physical body (Clark Kent), 2) He's in the sky. God is immaterial and all-present, something that cannot be said for "Sky-Superman." Now if you want to say that Sky-Superman is eternally existing, immaterial, infinitely powerfully, personal, and the ground for moral values, then "Sky-Superman" is just God by another name. and like I said earlier there is evidence that God exists.
23:39 "[the meteor that killed the dinosaurs was maybe] almost the size of the planet Mars." I realize it's a cliché at this point for clergy not to know science, but that meteorite was around 10km across -- Mars is 6,800km.
dodopod we know it wasnt a meteor that killed the dinosaurs. the Sumerians knew the truth. they even knew of all the planets that took us forever to discover. they also accurately described all the planets. your god did not make me.
Yes, he mistook two hypothetical collisions - one in early days of Earth that may have created the Moon and caused the tilt that gives us seasons, one one that killed dinosaurs.
Nicea was just one denomination of many during the 4th century. It just happened to be chosen by Constantine to be the "universal" form of Christianity. The "original church" would have condemned the Nicean christinity
"Nicea" was a meeting of bishops held in Nicaea, in 325 ce. It was the first of several ecumenical (world-wide) councils. If memory serves there were seven such councils. However, it is not a denomination. I don't think that is a particularly useful term at that point in history; certainly not as we understand the term today. It was a time nearing the consolidation of what some scholars call the proto-orthodox Christianity. Bart Ehrman is among those who use this term with some frequency. With regard to there being an "original" church, that would be an incredibly hard to case to make. The earliest "church" was actually a Jewish sect, and did not self-identify as Christian. So in that sense the "original" church is Judaism. Trying to identify the earliest *Christian* church is not easy. We might consider Paul's "house churches." But during those decades (50's and 60's) Paul was in heated debate and competition with the Jesus movement within Judaism. Paul, while himself Jewish, championed allowing gentiles (pagans) into the Jesus movement. And he did not believe they ought to become Jewish to do so. In that sense Paul's churches (which is itself a misleading use of the word - assembly or meeting might be a better choice) might be reasonably argued as the earliest "Christian" churches. The pseudo-Pauline churches inferred in the Pastoral Letters (1, 2 Tim. and Titus) are closer to the structure we might think of today as churches. By this time (well after Paul's death in 67 or so) the church had recognized leadership, elders, etc. Whereas Paul's early house churches had no such hierarchy. Then for the next 300 years or so it gets *really* crazy! Each region that came to hold a distinctive "Christian" belief, was different than other regions. Gnostic Christians in Egypt is a popular example these days. But don't forget adoptionists, or (what were later named) the heresays of Arianism, Docetism, and on and on. All these divergent ways of understanding the Christian religion were in competition with one another. The group which became Orthodox Christianity are those identified as proto-orthodox in this early period of competition for followers. To my mind, it is more accurate to observe that Christianity has always been multifaceted, than to try to identify which understanding is "right" or "original." I do fully agree that the emperor Constantine wanted a united church. A universal church. A "catholic" church (catholic means universal). And that is why he called the council. But he did not orchestrate it in fine detail, he did not "invent" his form of preferred Christianity, or any like that. He just wanted the council of bishops to arrive at an agreed position, so the church would be united, universal, "catholic," so that he could use that unity to unite his empire. Specifically what form that Christianity took, I'm certain he did not really care. I don't know where you came by your impressions of the history of the early church, but Dan Brown's book has been the source of a lot of misinformation. Prof. Bart Ehrman did offer a course of lectures (and maybe a book?) addressing the numerous mistakes Brown made (just about any "fact" he cites is mistaken). Ehrman also has a number of courses offered the by the Great Courses, as well as a stack of popular books addressing these types of concerns. Not everyone agrees with everything he says and writes, but he really is a highly respected biblical scholar, and offers a very good point of departure for learning more about this early Christian history, should one be so inclined. For those specifically interested in the development of Christian theology, Prof. Cary's course of lectures (offered by the Great Courses) "History of Christian Theology" is one of the best I have heard. His lectures on St. Augustine are equally good, and I enthusiastically recommend them both to anyone interested in these topics. Hope that helps a bit.
Erik Weaver I should have noted, between the crucifixion of Jesus in or around 30 ce and Paul's first letter in 51 ce, we know *nothing* about the early Jesus movment. Nothing survives from the decades of the 30's and 40's. Thus, unless one accepts the earliest form of Christianity as being Judaism, we have to accept that we simply cannot answer this question.
Erik Weaver Right on! The earliest gospels were really nothing more then a "sales pitch" for the new resurrection cult that Paul started--and he never even met Jesus in the flesh. He did however goes directly against everything Jesus' brother requested hum to do; and the fact that Jesus' followers accepted James as their leader tell us he was "very much like Jesus" (faith without WORKS is DEAD).
Hitofthe Partygoers I agree that faith without works is dead. But it is worth considering we moderns may be misreading "faith" as spoken of in the other scriptures. My gardening analogy is propagation: I about a month ago I took some wisteria cuttings, prepped them, put them in sand, and have continued caring for them. I am going through the process of helping them develop into healthy baby plants; I have faith this will work out well by the end of the season. So too, the argument goes, spiritual faith is an act in progress; not entirely passive. So I personally make some allowance that the other authors may have had this in mind when speaking of faith. We know aspects of Paul's teaching was very different from those who remained wholly within the Jewish tradition. And Paul and Jesus do appear to have held very different central concerns. In Paul's authentic letters, he clearly expresses himself as a Jewish apocalypticist: Jesus as the first fruits; immanent general resurrection; establishment of God's kingdom on earth. Jesus' authentic teachings are more tricky to reveal. Do we follow the Jesus Seminar's line of thinking, and reject the apocalyptic sayings out of hand, or do we follow Bart Ehrman's line of thinking and identify Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet? Our answer depends upon how we interpret the layers of redaction in the gospels, of course. It is quite interesting, and reasonable arguments exist on both sides. The apocalyptic argument sees that both John the Baptiser and Paul were apocalypticist; Jesus was baptised by John, and we have apocalyptic teachings of Jesus, therefore Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. The non-apocalyptic argument observes that Jesus left John, and taught differently (and apocalyptic sayings attributed to Jesus were later additions); and members of the Jesus movement, like James, continued in this tradition after Jesus' crucifixion. I personally favor the Jesus Seminar's position, but I remain open to other arguments. However, I'm not sure I would characterize the gospels as sales pitches for Paul's new resurrection cult. I'll have to think about that. Paul did write first, so he may have had an effect upon them. But if +Spong's argument is correct, the synoptic gospels were initially written for use within early Jewish-Christian liturgy. If those writers also numbered among the Jewish apocalyptic movement, that strengthens the assertion; but if they numbered among one of the other Jewish movements, that weakens the assertion.
Are you asking me to reconcile 6 day creationism with evolution? I do that by interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 as metaphoric and poetic as many other Christian thinkers do.
is that true? what is the definition of a word? within a language? A word within a language is a sound with an agreed upon meaning. to that extent, many mammals use words.
If pornography and promiscuity are acts that come forth from self-centeredness then I think you know what the answer is based on this video. Being fully human is about love and self-giving I'm not sure how porn and promiscuity fit into that. However, self-centered desire is a struggle we all deal with. It's best to find a community that is willing to walk with you and help you grow in any areas you feel weak in without judgement. There is no condemnation in Christ Jesus.
Guess all you want. Anyone who says you need to "play with the text" in order to discover its true meaning is not interested in truth. Ask Bishop Spong if he really believes that the historical Jesus actually spoke the words in his favorite Bible verse that he bases so much of his talk on: "I have come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." John 10:10. He knows that Jesus Seminar declared all the sayings attributed to Jesus in that book inauthentic.
I hope this can be taken as a positive criticism, but what evidence do we have that light emerged out of matter, and consciousness emerged out of light? 41:20
The unseen thing underlying the obvious negative image of Christian Dogmatism is the almost invisible "Offer" made expressly in the messages to the seven churches--- to wit, 30 specific points which, if received and performed, comprise a Covenant. It is the "buy/sell' that Theism can't see. The place Jesus prepared was for renouncing the world, dying to idols and sin.
Well there is a difference between an all present being and a being that exists in the "sky". The evidence is that God is the best explanation for (1) the existence of the contingent universe, (2) the origin of the universe, (3) objective moral values, and (4) the historical facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth.
I don't really understand what you are saying. I DON'T think its inauthentic, I DO think it has a spiritual and moral message, I don't necessarily interpret the story of the "talking snake" as literally historical, and I don't think one needs too interpret that story literally in order to "confess that God created the heavens and earth."
ok, explain the differences. that is my point, show me the connection that a human begin had direct links, connections to a 6day creation of the universe that is science based. thats the best we have. people use science to get a best guess for things.
Me too, it lets the rest of us distinguish between Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus and Biblicists like the ANCA who instead see their Bible and their traditions as more important.
The problem with Spongs ministry is that he does not tell the listener how to decipher which sentences in the Bible to take "literally." For instance, consider Luke 10:27 "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind." Mr. Spong, is this just another piece of scripture that we aren't supposed to take literally? I can ascertain that, that one seems like we should, and I think you would say the same, so please make that clear to the listener or reader as to which scriptures a person should be a fundamentalist about and which scriptures should not be taken literally (such as the story of Jonah and the big fish...)
For Mr. Spong: as a child I wanted and planned and tried to kill myself for being gay. I thought that I am unique in the world, but I found later that many other boys have had the same life experience like me. I felt the evil effect of the Christian hatred. How can I change my life right now? I cannot even diminish my hate toward Christianity! I hated my parents for teaching me to believe in Jesus, whom I consider right now to have been an illiterate stupid Jewish peasant. The only solution as it appears to me now is to prevent the young generation about the fact that Christianity is complete bullshit, that would kill any desire of happiness for a gay human being.
Johanna040713 Don't say such lies. The myths about Sodom and Gomorrah have been considered in the ancient times and are still considered today as the main reason why homosexuals were persecuted and killed. Some dishonest people like you could pretend that it was all about mistreating foreigners, but the only thing that matters is the historical consequence: the prejudice against homosexuals. Jesus Christ said that Sodom and Gomorrah will be severely punished at his final judgment, instead of saying that the homosexuals need to be respected like any human being!
Make your peace with God. All that anger is alot to carry around in this life. I think you will be surprised that Jesus will accept you as you are. Dont listen to anybody who is hating. As it says, "For God so loved the world he gave his son..." There were millions of gay people Jesus came to be with in this life. As St Augustine said, "Love God and do what you want" Enjoy your life with the knowledge God loves you and I can assure you the church needs you. It needs your knowledge, experience, care for people like yourself and others. Dont let dummies and haters keep you away from Jesus or his church. Dont let anything separate you from God. I wont tell you with my story, but my words to you are my advice from my experience. God bless you!!!
Who's making assertions? It seems to me that "playing with the text" would result in a lot of ungrounded assertions. Its not an assertion that Bishop Spong doesn't believe that Jesus actually said "I have come that you may have life and have it abundantly." Ask him yourself. Besides, what he is saying is not reflected of the mainstream of higher Biblical Criticism. The mainstream doesn't believe that Judas Iscariot never existed. The mainstream doesn't believe that the Gospels are mythology..
Nobody says you have to have church, it's just a place to gather and share God's love. You can do the same thing in your home. Religion screwed everything up. Jesus taught only Love and Love has no religion ✨❤
In the gospel story of Lazarus, note that 1) Lazarus had been sick (probably a malarial fever) and 2) Jesus said this sickness WILL NOT END IN DEATH (John 11:1-14) and 3) Jesus (despite being Lazarus' "best friend") DID NOT COME IMMEDIATELY, but waited near Jericho and the Jordan river for TWO MORE DAYS. Why did Dr. Jesus DELAY in visiting his friend? The answer is simple: he was waiting for the drug he had given Lazarus to wear off! Note that Jesus said he was going to "wake him up"--indicating that this drug had slowed down Lazarus metabolism enough to make him UNCONSCIOUS (and that would lower the fever--Jesus was a great doctor and healer). Jesus said "I am going to wake him up; he's merely ASLEEP!" John 11:11 is an early Christian EDITOR who wants you to think that when Jesus said "asleep", he really meant DEAD. Oh, no: Jesus really did mean "unconscious" or IN A COMA. And if you study the story of "Jairus' daughter" (Luke 8, Mark 5), you will find Jesus saying that "asleep" really meant "NOT DEAD" to him. There, we have given good evidence that Lazarus NEVER DIED, but was merely in a DRUG INDUCED COMA for 3-4 days. And he and Jesus were VERY CLOSE FRIENDS, in fact JESUS WEPT OVER LAZARUS, afraid that Lazarus had killed himself with an OVERDOSE of that powerful drug (one tablespoon could knock out a race horse, see: ARCHAEOLOGY magazine, Nov-Dec issue of 1995, describing toxic Rhododendron honey). Reverend, DOESN'T IT LOOK SUSPICIOUS TO YOU, that two men, best of friends, BOTH "ROSE FROM THE 'DEAD' "?
Another possible reason that Jesus did not respond sooner to Lazarus was that he knew he would get more glory and acclaim by raising Lazarus from the dead than he would by simply healing him.
He wasn't seeking acclaim or glory for himself but showing God's power and building up faith in his message of a coming Kingdom that will do away with sickness and death. try reading it for yourself without the cynicism and cockiness of a 15 year old. And if Jesus' words are so stupid, why are you here arguing about them 2000 years later? LOL!!
Of course not. Such a "sky-superman" would be a person with a physical body in the sky that has superpowers. That is not analogous to what God is. There is evidence that God exists.
are you saying that inauthentic book has no spiritual or moral message behind the sayings? dang, you must've believed that the talking snake is historical in order for you to confess that God "creates" the heaven and earth. =.="
so you do believe in a all powerful, all knowing, all presence beign. to most that is a supernatural begin or sky superman. now tell me why and show me actual evidence so i could believe ?
beulahmo Oh Yes it is. That is the message Sprog is conveying from the bottom of the low sink of debauchery called humanism. He obscures and softens the simple yet firm message of Jesus. And if someone does that purposely and habitually, that is bad enough. But to do that while wearing some kind of credential claiming spiritual authority.. that is warned against as an unforgivable sin. This, what you are hearing in this video is among the most dangerous information there is.
Sorry, Darwin is not just not true, he is, in 2023, completely mistaken about evolution because he did not know what is now known about cell biology, information science, genetics, and so on. So I think this idea here is also wrong. Darwin's "social" inferences are complete balderdash. It seems to me so completely true that I am a sinner and that that fact is the starting point of my journey in faith. Who can deny it? Which means the Resurrection and all that goes with it is central. My 4th option is a balance between preserving the not-so literal , beautiful and essential pillars of the Bible while acknowledging the role of understanding , tolerance and accommodation in present social developments. But I also feel there are limits. I'm afraid the "expanded humanity," "universal consciousness," and "living in the reality of God" on Earth will never come. All of that is utopia. We do not progress. We are and remain bad. However we twist we remain sinners and we are in need to be saved. I see truth and beauty in that.
Jon Threlkeld two things to remember: Heresy and hell don’t exist. There is no such thing as Heresy in the 21st century. Hell was made up to scare people into believing.
Why don't you just become a Buddhist or a Hindu. If I felt like he did about the church and its history and that it basically never did a good thing on this earth and even its basic sacraments are complete nonsense or even worse malevolent I would be an enemy of Christianity. Have some of that integrity you talk about. I could see the church has not been perfect, why would it be it has people in it. But Christianity has done much for the world, including being the germ from which western civilization came.
andrew sapia There is a vast difference between the church and Christianity(follower of Christ). What the church has ordained through out history has many times not been very Godly or right. The rules and traditions of religion, or the church, are man-made. A person seeks God with his/her heart and mind, not by following the rules of your particular church.
+andrew sapia Western Civilization owes a lot to Roman and Greek civilization. Just because someone told you that Christianity did that did just misinform you.
andrew sapia the truth have no label because label's are and hindrance to the independent understanding of truth and produce hateful prejudices in the mind he is a Christ follower a mob brought a woman accused of adultery before Jesus said who so ever is with out sin throw the first stone so if Jesus dose not condem her by old testament law why should we a new command I give you love one another as I have loved you so you must love one another so many use the bible to justify judging others and that's not what Jesus COMMANDS I think I will listen to Jesus and I believe that this man knows him God bless you
It is sad to hear that this so called Bishop didn't get it right. He and his followers do not comprehend what is the relation of cause and effect working with free will. They do not understand concupiscence and the result of our wrong choices. This people want to re-invent Christianity and they think they are even wiser than Christ himself. They think they can interpret scripture but they do not have a clue of what scripture is and how it is to be read. They say that in the view of the organized Church (Catholic) everything blames God for all our disgrace. They couldn't be more mistaken. They do not have love and wisdom at their side. They are building a God of their own. This is sad and hopeless. We have to pray much for these people and go to the Mass saying "Kyrie Eleison" many times more for their sin of pride and ego.
*"...they think they are even wiser than Christ himself..."* How on earth did you come to that conclusion from what Bishop Spong was saying? You are way, way off in your comprehension of his comments. *"...everything blames God for all our disgrace..."* What??? No. That is definitely NOT what Spong said. You either didn't listen or you have some *serious* problems with comprehension.
"...hey think they are even wiser than Christ himself." Actually, that is not hard to do. "Jesus Christ" uttered some of the most idiotic, moronic statements that any hum,an being ever uttered. Even a small child in kindergarten is a far more profound thinker than he ever thought of being.
Catholicism is a beautiful religion and many are happy in that faith. I don't wish to take that away from anyone. It is just that I have come to a more liberal theology that is very dear and true for me. We all have freedom to have our own relationship with God. We will all have different views and perceptions.
tod beard Yes. “As in the days of Noe, so shall the coming of the son of man be.” As true Christianity is fading, more and more people are turning toward false love gospels, and prosperity gospel teachings. Repentance is key to salvation. The wages of sin is death... The Holy Bible hasn’t changed. But there are many preachers that only teach what they think people want to hear. (Tickling people’s ears) These preachers re-enforce sin, rather than teach that people that they need to repent. They are making people comfortable in their sin. And because of that these preachers are leading people to hell.
Barbara Banks, Do you ever wonder why when we went to church growing up that we never heard about the vile things in the bible? How it endorses slavery in Leviticus and Exodus. Exodus 21:20-21 even tells you how bad you can beat a slave. As long as the slave recovers from the beating in a couple of days, the owner isn't punished because the slave is his property. Or consider another atrocious story in the bible- starting with Numbers 31:18. Moses had his men kill all the Midianite men, women and children but spared the virgin women children to be passed around as the spoils of war. 32000 virgin girls. 16000 to be given to the community, 16000 divided among Moses' men, of which 32 of those were sacrificed to God as tribute(a cult- like action by the way). Without pretending to be naive as many Christians do, what do you suppose Moses' men did with the virgin women children? I'd wager they raped them with God's approval. They certainly didn't care about their well being. They slaughtered their parents and siblings right inn front of them. And this is the God you serve? No thanks.
You have it ALL WRONG.... so very wrong...When JESUS came into the world... he was tortured, mocked, persecuted, and crucified even tho ..innocent...he came as a baby ... he lived to teach and serve.. he was among the poor.. People expected JESUS to be a wealthy king or high earthly ruler... but he was LOVE...
Jennifer Wyatt, In Matthew 10:34, Jesus also said, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter -in - law against her mother-in law, a man's enemies will become members of his own household.
tod beard MEANING that PEOPLE will choose to go with Satan and his philosophy and not choose loyalty to the message and loyalty to God and that people should be loyal to the message and THIS will divide people even in the family, and not to be surprised or discouraged by this. Let's try Mark 10: 29 Truly I tell you, said Jesus, no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for My sake and for the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundredfold in the present age - houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and fields, along with persecutions - and to receive eternal life in the age to come. What a wicked thing to do to purposely quote the bible out of context to someone who obviously has love for truth.
magicmarkerDiscogangster , Your's is one interpretation out of many and she has the right idea as long as it conforms with your belief. I have my doubts that Jesus said any of this knowing the gospels were written by anonymous authors decades after the supposed events,in highly literate Greek, when the language of Jesus and the people of Palestine, in his day, was Aramaic with a 3 percent literacy rate.
magicmarkerDiscogangster , If it was meant to say that people will go with Satan and his ways why was it translated from Greek to what the verse said which is what I wrote? Hell was an invention of Christianity to keep people in line. It's not referred to in the OT as it is in the NT.
@@maggiejones9367 Academic scholars working with textual criticism believe the Apostles, eye witnesses, did write the Gospels. See: Gary Habermas at UCSB ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ay_Db4RwZ_M.html This man is saying, dump Jesus and move on. Deu 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, Deu 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. This man is not a preacher, he is the opposite and should not be deceiving people otherwise.
