You should read post #162 of this thread. Two different Bibles, two different ideas.. The faith of Christ or Faith in Christ. They are completely different and opposite ideas. But you believe they are both correct?
Interesting.
- Status
You should read post #162 of this thread. Two different Bibles, two different ideas.. The faith of Christ or Faith in Christ. They are completely different and opposite ideas. But you believe they are both correct?
Interesting.
http://bibletopics.com/topics/378.htm verses on heaven (i could reference even more than the ones here)
here are over 50 on hell http://www.sounddoctrine.com/fifty.htm
look if you are really curious, i will buy you this book and pay for it myself (see post 266)... if you are not curious and you just don't believe it, fine.. but making the argument the bible is silent on the subject doesn't make sense, it is obviously not, if you don't believe the bible why do you care??
progun brings up the best point, either you believe the bible or you discount it, the bible is not written in a manner that it can be taken "halfway"....
you are exactly right, (except for the two different bible thing?? not sure what you mean) they both can't be right and if they can't both be right that means that one belief is wrong, but in the same way some people believe that we get sick from bad energy and others believe we get sick from bacteria and both claim to have proof on their side only one is right!! just because there are disagreements among people does not discredit the bible it discredits the people with the beliefs... in the same way the crusades don't prove that Christianity is violent even though violence was done in the name of Christianity..
No, I'm not a Universilist. A Universalist believes all faiths are equally right. I do not. I believe the plan of salvation did not stop short at unbelief. I'm not sure what "ist" I'd be, except maybe a "realist."
I don't believe in hell because I do not believe the words we've built this entire idea on are without question. I believe there are valid questions and concerns regarding these words and their translation into a place of eternal torment. I would think that something so significant would have better, concrete evidence within the bible... I was shocked to learn what I did when I went on my journey into this idea of biblical hell. To say it exists, based on 3 words that very well could and do have separate meanings is a stretch and negligence at the very least.
It's a fundamental teaching within the Christian community and the biblical existence of this place is sketchy at best.
Last edited:
Two different bibles means two different translations, one is King James and the other is another common translation... Forgot which one it was though. I'll have to look, but you know what I was getting at.
What I'm trying to say is this. With all due respect, my opinion and your opinion + 50 cents will get you a can of pop. Truth by definition is exclusive. For there to be such a thing as absolute truth, when being compared to this "absolute truth", all other belief systems have to be false. To truly have "absolute truth", you must have an objective point of reference for truth. If you don't have an objective point of reference for truth, then it is all opinion. By this rationale, Bin Laden's beliefs, Buddha's beliefs, Dave Koresh's beliefs, Jeffery Dahmer's beliefs and anyone else's beliefs have as much credibility and weight as yours and mine. By this rationale, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Oprahism, Mormanism, and Christianity are all true, which is impossible, because they all differ on the nature of God, creation, salvation, judgement or lack there of, and eternity. Only one belief system can be true. Not all, not part of some, but either one is right and all are wrong or all are wrong. I've said all this to say this: The Bible claims to be the perfect, complete Word of God, written by men by the power of God, preserved and completed perfectly through men by God's power. If this is true, which is my belief, then it is the absolute truth to which all other beliefs and opinions are tested against. If there are errors in it, then obviously it is not the perfect complete Word of God, and bears no more weight or merit than any other book. If it is not perfect, then you might as well read the Berenstein Bears for your eternal salvation. What you cannot do is say "The Bible is the Word of God, but has errors."
ahhh, ok see what you are saying... yeah part of the problem is people don't go back to the original greek/hebrew, so they get confused....
I appreciate the offer but I like I said, the subject matter of these verses is clear. It's the timing of the reign of Christ they are both referring to (I mean, that's exactly what they say) but the timing is different. I honestly don't understand how it can be debated they they're talking about something different... They both talk about the reign of Christ and its timing.
The fact that we're even debating this is a bit discouraging to me. If I handed those verses to someone else and had them read them and tell me the subject matter I'm sure they'd agree with me as to what they're speaking about.
This is what's frustrating to me. I'm reading the verses and it's is very clear what they're talking about, yet you're wanting to tell me they are not talking about what they are talking about. It's very odd!
So the faith of Christ and faith in Christ are the same thing. Both correct and the Word of God. Interesting.
I don't have my bible or books in front of me. But the two verses (Rev and I Cor) I believe might be talking about two different times. The Millenium reign and His reigning in heaven forever. Offhand that is what I'm remembering
Both sides : let's quit putting people down for their opinions and interpretations (reason why in the rules we stay clear of these topics)
Both sides : let's quit putting people down for their opinions and interpretations (reason why in the rules we stay clear of these topics)
- Status
Similar threads
