Evangelical Disconnect

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Conspiracy to steal animals: In Mark 11:2-4, Matt 21:2-3, and Luke 19:30-31, Jesus instructs two of his disciples to go into a village - perhaps Bethany. They were to locate a colt tied up near the entrance, and to return with it. If someone stopped them they were to explain that the Lord had need of it....We don't know what arrangements the Lord had made with its owner.

When did Jesus say he wasn't God? :confused:If you're saying that Jesus IS God, then the quote from Jesus would read:

"Why callest thou [Jesus] good? There is none good, but one, [Jesus]."


Doesn't make sense to me... :confused:

"For John came neither eating nor drinking; and they say: He hath a devil.

The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a wine drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners."

Way to change the meaning!

You can't please certain critics. Do you know what the original Hebrew word was that was used?

Because the Bible wasn't written in English you know.


Conversely why did the Son of Man/God drink alcohol? For what purpose? For social reasons?

If Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of Man, then God = Man, unless God was a woman (married to "Man")... :eek:

Prejudice based on race or nationality: Matthew 15:22-28 describes an incident between Jesus and a Canaanite woman. Mark 7:25-30 describes the same incident, identifying her as Greek/Syrophenician. One commentary on the Bible explains that "The inhabitants of this area were racially and linguistically connected with the ancient Canaanites."

She begged Jesus to cure her daughter who was possessed by a demon. He first ignored her, but then explained that he was sent only to bring the Gospel to the Jews, not to the Gentiles such as she. Jesus cruelly replied to the desperate mother that it was not right for him "to take the children's bread and to cast it to dogs." i.e. it is not appropriate to take the Gospel, which was intended only for the Jews, and offer it to Gentiles as well -- here described as sub-humans, as dogs. Here, Jesus was following the behavior of other observant Jews in the 1st century AD who would frequently refer to Gentiles contemptuously as "dogs." She quipped back to Jesus that even the "dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." Jesus relented and, from a distance, cured the daughter of demonic possession because of the mother's faith.

The sin in this case was to treat a person of another race and/or nationality as sub-human, by referring to them as a dog.You said yourself they were from the same race, yet plodded on with your specious objection. Jesus often spoke with parables and metaphors.

Why shouldn't a Jewish rabbi question what business she had asking Him for a miracle? He tested her faith a bit. He did that with Jews too.

You said yourself they were from the same race, yet plodded on with your specious objection. Jesus often spoke with parables and metaphors.

Why shouldn't a Jewish rabbi question what business she had asking Him for a miracle? He tested her faith a bit. He did that with Jews too.Why did the Son of God bother going around healing people ad hoc in any case? There were millions of people living in the world at the time, many of which were sick or disabled. Why discriminate good deeds for the few? Was he trying to impress people to "buy" followers with miracles/magic?

Why did Peter get the luxury of a net full of fish to prove to him that Jesus had divine powers, but I see no evidence of Jesus' divinity, save for a book written by people who believed it?

If Peter was the rock of Christianity, what happened to all the people of his time who never got to meet him? Did they go to Heaven or Hell when they died?

There are also cases of him contravening Jewish Law (working on the Sabbath... also him and his disciples eating without washing hands,....."Do you not understand, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy? But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man."

Jesus came to give us the New Law. That's not a sin. God can change his own religion.

If not being a pharisaic Jew from the first century B.C. is a sin, I guess you've got us.

You said yourself they were from the same race, yet plodded on with your specious objection. Jesus often spoke with parables and metaphors.

Why shouldn't a Jewish rabbi question what business she had asking Him for a miracle? He tested her faith a bit. He did that with Jews too.Huh?? Wasn't Jesus a Jew, not a Caanaanite/Gentile?

....entering the Temple in Jerusalem and kicking over the vendors' property)....Jesus is Lord. It's His house.

"Do you not understand, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy? But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man."

Jesus came to give us the New Law. That's not a sin. God can change his own religion.

If not being a pharisaic Jew from the first century B.C. is a sin, I guess you've got us.Why did God wait 4,000 years to give a small group of men the New Law? Did he change his mind after 4,000 years of man's history, or did he just procrastinate on sending his Son down there, when Man had twisted up his message thousands of years before?

Huh?? Wasn't Jesus a Jew, not a Caanaanite/Gentile?It is known that the people of the region come from the same genetic stock, just different but somewhat similar cultures.

Why did God wait 4,000 years to give a small group of men the New Law? Did he change his mind after 4,000 years of man's history, or did he just procrastinate on sending his Son down there, when Man had twisted up his message thousands of years before?Well, I guess you got me. I don't know.

Why however are we assuming it must have been that way if any of this is valid?

If you're saying that Jesus IS God, then the quote from Jesus would read:

"Why callest thou [Jesus] good? There is none good, but one, [Jesus]."


Doesn't make sense to me... :confused:Why?

It is known that the people of the region come from the same genetic stock, just different but somewhat similar cultures.So where do you draw the line on "same genetic stock"? Was there a race that was too genetically divergent thatr Jesus wouldn't have cared for?

Do you know what the original Hebrew word was that was used?

Because the Bible wasn't written in English you know.


Conversely why did the Son of Man/God drink alcohol? For what purpose? For social reasons?

If Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of Man, then God = Man, unless God was a woman (married to "Man")... :eek:Is alcohol intrinsically evil? And what does Hebrew have to do with it?

I think they mean both Divine and Human, silly.:rolleyes:

Why?Because if Jesus was the one "GOOD", he wouldn't have needed to make the statement or question the label that the person had given him. The statement only has meaning if the label of Jesus being "good' is incorrect, and he is pointing it out.

So where do you draw the line on "same genetic stock"? Was there a race that was too genetically divergent thatr Jesus wouldn't have cared for?You are the one who is inferring it was a racial issue. What line are you asking me to draw?

If they are from the same stock, Then it wasn't racial.

You are the one who is inferring it was a racial issue. What line are you asking me to draw?

If they are from the same stock, Then it wasn't racial.Okay... so what you are saying is that he only demurred initially to make a point, but he was always going to heal her child?

That is an acceptable interpretation I guess, but it still begs the question of why he only healed people who asked him. Did he discriminate on the basis of manners or forthrightness? I thought it was "Blessed are the meek". Wouldn't a meek person possibly bow their head when Jesus passed and not ask for a miracle for their own benefit?

Is alcohol intrinsically evil? And what does Hebrew have to do with it?

I think they mean both Divine and Human, silly.:rolleyes:I thought you were quoting the English version and questioning the interpretation of it. The English version of the Bible loses meaning in its translation from Hebrew/Aramaic. Anyone who has studied language knows that accurate meanings are quite often impossible to translate from one language to another. Furthermore the Bible went through a Greek edition I believe, then a Roman one. I'm not even sure if the King James version was translated from the original Hebrew/Aramaic one. Someone may be able to help me on that. But remember that Jesus' quotes and Peter's letters were not written/spoken in English.

Is alcohol intrinsically evil? And what does Hebrew have to do with it?

I think they mean both Divine and Human, silly.:rolleyes:It's a drug. That alters your mind. Who decides what drugs are evil? The politicians? Is getting addicted to heroine a sin? If it is, why is that different from alcohol in God's eyes? Is there some line in the sand in God's Law that differentiates between good recreational drugs and bad ones? Or are all recreational drugs not sinful because God never said they were? In fact, is any act not sinful (okay to do) if it is not on the Ten Commandments, or mentioned as a sinful act in the Bible?

And on the subject of the Ten Commandments, which is the correct one? The Jewish one (Moses was a Jew and they had possession of them first) or the Christian one? I understand that they are not the same.

Because if Jesus was the one "GOOD", he wouldn't have needed to make the statement or question the label that the person had given him. The statement only has meaning if the label of Jesus being "good' is incorrect, and he is pointing it out.All three of the verses you quoted appear to describe the same incident. A young man demands salvation but isn't called by the Father to believe Jesus is Lord. He also won't do what Jesus chooses to require of him. Why, I don't know but I don't see a shred of basis for your assertion that Jesus should have answered in the way you feel he should have. Maybe the point is that Jesus, being Lord, knew his heart and knew he wasn't really serious.