This question of Bible translation is an important one. When we read the words of Jesus in our English Bible we are reading a translation of a translation (he spoke in Aramaic not Greek). And when we read a version translated from Latin, as Catholic bibles used to be, it’s a translation of a translation of a translation!
St. Augustine, who didn’t know Greek, used a Latin translation which included the aforementioned error leading to his Original Sin theory, which led to various extremes in Western Christianity like Calvinism and Jansenism. That never happened in the Eastern Church, which never taught that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin.
I think you know what I was getting at.
Humans care more about it because they perceive it to matter about their future. Their reasoning is selfish. God provided a way to remove this guilt and the consequences it might encompass. Not because God doesn’t care but because He does. He doesn’t want us burdened wth the guilt of sin. It prevents us from living a normal life. Some Christians are too preoccupied with sin. They need to get a life!
Yes God would prefer no sin, but I am guessing He is more pragmatic than we take Him for and realises (who wouldn’t?) that it is inevitable and therefore lives with it. It is a shame that many Christians can’t be that pragmatic.
God knows that life is not about pleasing Him. He likes it if we do, but does not hold it against us if we don’t. It is only hyper-religious humans who decide that this life is only about God. I am sure that monks are content with their lot but I am not convinced God is as pleased with them as they think He is.
but I am more certain that He doesn’t want overzealous Christians laying all this guilt onto people who are just trying to live their lives as best they can.
Richard
It can’t be counted an error unless there was a better way in Latin to render the clause. There may be one, but as I said my Latin is no longer up to the task of figuring that out.
If there is no better way, then we have an example of an inherent problem with translation: things get lost because words in one language don’t match up perfectly to those in another language (things also get added that don’t belong there, as well, but that’s not really an issue here).
If anyone here knows Latin well enough to speak on this, it would be great!
YES, according to the teaching of Jesus Christ:
see for instance, Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:36; 2 Timothy 1:9.
YES, according to the teaching of Jesus Christ:
see for instance, Luke 14:12-24; Matthew 25:34
YES, according to the teaching of Jesus Christ:
see for instance, Matthew 25:34; John 5:29.
YES, according to the teaching of Jesus Christ:
see for instance, Matthew 22:37-39; Luke 10:27; Mark 12:30.
You are free to choose this as “the reason for your life on earth”.
But then, as already said, you may be wasting your time in this thread: The subject of this thread makes sense only if one accepts the teaching of Jesus Christ.
I would like to propose that you open a new thread with the title:
“Could life be nothing more than being here?”
In my view it would be worthy to discuss this question in depth.
Oh Boy!
Talk about abusing Scripture! And defaming Christ at the same time!
God provides a means to alleviate guilt and allow you to live with a free conscience and you ram it back in His face and make it a necessity of life!
Christ gives you some guidelines as to how to live and interact with people and you make it into some sort of trial.
I can’t even start to address your misconceptions There is not enough room on the forum server.
Suffice it to say you are wrong on all counts
If God was really bothered by sinning He would not forgive it at all let alone offer a free pardon! You have turned Grace into burden and obligation
God gives you the gift of life and you throw it back at Him and claim it is not enough. You want eternity.
Go get a life! (You only get one on Earth and you are wasting it)
Richard
PS If you want to address your citations one by one go ahead. I will answer any and all of them
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25For whoever wants to save their life f will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.
I guess you are taking this as "Buying a stairway to heaven? Seeing as Paul refutes this there must be an alternative view.
The problem here is that you are assuming that every second counts. ie. that you must be being perfect 24/7. Where does it actually say this? All it says is that you will be judged by your overall performance. It does not say that you must be being righteous al the time. Or that this life is only about being righteous all the time, or even that this life is just about being righteous.
So, no it doesn not say what is being claimed
Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save their life b will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 37Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 38If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”
Would appear to be a duplication. We all lnow that the Gospels duplicate… There is no need for you to.
So do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, or of me, His prisoner. Instead, join me in suffering for the gospel by the power of God. 9He has saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works, but by His own purpose and by the grace He granted us in Christ Jesus before time began.b 10And now He has revealed this grace through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has abolished death and illuminated the way to life and immortality through the gospel, 11to which I was appointed as a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher.
Ahh, the Zealot approach.
Now this one is much more difficult to refute or even disprove. Especially as Paul is Himself convinced that He has only one purpose a to preach the Gospel and live a holy life. The question is,:
Is this what god requires of all of us?
Or is it a personal choice or calling?
Clearly from this passage Paul has taken it as his personal Calling and is satisfied that the future justifies his present suffering (He was after all in prison at the time) In the circumstances he had no choice in what he could do. And we all know that Paul, like all Jews, considers HIs life at the sole discretion and control of God.
Is this what God requires of all of us? I do not think Paul is claiming that. He is claiming it is his calling. Perhaps you think it is yours? I do not see a conflict in my call to preach and going away for a few days on holiday.
However you appear to be claiming that Original Sin is part of this mission and that it is the duty of each and everyone to conquer it. This passage does not claim this.And neither does Paul.
So scripture aside (dare I say that? shucks I have!)
What is the Good News? That all have sinned? Or that all are (can be) saved?
However you look at it the second overides the first, even if it were true.
So, God spends 6 million years or so making the earth and gives each person 8o years or so to do something that literally takes 1 second: to accept the forgiveness. Brilliant!
Not only that but the grand scheme doesn’t actually work. 6,000,000,000,000 or so people never manage it! And not only that God knows already that they won’t!
Nearly as good as the god who kills and maims people Why? Who can second guess God!
All I know is that neither of these version deserve my worship. Perhaps @mitchellmckain is right. (most) religion sucks!
,Richard
Here a further reason strengthening the view that other civilisations (if any) have the same appearance we have:
Humankind in the image of God (Genesis 1:16-27) is defined by the bodily appearance Jesus Christ assumes.
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation (Colossians 1:15).
We are in the image of God because we share the same type of body as Jesus Christ, and thereby we are in the image of the Son, the authentic image of the invisible God. The body of the Son of God is the standard that allows us to define the human species as it is today.
Accordingly, after the moment referred to in Genesis 9:5-6, to be in the image of God, any creature on Earth or elsewhere has to share a body like the body of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Is man the image of Christ or is Christ in the image of man?
Methinks you have it backwards
Richard
The problem is that you are assuming that assumption. Where does anyone actually demonstrate it?
So no, we haven’t said what you are claiming and you are wrong. Again. I don’t think I will read any further.
1 Like
By claiming the sole reason for being here is a right of passage. Therefore nothing else is important or even allowed.
(Why are you unable to see what the implication of your beliefs are? Be it here or in your other field of expertise)
Richard
Why did God create? I’ve posted the answer. Do you remember? It says nothing nor implies anything about our being perfect 24/7.
This is not about your answer.
This is about the question I asked on this thread.
Richard
I hope most people will recognse this
Tell me there’s a Heaven Chris Rea
The problem with Original Sin is that all that suffering is in vane. If they are not Christian they go to Hell not Heaven
Richard
Not at all. When God says, “Let us make man in our image”, He is talking to the heavenly assembly (not, it isn’t the Trinity, for some reasons that should be obvious) and He and the heavenly assembly are spirit beings, so right from the start we know that the “image of God” is something spiritual.
Second, the proposal “Let us make” and the actualization “So God made” bracket some material, and that bracketing is a way of including a definition. That bracketed material says that mankind has dominion over all living things, so the “image of God” has to do with having dominion [which, BTW, doesn’t mean doing as you please with something but managing it to make it thrive].
Third, the translation of “בְּצֶ֥לֶם” (be-tse-lem) as “in the image” isn’t necessarily the best; the Hebrew prefix בְ (b) when translated “in” can have several meanings, and here it’s a fair bet that “as” is better. בְ can also indicate that the noun following it should be taken as a verbal noun, in which case (in agreement, BTW, with Dr. Michael Heiser) the combined word should be translated by “as imagers” (of God), which would make this relational rather than substantive. That fits with the point above since having dominion is a relationship.
So the “image of God” has nothing to do with physical form or appearance, it has to do with the spiritual status of being as God to all other life(forms), i.e. being God’s representatives or (in accord with the New Testament) ambassadors. This fits with ancient near eastern usage of an ambassador of a king being “the image” of the king, which didn’t mean he looked like the king but that he was supposed to think like the king and thus represent the king’s views and understanding to wherever it was he was appointed.
In this context Genesis 9:5-6 makes perfect sense: the ambassador or representative of a king was regarded as being – imaging – the king in the place where he was assigned, so an assault on the representative was the equivalent of an assault on the king himself, so the authorities where such an assault took place would be expected to deal with the attackers as though they had been assassins attacking the king himself.
“After” suggests that prior to that moment the relationship was different somehow. But that’s backwards: the usage in Genesis 1 determines the meaning of Genesis 9, not the other way around.
Besides which, a body can change, which implies a lessening of the Image: someone who is blind, or someone missing a leg, or someone with leprosy would be less the image of God than someone who is whole; for that matter, someone who is obese or someone who is scrawny would be less in the image of God than someone as fit as an old-time carpenter/contractor!
It’s about a biblical answer and my Father’s heart.
If what you believe about God’s control is true. Your Heavenly Father does not have a heart.
Richard
The problem is what you don’t believe about God.
In all this, Job did not sin or charge God with wrongdoing.
Job 1:22
Though he slay me, I will hope in him…
Job 13:15
1 Like
Don’t forget:
“I fashion wholeness, and I create calamity”.
God is claiming that whenever wholeness happens, and whenever calamity happens, He did it – that’s the logical progression from “I am the Lord, and there is no other.”
1 Like
Apparently this doesn’t get read, or certainly not comprehended:
Continuing the discussion from Is Evolution a form of religion: