CNN: Passions over 'prosperity gospel': Was Jesus wealthy?

[GhostofSparta]

I think my bottom-line summation, based on the totality of my understanding and observations of myriad relevant factors, is that there is little inherently-and-highly evil or saintly about either poverty or prosperity as part of the state of a person's existence. As I said, the devil will be in the details.

Remember, it's not money that's the root of all evil, it's the love of money. And us poor people can love money just as much as Bill Gates. :evilg:

[Mickalino]

Remember, it's not money that's the root of all evil, it's the love of money. And us poor people can love money just as much as Bill Gates. :evilg:

That's one verse that I don't understand.

I can see how the love of money can motivate a whole lot of evil.

But all evil ?

If I end up committing adultery, is it because I love money ? (assuming it's just a hot broad, who isn't rich)

[GhostofSparta]

That's one verse that I don't understand.

I can see how the love of money can motivate a whole lot of evil.

But all evil ?

If I end up committing adultery, is it because I love money ? (assuming it's just a hot broad, who isn't rich)

Honestly, I don't know the answer to this one, I may have to leave it to ASF. :whoknows:

[Prosperity]

Remember, it's not money that's the root of all evil, it's the love of money. And us poor people can love money just as much as Bill Gates. :evilg:

ignorance is the root of all evil, but the love of money is definitely evil/sin/bad if it's in excess and or if it's a higher priority than other things. The well being of the soul ought to be our first devotion, and then our health, and then after that our wealth. If somebody loves money more than their soul and their health then that's when it is wrong.

But I don't think wealth in itself is really a bad thing unless it messes up how someone deals with their more important priorities.

As for this whole prosperity church, it sounds like bull****, it's good to see Christians calling it out

[AsburySkinsFan]

John 3:22

22After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.

Good catch, strange its only in one of the Gospels. I've spent so much time in the synoptics that I'm gonna have to devote a little bit more to our friend John.

Born of water is a reference to being born the first time, this is in reference to the mistake that Nicodemus made when Jesus said you must be born "anothen" which can mean "again" or "from above" Nicodemus" asks "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" Nicodemus was talking about a "water birth" Jesus is talking about being born "from above". Water baptism and being born "anothen" are not one and the same.

[twa]

that's a nice way of putting Christ into the lives of people who aren't Christian.

How so?

I do not believe doing good makes you a Christian,thought being one should make you want to do good.

It rains on the just and the unjust....we all get wet and things grow as a result;)

[Prosperity]

How so?

I do not believe doing good makes you a Christian,thought being one should make you want to do good.

It rains on the just and the unjust....we all get wet and things grow as a result;)

my assumption is that non Christian do plenty of good work

if they do good work then the result is of Christ being in their life

[AsburySkinsFan]

This is sort of off-topic, but related. Today at work I had a package of books that titled "New Revised Standard Version Bible", and something referring to how it was accurate and trusted. How can the Bible be revised? And how can a revised version of a historical document like the Bible be totally accurate?

Its the translation work that is being revised mostly due to the fact that new and older texts are being found all the time. For instance, when the KJV was translated in 1611 there were maybe 20 New Testament greek texts dating to the 4th and 5th centuries; today there are thousands that have been uncovered through archaeological research. Today we have better and older documents than at any other time since those texts were first written. Revising the translation work is being done on the basis of the fact that there are now better original documents and the fact that languages change (even English) as such the English translation needs to be adjusted to fit our modern language. The language of even 50 years ago has changed significantly to the point that it is important to revisit the translations. Also there are a lot of places where older translations will say things like mankind, or men when the actual reference is the more gender inclusive humanity; those are things that modern translators are more aware of than their previous counterparts.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

I don't really give a **** if he was wealthy or not...the teachings he gave are great rules for life and even though I have my own certain feelings on religion, there is pretty much no doubt that what he did was good.

(Although it is kind of ironic that the son of a carpenter got nailed to a couple of 2 by 4's)

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ok, serious question here. Jesus is the Word made flesh, the Son of God. Why is Jesus always considered the "Son" of God instead of just being called God? If the Word, Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are all the same exact thing, why aren't they all just called God so to not confuse the heck out of people like me? The whole trinity thing is extremely confusing and raises a plethora of questions. Why make things so dang difficult?

Also, does that mean that the Word, Jesus, and God all existed at the same time in the beginning, or did one come before the other?

Short answer, because no one single "person of the Trinity" is considered "God" as such. We tend to wrongly use God to describe the Father, as such the other two (Son and Spirit) are then subservient to God. The reason Christian theology holds true to the truth of the Trinity is that we see evidence for it throughout scripture, and its what the earliest Christians believed as seen in their earliest creeds, as such its not a matter of "making things difficult" instead it is more accurately just difficult by its nature. With that said, the Trinity is confusing, and the dynamic relationship between Father, Son and Spirit have been a difficult and mysterious discussion for 2000 years.

Yeah, Techboy sent me a book, "The Case for Christ", and I have read many others too since, that basically claim that the newer interpretations are just as accurate (if not more so) than the KJV (if I'm not mistaken-been a while since I read these books). Maybe he or Asbury can confirm or correct this.

Read the post I wrote just previous to this one.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Probably the best analogy is this :

Water....it comes in 3 forms, but they are all water :

Solid (Ice)

Liquid (duh)

Gas (Steam or Vapor)

The trinity of water. The three are one. They are each their own. They are each individual. But they are all water.

There is an inherent weakness in this analogy though Mick, and its that H2O cannot exist at the same time in all three states, as such this analogy falls into the theology rejected by the early church; Modalism. Modalism states that there is one God and that God became Jesus and while Jesus there was no Father and after Jesus he became the Spirit. God ends up transforming from role to role or modes.

The egg tends IMO to be one of the best that avoids Modalism.

Shell

White

Yolk

All three make up the egg itself, all three exist at the same time, and all three have different roles that can be accomplished simultaneously.

[Ellis]

yeah, but is the egg brown or white?

LOL!

[AsburySkinsFan]

Shouldn't Christ be sitting in the same spot as God if they're the same person? How can I sit in the middle of the couch and on the right side of the couch at the same time? (LOL, I know that's a really bad analogy).

See my post above.

The other issue I am having is the whole salvation by faith or by faith and works.

I subscribe to the Wesleyan/Arminian theology that God's grace and offer of salvation through Christ is available to all and it is by our free will that we respond to God's grace in faith or we reject it in defiance. Calvinism never sat well with me.

I also don't believe that faith alone will save you. I believe that you have to live a good life (basically like Christ lived) and have faith, but that's just my opinion.

I like this question a lot! And I agree with you, my thinking is like this; a orange does not try to be colored orange, being orange is simply in its nature. Likewise, Christians don't "try to love" instead they love because it is who they are as Christians. While I believe that living a life of love is crucial to the Christian life I have to draw the line at the good things I do in life earning me merit for salvation, if it is that then it is not salvation "sola fide" (faith alone). Loving others is who we are.

[AsburySkinsFan]

yeah, but is the egg brown or white?

LOL!

Golden silly.

[AsburySkinsFan]

that's a nice way of putting Christ into the lives of people who aren't Christian.

John Wesley did the same thing, he called it Prevenient Grace (the grace that goes before). Basically, one part of it is that when you see someone outside of Christian faith do acts of love and mercy then that is God's prevenient grace working in their lives.

[AsburySkinsFan]

That's one verse that I don't understand.

I can see how the love of money can motivate a whole lot of evil.

But all evil ?

If I end up committing adultery, is it because I love money ? (assuming it's just a hot broad, who isn't rich)

Honestly, I don't know the answer to this one, I may have to leave it to ASF. :whoknows:

Hyperbole gentlemen, same way when Jesus said it is better that you pluck out your eye or cut off your hand; he's not really saying pluck it out or cut it off, and here he's not really intending for the love of money "greed" to be the ground zero of all evil, but he's wanting us to see that the love of money can be really destructive.

[Switchgear]

Of course Jesus had money. His father was a carpenter for Christ sake.

I think Joseph was a carpenter for his own sake as well. That line just cracked me up.

Here's something I don't get. Believing in Christ guarantees everlasting life, right? So say you die unsure or worse. You then go to judgement, and all doubt is removed. Why is it then too late to be saved?

The destination of the everlasting spirit can only be determined during the brief 100 or so years we get on earth, and we basically have to guess right? It doesn't seem very fair.

[brandymac27]

I think Joseph was a carpenter for his own sake as well. That line just cracked me up.

Here's something I don't get. Believing in Christ guarantees everlasting life, right? So say you die unsure or worse. You then go to judgement, and all doubt is removed. Why is it then too late to be saved?

The destination of the everlasting spirit can only be determined during the brief 100 or so years we get on earth, and we basically have to guess right? It doesn't seem very fair.

I read this book that is written by some pastor who claims to be one of God's end time prophets, and he basically said that when Christ returns and his chosen (including himself I guess) rule the earth, all the rest of us will be in our grave waiting for the day that he raises us all back to life. At that point, Christ will then "give us a second chance" (so to speak). Basically, he is saying that if some people don't believe in this lifetime or don't get saved and ask for forgiveness from our sins, Christ being as forgiving as he is, will give us all a 2nd chance.

Now, I have NO IDEA if what he says or believes has any merit whatsoever, but it is in this book called "The Prophesied End Time" by Ronald Weinland (I got it free off of this website I went to). It has some pretty extreme views IMO, like he completely denounces the trinity (I can't remember why), but it's pretty interesting to say the least.

[Veretax]

But each 3 phases of water may be chemically the same, but they each have their own purpose. So, how can you be "one" or "together", yet an "individual" both at the same time? Just like in the Bible it says that Christ will sit at the right hand of God. Shouldn't Christ be sitting in the same spot as God if they're the same person? How can I sit in the middle of the couch and on the right side of the couch at the same time? (LOL, I know that's a really bad analogy).

There is an inherent weakness in this analogy though Mick, and its that H2O cannot exist at the same time in all three states, as such this analogy falls into the theology rejected by the early church; Modalism. Modalism states that there is one God and that God became Jesus and while Jesus there was no Father and after Jesus he became the Spirit. God ends up transforming from role to role or modes.

The egg tends IMO to be one of the best that avoids Modalism.

Shell

White

Yolk

All three make up the egg itself, all three exist at the same time, and all three have different roles that can be accomplished simultaneously.

I will answer both quotes at the same time. You are 'slightly' wrong about H2O existing at the same time in all three states. In Chemistry we learn about the laws of Gas's, and we also learn about Thermodynamics. In Thermodynamics, there is a concept called the triple point. It is the temperature and pressure at which matter can exist simultaneously in three phases. I always think of this in terms of water, vapor, and ice, but all matter has a melting and boiling point. Recently they have even discovered that some matter may have multiple solid 'states'. Here's the wikipedia definition for reference...

In thermodynamics, the triple point of a substance is the temperature and pressure at which three phases (for example, gas, liquid, and solid) of that substance coexist in thermodynamic equilibrium.[1] For example, the triple point of mercury occurs at a temperature of −38.8344 °C and a pressure of 0.2 mPa.

In addition to the triple point between solid, liquid, and gas, there can be triple points involving more than one solid phase, for substances with multiple polymorphs. Helium-4 is a special case that presents a triple point involving two different fluid phases (see lambda point). In general, for a system with p possible phases, there are triple points.[1] The triple point of water is used to define the kelvin, the SI base unit of thermodynamic temperature.[2] The number given for the temperature of the triple point of water is an exact definition rather than a measured quantity. The triple points of several substances are used to define points in the ITS-90 international temperature scale, ranging from the triple point of hydrogen (13.8033 K) to the triple point of water (273.16 K).

Now, the difference between the triple point and the trinity, is that you need essentially the 'ideal' condition for any matter to exist in multiple states in this way . The right temperature and pressure. In Chemisty we learned that there are curves for temperature and pressure where matter can exist in the three states. The triple point, IIRC, is the intersection of those three lines in essence.

However, as I was starting to say the Trinity is unique because, all three manifestations of the Godhead exist simultaneously. Even when we don't see Christ we know he is there somewhere, just as we know the Spirit and the Father are there as well. The triple point is just a finite example of what is really an infinitely large truth to try to wrap your head around.

While I appreciate the spirit of the 'egg' analogy, I tend to discount it as when i think of the egg, it seems more like a mixture, but let us keep in mind that most of these things that we use to try and understand how God works do so because our minds are finite.

[AsburySkinsFan]

While I appreciate the spirit of the 'egg' analogy, I tend to discount it as when i think of the egg, it seems more like a mixture, but let us keep in mind that most of these things that we use to try and understand how God works do so because our minds are finite.

I agree, and because our minds are finite we will always fail to fully grasp or be able to articulate the infinite.

[Veretax]

The other issue I am having is the whole salvation by faith or by faith and works. I used to fall into the Calvinistic view (shortly after my agnosticism), but I'm not so sure about that anymore. Does God really predetermine who he will save and does he do it completely randomly? If that's the case, then it's a total crapshoot whether or not someone can actually have the pleasure of eternal life. It seems like this would go against most of what is taught in the NT (that anyone can be saved through faith, not just a select few).

I also don't believe that faith alone will save you. I believe that you have to live a good life (basically like Christ lived) and have faith, but that's just my opinion.

First I want to say it seems weird to be discussing this openly on the Skins forum, and yet I take joy knowing I have many brothers and sisters in Christ on this board. It brings a smile to my face to know this, and I offer the following in the hopes it will encourage and let you know you are not alone in seeing some of these things.

I totally understand how you feel. I grew up in a Presbyterian church (Reformed faith), and at one point I actually found myself asking some very silly questions because of the consequences of taking Calvins ideas to what might be called Hyper Calvinism today. When you take CAlvinism and carry it to an extreme was I once did, you build up this idea that those who are going to get saved, were thus chosen to do so, cannot resist grace, and therefore, will be saved no matter what I personally might do relative to that person. It is because of this mentality that some of my more charismatic friends growing up called us the 'frozen chosen'.

I don't claim to be calvinistic anymore. Calvin had a lot of good things to say to try and explain systematic theology to people who intellectually were likely not as advanced as we are today. I believe God already knows who will and who wont' respond to the Salvation Call. As I've studied the bible more and more I'm convinced that there is indeed election going on, that being God choosing people, but as a Calvinist growing up I thought that pertained only to salvation, when the more I read the bible I get a different feel. That being that those who answer the Call, God elects, apoints in effect, to some service, some good works, perhaps even some position or place in his plan.

It is not that God chooses who will be saved, God chooses that those who answer that call, to be conformed to the image of Christ for one thing, and what's more, to be conformed unto the doing of Good works. TAke a look at Ephesians 2 again:

Ephesians 2:8-10

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

That has become something of a life verse for me, a constant reminder that God didn't just save me to warm a pew. He didn't die on the Cross simply to have me sit and watch his majesty in action. Although we are indeed all witnesses to his creation, and working around us. God saved us and chooses each of us for his special purposes. In Corinthians, Paul goes on a lengthy rant about the body of Christ, and all its ministries and parts. He compares it to the human body, and if you think about it this makes so much sense. We are all part of the body of Christ if we are saved. But not everyone is the eyes, or ears, or the stomach, lungs, or the hands and feet of the body. We are all part of the body, and each appointed a particular use within that body.

As our friend has already pointed out in James, and Paul also elsewhere, it is not doing Good that saves, truly, if doing Good or keeping the law could save, it would have already done so. Instead, as Paul said in Romans, we establish the law, but the law did not 'make us' saved... as Paul says in Romans 3:19-28

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

THe other thing we learn from both the NT and OT is that without faith it is absolutely impossible to please God. No matter how good a thing in our eyes we may try to do, the bottom line is we cannot do good in his eyes, absent faith. even our best attempts at such are like grease stained rags compared to him. That is why salvation is by faith, not of works. That is why Christ came, because the law of its own could not save. Romans 10:7 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

I really do encourage anyone reading this thread who is struggling with these same ideas, to take a good read through Romans, Ephesians, and Galations. When read in context, the whole of scripture, and the point of faith becomes very clear, in fact so clear that it becomes clear that even the patriarchs were saved by their faith, not so much by their works. Anyhow. Thought, I'd lend what insight I have garnered from scripture. I may not be a bible scholar per say, but I feel after 13 years of really digging into scripture, that the more I read his word, the more it makes sense as a whole to me. I pray that God will grant you the same or like understanding to help asuage any doubts or concerns you may have at this time. May God Bless you abundantly as you seek the truth.

[polywog999]

Originally Posted by Jumbo

Attn: Vicious & Polywogg---take your back-n-forth to PM if need be (and don't PM me) and out of the thread. Furthermore, don't either of you post in this thread again unless you have something substantive to say. If you're unsure what might be "substantive", don't worry, I suffer no such confusion on my end.

Will do Jumbo, sorry!

Lets shake Vicious, kay?

[twa]

John Wesley did the same thing, he called it Prevenient Grace (the grace that goes before). Basically, one part of it is that when you see someone outside of Christian faith do acts of love and mercy then that is God's prevenient grace working in their lives.

Yes,and grace/love/good works existed before Christ walked the earth.

Jesus didn't suddenly create it ,nor was he the single source of it,but rather God's physical expression of it.

[boobiemiles]

And there you have it, the NT was was written by the people who were closest to Jesus and who knew him, not some big Constantinian conspiracy secret group.

Oh and I really don't care that you disagree with my understanding of the Apocrapha, look up the definition of apcoraphal, and get back to me. As for now I'm done with your revisionist 21st century we know better than them version of church history.

Do you know the history of Christianity? I mean the story outside the bible?

I never said I know more about your religion than you. This is not a contest. Like I said religion is a personal quest. We all have transgretions and moments in our lives that challenges our faith in ourselves, Jesus, and God. If you have understanding you can face those challenges and find a sense of solace. Like I said if your practice satisfies you, so be it. If you feel religion is suppose to be constricted to scripture, and that gives you strength, great. I found my strength that is all that counts.

[DRSmith]

That's one verse that I don't understand.

I can see how the love of money can motivate a whole lot of evil.

But all evil ?

If I end up committing adultery, is it because I love money ? (assuming it's just a hot broad, who isn't rich)

Actually in the oldest manuscripts there is no definite article before the word root, so it may be better stated as a root of evil.

It would seem in the case of both money and women that covetousness is the main problem not being happy with what you have and desiring more, or something someone else has.