Saturday, August 2, 2008
I don't know how to love him
What to do, how to move him
I've been changed, yes really changed
In these past few days when I've seen myself
I seem like someone else
I don't know how to take this
I don't see why he moves me
He's a man, he's just a man
And I've had so many men before
In very many ways
He's just one more
Should I bring him down
Should I scream and shout
Should I speak of love
Let my feelings out?
I never thought I'd come to this
What's it all about?
Don't you think it's rather funny
I should be in this position?
I'm the one who's always been
So calm, so cool, no lover's fool
Running every show
He scares me so
Yet if he said he loved me
I'd be lost, I'd be frightened
I couldn't cope, just couldn't cope
I'd turn my head, I'd back away
I wouldn't want to know
He scares me so
I want him so
I love him so
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Was Jesus married - Dan Brown's Claim
“And the companion of the…Mary Magdalene…her more than…the disciples…kiss her…on her…”. Brown adds his own words to this manuscript to support point.
Was Jesus married - Early Literature
There is no mention of Jesus’ wife during His ministry.
When Jesus was tried and crucified, there is no mention of a wife.
After Jesus death and resurrection, there is no mention of a wife.
Jesus’ family members -- mother, brothers, sisters -- are mentioned, yet no wife.
There is no indication that Jesus was widowed.“When Paul was defending his right to have a wife (1 Corinthians 9:5), he mentioned that Peter and Barnabas had wives.
1 Bock’s complete article can be viewed at: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/001/23.62.html.
Back in the days when ideas of ‘peace and love’ defied the social norm and challenged the conventional ways of thinking;
back when bellbottom jeans were in and tie-dye was outrageous;
when John Lennon rivaled Jesus in popularity;
a new term was twisted into existence. Sprung from the ashes of the beatnik 50s, fed by rock and roll, nurtured by the sexual revolution, and destined to signify counterculture at its finest, the term ‘hippie’ was born.
In the 60s and 70s, a hippie was someone who opposed the war in Vietnam, who dressed expressively, experimented with hallucinogens, lived for music, died for peace, who maintained that sort of fixation with everything radical.
Some say that the Hippie died with the onslaught of Big-Hair Bands and the premiere of Flashdance (essentially, the 80s). But others believe that the hippie was just cocooning itself, undergoing a butterfly-esque metamorphous so that, come the new millennium, the term hippie would rise again. And rise it has. Even today, in a world of iPhones and bad Reality TV, ‘hippies’ can be found roaming the streets or changing the world.
A contemporary hippie will sustain the initial hippie beliefs, largely ideas of peace, love, freedom, and personal expression, but with a modern-day, 21st century twist. Neo-hippies are no longer defined as “defying the social norm”, like in the dictionaries, because a lot of what makes a 2007 is not rejected but embraced by today’s culture.
A belief in peace, as stereotypical of a hippie mannerism as it may be, is an imperative feature of hippie life that survived the metamorphic change from the 60s to the present.
The only difference is that today, fighting for peace is not so much a rejection of the social standard. Many people, hippies and otherwise, believe strongly that peace is the answer.
A modern day hippie, however, will most likely vote Barrack Obama for President, based on his beliefs that fighting terrorism with intelligence and not bombs is the way to go.
Hippies of today would also participate in events such as Live 8, a string of concerts timed with the G8 Summit in 2005, to help end poverty and raise money for Africa. The hippies in 2007 will be seen with “Make Love Not War” bumper stickers or Anti-Bush screen savers. Always opposing the man, always working for the greater good of humankind. That is the true hippie way, no matter which decade.
The majority of non-hippies in the 60s and 70s were horrible prudes. The sexual revolution was a huge part of hippie culture, illustrating the openness toward sex and all things lewd that was the natural manner of any hippie. Hippies were not at all obscene or vulgar; they simply took a different angle on love and convergence. It was thought to be beautiful and profound, not something to be ignored or disgusted with. The revolution did eventually catch on, and by 2000 one could not even turn on their television without being exposed to some form of bawdy inappropriate material.
The hippie of today is no longer the revolutionist in this category, but the old-fashioned conservative. The ideas of the hippie about sex and love are the same, but the perception by the rest of the world on these thoughts has changed drastically. A contemporary hippie would never pull a Britney and get married and divorced before the tabloids could even be printed. Nor would a modern-day hippie expose his or herself on a reality TV show. The hippies of today reject anything that contaminates the purity in love and the beauty in union, especially the exploitation and misuse seen today.
Freedom also remains a huge part of hippie life, though it has gone through a modernization as well. The difference from the 60s and 70s to today is in the controversial issues at hand, not the ideas of liberty behind them. It is 2007. Every civil fight has been fought and every civil right has been wrought by now. Hippies of today do tend to veer left-wing when it comes to political issues of freedom and justice. The contemporary hippie will be pro-choice, and all for gay and lesbian rights. Religion was replaced by rock ‘n’ roll a long time ago, in the mind of a 2007 hippie. Free speech and all of those issues will always be hippie-esque, but even more so in today’s media-ridden world, a hippie will fight for freedom from media corruption. It is all about not letting the corporations, the suits, the Man himself, get to you. It’s about not selling out, not owning up, not giving in to what the “rest of the world” defines as normal. Freedom from conventionalism takes the stand nowadays; freedom from mediocrity, tradition, and most of all, boredom.
Personal expression is a vital piece of every hippie’s mind-set. In the 60s and 70s it was done through newfangled ideas of art and music and color and fashion. Regrettably for our millennium, the Cultural Revolution is over. Counterculture fought the good fight and came out on top. What was counterculture then is now just plain old culture. Hippies of today express themselves personally the same ways, through art or music or the written word, but none of these methods of personal expression are judged or shunned upon as they once were. In fact, they are encouraged and enhanced by large portions of our country. Once again, hippies are no longer defying the social norm, but living by it. That does mean, in any way, shape, or form, that they are ordinary.
Personal expression, to a modern-day hippie, is all about reaching out to a new level of depth. Listening to the Beatles and feeling emotions instead of hearing melodies; using the words of Paul Simon to convey thoughts and ideas rather than lyrics; touching everyone and everything possible with simply a sound.
Music to a 2007 hippie is not just having a love for the tunes of the 60s and 70s, but loving and appreciating all music for what it truly is: a reflection of feelings.
The age of the neo-hippie has arrived. They are not simply cutouts of the 60s pasted into a new millennium, but different people with different lives. The impact of the 60s and 70s still holds strong in many branches of hippie life, especially through the principles of peace, love, freedom, and personal expression. The term ‘hippie’ did not die with the end of 70s. It has always been around, just waiting to be applied to a new era.
C'mon people, now smile on your brother, ev'ry-body get together, try to love one another right now. Chet Powers/Youngbloods (Get Together)
Carry on, love is coming. Love is coming to us all CS&N (Carry On)
And if you can't be with the one you love, honey Love the one you're with CS&N (Love the One You're With)
Made up my mind to make a new start. Going to California with an aching in my heart. Someone told me there's a girl out there With love in her eyes and flowers in her hair. Led Zeppelin (Goin' to California)
Love is all you need. Beatles (All You Need is Love)
Love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself. Love possesses not nor would it be possessed; For love is sufficient unto love. Kahlil Gibran
If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with. Steven Stills
We've got this gift of love, but love is like a precious plant. You can't just accept it and leave it in the cupboard or just think it's going to get on by itself. You've got to keep on watering it. You've got to really look after it and nurture it" John Lennon
Make Love, Not War Unknown
I do my thing, and you do your thing. I am not tin this world to live up to your expectations, and you are not in this world to live up to mine. You are you, and I am I, and if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful. Frederick E. Perl
the quotes are from the Old Testament
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Benjamin H. Freedman, Jewish Historian - Researcher - Scholar.From "Common Sense", p. 2-1-53 and 5-1-59
"Christians have been duped by the unholiest hoax in all history, by so-called Jews. This is considered their most effective weapon.""This 'big lie' technique is brainwashing United States Christians into believing that Jesus Christ was "King of the Jews", in the sense that so-called 'Jews' today call themselves 'Jews'. This reference was first made in English translations of the Old and New Testaments, centuries before the so-called Jews highjacked the word 'Jew' in the 18th century A.D. to palm themselves off on the Christian world as having a kinship with Jesus Christ.
This alleged kinship comes from the myth of their common ancestry with the so-called 'Jews' of the Holy Land in the Old Testament history, a fiction based on fable.""American Christians little suspect they are being brainwashed twenty-four hours of every day over television and radio, by newspapers and magazines, by motion pictures and plays, by books, by political leaders in office and seeking office, by religious leaders in their pulpits and outside their churches, by leaders in the field of education inside and outside their curricular activities, and by all leaders in business, professions and finance, whose economic security demands that they curry the favor of so-called "Jews" of historic Khazar ancestry.
Unsuspecting Christians are subjected to this barrage from sources they have little reason to suspect. Incontestable facts supply the unchallengeable proof of the historic accuracy that so-called "Jews" throughout the world today of eastern European origin are unquestionably the historic descendants of the Khazars, a pagan Turko-Finn ancient Mongoloid nation deep in the heart of Asia, according to history, who battled their way in bloody wars about the 1st century B.C. into eastern Europe where they set up their Khazar kingdom. For some mysterious reason the history of the Khazar kingdom is conspicuous by its absence from history courses in the schools and colleges.
When you think of Jesus Christ, do you think of the weak and effeminate Jesus often portrayed in the media? The Bible reveals the real Jesus—and He is quite different from what many imagine!
Where did you get your ideas about Jesus Christ of Nazareth?
Within the last year, Jesus Christ has been the subject of both a best-selling novel and a blockbuster movie. For more than a year, The DaVinci Code, a suspenseful work of fiction, has rested near the top of the New York Times’ best-seller list. Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of the Christ, has broken box office records in the United States and around the world. The recently completed 12-book Left Behind series, a fictional (and quite inaccurate) account of events leading up to Christ’s return, has been second only to the Harry Potter books as a publisher’s gold mine. Clearly, Jesus Christ fascinates millions of people. They are curious about the origins of Christianity, as well as whether or not Jesus Christ will return to this earth. The problem is that there are so many different ideas floating around. People are getting their ideas from the most unlikely—and inaccurate—of places. From where have you received your information about Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and the message that He taught? What Jesus do you know? Is your Jesus the "traditional Sunday School" Jesus, the DaVinci Code Jesus, the "social gospel" revolutionary Jesus, the "hippie" Jesus—or perhaps the "anything goes" Jesus so popular with "modern Christians" today? Do any of these images represent the real Jesus? Depending on who is presenting Him, you can nowadays hear Jesus depicted as a right-wing Republican, a feminist, a gender-bending modernist, a poverty-stricken weakling or a fierce advocate of revolution against the wealthy. It is common for "Christians" to reinvent a Jesus suitable to their own likes and dislikes. U.S. President Thomas Jefferson did so nearly 200 years ago, when he sat down in the White House with two identical New Testaments and a razor. He proceeded to cut out those sections that he thought represented the "real" teachings of Jesus—leaving out miracles and claims of divinity—and pasted them into a large folio book to create his own version of the New Testament. This is not unlike what some contemporary scholars—notably the so-called "Jesus Seminar"—have done in our time. In the midst of such utter confusion, is there any way to know the truth? Can you know the real Jesus and what He taught? The truth is actually far more astounding than all of the ideas and inventions of men! If you want the real facts, then read on.
The story line of The DaVinci Code involves the discovery of other "gospels" that were left out of the New Testament, and an alleged centuries-old plot by the Roman Catholic Church to suppress those books. This makes for a good novel, but is far from the facts! The Roman Catholic Church had absolutely nothing to do with creating the New Testament! This may seem like a shocking statement, but it is a fact. The Roman Catholic Church, as it emerged from the Council of Nicaea in 325ad, was very different in its teachings and practices from the church of which you read in the book of Acts. In fact, surviving historical records from the second and third centuries illustrate a clear transition away from the teachings and practices of the Apostles to a very different brand of "Christianity." More information on this interesting subject can be found in our free booklet Restoring Apostolic Christianity. Who, then, did put together our New Testament? The answer is found in 2 Peter 1:12–21. The Apostle Peter explained to his readers that his death was imminent, and that he wished to ensure that after he was gone there would be an authoritative record of Jesus’ real teachings. There were already, in the late 60s ad, "cunningly devised fables" (v. 16) circulating. Peter explained that the young Christian community should look to him, and to his fellow Apostle, John, for the "sure word of prophecy." This becomes clear when we read Peter’s words carefully. Beginning in verse 12, Peter writes in the first person singular about his approaching death, and his desire to leave a permanent record. In verse 16, he abruptly switches from "I" to "we." Who is the "we?" The answer becomes plain in verses 16 through 18. The "we" are those who accompanied Jesus to the mountain where they saw His transfiguration, and heard the voice from heaven (Matthew 17:1–6). These were Peter, John, and James the brother of John. By the time Peter was writing 1 Peter, James had died—the first of the Apostles to be martyred (Acts 12:1–2)—so Peter’s "we" had to refer to him and to John. Before his death in the late winter of 68ad, Peter put together the very first "canon" of the New Testament, consisting of 22 books. Near the end of the first century, John added the five books that he wrote, bringing to 27 the number of books in the New Testament that we have today. Already in the second century, in the earliest writings of the "Church Fathers," we see that the New Testament canon existed, and was quoted from and referenced frequently. Certainly there were attempts to change the canon, but its books were already written and too well known to be abandoned. How should we understand the various "lost gospels" referred to by the author of The DaVinci Code and other writers? We should not be surprised by such discoveries, because the New Testament itself warns of spurious gospels already circulating in the days of the original Apostles. How much more would we expect such accounts to multiply in subsequent years, after the Apostles had died? Remember that the Apostle Paul, writing in the mid-50s, warns of those who sought to bring "another gospel" and "another Jesus" (2 Corinthians 11:4). He labeled these preachers as "false apostles" and "deceitful workers" (v. 13). Peter assured his readers that he and John had not followed the "cunningly devised fables" that were already extant in the first century. Some of these false gospels have survived, however, and have found a new audience in recent years with the discovery of the "Nag Hammadi" library. In December 1945, a young Egyptian farmer unearthed a pottery jar containing several ancient books written in Coptic. Translation began in earnest in the 1950s, and the content of these books has since fed into radically new interpretations of Jesus, His mission and His message. Eventually, these books—with such titles as The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Philip and The Gospel of Mary—became available in English. Though the physical copies of these books were new discoveries, knowledge of their contents and of their teachings was not. They represent the Gnostic heresies that originated in the first century and flowered in the second and third, which were well known to, and quoted in the writings of, the early "Church Fathers." As for the real New Testament, it was preserved exactly where we would expect it to be. Historians are unanimous in noting that John, the last original Apostle, died in Asia Minor at Ephesus. The writings of Eusebius and others make plain that during the second and third centuries ad, the churches in Asia Minor, which had had John’s direct guidance, preserved the practices of the original Jerusalem Church (such as observing Passover on Abib 14 rather than keeping the Roman Easter). It is from Asia Minor that the Byzantine family of New Testament texts originated—the text officially preserved in the Greek world.
A Look at the Real Jesus
It is not enough to possess the Bible, God’s authoritative
From Encyclopedia Dramatica
Jump to: navigation, search
The great irony of hippies is twofold: one, that they are the people you are most likely to see and least likely to want to see naked; and two, that they should undress so frequently and bathe so infrequently.
Peace poon. Note the exceptionally droppy tits, I'm sorry, symbols of female liberation
Dirty hippies should have died with their idols at the beginning of the 1970s, but at least 100 years later they smell worse, take harder drugs and listen to worse music. When the mud orgies called Grateful Dead concerts were finally quieted by the death of Jerry Garcia, the hippies latched onto Phish.
Literal Translation: Death to America...No, Really, look it up.
There are hippy sub-groups in almost every group of social misfits. Polys, furries, ravers, con_geeks, all have sizable numbers of hippies in their midst.
1 Hippy Politics
4 Famous Hippies
4.1 Janis Joplin
4.3 Jimi Hendrix
4.4 Jim Morrison
4.5 The Beatles
4.6 Frank Zappa
4.7 Timothy Leary
4.8 Robert Anton Wilson
4.9 Hunter S. Thompson
4.10 Simon Posford
4.11 Noam Chomsky
4.12 Jerry Garcia
5 See also
6 External Links
By Koenraad Elst
In the West we don't hear much about it, and even in India it doesn't make many headlines, but Hindu society is faced with a Christian problem besides the better-known Muslim problem. One focus of this conflict is the history of Christian iconoclasm, which is not entirely finished, and which past history has crystallized into some hundreds of churches standing on the ruins of purposely demolished Hindu temples. This history of iconoclasm is not an accident: it is the logical outcome of Christian theology, particularly of its deep hostility towards non-Christian forms of worship.
Christian sacred places in Palestine
A book well worth reading for those engaged in controversies over sacred sites, in particular concerning Christian churches in South India, is Christians and the Holy Places by Joan Taylor, a historian from New Zealand.2 It shows that the places where Christians commemorate the birth and death of Jesus have nothing to do with Jesus, historically.
The Nativity Church in Bethlehem was built in the fourth century A.D. in forcible replacement of a Pagan place of worship, dedicated to the God Tammuz-Adonis. Until then, it had had no special significance for Christians, who considered pilgrimages to sacred places a Pagan practice anyway: you cannot concentrate in one place (hence, go on pilgrimage to) the Omnipresent. The concept of "sacred place" was introduced into Christianity by converts, especially at the time of Emperor Constantine's switch to a pro-Christian state policy.
The Christian claim to Bethlehem as Jesus's birthplace was a fraud from the beginning, as Cambridge historian Michael Arnheim has shown: through numerous contradictions and factual inaccuracies, the Gospel writers betray their intention to locate Jesus's birth in Bethlehem at any cost, against all information available to them.3 The reason is that they had to make Jesus live up to an Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah was to be born there.
The Holy Cross Church in Jerusalem was built in forcible replacement of a temple of the fertility Goddess Venus, at the personal initiative of Emperor Constantine. His mother had seen in a dream that Jesus had died at that particular place, though close scrutiny of the original Christian texts shows that they point to a place 200 metres to the south. Constantine had the Venus temple demolished and the ground searched, and yes, his experts duly found the cross on which Jesus had died. They somehow assumed that their forebears of 33 A.D. had a habit of leaving or even burying crucifixion crosses at the places where they had been used, quod non. The Christian claim to the site of the Holy Cross is based on the dream of a gullible but fanatical woman, and fortified with a faked excavation.4
Remember the Ayodhya debate, where Hindu scholars were challenged to produce ever more solid proof of the traditions underlying the sacredness of the controversial site? Whatever proof they came up with was automatically, without any inspection, dismissed by the high priests of secularism as "myth" and "faked evidence". It was alleged that there was a "lack of proof" for the assumption that Rama ever lived there. But in the case of the Christian sacred places, we do not just have lack of proof that the religion's claim is true, but we have positive proof that its claim is untrue, and that it was historically part of a campaign of fraud and destruction.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
The Jews didn't cause the death of Jesus, nor did the Romans. They were merely instruments carrying out what God had decreed.
By Charles Colson
The cover of the latest Newsweek magazine asks the right question: "Who killed Jesus?" This has been a raging debate for a year, since Mel Gibson started his remarkable film project The Passion of the Christ. He immediately ran into a buzz saw of opposition from the liberal media and Jewish groups who were afraid the film would rekindle anti-Semitism.Now, Jews have a legitimate concern about this. During the Middle Ages, Christians treated Jews terribly. In Russia there were pogroms against the Jews. And of course some of the maniacs around Hitler professed that they were killing Jews to purify the Christian race.
But is this sensitivity today well-founded? If we would look at history alone, we would have to say that Pontius Pilate certainly was guilty. Legend has it that years after the crucifixion he was frantically washing his hands trying to cleanse himself from the blood of Christ. And, of course, Caiphus the High Priest certainly bears his share of responsibility. So do the crowds who yelled, "Crucify him." So was it the Romans or the Jews, the venality of Pontius Pilate or the passion of the mob?It was both and neither.
The Jews didn't cause the death of Jesus, nor did the Romans. They were merely instruments carrying out what God had decreed. He sent His only begotten Son to die on the cross so that the sins of mankind might be forgiven. And those who take Scripture seriously have always known who killed Jesus: You and I and all other sinful human beings did so.Mel Gibson understands this. In his movie, The Passion of the Christ, the hand holding the spike being nailed through Christ's wrist is Gibson's. Who killed Jesus? Mel Gibson knows. And he made the very point with his own hand that he was responsible, not the Jews.
« Prev Page Next Page »
Page 1 2
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
The jewish religion had many rituals on washing and cleaning
Jesus did not abide
He ate without washing His hands
Jesus, the hippy as seen by another Hippy
Soon the hippies started a movement, the Jesus Movement
Dig Peace: How to have peace that's beyond human understanding
It was a groovy scene
In the beginning, God made the earth, the sky, the oceans, the animals, and he made people. God gave the people this cool pad to live in called a garden. They had everything they needed. Nobody got sick. Nobody died. Nobody had to work.
Everyone knew that God was in charge. It was his pad. Whenever they needed something God gave it to them. There was no reason to fight. There was no war. Just peace, love, and understanding. Everything was groovy.
Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image."
Genesis 1:29 "Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant...and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds...and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
Genesis 1:31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."
1 From James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations.Greetings!
2 Dear brothers, is your life full of difficulties and temptations? Then be happy.
3 For when the way is rough, your patience has a chance to grow.
4 So let it grow, and don't try to squirm out of your problems. For when your patience is finally in full bloom, then you will be ready for anything, strong in character, full and complete.
5 If you want to know what God wants you to do, ask Him, and He will gladly tell you, for He is always ready to give a bountifu1 supply of wisdom to all who ask Him, He will not resent it.
6 But when you ask Him, be sure that you really expect Him to tell you, for a doubtful mind will be as unsettled as a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind;
7,8 And every decision you then make will be uncertain, as you turn first this way, and then that. If you don't ask with faith, don't 'expect the Lord to give you any solid answer.
9 A Christian who doesn't amount to much in this world should be glad, for he is great in the Lord's sight.
10,11 But a rich man should be glad that his riches mean nothing to the Lord, for he will soon be gone like a flower that has lost its beauty and fades away, withered-killed by the scorching summer sun. So it is with rich men. They will soon die and leave behind all their busy activities.
12 Happy is the man who doesn't give in and do wrong when he is tempted, for afterwards he will get as his reward the crown oflife that God has promised those who love Him.
13 And remember, when someone wants to do wrong it is never God who is tempting him, for God never wants to do wrong and never tempts anyone else to do it.
14 Temptation is the pull of man's own evil thoughts and wishes.
15 These evil thoughts lead to evil actions and afterwards to the death penalty from God.
16 So don't be misled, dear brothers.
17 But whatever is good and perfect comes to us from God, the Creator of all light, and He shines forever without change or shadow.
18 And it was a happy day for Him when He gave us our new lives, through the truth of His Word, and we
. became, as it were the first children in His new family.
19 Dear brothers, don't ever forget that it is best to listen much, speak little, and not become angry;
20 For anger doesn't make us good, as God demands that we must be.
21 So get rid of all that is wrong in your life, both inside and outside, and humbly be glad for the wonderful message we have received, for it is able to save our souls as it takes hold of our hearts.
22 And remember, it is a message to obey, not just to listen to. So don't fool yourselves.
23 For if a person just listens and doesn't obey, he is like a man looking at his face in a mirror;
24 As soon as he walks away, he can't see himself anymore or remember what he looks like.
25 But if anyone keeps looking steadily into God's law for free men, he will not only remember it but he will do what it says, and God will greatly bless him in everything he does.
26 Anyone who says he is a Christian but doesn't control his sharp tongue is just fooling himself, and his religion isn't worth much.
27 The Christian who is pure an.d without fault, from God the Father's point of view, is the one who takes care of orphans and widows, and whose soul remains true to the Lord-not soiled and dirtied by its contact with the world.
1 Dear brothers, how can you claim that you belong to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, if you show favoritism to rich people and look -down on poor people?
2 If a man comes into your church dressed in expensive clothes and with valuable gold rings on his fingers, and at the same moment another man comes in who is poor and dressed in threadbare clothes,
3 And you make a lot of fuss over the rich man and give him the best seat in the house and say to the poor man, "You can stand over there if you like, or else sit on the floor"-well,
4 This kind of action casts a question mark across your faith-are you really a Christian at al1?-and shows that you are guided by wrong motives.
5 Listen to me, dear brothers: God has chosen poor people to be rich in faith, and the kingdom of heaven is theirs, for that is the gift God has promised to all those who love Him.
6 And yet, of the two strangers, you have despised the poor man. Don't you realize that it is usually the rich . men who pick on you and drag you into court?
7 And all too often they are the ones who laugh at Jesus Christ. Whose noble name you bear.8 Yes indeed, it is good when you truly obey our Lord's command "You must I ove and help your neighborsjustasmuch as you love and take care of yourself."
9 But you are breaking this law of our Lord's when you favor the rich and fawn over them, it is sin.
10 And the person who keeps every law of God, but makes one little slip, is just as guilty as the person who has broken every law there is.
11 Forthe God who said you must not marry a woman who already has a husband, also said you must not murder, so even though you have not broken the marriage laws by committing adultery, but have murdered someone, you have entirely broken God's laws and stand utterly guilty before Him.
12 You will be judged on whether or not you are doing what Christ wants you to. So watch what you do and what you think;
13 For there will be no mercy to those who have shown no mercy. But if you have been merciful, then God's mercy toward you will win out over His judgment against you.
14 Dear brothers, what's the use of saying that you . have faith and are Christians, if you aren't proving it by helping others? Will that kind of faith save anyone?
15 If you have a friend who is in need of food and clothing, . 16 And you say to him, "Well good-bye and God bless you; stay warm and eat hearty," and then don't give him clothes or food, what good does that do?
17 So you see, it isn't enough just to have faith. You must also do good to prove that you have it. Faith that doesn't show itself by good works is no faith at all-it is dead and useless.
18 But someone may well argue, "You say the way to God is by faith alone, plus nothing; well, I say that good works are important too, for without good works you can't prove whether you have faith or not; but anyone can see that I have faith by the way I act."
19 Are there still some among you who hold that "only believing" is enough? Believing in one God? Well, remember that the devils believe this too--so strongly that they tremble in terror!
20 Dear foolish man! When will you ever learn that "believing" is useless without doing what God wants you to? Faith that does not result in good deeds is not real faith.
21 Don't you remember that even our father Abraham was declared good because of what he did, when he was willing to obey God, even if it meant offering his son Isaac to die on the altar?22 You see, he was trusting God so much that he was willing to do whatever God told him to; his faith was made complete by what he did by his actions, his good deeds.
23 And so it happened just as the Scriptures say, that Abraham trusted God, and the Lord declared him good in God's sight, and he was even called "the friend of God."
24 So you see, a man is saved by what he does, as well as by what he believes.
25 Rahab, the prostitute, is another example of this.
She was saved because of what she did when she hid those messengers and sent them safely away by a different road.
26 Just as the body is dead when there is no spirit in it, so faith is dead if it is not the kind that results in good deeds.
1,2 Dear brothers, don't be too eager to tell others their faults, for we all make many mistakes, and when we teachers, who should know better, do wrong, our punishment will be greater than it would be for others.If anyone can control his tongue, it proves that he has perfect control over himself in' every other way.
3 We can make a large horse turn around and go wherever we want by means of a small bit in his mouth.
4 And a tiny rudder makes a huge ship turn wherever the pilot wants it to go, even though the winds ar~ strong.
5 So also the tongue is a small thing, but what enormous damage it can do. A great forest can be set on fire by one tiny spark.
6 And the tongue is a flame of fire. It is full of wickedness and poisons every part of the body. And the tongue is set on fire by hell itself, and can turn our whole lives into a blazing flame of destruction and disaster.
7 Men have trained, or can train, every kind of animal or bird that lives and every kind of reptile and fish,
8 But no human being can tame the tongue. It is always ready to pour out its deadly poison.
9 Sometimes it praises our heavenly Father, and sometimes it breaks out into curses against men who are made like God.
10 And so blessing and cursing come pouring out of the same mouth.
Dear brothers.::. e y this is not right!
11 Does a spring of '~'er :..:·:e out first with fresh 'a er and then file://i/
a gray a a salty p
13 If you are se that only good deeds file://ill/ p
- tree, or figs from . fresh water from
Dec 05, 2006 by Roadjunky. In Guides - Religion-and-Soul // Send to a friend - 0 Comments -->
Chapters: Introduction to Christianity History of Christianiy Christian Beliefs Christians in the World Who was Jesus anyway? Jesus in Songs Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? Christianity Resources
Who was Jesus anyway?
With all the propaganda filling our minds from day one it’s very tough to get a clear idea. What is certain is that he was a Jew born a few years before the year 0 in the land of Palestine. He observed Jewish rites and customs and was a celebrated leader of the Jews, so much so that the authorities had him executed.
That much we know. From there on you’re free to come to your own conclusion. An interesting idea developed by the anthropologist Marvin Harris in his book “Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches”, is that Jesus and his disciples were most probably armed to the teeth. They could never have survived the bandit-infested wilderness otherwise, he argues.
It’s a good point and anyone who’s been to the Middle East must ask themselves how the average money trader would have let some meek hippy walk in and overturn their tables. He would have been lynched if not backed up by some impressive characters. The Bible tells us that two of his disciples once proposed destroying a village by themselves because it refused to feed them.
“I come not to bring peace but a sword.”
Jesus certainly fitted the part of the military messiah hoped for by the Jews to free them from the Roman occupation. So where did all that meek stuff about turing the other cheek come from? Harris suggests that once the Romans began to persecute the Jews in 130 A. D it occurred to the Christians that they had better rewrite their man as a dovsh peace and love type.
Jesus has since acquired a hundred faces, often losing his dusky Middle Easter complexion on the way. He often sports a white face with rosy cheeks that would surely have burnt to a crisp in half an hour of the Judean sun.
To mystics like John Donne and Thomas Merton Jesus has become a symbol for union with God. In many senses he has become as much an idol as any Hindu God and has been interpreted around the world according to culture and taste.
Was Jesus a teacher, a radical socialist or a bedraggled hippy? We’ll never know as the only records of his life were written at least 70 years after his death by people who never met him. Feel free to join up the dots for yourself.