parents spoke in tongues...

[kakkarot]

well, to give you the skeptical side of my response first, i've been to a "liberal" type church who had this thing going on after sevices where the "priest" was getting people to "talk in tounges" and some of the people were falling backwards and becoming "paralyzed". i thought, "hey why not?" so i asked if he could do that to me. he said sure.

so he got me to close my eyes and he put his hand on my forehead and told me to say what he said. then he began talking complete jibberish. not some real language, just a whole bunch of garbage that came off the top of his head. so i tried repeating that at the rate he was going at, but i had to keep stopping because i couldn't make out what he was saying so i couldn't repeat it. but then he told me that i wasn't supposed to be saying what he was saying, but that i was supposed to just start talking (ie, spouting crap off). so i did.

next thing i know he's (lightly) pushing on my forehead, tilting me backwards. in my mind i was like "woah. don't wanna fall and break my neck." so i pushed back against it, at which time he told me not to. but i didn't listen to him.

so needless to say, i really wasn't impressed with him.

but other than the frauds and morons out there, speaking in tounges is something that happens, just not very often. or at least not very often (partly) due to the fact that people dismiss it as "just plain crazy" a lot.

what it means, i don't know. any more info, sorry i don't know much about it. the original speaking in tounges, though, was done in such a way that when the apostles spoke, each bystander who heard the apostles heard what the apostles were saying in their (the bystander's) native language; so many people of many different languages all understood what was being said, even though it was never translated into each "tounge" specifically.

~kakkarot

[Adrian]

Greetings,

This is usually associated with past lives - specifically, under certain circumstances, e.g. stress, trance etc., the subject regresses to a past life in another part of the world.

This happens alot with young children (under 5 years of age), who are still very much in touch with their higher selves and the higher/inner spheres. Many children have suddenly started to speak languages and dialects that have been extinct and forgotten for hundreds of years, and in totally different parts of the world.

With best regards,

Adrian.

[PeacefulWarrior]

Speaking in tongues
Are tongues the initial evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit?
Evidences pointing to tongues being the initial evidence
Tongues were obviously significantly associated with the Holy Spirit's initializing of the believer into the new covenant of Christ, as illustrated at Pentecost (Acts 2) and in Cornelius' home (Acts 10), and also probably in Samaria (Acts and Ephesus (Acts 19).

(Acts 2:4 NIV)  All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

(Acts 10:45-46 NIV)  The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. {46} For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said,

(Acts 19:6 NIV)  When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

(Acts 8:17-18 NIV)  Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. {18} When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money

The passage above does not mention tongues. However, it is probable that tongues or at least some kind of visible evidence is involved. This is because the passage says that Simon "saw" that the Spirit was given.

Evidences pointing to tongues not being the initial evidence
OT instances of filling by the Holy Spirit not accompanied by tongues
The experience of receiving the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was not a new experience. It is the start of a new era in which the Spirit will be poured out more abundantly on all flesh. Peter explains that it is fulfillment of the prophesy in Joel which says that the Spirit will be poured on all people, young and old, men and women, even servants. In the Old Testament, this was not the case. The Spirit fell on key persons, empowering them to carry out the special office of God e.g. kings, prophets.

(Acts 2:17-18 NIV)  "'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. {18} Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.

In the past, only a few selected ones are filled with the Spirit and empowered for certain tasks. While these people of the OT times were filled and empowered by the Spirit, there was no evidence of tongues.

Charismatics response

Tongues are the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit only in the New Testament period.

No evidence of Paul speaking in tongues when he first received the Holy Spirit
(Acts 9:17-19 NIV)  Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord--Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here--has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." {18} Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, {19} and after taking some food, he regained his strength. Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus.

Paul later spoke in tongues (1 Cor 14:18) but that was not the initial evidence; it was the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Why did Paul not speak in tongues when he first received the Holy Spirit? It could be because there was no need for it. Tongues serve as a sign. In the instances when the people spoke in tongues, it either served as a sign to non-believers (Acts 2) or to other believers that the ones who spoke in tongues really received the Holy Spirit and were part of them.

Tongues are described as a gift
We know that in the Corinthian church not everyone speaks in tongues.

(1 Cor 12:29-30 NIV)  Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? {30} Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues ? Do all interpret?

The reason why some do not speak in tongues was not because some were not baptized in the Holy Spirit but rather some were not given that gift by the Spirit.

(1 Cor 12:4-11 NIV)  There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. {5} There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. {6} There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men. {7} Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. {8} To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, {9} to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, {10} to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. {11} All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

Furthermore, it is the Spirit's choice to give whomsoever He wants the ability to speak in tongues. There is no mention whatsoever of speaking in tongues being an inevitable outcome of having been baptized by the Holy Spirit.

Are tongues always human languages?
There are many instances when tongues are real languages that man can understand.

(Acts 2:4-6 NIV)  All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. {5} Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. {6} When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

(Acts 10:45-46 NIV)  The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. {46} For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

The fact that the Apostles understood the Gentiles tongues to be magnifying God indicated that the tongues were a know language to the Apostles.

However, there are also tongues that are not human languages.

(1 Cor 13:1 NIV)  If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

There are tongues of angels that man will not be able to understand.

(1 Cor 14:2 NIV)  For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.

Different purposes of tongues
The argument between Charismatics and non-Charismatics on what is the purpose of tongues can be simply solved if one realizes that there are more than one purpose of tongues.

Act as a sign to unbelievers
(1 Cor 14:21-22 NIV)  In the Law it is written: "Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord. {22} Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers...

Tongues are a sign to unbelievers because when they hear the message proclaimed in their own tongues by someone who does not speak that language, it is a miraculous sign that it is God speaking through them.

(Acts 2:6-11 NIV)  When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. {7} Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? {8} Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? {9} Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, {10} Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome {11} (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs--we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!"

(Acts 10:45-46 NIV)  The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. {46} For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

God also used tongues to convince unbelieving Christian Jews that the Gentiles could receive the Holy Spirit, and that they ought to be welcomed as equals into the Church. Without tongues, the apostles would not have been convinced that the Gentiles could be saved.

When tongues are used for this purpose, it is very specific. That means that there may be long periods of time when this type of tongues cease to exist.

Acts 11:15. "As I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning."

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Cornelius' house occurred eight years after Pentecost, yet Peter could not point to any continuous flow of tongues for this purpose among the churches, when he explained to the Jerusalem church leaders what had happened to the Gentiles. After eight years, Peter still had to say "As on us at the beginning", not "as on all the churches regularly". If speaking in tongues in a known language was a normal experience in churches, Peter would not have had to reach back to Pentecost to cite a similar example.

Edifying of oneself
Besides serving as "signs", there are other purposes of tongues that do not involve "signs to unbelievers".

Paul refers to the Christians speaking in tongues without interpretation in a church. Because the tongues are unknown, they do not communicate anything to people and do not serve as signs.

(1 Cor 14:2 NIV)  For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.

The purpose of this type of tongues is not to serve as signs but rather to edify the speaker.

(1 Cor 14:4 NIV)  He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.



Edifying of the church
Tongues that are accompanies by interpretation edifies the church.

(1 Cor 14:5 NIV)  I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.

[James S]

Sublime,
to the point of your question, I'd go along with Adrian's view. Otherwise there's the idea that your mother was unconsciously channeling, in which case why? Perhaps some kind of prayer or ward of protection?

Easy to see why so many christian churches are so confused about the matter. As P.W. just showed, there are several different biblical ways to interpret the nature of tongues, each with scriptures to substantiate the view.

Kakkarot,
I've so been in that situation! You described word for word my experiences. Seems like there are bible schools out there that teach up & coming pastors how to subtley push people over then carry on about them being "slain in the spirit". What a crock!

I do believe it is a genuine gift that comes to people who are basically channeling spoken information from a higher source. Unfortunately I feel such people make up about 5% of a church full of people speaking in tongues. The other 95% are just switching off their brains and babbleing along in their "keeping up with the jones's" religious extacy.

I too went through the "tongues" phase. It wasn't untill I learned from my guide to shut up and sit in silence that I actually started to hear the voices of higher beings around me. I knew then that for me it was a false gift. I was just going along with what was expected of me, and it was actually causing a communication blockage!

James.

[kakkarot]

"slain in the spirit" that's what he called it too. but where the heck did they ever get that term from[V]? it just doesn't make sense to call it that[xx(].

~kakkarot

[James S]

Agreed!
For peace loving communities some churches have some really violent terms for things. I suppose when you consider its all about Going to War with the Devil!!!

Either that or just consider it religious jargon!
Just wait...soon the church industry will be as bad as the computer industry.

Slain in the spirit will become SITS, or just STS, cause you gotta use a TLA!

James.

[kakkarot]

well, i can see how christianity might have war type aspects to it, by why call "being filled with the holy spirit", "slain" in the spirit? i just don't get the slain part.

when i feel the presence of God i certainly don't feel slain (humbled yes, but slain no). like if i wanted to SLAY someone's spirit, they wouldn't just be falling over and giggling about how they can't move (and crying because of a huge emotional burst from within them).

but, whatever *shrugs*, i've pretty much given up on religion a long time ago. i search for the truth, and religion may be a good starting point, but it certainly gets in the way after a while (stigma, dogma, norms and customs, traditions, "laws", etc that all divert one's attention from seeking the truth about it all.)

oops, sorry to get off topic sublime [:I]

~kakkarot

[sublime]

kakkarot,
  haha it's ok to get off subject, i am becoming confused with my original question anyways because it seems as if there really isnt an answer (that anyone knows of)... oh and your story in your first post was quite humerous.  


Peace Warrior,
  i find it very interesting to see many different uses/examples of uses of tongues in the bible.. i just wish i knew which one fit my situations.

   sometimes i'd like to think that it means something about my brother and i, and the fact that i have spontaneous projections and have never projected willingly sometimes leads me to believe that there HAS to be a reason for all of this... who knows?

[kakkarot]

"sometimes leads me to believe that there HAS to be a reason for all of this". well then i guess it may be a case of "learn what you can and let the rest come as it will".[|)]

good luck finding answers[].

~kakkarot

[Nightfall]

quote:Originally posted by kakkarot

"slain in the spirit" that's what he called it too. but where the heck did they ever get that term from[V]? it just doesn't make sense to call it that[xx(].

No it doesn't. Being "Slain in the Spirit" is unbiblical and cannot be found in the bible anywhere in relation to christians.

[Nightfall]

quote:Originally posted by James S

Otherwise there's the idea that your mother was unconsciously channeling, in which case why? Perhaps some kind of prayer or ward of protection?

Then she isn't a christian.

First, the bible forbids a believer from being a medium. Being a medium and a christian are mutually exclusive.

Second, tounges is A gift. It is not THE gift. There are many gifts listed in the bible, Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12-14 both give you a list. A christian can have any gift(s) in those lists, but tounges is not a requisite.

quote:Easy to see why so many christian churches are so confused about the matter.

There is confusion because chruches do not read their bible. Pretty simple really. Everybody is out for "well, I FEEL that it means this". We don't do that when it comes to reading a newspaper, why do that when it comes to the bible?

quote:Seems like there are bible schools out there that teach up & coming pastors how to subtley push people over then carry on about them being "slain in the spirit". What a crock!

Yup.

[Nightfall]

quote:Originally posted by Adrian

This is usually associated with past lives - specifically, under certain circumstances, e.g. stress, trance etc., the subject regresses to a past life in another part of the world.

Then we are not talking about "speaking in tounges" because that is strictly a biblical term. What you are talking about is not biblical therefore the term cannot apply.

quote:This happens alot with young children (under 5 years of age), who are still very much in touch with their higher selves and the higher/inner spheres. Many children have suddenly started to speak languages and dialects that have been extinct and forgotten for hundreds of years, and in totally different parts of the world.

How do you know this? If the languages have been "forgotten", then what's to say that it isn't just "babble"? How do you know it's a "forgotten" language? =)

[goingslow]

I love when people come on here stating who is a christian and who isnt.

The bible is full of contradictions thats often why people dont follow it literally.  

Are you here to preach or learn?  I'll ive seen you do so far is preach on christianity nightfall.

[Nightfall]

quote:Originally posted by goingslow

The bible is full of contradictions thats often why people dont follow it literally.  

For example?

quote:Are you here to preach or learn?  I'll ive seen you do so far is preach on christianity nightfall.

Both actually. I study cults and world religions and compare them to biblical christianity. []

[Nightfall]

quote:Originally posted by goingslow

I love when people come on here stating who is a christian and who isnt.

Oh, I guess I should address this too because people like to argue this.

I'm not here judging who IS or ISN'T a christian. That's not my job.

However, the term "Christian" has been watered down and it's become a rather useless term in some circles. When I say "Christian" I mean it in the biblical and historic sense of : a disciple of Christ.

Now, to deny Christ or His teachings would then make you NOT a disciple of Christ. Therefore you cannot call yourself a "Christ-ian".

Take for example the term gentleman. Originally it meant someone who has lands and title. It was not linked in anyway to his character. A man would be a right rotter and still be considered a "gentleman". Today, the term has been redefined to mean someone of character regardless of actual title or social standing.

So unless you are will to define what you mean by "christian", I assume that it is to be used in the historic and biblical sense of the term. In which case you cannot be a medium and a "christian". Because to be a medium would be to deny biblical doctrine and therefore Christ himself.

I hope that I have clarified the term a little bit?

[goingslow]

Okay I can see that.  I am curious though did Jesus say that himself?  Im really asking that because I dont study the bible.  
Do you study it in its original language or the enlish version?

I think being a christian has to do with christ. What if a person is a christian, but because of experience believes that a medium can communicate with a spirit?  Does that mean they suddenly have to drop all their christian beliefs?  

Im not speaking about me because I have no desire to label myself as a christian.  I believe what I believe and the term Christian to me only shows you believe in christ.  I think the other things were added on by the various churches and people's interpretation of the bible.

One more question do you believe in astral projection and OBE?  Im pretty sure many christians would say that would make a person not christian.  If you dont believe in it, then do you think the people here who believe in OBE can not be christians?

[Nightfall]

quote:Originally posted by goingslow

Okay I can see that.  I am curious though did Jesus say that himself?

Say what? The thing about the term gentleman? Just joking. Actually the gentleman thing I borrowed from CS Lewis in his work "Mere Christianity". A fantastic book if you want to know what mere christianity is all about. He gave his book that title because he wanted to dig in past denominations and private interpretations to present the most essential and most vital doctrines of Christianity. Therefore : Mere Christianity.

But I'm assuming that you are asking about what Jesus said in regards to being a christian.

The term "christian" was first coined in Antioch. Around 43 ad. And it was used in reference to "disciples". Not the 11 specifically, but those who were called disciples of Jesus.

Jesus said in Matthew 16 "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

We follow Jesus and what He taught. Not what we personally think about things ourselves. Not our own theories. The heart is a deceitful thing and can easily lead people into dangerous things.

People make a big deal about devotion to Mary. However, Jesus said that those who hear His words and keep His commandments have the same access to God that Mary does (Luke 11). When asked about His family, He said who is my mother, my brothers, my sisters? Those who hear my words and keep them are the same as my mother, my brothers and my sisters (mark 3).

To be a christian is to be a disciple. The definition of disciple is "One who embraces and assists in spreading the teachings of another".

quote:Do you study it in its original language or the enlish version?

It depends on what I'm studying. There are some "christian cults" who rely on a general ignorance of the original languages, therefore I've had to learn some greek and some hebrew. I would not begin to call myself a scholar of biblical languages. However, I do know enough of the languages to have confidence in the translations of the bible. The main translations I use are the kjv, nkjv, niv, and the nasb. The king james is the oldest english translation but I find that the new translations have better translations of the greek text for some verses.

quote:What if a person is a christian, but because of experience believes that a medium can communicate with a spirit?  Does that mean they suddenly have to drop all their christian beliefs?

Umm, maybe you could clarify your question. Are you saying that a person becomes a christian because of a medium-istic experience? Or are you asking about someone who is already a christian but comes to believe in spiritistic things?

quote:I believe what I believe and the term Christian to me only shows you believe in christ.  I think the other things were added on by the various churches and people's interpretation of the bible.

Both of your statements are true. But I would add a couple of qualifications to them. First, which Christ do you believe in? The mormons have a version of Jesus, so do the jehovah witnesses, so do the bahai, so do the christian scientists, all of these religions and cults have a VERSION of Jesus yet they would be in error because these teachings are NON-biblical - they are nowhere to be found in scripture.

The second point goes along with the first : people HAVE added to the christian belief based on their own assumptions. The reason we have denominations is because of private interpretations of the bible. This isn't always a bad thing, however, if the bible has authority in your life, there are some things that are not only contrary to the bible, but are heretical and in conflict with biblical teachings. The people who would accept the bible as authoritative cannot affirm it and deny it at the same time.

quote:One more question do you believe in astral projection and OBE?  Im pretty sure many christians would say that would make a person not christian.  If you dont believe in it, then do you think the people here who believe in OBE can not be christians?

Humm, interesting question.

I would say that as with everything, there are fakers, frauds and the real thing. There are those who are fake. There are those who would rob people of money. And there are those who are hooked into something very real.

Yes, I do believe there have been documented cases of astral projection and obe. I believe there have been documented cases of spiritism, levitation, among various other phenomina.

However, I would qualify that by saying that a christian is to have no part of any of those things.

To admit that something exists does not mean I endorse it.

For all my research, I will admit that I'm just now getting into spiritualistic study. There are many topics that I want more information on (including but not limited to astral projection, esp, tarot, etc), that's why I'm here. I've spent the last 3 years studying jehovah witnesses, mormons, and philosophy as my primary topics, with various other religions (bahai, islam, etc) as secondary topics.

Philosophy is a new and interesting area of study for me. I'm very excited about what I'm finding in that area.

Oh, by the way, thank you for the polite response. I have no intention of coming across as holier than thou, or arrogant. I'm neither of those in real life but some things are lost in the posting of mere text.

[kakkarot]

quote:Yes, I do believe there have been documented cases of astral projection and obe. I believe there have been documented cases of spiritism, levitation, among various other phenomina.

However, I would qualify that by saying that a christian is to have no part of any of those things.

-nightfall

such in itself would be denying the Christ. Did not Jesus himself perform miracles and many other "unearthly" acts? perhaps you should focus less on the "letter of the law" and more on the spirit of it. [|)] (ie. faith, hope, and love)

~kakkarot

[James S]

Oh goody!! We're going to have another religious debate![xx(]

James

[goingslow]

I appreciate you answering everything at length.. I was really just trying to see your perspective.  I was't sure if you were talking about the bible just to be argumentative or if you were speaking about your own beliefs.

James:
Not on my side we're not.  I dont have religious debates.  No one ever changes their mind when they know what the word of God is and they only see it as an opportunity to get you to see the light.

Nightfall:  I had written something then realized you had answered it already.  Ill reread tomorrow again because Im still unsure if you're just saying what christianity is or if you're saying its your own belief.  Too tired to comprehend it all now.

[James S]

You're not the one I'm worried about Goingslow!
I like the fact you tend to keep religious dogma out of discussions.

James.

[Nightfall]

quote:Originally posted by kakkarot

such in itself would be denying the Christ. Did not Jesus himself perform miracles and many other "unearthly" acts? perhaps you should focus less on the "letter of the law" and more on the spirit of it. [|)] (ie. faith, hope, and love)

Ah, but you cannot have the letter of the law without the spirit of the law in christianity.

The issue isn't whether or not Jesus did or did not do miracles. The issue is who or where the source of that power comes from. If it comes from the God of the bible, then yes, a christian has the "ability" (it's not really an ability or something learned like calculus - but more of a gift than anything) to lay hands on the sick and heal, the christian has the gift to do miracles, but only in the name of Jesus.

This is quite different than channeling energy, forgive me because I'm ignorant in this area (a recognized need that I hope to remedy) and asking spirit guides for help.

In the one, I submit myself to the God who has revealed Himself in this world by many proofs and I have "faith", or confidence based on His past performance, that He will not change and that I can rely on His charater and word.

In the other, I don't understand how someone could have confidence in untested spirits. If the spirits ARE tested, maybe someone could enlighten me as to how you would go about testing such spirits. =)

James, no, I'm not here to push dogma and junk like that. I'll converse, but don't really like the idea of "debate" simply because debates have the nasty habit of forcing people to religiously push one idea or another regardless of truth. I'll converse because where truth is the ultimate goal, reason and logic should be employed. But thank you for your excitement!

[Nightfall]

quote:Originally posted by timeless

My interpertation of this is very different from yours.  At the point that Jesus said this he had not yet been crucified nor had the cross become the symbol of christianity.

You are correct. The cross was a shameful thing. It was not a noble symbol nor a noble death. The cross was reserved for the lowest of the low, the most vicious and most disgusting of criminals.

I personally find it interesting that catholics cross themselves. I sometimes wonder how that would work if Jesus had been killed via electric chair. Make it a little more difficult to make the sign of the electric chair...

quote:At that time I would expect the cross to symbolize sacrifice.  In other words I would see a Christian as someone who takes up his cross and sacrifices himself, all his beliefs, social beliefs everything and follows Jesus' example.  No 'disipleship' (I know not a word but it says what I mean) required.

Ahh, you are exactly correct in what you say in the first part. See, the cross does symbolize sacrifice, it symbolizes the idea of denying yourself and your selfish desires. Buddhism has a similar concept but the concepts are based on very different principles.

But I agree on your first point.

Now the question of the second point is : What was Jesus example?

You can see His example in the gospel writings. How He healed the sick, how He had compassion on the untouchable lepers, how He consoled the broken hearted, how He raged against religious hypocrites, how He frightened the religious leaders and at the same time children were drawn to Him.

You can also see His example in a summary statement by Paul : that a christian should have the same attitude as Jesus did. That even though He was God in the flesh, even though He had all power, He humbled Himself even to the point of a servant. Even to the point of His own death and even the humiliating death of the cross.

So no matter what your station is in life, as a christian, you should humble yourself even if it means your death.

But it's important to note that in addition to carrying "a cross", we must also "follow Him". How do we do that? By being a disciple. A disciple is one who follows and one who relates particular teachings.  

quote:Following Jesus' example would mean following his example not someone else in the bible like Paul who even admitted that he had a heck of a time trying to follow Jesus's example and failed from time to time (more often then not in my opinion).

Humm, you'll have to clarify your position on how Paul failed more often than not. I guess I don't understand where your coming from on that.

But Paul made it a point that we should follow him as he follows Christ. He made that point because a lot of the churches he founded were having problems. Big problems. Most of his letters were to put out a fire or to clarify doctrines.

Paul is an excellent example to follow. He didn't ever claim he was equal to Jesus, but he recognized his own problems and then asked the question "Who will deliver me from this body of death? I do what I don't want to do, and what I want to do, I don't do!". But the writings of Paul are very important for a lot of different reasons.

His letter to the Roman people is probably the most important book in the bible since it lays out how someone can't "earn" a good standing with God. He lays out mans position and God's remedy for evil as well as God's love for man. Awesome book.

quote:Of course, my interpertation flies in the face of all other religious interpertations so I imagine while my interpertation is interesting it has to be wrong, right!

hehe, sounds like you've talked with religious zealots in the past.

I fly in the face of a lot of religious interpretations so I don't take issue with that. My only concern is whether or not something is true.

[kakkarot]

sorry james []. and sorry sublime for getting off topic [:I].

i know that you two (timeless and nightfall) have been having a discussion, but i won't jump into that. [|)]

however, to clarify why i said "perhaps you should focus less on the "letter of the law" and more on the spirit of it", it is because the old law was imperfect in that it relied on people to follow "letter of the law" (the old law in and of itself wasn't imperfect, but the fact that people were only "saved" based on being able to follow the letter of the law was the imperfection of it).

the new law is based upon the grace and mercy of God, without which all humanity is doomed [|)](myself included []). the new "law" does not rely upon how well we can follow it: its saving factor does not rely upon humans at all. it relies upon God.

so really the letter of the law only matters to those who still think they are saved/condemned by it, even though they aren't. [] we are not saved by any rightgeous acts we do, but only by the grace and mercy of our Lord (i don't know off hand who that is paraphrasing, but someone else might). (the whole doing of acts through faith thing is not to "prove" ourselves or to make us worthy of salvation, but to 1) put our "money where our mouth is" and prove to the world that we really are different when we decide to go God's way, and 2) do God's will as He wants us to do.)

~kakkarot

[James S]

Maybe I was being a bit hasty with my remark about a religious debate.
Besides, I could really get to like Nightfall...

Anyone who quotes Terry Pratchett has got to be a good sort![^]
James.