PDA

View Full Version : I'd Like Your Input


E-Nygma
02-13-02, 11:10 AM
I would like your guys input on this writing I came across, if you would please. It's a bit long, but I thought good.

Here it is:


I once read of a man, for the time being, shall remain nameless, because if I give you his name, you may know him, or you may avoid him if you ever happen to come across him.

This man was quite a normal man, from all the outward appearances. He ate, like you and I. He drank, like you and I. He slept, like you and I. He ran away from his parents, like you and I. He even had a job, for awhile, like you and I. But, he had one strange quirk that set him apart from you, and I. This man said that he had the only way to see God. What audacity, I thought. What arrogance! What a self-righteous attitude, I felt, this man had to have. How unloving, in my eyes, this man had to be in order to actually believe that no one else was going to see God, except for him and those whom he chose.

I remember reading of how this man quit his job so he could tell the world of how he was the only way to God. He told the people in churches. He told the people on the streets. He told people that came up to his door. He told pastors, preachers, doctors, lawyers. He told men, women, and children. He told strangers, relatives, and immediate family. He told everybody. It seemed, that he made a special effort to tell everyone that he happened to meet of how he, and only he, knew of the only way to God. It got so bad that no one wanted to hear of this manís perceived delusions. I even remember a part in the story where people told him that his family wanted to speak with him, and he said that those who followed him were his family instead of his mother and brothers.

People began to avoid him. People mocked him. People began to fight with him. People even began to send others to argue with him. It seemed that almost everyone was offended, or made upset by him in one way or another. He got kicked out of the local churches. Every church that he entered, he ended up in questioning and arguing with the pastors. When it was known that he was going to someoneís neighborhood, people asked him to leave their neighborhood and not come back.

I read of how this man was always talking about how God loved the people, but then he was always sure to add that only he knew the way to God and that only he was the way to God. on a few occasions, he even went as far as to say that he was God. In one breath he would say that he loved people, and in the same breath offend them.

In the story, there was a woman sitting in a restaurant drinking a cold drink. He came in tired, hot, and looking worn out. The lady, thinking that he was homeless, asked if he wanted something cool to drink. She began to tell him of the church that she went to and of how they loved God. So, instead of thanking her for the drink, he told her that she had no clue of who she was worshipping, but he knew that it wasnít God.

I recall in the story, a couple people came up to him wanting to follow him. One wanted to finish school, or do something else first. So this man, who shall remain nameless for the time being, couldnít even have the courtesy to wait for him and turned him away, saying something like, ďIf you canít come with me now, then donít bother coming with me, at allĒ. Another man, who had a good job and a lot of money, came to him wanting to learn the way to see God. He told the man with the money, that he first needed to get rid of all his money before he could teach him. Imagine that! Maybe the man with the money needed to care for his handicapped and aging mother. Maybe the man with the money had some illness that needed costly medicine. Maybe the man had a family that he was supporting that would be left homeless and starving if he liquidated all his money. This expectation was equal to turn your back on everybody you know just so you can come with me. This man, who shall remain nameless, was so inconsiderate of the needs of others, that it seemed that all his talk of love was hypocrisy.

There was a chapter in this story where this man went into a bookstore. I seem to remember it being a Christian bookstore, or something like that. After looking around inside, he began to clear the bookshelves of their books. He overturned the tables and racks with clearance items and threw them all over the place. He even went as far as taking the cash registers, slamming them on the floor, and taking the cash drawers and flinging them across the store. Money was flying everywhere. What I didnít get was wasnít this man concerned about injuring others? What about the owners of the store? All they invested in their business now lay in pieces on the floor. The money in their cash registersÖgone. All the while, this man was screaming things about God while in his agitated rage. How could this God, whom this man represents, be a God of love, while at the same time, destroying the lives and livelihood of the store owners?

Everywhere this man went there followed him arguments, name-calling, accusations, hurt feelings, questions of the authority of the government, lack of respect of churches and churchgoers, and total disrespect of those things that others deemed as the things of God.

Donít get me wrong, this man did many things that seemed, to me, miraculous. He befriended the homeless and those that society seemed to shun. He fed large groups of people numerous times. Itís just that there were many things that seemed to me, not so good.

In the story, he had some followers. These followers acted just like he. I remember one of this manís followers went up to a high ranking political official and openly accused the official of having an affair with the officialís brotherís wife. This wasnít done in private, but during a large crowded political gathering for everyone to see and hear. It seemed to me to be a bit inconsiderate. I mean, we all have shortcomings. Where does this guy get off bringing up anotherís shortcoming unless he, himself, was perfect?

In terms of numbers, it seems that these guys did more to anger people than they did to show the love of God. It seems that they angered, and offended, more people in the name of God than they did to actually make people want to know God, and come to God.

But, I guess, this nameless man was the ďotherĒ Jesus.

Multimom
02-13-02, 11:49 AM
My initial reaction was that this was someone's attempt to "discredit" our Savior. And so far I haven't come to any other conclusion.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

E-Nygma
02-13-02, 11:59 AM
Discredit? I don't see it as that.

From my perspective, it's an attempt to level the playing field. I see it as balancing an unbalanced view of Jesus in many christian circles.

Just as this view, by itself, promotes a one-sided view of Jesus, without it, an unbalanced one-sided view of Jesus is promoted.

I will say, speaking for myself, I never heard this side of Jesus when being witnessed to even though every event in this story is covered in scripture.

Also, I see, that what we may consider un Christlike behavior may in fact be 100% Christlike.

Caretaker
02-13-02, 01:53 PM
When one has the blindnesss of the Scribes and Pharisees, the religious authorities, then one judges the acts, and as they once did declares him guilty.

But when chains of bondage have been broken, blinded eyes opened, and hearts turned towards the righteousness of Almighty God, then we stand and declare with our Brother Thomas, "My Lord and my God", and we joyously take up our cross and follow Immanuel, God is with us.

Multimom
02-13-02, 05:19 PM
E:

I think it was the lopsided view that gave me pause. I agree sometimes we see what we want to see instead of what is really there.

Truly balance is an important key to understanding salvation.

Lee
02-13-02, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Multimom
My initial reaction was that this was someone's attempt to "discredit" our Savior. And so far I haven't come to any other conclusion.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

Hello multi-mom,
I agree with your initial responce!

svensky
02-13-02, 09:02 PM
This man was quite a normal man, from all the outward appearances. He ate, like you and I. He drank, like you and I. He slept, like you and I. He ran away from his parents, like you and I. He even had a job, for awhile, like you and I. But, he had one strange quirk that set him apart from you, and I. This man said that he had the only way to see God. What audacity, I thought. What arrogance! What a self-righteous attitude, I felt, this man had to have. How unloving, in my eyes, this man had to be in order to actually believe that no one else was going to see God, except for him and those whom he chose.
Why am I thinking of David Koresh or Joseph Smith at this point ?

I think I agree with multimum that this seems quite a negative picture of christ. Especially as some of the ways the events are recast takes them badly out of the context in which they where done.

It struck me as the sort of thing skeptics like to write to make them selves feel better.

Anyway, just my 2c

Jason

E-Nygma
02-13-02, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by svensky

I think I agree with multimum that this seems quite a negative picture of christ. Especially as some of the ways the events are recast takes them badly out of the context in which they where done.


Could you elaborate in the correct context?

Lee
02-13-02, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by E-Nygma


Could you elaborate in the correct context?

Could you elaborate on what exactly you would like us to give you our views on, im struggling to understand where your coming from.

peace and love

Lee

svensky
02-13-02, 10:26 PM
Could you elaborate in the correct context?
Well the one that really stuck out was the example of the unnamed individual tearing up the book store.

I presume it is meant to parralell christ chasing the sellers out of the temple.

The people selling stuff in the temple where not good honest hard working people. They would do things like, charge diaspora jews a fortune to change out of town currency into the local coin for giving at the temple, and would see massivly over priced sacrifical animals etc, Christ was quite right to chase them out of the place, they ahd no respect for the temple as a place of worship at all.

The story you posted fails dismally to convey that aspect of the event it paraphrases, and there are others like it.

The whole wording seems set up to attack the character of christ, and it uses distortion of events and selective story telling to make its attack.

Jason

Breni Sue
02-14-02, 01:12 AM
My 1st impression here is that this person obviously has a very distorted view of Jesus and has a lot to learn about him. That or they are simply out to slander him. My opinion. I am going to refrain from saying too much here for the time being as to prevent this from becoming a debate. ;)

svensky
02-14-02, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by Kyrie Eleison
My 1st impression here is that this person obviously has a very distorted view of Jesus and has a lot to learn about him. That or they are simply out to slander him. My opinion. I am going to refrain from saying too much here for the time being as to prevent this from becoming a debate. ;)
Pity there is no other forum to move it too :D

Jason

E-Nygma
02-14-02, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by svensky

The people selling stuff in the temple where not good honest hard working people. [\b]
I wasn't there, so I can't presume to know their intention, or motives.

[b]They would do things like, charge diaspora jews a fortune to change out of town currency into the local coin for giving at the temple, and would see massivly over priced sacrifical animals etc, Christ was quite right to chase them out of the place, they ahd no respect for the temple as a place of worship at all.
Isn't making a profit at God's expense by misrepresentation the same in both situations? The moneychangers may have cheated on exchange rates, but I see no difference from that and jacking up a $2.00 stuffed animal to $20.00 just because you place a WWJD tee-shirt on it.

The whole wording seems set up to attack the character of christ, and it uses distortion of events and selective story telling to make its attack.
Jason
As was previously stated, I wish to avoid this becomming a debate thread. But I feel that leaving out specific events that may be misunderstood also distort the character of Christ.

Breni Sue
02-14-02, 12:41 PM
Isn't making a profit at God's expense by misrepresentation the same in both situations? The moneychangers may have cheated on exchange rates, but I see no difference from that and jacking up a $2.00 stuffed animal to $20.00 just because you place a WWJD tee-shirt on it. I think what Svensky is getting at here is that - nothing is ever mentioned about this in the story above. All it tells of him is that he walks into a bookstore and just starts destroying things for no apparent reason. The bible goes into a bit more detail as to why, but the author of this story seems to have left it out completely. Which really makes me question their true intent here, especially in light of the manner in which the rest of it told.

svensky
02-14-02, 03:18 PM
As was previously stated, I wish to avoid this becomming a debate thread. But I feel that leaving out specific events that may be misunderstood also distort the character of Christ. [/B]
It is not a debate it is a disucssion.

Jason

E-Nygma
02-14-02, 08:55 PM
If I came across a story of Jesus that emphasized the good things that was done by him, the miracles, the feeding of the 5000, the teachings of love, and all the healings ONLY, why wouldn't that be a one-sided distortion of the character of Jesus?

Why is it only a distortion if I over emphasize only what could be considered the negative aspects, but an "accurate" depiction if I over emphasized only the positive aspects? When, in reality, BOTH are needed to give an accurate depiction of who Jesus really was, and is.

And if you agree that both are needed, why is only the "good" Jesus the only one being propigated?

Caretaker
02-14-02, 10:56 PM
There is one place where the complete person and work of Jesus Christ is revealed. It is called the Bible, and if one opens its pages one reads it for themselves, without it being filtered through an agenda.


__________________________________________________ ______________

Why is it only a distortion if I over emphasize only what could be considered the negative aspects, but an "accurate" depiction if I over emphasized only the positive aspects? When, in reality, BOTH are needed to give an accurate depiction of who Jesus really was, and is.

__________________________________________________ _____________

Because you distort the actions and do not place them within the context of the situation. There was NO sin found in Jesus because He was God incarnate, thus there is no "bad" Jesus. Only through distortion can those with an agenda try to undermine the faith of others, and preach a false perception.

Lee
02-14-02, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by E-Nygma
If I came across a story of Jesus that emphasized the good things that was done by him, the miracles, the feeding of the 5000, the teachings of love, and all the healings ONLY, why wouldn't that be a one-sided distortion of the character of Jesus?

Why is it only a distortion if I over emphasize only what could be considered the negative aspects, but an "accurate" depiction if I over emphasized only the positive aspects? When, in reality, BOTH are needed to give an accurate depiction of who Jesus really was, and is.

And if you agree that both are needed, why is only the "good" Jesus the only one being propigated?


Hello E-nygma,
The bible is set up line upon line, line upon line precept upon precept, here a little there a little for with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to his people. So who shall he teach sound doctrine? They that are sincere, who desire the truth no matter what it speaks, and this is the way we must approach unto God, as babes desiring to be led unto life. I do not mean to sound offensive but i have met people, who when they talk of the scriptures they always seem to mention things like peter denying the lord thrice, or david and his great fall, or soloman and the destruction of his soul or sampson and his fall or job's faults or saul persecuting the chuch and so-on and so-on! All of these things were written for us, that we might not fall victim to the same devices of the devil. They were not written for anyone to grab as a crutch for there short-comings and weaknesses, this is not the gospel of righteousness through Jesus Christ. Reading the bible with the wrong heart or the wrong intentions is a sure way to be deceived by God, He created us and all things are of him and there is nothing about you or i that is un-known to him, if you want to be justified in un-righteousness, you shall be because God grants everyone according to the desires of there heart.

Peace and Love
Lee

svensky
02-15-02, 12:31 AM
Why is it only a distortion if I over emphasize only what could be considered the negative aspects, but an "accurate" depiction if I over emphasized only the positive aspects?
I've never said that. The message you cited was a distortion becasue it didn't put the actions it parodies in a similar context to the actualy actions.

That is why it is a distortion, it has nothing to do with tha actions being good or bad.

Jason

E-Nygma
02-15-02, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by svensky

I've never said that. The message you cited was a distortion becasue it didn't put the actions it parodies in a similar context to the actualy actions.

That is why it is a distortion, it has nothing to do with tha actions being good or bad.

Jason

That is why I asked for you to put them into what you consider the "proper" context...which you haven't.

That is why I used special care in specifying "what we consider" and "how we see" when describing those actions that we deem negative.

Since a distrotion has nothing to do with the actions being "good", or "bad", then am I to assume that my bringing these "bad" aspects and behaviors will provoke no more emotionalism than my bringing up the "good" aspects and behaviors?

Bacause you, and I know that had this story only emphasized the "good" things, we wouldn't be having this dialogue about distortion.

E-Nygma
02-15-02, 03:11 PM
I found this, also.
In your opinion, does this, also, present a distorted view of God?

Please, take notice, this is very long.

Here it is:


http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Warnings/sinners.htm

svensky
02-15-02, 03:53 PM
That is why I asked for you to put them into what you consider the "proper" context...which you haven't.

That whole post about the temple money lenders wasn't this ?

Jason

svensky
02-15-02, 03:56 PM
Since a distrotion has nothing to do with the actions being "good", or "bad", then am I to assume that my bringing these "bad" aspects and behaviors will provoke no more emotionalism than my bringing up the "good" aspects and behaviors?

As has been said repeatedly, it was a distortion becasue it took behaviors that are quite justified in the original context, stripped it from them and presented them as wrong. That is a distortion.

I provided one example of the distorted context, if you want more sit down with a good study bible and educate your self. Given where studying ancient literature here it is good for you to figure out stuff on your own after being given a pointer. This is the way ancient learning was supposed to take place :)

Jason

E-Nygma
02-15-02, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by svensky


The people selling stuff in the temple where not good honest hard working people. They would do things like, charge diaspora jews a fortune to change out of town currency into the local coin for giving at the temple, and would see massivly over priced sacrifical animals etc, Christ was quite right to chase them out of the place, they ahd no respect for the temple as a place of worship at all.

Jason

This is your example of the proper context.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see it.

You say that the people selling in the temple weren't good, honest, hard working people. How do you know this classifies all of them? How do you know this classified any of them?

How can you say that this classifies (honest hard working people)all of those working in, or owning, Christian bookstores?

Now, I know that it'll be said that the reason that I don't see it is because I'm deceived, and not because there isn't adequate evidence supplied. But I still don't see it.

I see that the people selling in the temple were ripping people off, the same as any retail store that sells namebrand and catagorical items.

They were selling animal sacrifices at overpriced amounts. Maybe, there aren't animal sacrifices being sold, but Christian literature and study tools. Maybe they aren't changing money, but a bead WWJD bracelet with 4 lettered beads does the same thing. Beads aren't $1.00-$1.50 per bead. The example of the stuffed animal is accurate. In my job, I frequent stuffed animal suppliers, I know how much they cost. One places on this stuffed animal a flimsy WWJD tee-shirt and the going price is $15.99-$19.99. And it's not just at the "rip-off" Christian bookstores, but all Christian bookstores, in general.

I'm sorry if you see those people back then, but those same people live now. They work with you. They own Christian bookstores. They fill the church pews. And some even stand at the pulpits.

I see that by your remark to me to study (as if I haven't), your desire to not address this issue is at it's end, so I'll respect that.

Breni Sue
02-15-02, 11:12 PM
They were selling animal sacrifices at overpriced amounts. Maybe, there aren't animal sacrifices being sold, but Christian literature and study tools. Maybe they aren't changing money, but a bead WWJD bracelet with 4 lettered beads does the same thing. Beads aren't $1.00-$1.50 per bead. The example of the stuffed animal is accurate. In my job, I frequent stuffed animal suppliers, I know how much they cost. One places on this stuffed animal a flimsy WWJD tee-shirt and the going price is $15.99-$19.99. And it's not just at the "rip-off" Christian bookstores, but all Christian bookstores, in general. I still feel that you are missing what our main beef is here, E-Nygma. The story you posted fails to mention anything about why He did what He did, while the bible does. If I knew nothing about Christ and read this for the 1st time, my impression of Him would be "not-so-good". Had that part been included in the story, I would not be so leary of this author's true intent. Furthermore, the context in which that part is written leads me to believe that the his intentions are less than sincere (I will emphasize the parts in question here):There was a chapter in this story where this man went into a bookstore. I seem to remember it being a Christian bookstore, or something like that. After looking around inside, he began to clear the bookshelves of their books. He overturned the tables and racks with clearance items and threw them all over the place. He even went as far as taking the cash registers, slamming them on the floor, and taking the cash drawers and flinging them across the store. Money was flying everywhere. What I didnít get was wasnít this man concerned about injuring others? What about the owners of the store? All they invested in their business now lay in pieces on the floor. The money in their cash registersÖgone. All the while, this man was screaming things about God while in his agitated rage. How could this God, whom this man represents, be a God of love, while at the same time, destroying the lives and livelihood of the store owners? Judging from this, I would have to conclude that the author either 1.) puposely left the "why" part out, or 2.) does not fully understand why He did it. Either way, it is giving readers a distorted image of God.

E-Nygma
02-16-02, 03:17 AM
I understand what you're saying, but what I feel you misunderstand is that the "why" is irrelevant to one witnessing the actions.

If I were an outsider witnessing Jesus chasing out the money changers, throwing over the tables, and flinging the money, I don't think that I would be too concerned with the "why". As in the story, I would be wondering doesn't he care about possibly hitting anyone? You would, too. Actually, most would consider this unChristlike behavior if another did this for the very same reason as Jesus did. We all have 20/20 hindsight, but if you saw a poster call a moderator a hypocrite, would you consider this an action of Jesus? Of course not, but it very well may be (no indictment against moderators intended).

svensky
02-16-02, 07:14 PM
If I were an outsider witnessing Jesus chasing out the money changers, throwing over the tables, and flinging the money, I don't think that I would be too concerned with the "why". As in the story, I would be wondering doesn't he care about possibly hitting anyone? You would, too. Actually, most would consider this unChristlike behavior if another did this for the very same reason as Jesus did. We all have 20/20 hindsight, but if you saw a poster call a moderator a hypocrite, would you consider this an action of Jesus? Of course not, but it very well may be (no indictment against moderators intended).

If the party in question was a hypocrite and this was obvious to all (as was the case with the pharisees) then it would be proper to call them such.

Same with the money lenders, they where crooks, and this was not exactly a secret.

Again, context is everything, and you story removes that.

Jason

E-Nygma
02-16-02, 08:18 PM
Without using 20/20 hindsight, tell me where in the context of this passage, where anything says the reason this action took place.


John 2:13-17
13Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers doing business. 15When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables. 16And He said to those who sold doves, "Take these things away! Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise!" 17Then His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up."
NKJV

Remember: without using the benefit of 20/20 hindsight

Pelvidar
02-16-02, 08:46 PM
It hints at the idea that Jesus was upset that they were selling things within the church (and we only catch that because Jesus directs his anger at the money-changers).

There's nothing beyond that.

Which I think falls in line with your original description of Jesus going into a Christian bookstore (my church had one in the basement).

So think there's as much direct context in the Bible about Jesus' motivations, as there is in your story.

svensky
02-17-02, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by E-Nygma
Without using 20/20 hindsight, tell me where in the context of this passage, where anything says the reason this action took place.
url=http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=john+2%3A13-17&version=NIV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english]John 2:13-17[/url[
<---snip--->
Remember: without using the benefit of 20/20 hindsight
Not to rain on your parade or anything, but if you dig a little deeper into the incident you describe, you learn some interesting things. John has left out the next statment, that is included in mark and matthew, and provides just the sort of information you are looking for.

Perhaps john left it out becasue he assumed his readers would be familiar with what went on in the temple.

So what do we find in mark 11:15-17 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=mark+11%3A15-17&version=NIV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english) and matthew 21:12-13 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=matt+21%3A12-13&version=NIV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english), bit the line that sets things in context a little better.

Is it not written: "`My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations ? But you have made it `a den of robbers.'

Well, that appears to clear things up a bit doesn't it.

So I come back to my original contention, where did this come from ? Why dont you think (in light of this new bit of information) that it is not a distortion of christs character ? The quotes above, do give strong weight to the idea that the actions where justified, and that christ was chasing a pack of rat bags out of the temple.

Your assuming that the people involved in buying and selling are completely innocent. But christ implies they are not, and if they where innocent why was nothing said at the time ?

Jason

E-Nygma
02-17-02, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by E-Nygma
There was a chapter in this story where this man went into a bookstore. I seem to remember it being a Christian bookstore, or something like that. After looking around inside, he began to clear the bookshelves of their books. He overturned the tables and racks with clearance items and threw them all over the place. He even went as far as taking the cash registers, slamming them on the floor, and taking the cash drawers and flinging them across the store. Money was flying everywhere. What I didnít get was wasnít this man concerned about injuring others? What about the owners of the store? All they invested in their business now lay in pieces on the floor. The money in their cash registersÖgone. All the while, this man was screaming things about God while in his agitated rage. How could this God, whom this man represents, be a God of love, while at the same time, destroying the lives and livelihood of the store owners?


Matt 21:12-13
12Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13"It is written," he said to them, "`My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a `den of robbers.'"
NIV

Mark 11:15-17
15On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written:

"`My house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations'?

But you have made it `a den of robbers.'"
NIV

Luke 19:45-46
45Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling. 46"It is written," he said to them, "`My house will be a house of prayer'; but you have made it `a den of robbers.'"
NIV

John 2:14-17
14And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

15And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

16And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

17And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
KJV

If you wish for me to do a sentence by sentence comparision, I will. But the content of all these is no difference.

You brought up the part in Matthew and Mark about what Jesus said about the den of thieves. This is covered in the first paragraph when it was said that this man was screaming things about God.

You, also, brought up about digging deeper to find a greater meaning. I don't dispute that , but one can do digging in the origional also. (assuming the author decides to do a story on the entire life of Jesus).

Last, but not least, you brought up the assumption that I view everyone in the temple as "being innocent", but what you don't recognize is that you fall guilty of the same thing in regards to Christian bookstores, along with your view that everyone that sold in the temple was guilty.

cujo95
02-17-02, 02:15 PM
Hi E-Nygma,

Your story of this person who had the only way to see God gives itself away about half way through your story. And I see others have also caught onto this also.
It is simply a clever personification of the Lord Jesus Christ's life, but in different circumstances and surroundings.

Because Christ is the only way, and truth and life, then He is the only way to see God.