God's keen to heal. In the scriptures it's mostly dealt within obsessions. Either way he knows the real cause, so people will be saved, unless someone tries to mock or try to trick the truth for self gain.
My personal answer would be no. For it would not be that person's fault that they are mentally ill. God cares about these ones as suggested in the scriptures. Col
Thanks So, if your mentally ill then perhaps you could have an exemption from being turned into ash. But what about people that are retarded and don't get it? Will God turn them into ash?
I would think mentally ill covers many categories. However, some may seem to others to be mentally ill, but only God really knows if they are or not. Because he's the only one that can read our hearts. Col
True Christians are the people who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. They follow the Ten Commandments. They do not steal, lie, commit adultery or murder or break any of the rules God has given us. They also worship the seventh day as the Sabbath. Does not necessarily mean Sunday or Saturday but it changes every year. God also expects us to keep his Holy Days such as Passover, Day of Atonement plus other Holy Days. The 10% tithe is what God expects us to give back to him. He may not need it, but he expects us to use it here to help where help is needed. True, none of us is perfect, but we can only try to get better each day so we can share in that final reward when Jesus comes back.
A Christian is someone who has realized that they have sinned, and fall short of perfection. They believe and accept that Jesus died, and rose from the dead, and that He is God. They accept his death as the penalty for their sins, and accept Him as their savior. It's not how good you can be, or how much you can give to the church. Ephesians 2:8-9 (New International Version) New International Version (NIV) Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society [NIV at IBS] [International Bible Society] [NIV at Zondervan] [Zondervan] 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. None of us are "better" than anyone else, we just were saved by the grace of God.
Exactly. Those that rattle off alledgedly good works they do that make them a "true Christian" are like the Pharisees. I don't recall Jesus having too many good things to say about them. They were more obsessed about the letter of the law (10%) rather than the heart of the law (give what you are able with a cheerful heart). The people going on about tithing remind me of Office Space and the "flare" scene. They also forget that tithing in the OT wasn't just about money. I don't suppose that those who tithe give 10% of all their possessions to God. Ooops. Money, time and/or talent are all things you should be giving a portion of to God. You don't need a church to donate those things to doing God's work. Not everyone can afford to give 10% of their income to God. But they are no less Christian for finding other ways to give.
Talk about bait and switch... The title looked interesting. "Who is a true Christian here?" I enter the thread and the question becomes, who donates money to a church? I don't get it... Are you trying to define Christianity by the amount someone spends giving away to a church? Your title is completely mis-leading.
Although I respect your views. My view is that Jesus is not God. I think I have made that pretty clear. I will gather up some scriptures to show why I firmly believe that. Col
Sounds like we are going see a Watchtower list pretty soon. Lets start with John 1:1,14 and not hop scotch away from it too quickly (note: I can read Greek).
OK. Let's start on John 1:1 and John 1:14. This verse seems to get a hammering The Truth About the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit PEOPLE who believe the Trinity teaching say that God consists of three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of these three persons is said to be equal to the others, almighty, and without beginning. According to the Trinity doctrine, therefore, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is only one God. Many who believe the Trinity admit that they are not able to explain this teaching. Still, they may feel that it is taught in the Bible. It is worth noting that the word “Trinity†never occurs in the Bible. But is the idea of a Trinity found there? To answer this question, let us look at a scripture that supporters often cite to uphold the Trinity. “THE WORD WAS GOD†John 1:1 states: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.†(King James Version) Later in the same chapter, the apostle John clearly shows that “the Word†is Jesus. (John 1:14) Since the Word is called God, however, some conclude that the Son and the Father must be part of the same God. Bear in mind that this part of the Bible was originally written in Greek. Later, translators rendered the Greek text into other languages. A number of Bible translators, though, did not use the phrase “the Word was God.†Why not? Based on their knowledge of Biblical Greek, those translators concluded that the phrase “the Word was God†should be translated differently. How? Here are a few examples: “The Logos [Word] was divine.†(A New Translation of the Bible) “The Word was a god.†(The New Testament in an Improved Version) “The Word was with God and shared his nature.†(The Translator’s New Testament) According to these translations, the Word is not God himself. Instead, because of his high position among Jehovah’s creatures, the Word is referred to as “a god.†Here the term “god†means “mighty one.†GET MORE FACTS Most people do not know Biblical Greek. So how can you know what the apostle John really meant? Think of this example: A schoolteacher explains a subject to his students. Afterward, the students differ on how to understand the explanation. How can the students resolve the matter? They could ask the teacher for more information. No doubt, learning additional facts would help them to understand the subject better. Similarly, to grasp the meaning of John 1:1, you can look in the Gospel of John for more information on Jesus’ position. Learning additional facts on this subject will help you to draw the right conclusion. For instance, consider what John further writes in chapter 1, verse 18: “No man has seen [Almighty] God at any time.†However, humans have seen Jesus, the Son, for John says: “The Word [Jesus] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory.†(John 1:14, KJ) How, then, could the Son be part of Almighty God? John also states that the Word was “with God.†But how can an individual be with someone and at the same time be that person? Moreover, as recorded at John 17:3, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and his heavenly Father. He calls his Father “the only true God.†And toward the end of his Gospel, John sums up matters by saying: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.†(John 20:31) Notice that Jesus is called, not God, but the Son of God. This additional information provided in the Gospel of John shows how John 1:1 should be understood. Jesus, the Word, is “a god†in the sense that he has a high position but is not the same as Almighty God. CONFIRM THE FACTS Think again about the example of the schoolteacher and the students. Imagine that some still have doubts, even after listening to the teacher’s additional explanation. What could they do? They could turn to another teacher for further information on the same subject. If the second teacher confirms the explanation of the first one, the doubts of most students may be put to rest. Similarly, if you are not sure what the Bible writer John was really saying about the relationship between Jesus and Almighty God, you could turn to another Bible writer for further information. Consider what was written by Matthew, for example. Regarding the end of this system of things, he quotes Jesus as saying: “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.†(Matthew 24:36) How do these words confirm that Jesus is not Almighty God? Jesus says that the Father knows more than the Son does. If Jesus were part of Almighty God, however, he would know the same facts as his Father. So, then, the Son and the Father cannot be equal. Yet, some will say: ‘Jesus had two natures. Here he speaks as a man.’ But even if that were so, what about the holy spirit? If it is part of the same God as the Father, why does Jesus not say that it knows what the Father knows? As you continue your Bible studies, you will become familiar with many more Bible passages that have a bearing on this subject. They confirm the truth about the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit.—Psalm 90:2; Acts 7:55; Colossians 1:15. and this next excerpt is well worth the read: “The Word Was God†AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.†Trinitarians claim that this means that “the Word†(Greek, ho lo′gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself. Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, “The Word was with God.†(Italics ours.) Someone who is “with†another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean “the†God, this “would then contradict the preceding clause,†which says that the Word was with God. Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse: 1808: “and the word was a god.†The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text. 1864: “and a god was the word.†The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson. 1928: “and the Word was a divine being.†La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel. 1935: “and the Word was divine.†The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed. 1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.†Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme. 1950: “and the Word was a god.†New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. 1958: “and the Word was a God.†The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek. 1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.†Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz. 1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.†Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider. At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the·os′ (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was (“and the Word [lo′gos] was with God [a form of the·os′]â€). This first the·os′ is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God (“and the Word was with [the] Godâ€). On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·os′ at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, “and god was the Word.†Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the·os′ (a predicate noun) as “divine,†“godlike,†or “a god.†On what authority do they do this? The Koine Greek language had a definite article (“theâ€), but it did not have an indefinite article (“a†or “anâ€). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context. The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions “with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.†As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo′gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: “The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os′] cannot be regarded as definite.†So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was “divine,†“godlike,†“a god,†but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called “the Word†in his role as God’s Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God. There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article “a†when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: “They supposed it had been a spirit.†In the Koine Greek, there is no “a†before “spirit.†But almost all translations in other languages add an “a†in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was “a god,†or “divine.†Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: “The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself.†And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . ‘the word was a divine being.’†Violating a Rule? SOME claim, however, that such renderings violate a rule of Koine Greek grammar published by Greek scholar E. C. Colwell back in 1933. He asserted that in Greek a predicate noun “has the [definite] article when it follows the verb; it does not have the [definite] article when it precedes the verb.†By this he meant that a predicate noun preceding the verb should be understood as though it did have the definite article (“theâ€) in front of it. At John 1:1 the second noun (the·os′), the predicate, precedes the verb—“and [the·os′] was the Word.†So, Colwell claimed, John 1:1 should read “and [the] God was the Word.†But consider just two examples found at John 8:44. There Jesus says of the Devil: “That one was a manslayer†and “he is a liar.†Just as at John 1:1, the predicate nouns (“manslayer†and “liarâ€) precede the verbs (“was†and “isâ€) in the Greek. There is no indefinite article in front of either noun because there was no indefinite article in Koine Greek. But most translations insert the word “a†because Greek grammar and the context require it.—See also Mark 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 9:17; 10:1; 12:6. Colwell had to acknowledge this regarding the predicate noun, for he said: “It is indefinite [“a†or “anâ€] in this position only when the context demands it.†So even he admits that when the context requires it, translators may insert an indefinite article in front of the noun in this type of sentence structure. Does the context require an indefinite article at John 1:1? Yes, for the testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God. Thus, not Colwell’s questionable rule of grammar, but context should guide the translator in such cases. And it is apparent from the many translations that insert the indefinite article “a†at John 1:1 and in other places that many scholars disagree with such an artificial rule, and so does God’s Word. No Conflict DOES saying that Jesus Christ is “a god†conflict with the Bible’s teaching that there is only one God? No, for at times the Bible employs that term to refer to mighty creatures. Psalm 8:5 reads: “You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones [Hebrew, ’elo·him′],†that is, angels. In Jesus’ defense against the charge of the Jews, that he claimed to be God, he noted that “the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed,†that is, human judges. (John 10:34, 35, JB; Psalm 82:1-6) Even Satan is called “the god of this system of things†at 2 Corinthians 4:4. Jesus has a position far higher than angels, imperfect men, or Satan. Since these are referred to as “gods,†mighty ones, surely Jesus can be and is “a god.†Because of his unique position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is a “Mighty God.â€â€”John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6. But does not “Mighty God†with its capital letters indicate that Jesus is in some way equal to Jehovah God? Not at all. Isaiah merely prophesied this to be one of four names that Jesus would be called, and in the English language such names are capitalized. Still, even though Jesus was called “Mighty,†there can be only one who is “Almighty.†To call Jehovah God “Almighty†would have little significance unless there existed others who were also called gods but who occupied a lesser or inferior position. The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library in England notes that according to Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, while the·os′ is used in scriptures such as John 1:1 in reference to Christ, “in none of these instances is ‘theos’ used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as ‘ho Theos,’ that is, the Supreme God.†And the Bulletin adds: “If the New Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as ‘God’, is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable?†But what about the apostle Thomas’ saying, “My Lord and my God!†to Jesus at John 20:28? To Thomas, Jesus was like “a god,†especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation. Some scholars suggest that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God. In either case, Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God, for he and all the other apostles knew that Jesus never claimed to be God but taught that Jehovah alone is “the only true God.â€â€”John 17:3. Again, the context helps us to understand this. A few days earlier the resurrected Jesus had told Mary Magdalene to tell the disciples: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.†(John 20:17) Even though Jesus was already resurrected as a mighty spirit, Jehovah was still his God. And Jesus continued to refer to Him as such even in the last book of the Bible, after he was glorified.—Revelation 1:5, 6; 3:2, 12. Just three verses after Thomas’ exclamation, at John 20:31, the Bible further clarifies the matter by stating: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God,†not that he was Almighty God. And it meant “Son†in a literal way, as with a natural father and son, not as some mysterious part of a Trinity Godhead. Must Harmonize With the Bible IT IS claimed that several other scriptures support the Trinity. But these are similar to those discussed above in that, when carefully examined, they offer no actual support. Such texts only illustrate that when considering any claimed support for the Trinity, one must ask: Does the interpretation harmonize with the consistent teaching of the entire Bible—that Jehovah God alone is Supreme? If not, then the interpretation must be in error. We also need to keep in mind that not even so much as one “proof text†says that God, Jesus, and the holy spirit are one in some mysterious Godhead. Not one scripture anywhere in the Bible says that all three are the same in substance, power, and eternity. The Bible is consistent in revealing Almighty God, Jehovah, as alone Supreme, Jesus as his created Son, and the holy spirit as God’s active force. Col
Interesting discussion. Can someone buy there way into Gods favour by tithing? No! He cannot be bribed. Does God 'burn' the mentally ill? No! He is a 'God of love'. What is a true Christian? "This is what the love of God means, that we observe His commandments" - so study Gods Word, see what He wants you to do and then do it. Would it be wrong for God to destroy wicked people? No! It would be wrong not to, for only by the removal of the wicked will those judged by God as righteous be able to live in peace and security.
Thanks for the Watchtower cut and paste. I own a copy of their interlinear and the Greek say "was God", the word for word translation below it says "was God" and the translation put forth to support the theology created by Charles Taze Russell says "a god". The Jehovah Witnesses would do themselves a service by marketing themselves as an alternative to Christianity not as true Christianity.