Using the Gospel to help you out practically

Helping the poor

Oh wait 4chan christfags never do that, nevermind

File: ox.jpg (70KB, 392x248px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 392x248px

>>1855660
The present time is now, and we forget this. We bring up every misdeed of every organization, religious or political. Instead of intending to learn more or resolve issues; people have decided to mock each other and waste their time.

When it is mentioned that one can judge for one's self, they are told not to judge for themselves. Many non-believers say "your book does not let you think for yourself" when on the contrary, scriptures tell you to apply yourself. Many believers say to other believers "you are not allowed to judge for yourself, God will punish you, my organized religion says so", without realizing that everyone has a relationship to God the Father in their own self.

God will face each of us personally. No longer do we need someone else to tell us "what God says", at least in the sense that many of you have been deceived by believers and non-believers. I would be a hypocrite if I didn't tell you I also used to be one of those people who spent all day "condemning in God's name" and "making people feel so dumb for believing in God's name"

>>1855664
Helping the poor in knowledge; helping the poor in money; poverty is not always financial, poverty often is mental and spiritual.

Using derogatory labels to discredit a people, for the sake of a stereotype is cause for disharmony. This place could be great for learning when people drop their prejudice.

>>1855719
>Helping the poor in knowledge; helping the poor in money; poverty is not always financial, poverty often is mental and spiritual.

What a great excuse for putting yourself on a moral high ground without ever doing anything moral

>>1855693
Posts Ba'al image.
Claims to be saved.

>>1855660
>It is not just a shout out to the Pharisees

Disagree. Daniel told them the exact day he would appear and they rejected it.

>>1855743
One day you will realize that no human puts himself on moral high ground.

Then what will you criticize?

>>1855743
I'm not the most moral person either, just trying to reach out and see if anyone feels the same way about using the Gospels to help shape one's self to be the best you can be. We aren't perfected over night, it is a process.

>>1855747
The Gospel of Luke is associated with the ox, and the ox is a creation of the Creator.

>>1855660

All the bible is for us.

Not all the bible is to us.

Properly dividing the scriptures helps to understand these things.

>>1855756
>One day you will realize that no human puts himself on moral high ground.

You're doing it every time you called yourself 'saved'.

Also, one day you'll realize that what you do is what you truly believe in, not what you say you're going to do

>>1855754
Where in Daniel? I know Jews wouldn't agree that Daniel did, but aside from that, the Gospel mentions the Pharisees and Sadducees often, but Christians cannot blaming these early sects of Judaism, rather now we can see the hypocrisy in the Pharisees can relate to the hypocrisy in our very own selves, or when an apostle or disciple lacks faith, we learn that we too as believers very often might doubt the Lord.

>>1855759
>just trying to reach out and see if anyone feels the same way about using the Gospels to help shape one's self to be the best you can be.

Reach out to yourself first before you start 'improving' the lives of others

>>1855772
Sharing ideas is not against improving ourselves, often we improve by sharing ideas within good reason, learning from others.

>>1855769
The 70 week prophecy.

A prophetic week is 7 years as a decade is 10 years to us. 69 weeks after the decree would go forth to rebuild the temple, or 483 years later, the messiah would appear, and be cut off. Killed. Not for his sins, but for the people.

483 years to the day that Artaxerxes proclaimed the temple could be rebuilt, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a colt to cries of Hosanna! Salvation now!

That was Nisan 10; on Nisan 14 he was crucified, and on Nisan 17 rose from the dead. 32 AD.

They should have known.

>>1855759
Nope.

Luke is the Son of Man, and Mark the Ox. Matthew the Lion, and John the Eagle.

>>1855766
No, we're not.

Ever heard of a post turtle?

We're post turtles.

>>1855779

And do you accept the ideas of religions other than your own?

>>1855743
He is right though helping a person spiritually and with knowledge will do more good for that person than any food or money ever will.
Knowledge can save you, enrich you for life and for what comes next. Material gain for the moment is not going to set a person on a better path in life.
Charity is good, but along with that charity I don't think it is to much to ask of people to work and learn for it.

>>1855794
>He is right though helping a person spiritually and with knowledge will do more good for that person than any food or money ever will.

Again, this is just an excuse to make yourself feel like you're making a difference without actually doing something to try and make a difference. You're living in a complete moral charade

>>1855785
They interchange. Luke is the man/ox, Mark is the lion/man and Matthew is sometimes the man/lion. John is always the Eagle, and the others have different associations depending on who you ask.

>>1855790
Nobody owns a religion.

>>1855794
>>1855801

It's like giving away money is a good thing, and so is giving knowledge. You see someone needs money, hand it to them, you see someone needs knowledge, hand it to them.

>>1855818
How does Christianity deal with just suffering? So say a guy is poor because he is a drunk, that does not work, and has no intention to. Is it not just for him to be poor and miserable because of his sins?

>>1855743

Have you never heard the old aphorism of "teaching a man a fish is better than giving a man to fish"?

>>1855818
>It's like giving away money is a good thing, and so is giving knowledge.

No, because giving away money is an actual sacrifice. It requires giving away something you value and need. Giving away money requires you to work for money, which people generally need to spend on goods for themselves, which you then give away without asking anything in return for it. Giving away money is a noble act that actually affects the world, actually negatively affects you, and actually involves putting a burden of someone else onto your shoulders. 'Giving knowledge' involves none of this. It takes only a fraction of the amount it takes to give money or food away, and does equally little to change someone's life for the better. You've simply convinced yourself, or was convinced by someone, that the two are morally equal to each other, when in fact, they're not even slightly equal to each other. You've simply deluded yourself into thinking that you giving your opinion is on the same moral level as you giving soup to a homeless person. The fact that one requires leaving your house and actually meeting bums in the real world and the other one now doesn't even require you to get out of bed should be a very clear hint.

So again, you live in a moral charade that either you constructed for yourself, or someone constructed for you. In either case, it's constructed as a moral feeling without any moral action tied to it, and therefore completely void

>>1855842

Yes I have, mostly from AnCaps and Reaganites to justify their own apathy towards people in need

>>1855830
When this hypothetical person decides to change their situation they must use their will and effort to change their situation.

>>1855848

If you care about someone you should give them something they desperately need in the short-term but unless you want to become their servant you should teach them how to get said thing for themselves

>>1855844
I do understand, many people preach endless words "my charity is giving you the Word of the Lord"; maybe you could also see that not everyone is like this. You might see a rich and expensive church and despise it when they turn away the beggar for his uncleanliness. That is when you can call it out, when you see it and experience it.

Many times we hear rumors and accept them as a whole truth. Do you believe every Christian person withholds all of their money and the only "charity" they do is talk? If so, that is because a stereotype has become an apparent truth.

When it comes to giving money to others as a resource, it will happen, either by actively giving or seeing the opportunity to give when it presents itself. God extends his charity to the needy through the believers and the non-believers.

>>1855851
Would this hypothetical person change if they were constantly given resources? I have a hard time thinking they would, just in my own experience. If they starve is that not punishment for their wrong doing.
I can understand helping people in need who did not deserver their misfortune.
I guess my question is more about justice in general. If god created all of this, then if you are hungry because you did not do work, then that is nature's(god's) justice for not doing what you should have done. I am honestly very new to all of this and I do not know the bible very well.

>>1855876
>44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
>45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous
>46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even tax collectors do the same?
>47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even Gentiles do the same? Matthew 5

In verse 45, God gives all people the sun and the rain, the just and the unjust. In verse 46 and 47, we are taught to give the same way. It helps to think about times when we receive from God and look at ourselves unworthy, the same way this hypothetical dude is not taking actions to show that he seriously wants to make a change, he still deserves to eat, and still deserves a place to sleep at night. We were all once pure babies without any fault in us, so generate that compassion for them.

Now, obviously, if this hypothetical dude ends up in a very low spot and chooses to stay there, does he deserve it? If instead this hypothetical dude ends up very low and realizes that there is something he can do, and does it, he takes a step for changing for the better. I know it is highly generalized, so more thought and discussion can go into every individual circumstance of this hypothetical person, we could go on all day.

>>1855806
No, it's just that one idiotic church doesn't have any idea what the bible means, or why the gospels are all written to different audiences, showing what face of Jesus.

>>1855830
Christianity is the belief that Jesus is Lord, and that he died for the sins of the world, and rose on the third day.

That's it.

Anything you ask after that is extraneous to what is at the heart of Christianity: God seeking those who will to go forward with him into eternity.

To your question, Jesus is not called the Man of Sorrows for nothing, and the suffering of God was worse than all the collective sufferings of mankind, as God has an infinite capacity to suffer and we do not.

And as he took all of our suffering onto himself.

We suffer because sin entered the world. Jesus suffered to tear down the divide that sin caused. So now the free gift of his salvation is available to all who believe.

File: 4 evangelist.jpg (237KB, 1282x971px)

237KB, 1282x971px

>>1855910
This pic has Luke as the ox, and I seen another website that said Mark was the ox, but they were both people being symbolically represented.

>>1855923
>And as he took all of our suffering onto himself.

Which explains why no-one has ever suffered since.

>God has an infinite capacity to suffer

Then literally any life would have done just fine. If he'd been born into the aristocracy, and lived a long life of self-indulgence before dying in the bosom of his family, his "infinite capacity to suffer" means he would have suffered just as much (infinitely) as he did being a carpenter and dying on the cross.

>>1855933
Yes, that would be the aforementioned idiotic church.

>>1855985
The suffering you feel, he felt 2000 years ago.

The sin you committed today, he committed, 2000 years ago.

Stop thinking linear timeline. You're talking about God, who is not bound by a linear timeline.

File: 1448657960591.jpg (369KB, 476x640px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 476x640px

>>1855990
I've never seen any other church categorize the evangelists differently. Would you please post an example?

Different anon btw.

>>1855985
If you're asking why he chose to be born poor, and humble, and of modest means, it was so that none of the privileges of humanity would mar his message and his life.

You want to be God. You want to be all powerful, crush all your enemies, favor all your friends, create anything to your heart's content.

Jesus already had that, and he let it all go to be one of us. He let it all go to be born poor, in a dirty manger, and grow up working stone, and wood, with his hands.

>>1855990
No where in the New Testament says anything about the Evangelists being symbolically represented by lion, ox, eagle, and man, except in Revelation, but it does not mention that it would be these 4 apostles.

Most of the images depict Luke with the ox, some churches say Mark is the ox. I wouldn't go so far as to call them stupid, it is a very minor difference.

>>1855996
>You're talking about God, who is not bound by a linear timeline.

And he couldn't do this without self-incarnation? Oh wait but he already did, before he even created the Universe, because he's omniscient.

An all-knowing being has nothing to learn, not by becoming a man, not by anything, or else he can't have been "all-knowing".

>>1856003
>it was so that none of the privileges of humanity would mar his message and his life.

So he chose a Jew? He couldn't have been a Syrian, or a Greek, he had to belong to THE most divisive and problematic race ever to live.

>You want to be God.

No I like existing thanks.

>He let it all go to be born poor, in a dirty manger, and grow up working stone, and wood, with his hands.

Except he was hardly "born poor" since those "kings" gave him all that gold, and Mary and Joseph were perfectly respectable and well-to-do. Being a carpenter is not a sign of poverty in the classical world, it means you're a professional craftsperson and solidly "middle class". If he wanted to see what it's like to be the least, why didn't he choose to be a slave or Chinese peasant?

File: mary-tomb-art-lds-453585-gallery.jpg (310KB, 444x447px)

310KB, 444x447px

When it comes to the Death and the Resurrection we are reminded that God sacrificed Christ at the Crucifixion to die for our sin.

What this means internally is that Christ died for us; if Christ had not died, how would we hear about Him? We are all subject to our own suffering, and to bear the cross is to use the wisdom taught to us by Christ to have our own resurrection with Him.

His coming back to life reminds us that we too who believe and follow Him will be lifted up, though we must endure as He did the Crucifixion.

There is emphasis on the fact that to rise again, we must bear the cross. We can't just free load and call ourselves saved, but we need to take mind to really carrying out what Christ taught us.

>>1856044
>if Christ had not died, how would we hear about Him?

How do you know about Barack Obama? No part of the fairytale told in the gospels is necessary for Jesus' message.

>>1856055
Christ died and came back to life. If Christ listened to Peter, and was not betrayed by Judas, or sentenced to death by Pilate we wouldn't have Christ's message readily available for us today.

Just because it is available doesn't mean someone will go take it right away. Sometimes a guitar in a pawn shop is never played, even though it is perfectly fine.

>>1856000
I don't care how any church posts anything.

Matthew: Jewish tax collector, wrote in Hebrew to the Hebrews showing that Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the King of the Jews. Hence the genealogy back to David.

Mark: Wrote Peter's account of Jesus the suffering servant, the Ox, for the Romans. No genealogy, no resurrection. Nobody cares where a servant comes from or where he goes.

Luke: Put all things in good order to show Jesus as the Son of Man, to the Greeks. Shows Jesus' genealogy all the way back to the first man, ....the son of Adam.....the Son of God.

John: Emphasized Jesus as the Son of God, the Eagle, the Alpha and the Omega. Written to everyone who believes.

>>1856015
It's also the four creatures who sit before the throne and cry out Holy Holy Holy, etc.

>>1856018
No. To be our kinsman redeemer, he had to be one of us. We were lost, and he paid the price to buy us back.

Yes, he knew (and was willing) to do this before he made the world.

God has nothing to learn, and everything to delight in.

>>1856032

He established the Jews so that his coming would have the intended meaning. If Jesus was just randomly born in India, for instance, they would have just called him some avatar of some other god, and he would be lost in time.

You don't know you need a savior until you know you're lost; you don't know you're lost until you try to follow the law and fail; you cannot follow the law and fail without having the law in the first place.

The Jews, the righteous ones anyway, who believed Moses and the prophets, were eagerly awaiting the coming of the messiah. the ones alive at Jesus' time became Christians. But because the nation rejected their own messiah, salvation was opened to all who believe, not just the Jews.

As God always intended.

>>1856082
Mark could also be the "person", because Christ is the man, without the "genealogy"

and Luke could also be "the ox"
>His symbol is the ox. This may account for his also being patron of butchers. In art, Luke is represented by a winged ox. This is especially appropriate because in the Gospel of St. Luke, the priestly and sacrificial work of Jesus is emphasized. The ox represents the sacrificial aspect of Jesus’ ministry and the wings remind us that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to travel throughout the world.

Though, they are interchangeable.

>>1856109
And my aunt could also be my uncle, if she had balls.

File: kells_evangelists.jpg (112KB, 466x593px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 466x593px

>>1856082
That's a neat interpretation and you're certainly entitled to it but I prefer this one:

Matthew, the first gospel greets you with a human face.

After this gentle introduction, Mark's style is much more curt and aggressive. A lion befitting the conquering Romans he was writing to.

Then we come to the intellectual Luke, whose mind is so fixed that like an ox it cannot be moved.

Finally we come to John whose spirituality and mysticism soars like the eagle.