Affliction

From Kristos Vocabulary Booster

English

Noun form of afflict.

Romanica

Noun

affliction f

1. affliction, distress

pl:Affliction

On Sat, 7 May 2005 18:07:47 +0000 (UTC), MyName wrote:

>
>
>> I think I've found a few, and will name one.
>
>In your original post you indicated there are other verses you
>find to be problenatic. I'd be interested to hear which ones &
>why if you'd care to share.

Luke's rendition of the sermon on the mount is notably different from
Matthew's, and it is apparently politically motivated; to the point of
social war of the poor against the rich. Only Luke's gospel carries
this tone throughout. The exception being the already mentioned "eye
of the needle"story also found in Matthew and Mark. Matthew and Mark
are not so socialistic as Luke. That story sticks out from the rest
of their books like a sore thumb, without context.
Note that Luke is assumed to have also written Acts. There is no
such social war in the gospel. The one exception of such venting of
hate to the rich is the story of Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5. Peter
is said to have watched over it. But I do not believe it, nor the
story as written. They sold their property, kept some of the money,
supposedly lied about selling it for the amount they're giving (as if
that would be so important to the church), and then are effectively
murdered by the Spirit before Peter, apparently consenting to their
deaths. How often does one hear this story practicably used? It is
an act of hate, as was the writing of that story.

And how about Luke's Lazarus, as supposedly told by Christ? What a
name to pull out of the air! A rich man feeds the sore-ful beggar
something to live on (so it is implied in the 'story'), but is
nevertheless sent to hell without a complaint. Luke's Lazarus is not
an expression of love, but of overt hate! And it is written so much
not as to convince one of loving the poor, but I think of hating
Christ for teaching such words.
The motive, I believe, is not Luke's politics. But from someone
who was in control of Luke's letters, who modified his words to do
overt damage to Christ. Politics was the apparent method, and so
presumed motive; but was not used properly as to be convincing. The
motive was to do harm to the gospel, not preach politics.
-----
Christ never taught grace. Paul taught it bluntly. The apostles
menitoned it in a complimentary fashion. But Christ never taught
grace. So how can we be saved by it, as Paul declared to forcefully?

I've already posted that I do not respect Paul as an apostle, even as
a Christian. He changed the gospel so to reject works. He wrote that
our works would meet the fire, though we would be saved. He fought
hard to convince others that works should not be thought necessary to
salvation. But that is the teaching of an anti-Christ.
Christ taught the parable of heaven compared to a denarius, which
is to be paid to workers in His vineyard for their labors—regardless
of what time of the day they began there work—regardless of the
complaints of others who think they should get more. (I think there's
plenty of reward in heaven.) This is, of course, anti-Paul teaching.
Christ taught that the fearful (or cowardly) one-talented servant
who refused to invest would meet his reward, where there would be
teeth-gnashing. Christ taught that fruitless branches would be
removed. Based on other passages, that means a removal to a burning.
-----
Since I do not respect Paul, nor Acts (as if it were unedited) then I
do not respect the speaking of tongues as an expression of the Holy
Spirit. I do know the Holy Spirit, and have tasted its loving-
kindness, yet have never wanted to speak a new language—at all. But I
also am close to the Bible, so have wondered considerably about that
subject, though without answer. I now have my answer, and it is that
the tongues are fake, a goading of Paul only. (I believe Revelation
2:2 denies Paul's apostleship. And that Peter's warning concerning
Paul (the whole passage) puts Paul's grace in the realm which is to
meet destruction.)
-----
In Matthew 5:28-30 MKJV
(28) But I say to you that whoever looks on a woman to lust after her
has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
(29) And if your right eye offends you, pluck it out and throw it
from you. For it is profitable for you that one of your members should
perish, and not that your whole body should be thrown into hell.
(30) And if your right hand offends you, cut it off and throw it from
you. For it is profitable for you that one of your members should
perish, and not that your whole body should be thrown into hell.

The above reference, to put it bluntly (referring to what is common
and will not be stopped; even by this threat) is a close description
of masturbation. And so has caused trouble to many, and caused many
to hate the church. That passage is vicious, and an act of hate
against humanity, who cannot cease from doing the above. We were made
that way. And is not so unpleasant, if it weren't for the training of
our consciences. We must do it.

The law teaches against adultery. As for seeing something we
shouldn't...

Leviticus 20:19-22 MKJV
(19) And you shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother's sister,
nor of your father's sister. For he uncovers his near kin. They shall
bear their iniquity.
(20) And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he has uncovered
his uncle's nakedness. They shall bear their sin. They shall die
childless.
(21) And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean
thing. He has uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be
childless.
(22) You shall therefore keep all My statutes and all My judgments,
and do them, so that the land where I bring you to live shall not spit
you out.

This is the only commandment concerning nudity I'm aware of, and they
are concerning family members; whether by blood or by marriage. Note
how God tries to redefine the word "nakedness." God was specific
about many matters, some of which we might wonder about. But He did
not speak so clearly about 'lusts of the flesh' as some might believe.
Adam and Eve were in the garden nude, and it was they who were
embarrassed and clothed themselves after the eating. Their nudity was
not a minor point in that passage of Genesis, so I think God was
trying to make a point from the start. The devil can and does afflict
our consciences.

I think this covers most of them. Yes, it is a lot; much of which is
currently accepted by most of the churches.
--
Mike Rhodes

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))