Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If you're not yet FB Friends with Mike Duran, he has a post today worth checking out.
image.thumb.png.49dadffff3e10fbe5fafc1da65233a9b.pnghttps://www.facebook.com/AuthorMikeDuran/posts/10225550243768945

I looked up the scripture quoted by Christopher Weeks, and it got me thinking:
 

Quote

8 We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; 9 persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. 10 We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body.

I can imagine some kind of Sci-Fi or Fantasy story where Christian warriors are the Deathcarriers, and they contain within them both the curse of Death and the power of Life. I read a book a long time ago which has this sort of vibe, PALADINS by Joel Rosenberg.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/390176.Paladins

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I read Aslan is that he is good, but a lion is still a lion.  Revelation shows that to be true.

 

But you need go no further than an oppressive regime to see where Christians are dangerous.  The FIRST people they go after are Christians, because the ruler or the state will tolerate it's citizens to have no other loyalty than to them.

Edited by Jeff Potts
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

My husband and children find me one of the most uncomfortable people in their lives when necessary. Because I'm unloving? Quite the opposite. If I made everything easy on them and coddled them in their immaturity they would never grow. 

And none of them knew what adventure was until I came into their lives. 

2 hours ago, Jeff Potts said:

But you need go no further than an oppressive regime to see where Christians are dangerous.  The FIRST people they go after are Christians, because the ruler or the state will tolerate it's citizens to have no other loyalty than to them.

Oh, yeah. If you are evil, Christians are your intractable foes.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Luke 4:18-19: The Spirit of Our God is upon me:

because the Most High has anointed me

to bring Good News to those who are poor.

God has sent me to proclaim liberty to those held captive,

recovery of sight to those who are blind,

and release to those in prison--

to proclaim the year of Our God's favor.

 

Will doing those things get Christians in trouble with those who benefit from the status quo? With those who have no compassion for the poor? With those who make money on oppressing their workers? With those who cannot see beyond their own tiny selves? With those who persecute righteousness?

 

May we all be followers of the one who was considered dangerous both by the religious establishment and the Roman government.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Soooo agree with this. Husband and I are writing a study for men called "Bold Like Jesus." He finds many men who don't really "want" to be like Christ because all the sermons talk about Jesus as meek. Well...the original Greek word for meek means "power under control." That sounds a lot like Jesus, rather than our modern definition of meek as "weak."

 

Thanks Phy/Johne for sharing this.

Edited by Carol Peterson
name mispelled
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Carol Peterson said:

Soooo agree with this. Husband and I are writing a study for men called "Bold Like Jesus." He finds many men who don't really "want" to be like Christ because all the sermons talk about Jesus as meek. Well...the original Greek word for meek means "power under control." That sounds a lot like Jesus, rather than our modern definition of meek as "weak."

 

Thanks Phy/Johne for sharing this.

Moses is also characterized as meek, but he lost his place in the Promised Land in a fit of anger.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I only know about the "meek" thing because I just researched it for a book I'm writing. You'd be surprised at how different many of our modern definitions are from the original word meanings. No wonder we have such a hard time understanding Scripture!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Carol Peterson said:

You'd be surprised at how different many of our modern definitions are from the original word meanings.

Yes, that and 2,000 years difference in culture and a couple dozen other factors do make a difference. Like the word "condescend," which appears in a hymn (which title I cannot come up with at the moment). The phrase is "to us he'll condescend." "con-" as a prefix meaning "with." "descend" as in to come down. Current English meaning of "condescend" is not the same.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

     I remember reading an article once, by a man who’d read that passage in a French Bible. The word used for "meek" in the French Bible was "debonair".

    The "debonair" shall inherit the Earth? I mentioned this to a woman at my Church once.

    She laughed. "Cary Grant?"

    Cary Grant? How about James Bond? Shall 007 inherit the Earth? He is definitely what the English word "debonair" means; but "The World is Not Enough"?

    James Bond definitely does not fit the English definition of "meek". I think the original French definition must be very different from what the word has come to mean in English.

    In French, “debonair” is a compound word. The syllables put together literately mean, "Of-Good-Air"; or "of-good-breath". In the Bible the word "breath" is a synonym for "spirit". Could that mean "Blessed are those with a healthy spirit"?

    "Those with a healthy spirit shall inherit the Earth"?

    Now what does it mean to “inherit the Earth”?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.etymonline.com/word/condescend

condescend (v.)

mid-14c., of God, a king., etc., "make gracious allowance" for human frailty, etc.; late 14c., "yield deferentially," from Old French condescendere (14c.) "to agree, consent, give in, yield, come down from one's rights or claims," and directly from Late Latin condescendere "to let oneself down, stoop," in Medieval Latin "be complaisant or compliant," from assimilated form of Latin com "with, together" (see con-) + descendere "to descend," literally "climb down," from de "down" (see de-) + scandere "to climb," from PIE root *skand- "jump" (see scan (v.)).

Sense of ""voluntarily waive ceremony or dignity proper to one's superior position or rank and willingly assume equality with inferiors" is from early 15c. Generally a positive word in Middle English; the modern, negative sense is from the notion of a mere show or assumed air of condescending (compare sense evolution in patronize). Also in Middle English "give one's consent; come to mutual agreement; make a concession." (italics mine)

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, William D'Andrea said:

     I remember reading an article once, by a man who’d read that passage in a French Bible. The word used for "meek" in the French Bible was "debonair".

 

When playing with word meanings, we always remember that they can change, a lot. This can be especially true with French to English, 'cuz once the French-speaking Normans conquered England and became their royalty, everyone was eager to act sophisticated, by using "the royal language." A lot of French words got abducted and given new/similar (or not-so-similar) meanings. A French crayon, for example, is what we'd call a pencil. That didn't stop us from finding creative new English uses for crayon. And modesty forbids my mentioning a whole list of, uh, "personal" and "hygienic" implements that have been given repurposed French names that only vaguely match their meaning to us.

 

The translators of that French Bible would have used words that would have been meaningful to modern French speakers. While "debonair" is an English word, the bible probably used débonnaire, which might mean kind, good-natured, or easy going.

 

It helps point out how translating the Bible into any language can result in a minor, uh, shall I call it a faux-pas? yet I think in both cases, it says that Jesus taught that the world would go, not to those who'd take it by force (*cough cough* unclean Roman swine...), but to those to whom God was pleased to give it.

 

Everywhere they looked, there were these unclean foreigners, strong-arming their way into all aspects of Jewish life. This may have been a very gentle and non-revolutionary way to say that these foreign interlopers were just trespassers on God's property, and that He would eventually hand it over to its rightful owners...

 

 

Edited by Wes B
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.