Unbelievable

[Jenny A]

He has spoken to me. I could only become an anti-Christ at this point. I had long misunderstood what Jesus meant by "the meek shall inherit the Earth", because I understood the word, "meek", to be along the lines of submissive, yielding, gentle but in regards to my relationship with fellow humans. What he meant was that those who are formed by God will inherit the Earth. So blessed are those that can be molded by God.

I didn't see The Meek/Anti Christ thing as a quote from Christ..

Since he had misunderstood the verse until god spoke to him, I presumed that the new understanding was part of the message.

I do to a degree with his defination of Meek. For me 'Meek and Humble before God are the same. In that a Humble man can be molded into whatever role God would have Him play. The same too is true for the Meek man. and the two also share in humility toward God, which they will no doubt reap a reward from.

Where we differ is the humility toward our fellow man.

---

I take the stance to humble myself before God because This is our single most greatest command. However our Greatest commands do not stop there. we also Have 'Love your neighbor as your self.' Which also speaks to Humbling yourself to your neighbor is a way that you yourself would approve of.

That said when we then look at the verse "The meek shall inherit the earth, we must also look at everything else Jesus actually said in the bible concerning the topic, and make sure it all jives together.

Therefore in light of our greatest command (Love God with all you being and your neighbor as your self) then weigh that in with the statment 'The meek shall inherit the earth.' a very clear picture of whom Jesus is identifying as 'meek' appears. It is as the OP suggests, but it also includes a servant of his fellow man. Much like Christ was.

---

And there it is. You both have spent much time on the issue and yet you have a striking difference in opinion about what should be fairly clear. I'm sure it's not the only difference between you. But frankly, I'm not concerned about differences reached through scripture. It's differences reached through personal experience with god that interest me here. People have thought that they received divine revelations from Jesus, Mary, Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Athena, Ra, and who knows who else. The fact remains that the messages received are vastly different. That suggests to me that the revelations are not from one god if they are from any god at all. It also suggests divine revelation is a very unreliable way to learn anything.

Like those who see UFOs and fairies for that matter, what people see when they encounter god is generally what would be expected in their culture. When a man who has never heard of Jesus or read the Bible sees Jesus in a vision, and his message appears to be what he told the disciples, then we might be getting somewhere.

'Mainstream' doesn't really have any hold or say with God. The Pharisees and Saducees were 'Mainstream' in Christ's day, and they didn't have it right.. Not even close.

And who's to say you have it right? You all disagree. And you all claim the same source: divine revelation yours or someone elses.

[BTW there are two d's in Sadducee. Spelling it your way makes me think of sadists. They might be called mainstream I suppose. They were in charge of the temple anyway. The Pharisees were directly at odds with the Sadducees. They believed that there were holy things outside the temple. Their emphasis was on keeping the law of god and separation from gentiles. In the long run, it is the Pharisees who had the most influence on modern Judiaism. ]