Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Divinity of Jesus
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 211 of 517 (462568)
04-05-2008 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by pelican
04-04-2008 11:24 PM


Re: satan's right hand man?
pelican,
Looking closely at the life of Jesus, as told in the bible,
I would like to take this at face value. You looked "closely" at the life of Jesus as told in the Bible. But I wonder how "closely" did you really look?
Perhaps some of my comments would suggest to look a little closer.
I believe he was an ordinary human being.
Part of the problem skeptics have is that when we say that Jesus is the Son of God or that He is God incarnate they think we mean that Jesus was not also an ordinary human being. Particularly the Gospel of Luke emphasizes that this Savior of man and Son of God was an ordinary human being.
He is God and man mingled together. In Him we believers in Christ see human being 100%. And in Him we Christians also see God 100%. We see the union of an ordinary human man with the extraordinary eternal God.
I guess you didn't see or were not impressed that Jesus presents Himself as God/Man. And as such He teaches and displays what the meaning of life is - that God and man would be united together in an "organic" unity - a mingling of divinity with humanity.
He followed his own beliefs and persuaded others to believe the same.
It is hard to imagine how Jesus the baby could orchestrate His birth to fulfill a prophecy of Micah given five centries before that out of Bethlehem would come such a Messiah. At least you would have to admit that Jesus was persuaded that He was that Bethlehem Savior and should act and speak like it.
Before we get to His teaching we have to realize that He was expected and anticipated to come on the scene. Especially this is brought out in Luke's gospel which emphasizes His typocal normal human manhood. In the first four chapters we see so many people anticipating the arrival of Someone like Jesus.
So even as a baby He already has followers. This is amazing. Now we come to His attitude about His "own beliefs" as you say, as an adult:
"Jesus therefore answered them and said, My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone resilves to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. He who speaks from Himself seeks His own glory; but He who seeks the glory of HIm who sent Him, this One is true, and unrighteousness is not in Him" (John 7:16-18)
Clearly, His own belief was according to the authority of the one who sent Him. He says that the teaching is not His but the teaching of the one who sent Him.
Again He says He can do nothing on His own:
"Jesus therefore said to them, When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am, and that I do nothing from Myself, but as My Father has taught Me, I speak these things.
And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him." (John 8:28,29)
The Father teaches Him what to say. He speaks for the Father's glory and with the Father's teaching. He says He has no teaching of His own apart from His Father. What He does is always pleasing to the Father. The Father continuouosly testifies His pleasure at the Son's obedience by being with Him.
"For I have not spoken from Myself; but the Father who sent Me, He Himself has given Me commandment, what to say and what to speak." (John 12:49)
"Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me does His works.
Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; but if not, believe because of the works themselves." (John 14:10,11)
When you speak of "his own beliefs" this is it. He prefers that we believe in Him that He is one with the Father and the Father is one with Him. But if we cannot grasp such an divine / human mingling and union He desires that we believe in Him because of the works themselves He does. That is works that are only possible by God to do.
Actually, He says that as He speaks the Father is working - " ... I do not speak from Myself, but the Father who abides in Me does His works."
The outcome of his beliefs were and still are divisive. The good and the bad.
He said we would know the disciples by their fruits. So there must be division so that we can see who are the true fruit bearing disciples of Christ and who are not.
I don't know about you. But I asked God to let me be with those who encourage my faith through genuine Christian fruit. I am looking for those who manifest genuine following of Jesus. I am not looking for those who will give me reasons to doubt but reasons to believe.
The examples of righteous living have caused more harm than good.
This is some kind of "blame everything on Jesus" philosophy which I think is not realistic.
I am rather convinced that if there is anything keeping this world from completely degrading into chaos it is the presence of genuine fruit bearing and praying disciples of Jesus. He taught that the His genuine followers under the kingdom living would be the salt of the earth. Salt prevents food from rotting. It preserves.
I think the human society has the salt of the followers of Jesus keeping society from completely rotting. They may not be able to fix the world for you. But they do prevent the whole thing from total moral rot.
But we could argue this all day. It is the final judgment conducted by God which will reveal whose to blame and whose to thank for the preservation of the human society.
I did notice that God starts with those who are suppose to know better. Judgement begins with the house of God, it says.
As a parent, I would not advise my children to follow him at all.
So you would advise your children that it is not good to forgive?
Do you then advize them to keep a grudge against an offense as long as possible?
Do you teach your children that they should not love God or love one another? Since that is that is a teaching of Jesus do you steer them clear of those concepts?
Your children are going to undergo pains of which you will be totally oblivious to. You will be ignorant of their sufferings. And you will not be there to help. In my case I thought it was good to let them know that God is ALWAYS there to know everything. And that they could talk to Him about any problem. They could open their hearts to the Savior Jesus and have many deep fears and anxieties calmed by His presence and His peace.
It is sad to me that you make and effort to steer your children away from such a Friend as Jesus. No one can get on the inside of the troubled heart like Jesus.
You would be depriving them of the greatest Friend and Savior Who looks beyond their faults and truly sees their needs. There is no Friend like Jesus. In the shadows of trial you can always find Jesus.
YOu cannot pass through any temptation or trial that He does not thoroughly know and can support you in that you can overcome.
What a terrible folly that you would not even read to your children the words of Jesus. If I were an agnostic or an athiest, I would hope that I had at LEAST the decency to read aloud to my children the words of Jesus.
I am curious. Whose moral example do you find superior to that of Jesus Christ that you would prefer your children would look to him or her?
He sacrificed his life for his beliefs, nothing more and nothing less. In my mind, he was closer to satan than god, leading the meek and suffering up the garden path. Of course, it's only my opinion.
Pitiful and sick. Sorry to say this.
May the heavenly Father have mercy on your children.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by pelican, posted 04-04-2008 11:24 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by pelican, posted 04-05-2008 9:12 AM jaywill has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 212 of 517 (462576)
04-05-2008 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by jaywill
04-05-2008 6:38 AM


Re: satan's right hand man?
You obviously have strong beliefs that are totally subjective. The quotes you have given from the bible are subject to a belief in god.
"Jesus therefore answered them and said, My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone resilves to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. He who speaks from Himself seeks His own glory; but He who seeks the glory of HIm who sent Him, this One is true, and unrighteousness is not in Him" (John 7:16-18)
Above, is not Jesus declaring himself to be righteous? Is Jesus not seeking god's glory for himself? How would this attitude be recieved today?
May the heavenly Father have mercy on your children.
He should have had mercy on them when they were little and I was a practising christian.
I am curious. Whose moral example do you find superior to that of Jesus Christ that you would prefer your children would look to him or her?
I prefer my children learn from my mistakes and from their own. I would never deprive them of their life experiences which are invaluable. How can we truly know anything without experience?
He said we would know the disciples by their fruits. So there must be division so that we can see who are the true fruit bearing disciples of Christ and who are not.
It seems you have no objection to the division within humanity. Presumabley you see yourself as bearing the true fruit, otherwise you may disagree. However, I know all humans are equal.
Jesus taught judgement of others. Jesus condemned others. Jesus taught others to suffer in silence. Jesus taught us to sacrifice our lives. jesus taught us not to save ourselves. Not good at all.
There are two sides to every story and christians only tell one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by jaywill, posted 04-05-2008 6:38 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Grizz, posted 04-05-2008 9:42 AM pelican has not replied
 Message 214 by jaywill, posted 04-05-2008 11:54 AM pelican has not replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5470 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 213 of 517 (462578)
04-05-2008 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by pelican
04-05-2008 9:12 AM


Re: satan's right hand man?
There are two sides to every story and christians only tell one.
Or perhaps there are many sides to every story and we all tell our own. More words are written and more stories are told about Jesus than any other figure in history.
Jesus told his story.
40-120 years later, the author(s) of Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Peter, Thomas.....told their story as well. Paul of Tarsus also told his story, as did the historians Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and then Martin Luther, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas,.....
Today we have stories from Marcus Borg, John Crossan, NT Wright, Pope Benedict, Tim LeHay, Pat Robertson, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, You and I. Each one will tell a different story about who Jesus was or whether Jesus was at all.
All history is story, but not all story is history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by pelican, posted 04-05-2008 9:12 AM pelican has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 214 of 517 (462585)
04-05-2008 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by pelican
04-05-2008 9:12 AM


Re: satan's right hand man?
You obviously have strong beliefs that are totally subjective. The quotes you have given from the bible are subject to a belief in god.
Within myself I really don't think I can muster up any more faith than the next guy.
I do know where to go to have some faith produced in me, that is to the word of God when I come with a willingness to be changed. Aside from that I assure you I really am just an average person with no more faith than you.
I never intended to walk with Christ to the degree that I do, which isn't enough. Somehow when His Spirit entered into my heart the love for Him grew.
"Jesus therefore answered them and said, My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone resilves to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. He who speaks from Himself seeks His own glory; but He who seeks the glory of HIm who sent Him, this One is true, and unrighteousness is not in Him" (John 7:16-18)
Above, is not Jesus declaring himself to be righteous? Is Jesus not seeking god's glory for himself? How would this attitude be recieved today?
He is declaring that He is a man under authority. He has none in Himself. His teaching, so to speak, is sourced in the Father Who sent Him.
He wants nothing for Himself as a man. He wants everything for the Father. The cross is the evidence of His absoluteness for the will of His Father.
How would it be received today? Human nature has not changed and tje relationship of Jesus the Son to the Father has not changed. I would say that people are still dealing with Christ the same way they dealt with Him 2000 some years ago.
May the heavenly Father have mercy on your children.
He should have had mercy on them when they were little and I was a practising christian.
Do you mean that when you look back on your life with your children you have absolutely nothing for which you might thank God for?
Was there absolutely NO happeness in your lives? In spite of some troubles and difficulties was there nothing at all for which you could sauy "I thank you God that in this thing you showed mercy?"
I was born with a partially blind eye. Did your children have soundness of sight? If so that is one thing you could say that God mercifully spared your kids from whereas He allowed me to have this difficulty.
Could it not have been much worse with you and your family?
So you have no thanks whatsover towards God? You have no sense that you were more fortunate in this or that think then some other people?
No thanks for soundness of bones, soundness of mental abilities, sight, intelligence. Could they not have been born much greater difficulties which other children experience?
Maybe you should give some equal time to enumerate the blessings which caused some happiness in your lives rather than only murmer. I, of course, do not know the details of your life with your family. I do know that most everyone, if they stop and think about it, can find many things for which God could be thanked ungrudgingly.
I am curious. Whose moral example do you find superior to that of Jesus Christ that you would prefer your children would look to him or her?
I prefer my children learn from my mistakes and from their own. I would never deprive them of their life experiences which are invaluable. How can we truly know anything without experience?
Oh they'll do that without you putting forth much effort. I have a 25 year old and a 28 year old. Believe me, they will learn from your mistakes. Not too much wisdom or effort needs to be exerted there.
Of course how each of us raises our kids is personal. Mine are now adults and are not exact copies of me.
But I will never regret reading to them the Bible. And letting them learn how to pray effectively. I taught them how to confess and deal with their conscience before God. I taught them the power of the blood of Jesus to cleanse the conscience and obliterate condemnation.
I taught them how to come to the Bible to feed their hungryu spirit. And most of all I tauht them that they are not in the universe by accident. Life has a meaning and that they are eternally loved by God. I taught them that man is important to God so that God became a man.
I taught them that nothing can serperate them from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus. And I taught them that God is near, present, and can be tastedm, experienced in any kond of hardship.
I taught them the value of time. That is that they need time to be transformed by the Holy Spirit into the image of Christ. That is because in the age to come the only thing that will survive and live forever is that which is transformed and conformed into the image of Jesus.
I taught them that life without Christ and God is empty and vain and a Godless life can never be a satisfying one because we were made for God.
Now what they do with this teaching is their responsibility. But I considered even before they were born that they were not really MY children. They were God's children from the start. So I hold God responsible to take care of them in every way. I do my part of course.
But in the end I gave both of my children to God for His eternal purpose even before they were born. I don't regret that.
As for "been there done that" Christian experience which you hold out to me, I was not always faithful. But God has always been faithful in spite of this.
He said we would know the disciples by their fruits. So there must be division so that we can see who are the true fruit bearing disciples of Christ and who are not.
It seems you have no objection to the division within humanity. Presumabley you see yourself as bearing the true fruit, otherwise you may disagree. However, I know all humans are equal.
There is nothing in which I said which would suggest that all humans are not equal before God.
He "loved the world". Perhaps you are refering to some kind of Universalist belief that there is no division between those who are saved and those who are not. But I think that that reflects the power of the decision of our will.
In our Lord's Table meeting we have wonderful oneness and unity. We have Spanish speaking, Chinese speaking, Korean speaking, and English speaking praises ascend up to the Father.
Aside from this we have a couple from Iran and a couple from Ghana. In our larger gatherings there is such a display of oneness among human beings as to cause me to want to weep.
The oneoness of the Triune God - the oneness of the Father, Son, and Spirit is infused into His people to cause them to be one.
We taste the oneness that the world is longing for but is only possible in Christ.
Jesus taught judgement of others. Jesus condemned others. Jesus taught others to suffer in silence. Jesus taught us to sacrifice our lives. jesus taught us not to save ourselves. Not good at all.
There are two sides to every story and christians only tell one.
1.) Jesus taught us to judge others.
Don't you think this requires context? I can think of passages in which He says judge not unless we ourselves want to be judged. He says that with the judgement that we the disciples judge we also shall be judged.
Other passages on judgment in the New Testament are really a matter of Christ within us giving us the discernment to discriminate.
I really don't think there is enough here in this complaint to really discuss. Some examples would have to be presented by you for me to see context and exactly what you are refering to.
2.) Jesus condemned others.
This too is so brief that it is hard to discuss. However we do have Jesus saying:
"God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him" (John 3:17)
On His cross He received the condemnation due to all the world for the sins of the world. Justice was imputed upon Himself on behalf of the sinners of the world.
Yes there are two sides to many matters in the Bible. One side is that Christ received condemnation on our behalf. On this bases we who receive this salvation are justified. It is not as though God has overlooked our sins in a sloppy permisivist way. He has judged them on the cross of Jesus. Justice on our behalf caused the sinless and innocent Savior ro be condemned in substitution for us.
Yes it is true that those who reject the Son of God will be condemned. So there are two places where we can be condemned. We can be condemned on Calvary on the cross of Jesus. Or we can be condemned at the final judgment before God.
Any idea from you of condemnation without remedy, without possibility of justification or redemption is at best a very warped view of the Scripture. You apparently missed the focal point of the New Testament if all you come away with is "Jesus condemned people."
3.) Jesus taught us not to save ourselves. Not good.
If you don't have anything else it is not good.
If I have in one pocket 10 dollars then I better save it. However, if in the other pocket I have a check for 100 trillion dollars then I have a tremendous amount "left over" after I spend the 10 dollars.
We who receive Jesus can afford to not save our soul life because we have within us the indistructible divine and resurrected life of Christ as our "left overs".
The self that Jesus tells us we should not save is the polluted and sin filled fallen and rebellious Adamic nature. It clings to us like a parasite.
For Jesus to say not to save yourself is like saying not to allow a leech to cling to you sucking your blood out. The fallen self life must go to the cross in self denial. But that is not all that the believer in Jesus has. He has Christ the eternal Son of God living within him or her.
"It is not longer I that live but Christ that lives within me."
To be born of God, born again, is to receive another life mingled into your life. The believer has entered into an "organic" union with Christ. The old nature of the fallen Adam is parasitic and should not be saved.
If we lose our old man that is being corrupted, we will find our newness in Christ. It is a paradox that you are not doing justice to at all. Jesus said if we wish to find our soul we should lose it.
Do you want to keep your soul and lose it in the end? Or would you rather lose your soul in this life and find it in the eternal age? I would rather lose now and find in the end. I would not like to keep now only to lose in the end.
You focus on losing but you do not focus on Christ as our resurrection. That is one reason He died and rose. That is to show that death cannot overcome the divine life of God. He is indistructible. And once He enters into man He is the inward indistructible life which can pass through any hardship and death.
Losing of the soul life is not losing the facilities of the soul the mind, emotion, and will. Losing the soul life is not losing the falculties of the created man. God does not want you to throw away or lose your mind, your emotion, or your will.
God want to sift out of your being the Satanic corrupting parasitic element which has attached itself to you and ruins you. He knows that self denial will stop that evil element from passing through. But your being joined to Christ will pass through and survive. You will come out in resurrection because the resurrected one is within you if you have truly been born of God.
So losing yourself is finding your true self.
It is the rebellious fallen nature of Adam which has been polluted which we must deny for the sake of the Christ who comes to enter into our beings. Adam goes down and Christ rises in resurrection within us.
We cannot be cured. We can only be brought into a death and brought out in resurrection. Self improvement will not work. The cross on the fallen self works to the Christian. There is no life without death.
Death is the threshold of resurrection. Self denial is the threshold of transformation and even deification by the divine nature.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by pelican, posted 04-05-2008 9:12 AM pelican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by IamJoseph, posted 04-12-2008 10:28 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 216 by IamJoseph, posted 04-12-2008 11:15 PM jaywill has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 215 of 517 (463193)
04-12-2008 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by jaywill
04-05-2008 11:54 AM


Re: satan's right hand man?
I could respond to every sentence negatively, effectively and in a manner which is not subject to dispute. But I respect sincere belefief, and this to me transcends the facts of the matter. The higher view is when an issue or report is viewed objectively, not subjectively, and here one must play devil's advocate, even seeing it from the other's POV.
I truely fail to see what sacrifces were made by Jesus - it must be compared with those living in that space time, and my knowledge of history says, 1.1 million Jews gave their lives in defense of their faith - with no recognition by christians of this greatest of sacrifices in humanity. I see the omission of this historical truth in the gospels as shameful, and has no means of justification whatsoever. It means, a christian must imagine himself as a Jew, and then give his reaction as a jew: he will surely not condone the Gospels view. This history has been surpressed, but those Hebrews/Jews who gave their lives, nation and country to defend their faith against Rome - constutute the greatest sacrifice ever recorded in history: 1.1 million = 12 M today; the historical record [Josephus] says the blood flow of the victums reached the Roman horses' shoulders; they could have saved themselves by worshiping Roman statues, as all other nations did, but refused it. So the gospels is reporting one jews' sacrifice as transcendent - ask yourself if you would do so with 4000 years of belief structured in your dna, and numerous existential wars in its defense? In fact, christians rejected Mohammed after only two centuries of belief!
Surely a Jew sacrificing himself and his entire family and community in refusing Rome's decree constitutes a far greater sacrifice than what the gospels writers project of one Jew - it makes no sense at all, and casts an awkward shadow on this story, does it not? It does appear the gospel writers had an agenda here. I say, Jesus did not portray love and kindness - except as a jew, and that the jewish nation is one that is, relatively at least, a kind and non-violent people: best they can do is debate you to death! So here, Jesus would examply only what was a Jewish attribute, which includes disputing and rebelling: the OT shows that even under God, the Hebrews made dire opposition counters to Moses - some 11,000 Hebrews fell in a battle in the desert - all for a POV differential - so how does Jesus disputing or rebelling a POV constitute something special? By unilaterally posing a jew as more than a human, does not in any wise effect the factual history here - the laws and reality still applies, as it would with any other religion's adherants. The applicable question is not what the gospel says, but what you would do if a muslim, hindu or jew approached you and over-turned all your beliefs - that is the $64 Q.
The notion of listing the factors the Judeans of that time persecuted or conspired against Jesus is ridiculous. The term persecuted or conspired does not factor here - while some christians project the premise Jesus openly desecrated the most sacred rituals and laws of his nation, as a good thing. One need only test this issue by desecrating the sacred laws of muslims in Mecca today, or of Hindus, or any other people - they will most probably be comitting suicide. I dont see it as a good thing when the Jesus story is portrayed this way - it only damages the sincere believing christians to a wrong path. Seen in this light, there cannot be any semblance of conspiracy, as has been portrayed - in fact if a Jew openly desecrates the sabbath in Jerusalem today - it would cause a big riot; never mind what is would entail if one desecrated laws in other religious capitals. Yet I see many christians boasting of this factor: this is hardly a credible boast - correct me please if I'm wrong!
The issue of persecuting or conspiring only kicks in when there is an innocent party maligned, and here, if this story is even true, it is wrong by its own context: consider what the medevial church did to those who even mildly opposed its views? Millions of innocent people were tortured and killed on the rake on the charges of heresy. The issue of the gospels on desecrating the sabbath cannot in any wise be applied to one deemed innocent.
Of course, I don't believe the gospel reporting, and doubt one Jew named Jesus would have done so; after all, since there is no such written record by one named Jesus, why should I point the finger at him? The report is made by the Gospels many centuries later, in another country, and thus that country's credibility must be examined: it is an horrific one. Everything they said, which is subject to proof, was proven false - including deicide, blood libels, the Protocols, jews are disbelievers, etc, etc. Here, the severe pain of these reports hover over christians - and I do feel for sincere christians of such a plight. I see America being discovered by jews, inadvertantly, when they were almost anihilated by Isabela of spain; I see this as a reason for America to save christianity - from Europe. I see this as a mysterious spiritual occurence, to save a belief via its mother religion, as appropriate and good, and thus as a squaring off of the prophesy, MANY NATIONS SHALL EMERGE FROM ABRAHAM - I do not see that all religions have to comply with one path only, and that being their only salvation. It would be likewise ridiculous to expect all Norwegions to focus their belief on a family in Canaan 4000 years ago: thus the message must transcend any messenger here -else it descends into paganism.
I tried but could not find any positive messages from the jesus story, because there is an onus to do so, with 2 Billion people supporting it. Love is not an exclusive or new invention of the Gospels, and positing it generically is not even a good description of love. Love must be preceded by honesty, then respect - else it does not conclude in love. We find that one must HONOR [respect] parents, and here love has no merit, being biological. Thus the great law of love is not love thy neighbour, but LOVE THE STRANGER. Therein is the rub. Love of God does not depend on a free bonus of salvation - it is best shown when one is persecuted for a long time - with no loss of love of God.
While I respect christian beliefs, despite its many flaws, there is also a mystery here how certain paradigms which are clearly wrong and bad - are hailed and boasted. This does not constitute a good path. Sometimes,a law or belief is sanctioned only as a testing. Consider that Abraham was tested - but when he was told the most evil city, Sodom, was to be destroyed, what was his reaction? He surely did not rejoice it or villify that people - in fact he strived with Heaven in words that shook both the earth and heaven:
'WILL THE JUDGE OF ALL JUDGES DESTROY THE INNOCENT WITH THE GUILTY - THIS EVIL BE FAR AWAY FROM YOU'
I do see christians tested here. I do see christians being saved - but by the OT factors of love and kindness and other majestic laws therein - because I see a change from medevial Europe's falsehoods, and one which incurred so many crimes and false reportings for so long, it is hardly wirth debate.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by jaywill, posted 04-05-2008 11:54 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by jaywill, posted 04-15-2008 6:52 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 216 of 517 (463198)
04-12-2008 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by jaywill
04-05-2008 11:54 AM


Re: satan's right hand man?
quote:
However we do have Jesus saying:
"God did not send the Son into the world to (John 3:17)
Correction: the Gospels says that. If God said so - then there would have been a Sinai scale revelation - at least, if not a global mode of the same. God would say so - and no need for a son here. Factor in, christians rejected Mohammed because they demanded that Jesus return to say so. You cannot have it both ways, and still proclaim it as a absolute truth.
Further, I guarantee you, had you been a jew in that space-time, you would gladly surrender your life, and that of your family and nation, rejecting such a view - this is not hypothetical, it did happen, resulting in the now acknowledged canon adhustments by the vatican, Jews have their own covenant which stands, and need not depend on the Gospels for salvation. Even muslims, a people more closely associated with this space-time and vicinity, rejected the Gospels. The law for salvation is thus:
THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER - ONLY THE SOUL WHICH SINNETH IT SHALL PAY' [OT].
Thereafter, there are some 100s of other factors where one can be saved after sinning.
This says, in dire opposition of the NT and Quran, a good chritian is better than a bad jew, and visa versa twice, applying equally to muslims and christians.
All christians should be suspicious there are no hebrew writings by Jesus: has there ever been an OT prophet who did not perform his own writings? Even God did so at Sinai with the first two commandmands - these were given directly. How much more so if one claims to change the laws in a fundamental manner [GOD IS NOT LIKE MAN/Samuel], and every other verse given by God?
I see this as the reason the stiff-necks were chosen: they demanded proof, and when they got it - and now they remain the world's most fastedious observers of God's word - by period of time and by impact. Thus it constitutes a falsity to pose the gospels as representing Jesus. This can in fact be a saving grace for christians: be more stiff necked - it shows the best pursuit for truth.
So if you would not accept Mohammed w/o Jesus - you cannot use the reasoning of the Gospels over-turning a belief held fastidious for 2000 years. In fact, if you were .01% genuine, you would demand that God says so. If you failed to do so - it would exemplify a blasphemy to negate anything declared by God. Thus you should not allocate those words to a jew named jesus - but to the Gospels only. You would lose the case in any court trail, be in on earth or in heaven. Think it over deeply - because the final premise is not who is more right, but the pursuit of truth.
Further, there is no Satan.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by jaywill, posted 04-05-2008 11:54 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by jaywill, posted 04-15-2008 8:08 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 217 of 517 (463364)
04-15-2008 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by IamJoseph
04-12-2008 10:28 PM


Re: satan's right hand man?
could respond to every sentence negatively, effectively and in a manner which is not subject to dispute. But I respect sincere belefief, and this to me transcends the facts of the matter. The higher view is when an issue or report is viewed objectively, not subjectively, and here one must play devil's advocate, even seeing it from the other's POV.
God's intention is to be subjectively imparted to man as His divine. He desires to dispense Himself as eternal life into man. What is more subjective to a person that his life?
Hardly anything can be more subjective to a person than life. And from the beginning God has conveyed Himself to man not only as His outward Creator but in His plan to be divine life to man.
This fact is conveyed firstly in having the created man placed before the tree of life in Genesis 2.
Here the apostles of speak of the objective truth about God in terms also of subjective divine life that they personally have seen, heard, touched, handled with thier hands, and ultimately are in subjective fellowship with:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with out eyes, which we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the word of life (And the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and report to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us);
That which we have seen ahd heard we report also to you that you also may have fellowship with us, and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write that our joy may be made full. (1 John 1:1-4)
The conveying of universal truth here related to the Father and the Son is neverthess spoken of in quite subjective terms also.
I truely fail to see what sacrifces were made by Jesus - it must be compared with those living in that space time, and my knowledge of history says, 1.1 million Jews gave their lives in defense of their faith -
The million Jews were sinners. They may have died. But none of them could be a ransom to God for even their own sins. It is the Old Testament that teaches that:
[qs]"None can by any means redeem [his] brother or give to God a ransom (or expiation) for him. (For the redemption of their soul is costly and must be given up forever), that he would yet live always [and] not see corruption. (Psalm 49:7-9) [/b][/qs]
So no man can by his wealth of riches or his death ransom his own soul before God. The 1.1 million Jews that died needed, with every other sinner born from Adam, someone to expiate for them to redeem them from their sins.
In the same Psalm 49 the psalmists writes: "But God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol, For He will receive me." (vs. 15)
So we have to view God's procedure as to how God will redeem every man through a Redeemer, the Christ and Messiah of Whom it is written:
"And Jehovah has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him [the Suffering Servant]" (Isa. 53:6)
" ... He was cout off from the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke [was due]?" (v.8b)
"But Jehovah was pleased to crush Hiom, to afflict Him with grief when He makes His soul an offering [lit. tresspass offering] for sin ..." (v. 10)
"By the knowledge of Him, the righteous One, My Servant, will make many righteous, And He will bear their iniquites." (v.11b)
"Yet He alone bore the sin of many and interceeded for the transgressors" (v.12c)
So you see, in spite of the fact that millions of Jews died, none of them was able to make expiation for their own soul. Only the Righteous One, the Suffering Servant promised in Isaiah 53 is able to bear the iniquities and make His own soul a sin offering to God for all other people.
The death of 1.1 million Jews is aifnificant, But it is comparable to the death of Christ as "the Lamb of God who take away the sin of the world."
with no recognition by christians of this greatest of sacrifices in humanity. I see the omission of this historical truth in the gospels as shameful, and has no means of justification whatsoever.
You have said this before. And my reply to you should not be taken as lessening the tragic significance of so many people dying. However, their deaths cannot compare to the death and resurrection of the promised Suffering Servant, the Messiah. Jesus spoke of the deaths of people. But He said that they were sinners and that unless his audience repent we are all in danger of dying a miserable death.
Now there were some present at the same time who reported to HIm concerning the Galaleans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
And He answered and said to them, Do you think that these Galileans were sinners beyond all the Galileans because they suffered these things? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish.
Or those eighteen on whom the tower of Siloam fell and jilled them, do you think that they were debtors beyond all the men dwelling in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you shall all similarly perish." (Luke 13:1-5)
Here Jesus acknolwedges tragic deaths, both from persecution and from causes outside of man's doing. In both cases those who died were not worse sinners than others nor sinless as He was. Their deaths do not make it uneccessary that the rest of us repent to God.
The death of 1.1 million Jews does not redeem you from your sins. But the death of Christ, if accepted by you as being on your behalf, will expiate for your sins.
At the last judgment, the death of 1.1 million Jews will mean nothing in terms of you being redeemed from your sins. But trusting in the death of one Man, Jesus Christ for you, will.
It means, a christian must imagine himself as a Jew, and then give his reaction as a jew: he will surely not condone the Gospels view. This history has been surpressed, but those Hebrews/Jews who gave their lives, nation and country to defend their faith against Rome - constutute the greatest sacrifice ever recorded in history: 1.1 million = 12 M today; the historical record [Josephus] says the blood flow of the victums reached the Roman horses' shoulders;
It is significant and a tragedy. But the blood of Christ was the blood of one SINLESS before God. And He is the propitiation for the sins of the world.
The cattle offered up by the Levitical priests had to be without blemish. It was examined for defects. And only if found perfect was it offered as an offering to Jehovah. This is a type of Christ who was sinless before His Father. And He also was exmined for four days by His enemies in Jerusalem before His ordeal of death on Calvary. No sin was found in Him. And no guile was found in His mouth. He was spotless and perfect as the Lamb of God.
Peter tells the believers:
Knowing that it was not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, that you were redeemed from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers, But with the precious blood, as of a Lamb withjout blemish and without spot, [the blood] of Christ;
Who was foreknown before the foundation of the world but has been manifested in the last time for your sake, Who through HIm believe into God, who raised HIm from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and your hope are in God. (1 Peter 1:18-21)
There is no salvation in the 1.1 million Jews who died. There is salvation in the One with a sinless life. And in His shed blood is the new covenant promised by God, that among other things, He would no longer remember our sins any more.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by IamJoseph, posted 04-12-2008 10:28 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 218 of 517 (463374)
04-15-2008 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by IamJoseph
04-12-2008 11:15 PM


Re: satan's right hand man?
Correction: the Gospels says that. If God said so - then there would have been a Sinai scale revelation - at least, if not a global mode of the same. God would say so - and no need for a son here. Factor in, christians rejected Mohammed because they demanded that Jesus return to say so. You cannot have it both ways, and still proclaim it as a absolute truth.
The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus was on a scale of significance equal and even surpassing that of what occured at Mt. Sinai.
God Himself promised a new covenant not like the covenant He made at Sinai. So it is the Old Testament God Himself Who testifies that the new covenant is as or more significant than the covenant at Mt. Sinai. See Jeremiah 31:31-34.
It is therefore the same covenanting God Who established the first covenant Who Himself points to the significance of a "new covenant"
Here is where Jesus confirms the new covenant in Himself: His death and resurection: Matthew 26:26-30 and Luke 22:14-20
Further, I guarantee you, had you been a jew in that space-time, you would gladly surrender your life, and that of your family and nation, rejecting such a view - this is not hypothetical, it did happen, resulting in the now acknowledged canon adhustments by the vatican, Jews have their own covenant which stands, and need not depend on the Gospels for salvation. Even muslims, a people more closely associated with this space-time and vicinity, rejected the Gospels. The law for salvation is thus:
Christ was the cornerstone of the building rejected by the builders. And there is salvation in no other name but His, as the Apostle Peter declared in his message to the people of Jerusalem.
"This is the stone which was considered as nothing by you, the builders, which has become the head of the corner.
And there is salvation in no other, for neither is there another name under heaven given among men in which we must be saved."
(Acts 3:11-12)
THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER - ONLY THE SOUL WHICH SINNETH IT SHALL PAY' [OT].
Thereafter, there are some 100s of other factors where one can be saved after sinning.
You are still rejecting the stone which has been established by God as the head of the corner.
In the building of God's house of salvation, Jesus Christ is the Head and the cornerstone. Those who were of the Jews considered to be the builders of that house rejected the very cornerstone.
Your reasonings are only a continuation of their rejection.
This says, in dire opposition of the NT and Quran, a good chritian is better than a bad jew, and visa versa twice, applying equally to muslims and christians.
The paying of which you refer to is not expiation. Concerning the 1.1 million slain Jews, this passage would only teach that each one died for his or her own sins. That is the only possible way you could apply the passage about the child not dying for the parent.
All christians should be suspicious there are no hebrew writings by Jesus: has there ever been an OT prophet who did not perform his own writings? Even God did so at Sinai with the first two commandmands - these were given directly. How much more so if one claims to change the laws in a fundamental manner [GOD IS NOT LIKE MAN/Samuel], and every other verse given by God?
The first Christian disciples were Jews. The book of Matthew and the book of Hebrews srongly target the Hebrew audience yet are also universally applicable to all nations too.
The gospel of Christ was to the Jew first and also to the Greeks. Paul said he was a debtor both to Greeks and Barbarians. Yet he was specially chosen by God because of his strong backround in the Jews religion.
You would have been no match for Saul of Tarsus, a star student of Gameliel. He took the initiative to persecute the Christian church. But for our sakes he obtianed mercy, was converted, and Christ was manigested within him.
"For I make known to you, brothers, [concerning] the gospel announced by me, that it is not according to man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
For you have heard of my manner of life formerely in Judaism, that I persecuted the church of God excessively and ravaged it.
And I advanced in Judiasm beyond many contemporaries in my race, being more abundantly a zealot for the traditions of my fathers.
But when it pleased God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me ..." (Gal. 1:14,15
Paul's revelation was not sourced in man but came from God. And he lived it as well as taught it. God revealed that the resurrected and living Jesus was still present living in Paul - "to reveal His Son in me."
You say the Christian gospel is of man's doing. This top scholar of Judiasm who sought to ravage to the death the new "sect" declared that he received a revelation of Jesus Christ.
I beleive the New Testament over you in this matter.
I see this as the reason the stiff-necks were chosen: they demanded proof, and when they got it - and now they remain the world's most fastedious observers of God's word - by period of time and by impact. Thus it constitutes a falsity to pose the gospels as representing Jesus. This can in fact be a saving grace for christians: be more stiff necked - it shows the best pursuit for truth.
I think all who believe in the gospel of Christ have first or all been shown mercy by God.
Without the mercy of God I don't think anyone can believe.
So if you would not accept Mohammed w/o Jesus
I never met Mohammed. Jesus I have met.
- you cannot use the reasoning of the Gospels over-turning a belief held fastidious for 2000 years. In fact, if you were .01% genuine, you would demand that God says so.
The New Testament is very complete and says just about everything we need to trust in Christ for both eternal and daily, moment by moment salvation.
Thus you should not allocate those words to a jew named jesus - but to the Gospels only. You would lose the case in any court trail, be in on earth or in heaven. Think it over deeply - because the final premise is not who is more right, but the pursuit of truth.
Like you, Paul also once fought against the new covenant gospel of Christ. He writes that because God showed mercy upon him to become a disciple and announcer of the Gospel, God showed His longsuffering towards the ignorant. He established Paul as a model and a pattern of a former opposer who turned and became a faithful servant of Christ.
I give thanks to Him who empoweres me, Christ Jesus our Lord, that He has counted me faithful, appointing me to the mministry,
Who formerly was a blasphemer and a persecutor and an insulting person; but I was shown mercy because, being ignirant, I acted in unbelief.
And the grace of our Lord superabounded with faith and love in Christ Jesus.
Faithful is the word and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am foremost.
But because of this I was shown mercy, that in me, the foremost, Jesus CHrist might display all His long-suffering for a pattern to those who are to believe on Him unto eternal life."
(First Tim. 1:12-16)
I am certain that Paul's arguments against Christ and His gospel exceeded yours in toughness many times over. But he received mercy and God revealed Christ living in him also. He is an encouragement to us when we see the stiff necked still seeking to oppose the Gospel of Jesus.
Like Paul, you too are kicking against the pricks. I pray that God will also show mercy to you and heal your blindness, open your spiritual eyes, and realize that Jesus is the risen Lord indeed.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by IamJoseph, posted 04-12-2008 11:15 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by IamJoseph, posted 04-15-2008 11:18 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 220 by IamJoseph, posted 04-16-2008 12:20 AM jaywill has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 219 of 517 (463390)
04-15-2008 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by jaywill
04-15-2008 8:08 PM


Re: satan's right hand man?
quote:
The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus was on a scale of significance equal and even surpassing that of what occured at Mt. Sinai.
This is fine to have as a belief, and I know it is genuine, and that its rejection is a negation of fulcrum pillars of christianity. But IMHO, an OPEN Revelation transcends a third party reporting, and only the one who revealed Himself at Sinai can speak for himself. I gave you clear reasons: you rejected Mohammed because you would not harken to anyone but Jesus - you cannot in any wise apply any other criteria on others than your own.
quote:
God Himself promised a new covenant not like the covenant He made at Sinai. So it is the Old Testament God Himself Who testifies that the new covenant is as or more significant than the covenant at Mt. Sinai. See Jeremiah 31:31-34.
I know Jeremia backwards, as well as what the new covenant is all about. I suggest you read carefully ALL of Jeremia and Isaiah - and not be selective.
quote:
It is therefore the same covenanting God Who established the first covenant Who Himself points to the significance of a "new covenant"
The only manifestation is that Abraham shall be the father of *MANY* nations.
quote:
Here is where Jesus confirms the new covenant in Himself: His death and resurection: Matthew 26:26-30 and Luke 22:14-20
Isaiah does not talk of a Messiah resurrecting *himself*. Please read ALL of it, and deal with the tough verses - there are plenty.
IMHO< the christians shold not await Jesus - nothing will change, as at before. They should instead pray for Moses or the God of Sinai. This will work wonders - for all humanity. Think it over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by jaywill, posted 04-15-2008 8:08 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by jaywill, posted 04-16-2008 1:24 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 220 of 517 (463393)
04-16-2008 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by jaywill
04-15-2008 8:08 PM


Re: satan's right hand man?
quote:
The paying of which you refer to is not expiation. Concerning the 1.1 million slain Jews, this passage would only teach that each one died for his or her own sins. That is the only possible way you could apply the passage about the child not dying for the parent.
This was also said by many europeans when the holocaust occured - ve vere not avare; others say it never happened; who does one *believe* anymore! The raped must be the guilty party - its less disruptive. But there is nothing wrong in being a stiff-necked for the good reason - there is nothing wrong in asking for the source who gave the laws to negate them: it just happens that no one could perform this feat - subtle point.
ANALOGY: you rob a car from some one, then kill the owner, then claim the previous owner was a bad person anyway because he refused to give you his car. I say - there must be an arms length distance here [OT Law] - which is lacking. The judge, prosecutor and jury cannot be the same. All that has happened, is the car thief was mistaken about the owner's state of death - the witness for the prosecution has been resurrected - and this is an affront. It should be seen as a good tiding - but this cannot be so because you have attached all your beliefs on the death of the car owner. In fact it was Mighty Rome that died - subtle point again.
Why can't you beieve in God w/o attaching this belief on the death of another? I think we will be asked questions in the hereafter which are clearly not anticipated. I think one beautified Pope Pious will be taken up for sure with this:
'WE WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE RETURN OF THE JEWS TO *THEIR HOMELAND* BECAUSE THEY REJECTED JESUS'
This will mean, I imagine the next question to be:
'RIGHT - SO YOU REJECTED MOHAMMED - THUS ALL YOUR LANDS MUST BE TAKEN AND YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM RETURN'
But you don't see it that way - you feel all laws must incline with you being right, no matter how incoherent. Now if those Jews sided with christianity - they would be the bad guys for the Muslims anyway. Because both of you cannot be right - another suble point.
So I see no way around for humanity other than christians and muslims acknowledge they have no law NOT TO ADD OR SUBTRACT - and this is no typo. Because there is no end in sight once you change - it goes cyclical, and it's real meaning and inference is the original command was faulty or lacking - a self destructive premise if there ever was one. Either way - everyone is doomed and sunk - no exceptions - unless this verse is ratified:
'I AM THE LORD - I HAVE NOT CHANGED' [Ex].
In actual fact, the laws have not changed. All 613 OT Laws stand today w/o exception. The nations turn by these laws - exclusively. Not one of the OT or Quran laws have been accepted by the world at large - any institution which negates it, operates outside of the law. So all we have is a belief - and a mysterious one, followed by the world's most powerful religious group, hell bent on negating its mother religion as its sole claim to fame. It is a fine belief - when it is not cushioned against the negation of another.
Thus I say, christianity can be saved only by America - saved from medevial Europe. Now Jesus, by any other name - was not a christian. The alphabet 'J' was not even contained in any European language till the 17th Century. While I don't accept the gospels version of history or truth - I also do not believe all that it has subscribed to Jesus has any truth in i: Jesus left no writings. Jews do not revel with beedy eyes and hooked noses over the death of another jews - specially so where Rome is concerned. If in doubt - please present such an occurence outside of the Gospels - you have 4000 years of history and more prophets than anywhere else to choose from. Fulfilling = observing, not negating. Truth is an indestructable force - it always bops up in the end to make one affronted. Whatever is thr manifested truth all will follow - but shrouded revelations cannot negate an OPEN revelation - and one minus the original giver of the truth. Why are you guys not more stiff-necked?!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by jaywill, posted 04-15-2008 8:08 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 221 of 517 (463397)
04-16-2008 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by IamJoseph
04-15-2008 11:18 PM


"The Desire of all the nations"
This is fine to have as a belief, and I know it is genuine, and that its rejection is a negation of fulcrum pillars of christianity.
I am not quite sure what you mean here. However God spoke at Mt. Sinai in the Old Testament, to the prophet Moses. Moses went up alone into the mountain. Though seventy elders accompanied him part way, he went alone to the summit and received the law.
Moses came down alone with the tablets of the law. By faith the Jews believe that what he came down with in his hands was written by the finger of God. Compare this with God speaking again in the Old Testament the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34.
I am not trying to argue which speaking was NOT great. By faith I believe both were the speaking of God. You have to admit that the essential law written on the tablets was an act if witnessed was witnessed by Moses alone. He comes down from the mountian of Sinai, and you either believe him that he has God's law or you do not.
You also either believe that the same God spoke in Jeremiah of His intention to establish a new covenant or you do not.
Now if you believe that God spoke through the prophet Jeremiah as He also spoke through the prophet Moses then you should consider who most qualifies to be suspected as the central figure in this [b]"new covenant" promised by God.
I entreat you that Jesus of Nazareth overwhelmingly qualifies to be the cornerstone of the new covenant of Jeremiah's promise. As even some of the believing Jews said:
But many out of the crowd believed into Him and said, Will the Christ, when He comes, do more signs than this man has done?
(John 8:32)
The Pharisees who overheard this comment then sent their deputies to arrest Jesus. Then we see what they in turn replied:
The Pharisees heard the crowd murmuring these things about Him, and the chief priests and the Pharisees sent attendants to arrest Him (8:33) .... The attendents therefore came to the chief priests and Pharasees, and these said to them, Why did you not bring Him?
The attemdamts asnswered, Never as a man spoken as this man [has]. (8:45.46)
Considering all that He says and all that He did, Jesus qualifies to be the central figure and executor of the new covenant promised by God through Jeremiah. No man ever spoke as this man. And it is hard to imagine another coming whose testimony is more compelling than that of Jesus Christ.
But IMHO, an OPEN Revelation transcends a third party reporting, and only the one who revealed Himself at Sinai can speak for himself.
I am not completely sure what you mean. However I pointed out to you that the actual handing of the tablets with the law of God to Moses is something you must believe Moses about.
I do not like to use your phrases "opened" or closed. God spoke in the Bible in many portions and in many ways.
Elijah the prophet was disappointed when God did not crack open the heavens and rescue him from Jezebel. God had to specifically teach ELijah that it was not only in mighty earthquake, earth shattering windstorm, or devouring fire that God could speak. God could also speak in the still small voice (or gentle quiet voice) within man's created conscience. Please read about God's lesson to Elijah in First Kings 19:9-13.
Gentleness is not to be dispised in God's speaking for strongness and thunder. One of the prophecies concerning the Messiah was that He would not even quench a smoking flax or bruise a broken reed, because of His gentleness and fineness:
And He charged them not to make Him known, In order that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, saying,
"Behold, My Servant whom I have chosen, My Beloved in whom My soul has found delight. I will put My Spirit upon Him, and He will announce justice to the Gentiles.
He will not strive nor cry out, nor will anuone hear His voice in the streets. A bruised reed He will not break, and a smoking flax He will not quench until He brings forth justice unto victory.
And in His name will the Gentiles hope. (Matthew 19:16-21 quoting Isa. 42:1-3)
This prophecy not only emphasizes that the Gentiles will trust in God's Messiah. It also shows a side to Him which is gentle. His speaking is powerful in that the gentleness of His words cut will lay heavy on thier conscience convicting them to turn to God in their hearts.
There is the quiet and gentle yet tremendously strong power of His convicting of the conscience of the sinner unto repentence.
God confirmed His Son in many ways, strong and gentle. When the Spirit came down upon Him to equipe Him for ministry a voice out of heaven spoke as also at Mt. Sinai - "This is My beloved Son in Whom I have found My delight"
And Paul writes in FIrst Corinthians that there were still 500 Christian brothers who witnessed the resurrected Christ. And most of them were still alive for the Corinthians to verify or not whether Paul's message of a risen Christ was the genuine Gospel:
For I delivered to you, first of all, that which also I received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures;
And that He appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve; Then He appeared to over five hundred brothers at one time, of whom the majority remain until now, but some have fallen asleep [died].
Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles;
And last of all He appeared to me also, as it were to one born prematurely. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
(First Corinthians 15:3-9)
When Paul wrote this the recipients of his letter could still check his words with the majority of over 500 people who witnessed the resurrected Christ.
The testimony of God's Son is compelling like the testimony of God speaking from Mount Sinai.
I gave you clear reasons: you rejected Mohammed because you would not harken to anyone but Jesus - you cannot in any wise apply any other criteria on others than your own.
Mohammed did not claim to be what Jesus claimed He was.
You are not comparing equal matters. One taught that He was God become a man. The other only said he was the last prophet. And this supposed "last prophet" delivers a twisted version of the old testament history and adds many fabrications to the New Testament.
Mohammed is only one of many false prophets which Christ prophesied would come to distract people from the Son of God.
And of course the idea of God having a Son is repugnant to Islam. Yet it is predicted by the Hebrew Bible, among other places, Psalm Number Two:
PSALM 2 -
Why are the nations in an uproar, and why do the peoples contemplate a vain thing? The kings of the earth take thier stand, and the rulers sit in counsel together, against Jehovah and against His Anointed.
Let us break apart their bonds and cast their ropes away from us.
He who sits in the heavens laughs; The Lord has them in derision. Then He will speak to them in His anger, And in His burning wrath He will terrify them:
But I have installed My King upon Zion, My holy mountain. I will recoint the decree of Jehovah;
He said to Me: YOU ARE MY SON; Today I have begotten You.
Ask of Me, and I will give the nations as Your inheritance and the limits of the earth as Your possession. You will break them with an iron rod; You will shatter them like a potter's vessel.
Now therefore, O kings, be prudent; Take admonition, O judges of the earth. Serve Jehovah with fear, And rejoice with trembling.
KISS THE SON lest He be angry and you perish from the way; For His anger may suddenly be kindled. Blessed are all those who take refuge in Him.
(Psalm 2, my emphasis, RcV)
So before we get to the New Testament your Hebrew Bible pre-warns the kings and the nations to kiss the Son of God. For it is the Son of God as God's installed King on Zion who will inherit the limits of the earth and possess the nations.
Your reasonings will be laughed at by God according to the Psalm. For you are also vainly seeking to cast His ropes of love from you. But He is the Anointed, the King, the One to inherit the limits of the planet, and the Son of God.
me:
God Himself promised a new covenant not like the covenant He made at Sinai. So it is the Old Testament God Himself Who testifies that the new covenant is as or more significant than the covenant at Mt. Sinai. See Jeremiah 31:31-34.
you:
I know Jeremia backwards, as well as what the new covenant is all about. I suggest you read carefully ALL of Jeremia and Isaiah - and not be selective.
I would love to re-read Jeremiah and Isaiah as I have with the entire Bible many times over the last 38 years. I was about 24 when I first read through the Bible. I am now 58 and never grow tired of exploring its pages.
So I thank you for your invitation to read again Isaiah and Jeremiah. However, I stand by what I have written.
me:
It is therefore the same covenanting God Who established the first covenant Who Himself points to the significance of a "new covenant"
you:
The only manifestation is that Abraham shall be the father of *MANY* nations.
The promise to Abraham to be the father of many nations was given by God before both covenants were enacted by God.
I am not sure what your line of argument here is concerning Abraham.
I do know one important thing. Abraham was justified before God by his faith and not by his keeping of the law of Moses. All that he did was an expression of the justifying faith in his heart which God accounted to him for righteousness.
And he [Abraham] believed Jehovah, and He [Jehovah] accounted it to him as righteousness. (Genesis 15:6)
So faith in Christ unto justification, though a new covenant, is actually according to the original pattern of justification before God, given prior to the law of Moses.
me:
Here is where Jesus confirms the new covenant in Himself: His death and resurection: Matthew 26:26-30 and Luke 22:14-20
you:
Isaiah does not talk of a Messiah resurrecting *himself*. Please read ALL of it, and deal with the tough verses - there are plenty.
IMHO< the christians shold not await Jesus - nothing will change, as at before. They should instead pray for Moses or the God of Sinai. This will work wonders - for all humanity. Think it over.
When we speak about WHO raised Jesus from the dead, it is a mystery among other mysteries of the Bible. On one hand it says that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. On the other hand the New Testament depicts Jesus as havingt the authority to be raised from the dead Himself. So this fact of who raised Jesus is tied in with the Triune God - that Christ is both God and man, both the child born who is Mighty God, and the Son given who is eternal Father (Isaiah 9:6).
At any rate we are commanded to believe. Though we may not be able to fully explain the resurrection, we are commanded to believe in the resurrection of Christ.
This Christ of God is also prophesied to be "the Desire of all the nations" (Hag. 2:7). So He is the one desired by the nations to establish peace and justice in the earth. This is a fact though they may not know it. The fulfillment of all their yearnings is Jesus Christ the desire of the nations.
And I will shake all the nations, and the Desire of all the nations will come; and I will fill this house with glory, says Jehovah of hosts. (Haggai 2:7)
Outwardly, look to Israel for the building again of the temple, For all prophecy of Christ's second coming indicate that that temple must be erected.
That is an outward sign. But inwardly, I suggest that you listen to the voice of Christ in your conscience that He in His death and resurretion alone can save you from your sins.
Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by IamJoseph, posted 04-15-2008 11:18 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by IamJoseph, posted 04-16-2008 4:40 AM jaywill has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 222 of 517 (463399)
04-16-2008 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by jaywill
04-16-2008 1:24 AM


Re: "The Desire of all the nations"
quote:
I am not quite sure what you mean here. However God spoke at Mt. Sinai in the Old Testament, to the prophet Moses. Moses went up alone into the mountain. Though seventy elders accompanied him part way, he went alone to the summit and received the law.
Moses came down alone with the tablets of the law. By faith the Jews believe that what he came down with in his hands was written by the finger of God.
Read again. The first two commands were given by God, wherein the people asked Moses to cease the direct revelation [least their souls leave them and aspire to the source]. All the rest were given via Moses, as per the texts. So there was in fact a DIRECT and OPEN Revalation - a factor which does not make the Hebrews or Jews wrong/bad for asking the same MANNER OF REVELATION - specially if there is to be any variance from it. This was my point to you. if you feel comfy via the JC path and can be saved from there - good luck to you, I dont see why it has to be via mine or any other person's path. 'HE SPEAKS IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLES' applies.
quote:
Compare this with God speaking again in the Old Testament the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34.
No OT texts reflect NT texts - this is a retorspective, subjective view. I think you must rely on the NT - as opposed a scripture which preceded 2000 years ago. Read ALL of jeremia - and you will find it is only a reflection of the OT.
quote:
I am not trying to argue which speaking was NOT great. By faith I believe both were the speaking of God. You have to admit that the essential law written on the tablets was an act if witnessed was witnessed by Moses alone. He comes down from the mountian of Sinai, and you either believe him that he has God's law or you do not.
Not so. All 3 million witnessed the first two C's - including a mixed multitude of non-hebrews. In fact, Moses was asked to stand down with the people. The latter vindicates the stiff-necks.
quote:
You also either believe that the same God spoke in Jeremiah of His intention to establish a new covenant or you do not.
Of coz I beieve only one God [pristine, strict Monotheism] - but with many paths thereto. IMHO, it is the NT which forbids this premise, with its exclusive kingdom keys doctrine, one reflected by muslims in its no Gd w/o Mohammed and all else are infidels. The OT is very clear on this issue: equal rights; only the soul that sinneth it shall pay. No qualifications of which religion one belongs to. And I think that is absolutely correct. But it won't dent a belief.
[quote] Now if you believe that God spoke through the prophet Jeremiah as He also spoke through the prophet Moses then you should consider who most qualifies to be suspected as the central figure in this [b]"new covenant" promised by God.[/quote]
New covenant can only come from the one who gave the original covenant. If you stick to this - you wont/cant go astray. Jeremaia does not say what you think he says. As of now, numerous christian scholars have agreed even Isaiah was misrepped by christian priests - but this belief still continues. It is a retrosective conclusion. Christians do not want to believe anything else - because they fear it will cause a serious dent in their beliefs; its undertsnadable and blatant. There is a full stop after the OT; the follow-up prophetic writings are affirmations of the OT laws and statutes. A new covenant has not been given - there are no new laws post OT. Name me one?
quote:
I entreat you that Jesus of Nazareth overwhelmingly qualifies to be the cornerstone of the new covenant of Jeremiah's promise. As even some of the believing Jews said:
But many out of the crowd believed into Him and said, Will the Christ, when He comes, do more signs than this man has done?
(John 8:32)
I entreat you also - will you uphold a thing which contradicts your belief? I dont expect you to. The problem is not your belief - clearly, christians were made to see what others were bared from - and vise verse. The problem comes when politics and ego kicks in: all who do not believe the NT or Quran - are bad guys, and will go to a very hot place for a very long time. I humbly reject that doctrine.
quote:
The Pharisees who overheard this comment then sent their deputies to arrest Jesus. Then we see what they in turn replied:
The Pharisees heard the crowd murmuring these things about Him, and the chief priests and the Pharisees sent attendants to arrest Him (8:33) .... The attendents therefore came to the chief priests and Pharasees, and these said to them, Why did you not bring Him?
The attemdamts asnswered, Never as a man spoken as this man [has]. (8:45.46)
As I said - show me where they did the same to another jew? The pharisees, far from the lone Gospel story, gave their lives and were massacred in the temple, along with their families - yet they did not desecrate the first two commands of Sinai: this part is missing from your description. It is feasable to accuse the gospels here of a lie by omission. Let me put it very clearly to you: there is no nation or peoples anywhere in geo-History, who put up a greater defense of their faith than with the war between Rome and Judea. This is not based on belief but on an open historical fact, confirmable by many nations' writings. The gospels does not even mention it - yet it is obsessed with hapless money changers doing what they did for 2000 years. Yes - they may have been rowdy, maybe even less than perfect - but its still small fry compared to Rome and Roman catholocism. There is no sense of prioroty or relevence here, and I fail to understand this, except that the NT erred when it positioned its fulcrum beliefs in villifying the Jews. This has become a stumbling block, and will be cleared up - till then - the NT rests on thin ice. We know from factual history, not a single charge of the European church has not been proven false accusations. The blood libels and the Protocols are the work of very decietful and brazenly lying European christians - it does reflect a stain on all other accusations. Both thse false stories are today pervasive in the islamic world - but christians are silent of it - even as it came from the vatican's own backyard - this says a lot, dont you think - namely it is against the premise of the truth shall set you free?
quote:
Considering all that He says and all that He did, Jesus qualifies to be the central figure and executor of the new covenant promised by God through Jeremiah. No man ever spoke as this man. And it is hard to imagine another coming whose testimony is more compelling than that of Jesus Christ.
What did Jesus do or say which is special or new?
quote:
Gentleness is not to be dispised in God's speaking for strongness and thunder. One of the prophecies concerning the Messiah was that He would not even quench a smoking flax or bruise a broken reed, because of His gentleness and fineness:
That can apply to millions of gentle folk. There are 1000s of verses which the NT contradicts - why do you mention only what can be spinned - why do you not compare it with those portions of the OT which it clearly contradicts? This shows, the OT laws were rejected because it contradicts many NT doctrines, and not because those laws were not majestic and profound.
quote:
When Paul wrote this the recipients of his letter could still check his words with the majority of over 500 people who witnessed the resurrected Christ.
The testimony of God's Son is compelling like the testimony of God speaking from Mount Sinai.
Paul is an outsider here - he never even met Jesus, and we have no writings from jesus to negate Monotheism or the Sinai laws, as did Paul - erronously. The Nasserites, the first group who revered Jesus - booted out Paul. You never mentioned that! It is a fact that Paul failed in Jesus' neck of the woods.
quote:
Mohammed did not claim to be what Jesus claimed He was.
But he did sanction much of the Gospels, such as imaculate birth, but he soundly rejected the resurrection and divine man. It can be argued, the Europeans believed Paul - a greek, secular citizen - because he told them what they wanted to hear. If Paul upheld the OT laws - he would have failed. There is historical precedence to this.
quote:
You are not comparing equal matters. One taught that He was God become a man. The other only said he was the last prophet. And this supposed "last prophet" delivers a twisted version of the old testament history and adds many fabrications to the New Testament.
Its not twisted from the POV of the first two commands of Sinai, and the muslims can correctly be deemed a better witness, being from the same vicinity. Here, we are talking of a people who were pagan till islam arrived - and if they rejected the NT's divine man - it is quite an irony. The point here is, you should not see someone who believes in God via strict monotheism as disbelievers. I don't think such of christians - I see them as Godly inclined, but by another path. I would never allign myself with those who would say, that path makes them dis-believers. I know a christin will give his life for Jesus, and that's all that can be asked. The problem comes with the insertion of ego and politics. The NT is afflicted with a guilt factor - it wants to negate the jews for being jews. But this wont fix anything - you still have to contend with islam, Buddhism, etc - and none of these are wrong/bad because they dont believe in the gospels!
quote:
Mohammed is only one of many false prophets which Christ prophesied would come to distract people from the Son of God.
And of course the idea of God having a Son is repugnant to Islam. Yet it is predicted by the Hebrew Bible, among other places, Psalm Number Two:
PSALM 2 -
Why are the nations in an uproar, and why do the peoples contemplate a vain thing? The kings of the earth take thier stand, and the rulers sit in counsel together, against Jehovah and against His Anointed.
Annointed does not relate to what you say it does: David was *ANNOINTED* by the prophet Samuel. In that psalm, David was the annointed, and the spalms reflect Moses and the OT teachings pervasively.
quote:
Your reasonings will be laughed at by God according to the Psalm.
But it cannot be aughed at by the gospels. If God does so - let it be via God - not anyone else. Here, only the Sinai revelation applies. Now if there is a need to make people believe in God - then one must pray for God to do so - with no agents whatsoever. Any other means is hell-bent on destruction of millions of souls. And the result will be only greater chaos. If you want the gospels to be vindicated - you should ask for the father to reveal himself - why don't you!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by jaywill, posted 04-16-2008 1:24 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by jaywill, posted 04-16-2008 7:25 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 224 by jaywill, posted 04-16-2008 9:02 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 223 of 517 (463403)
04-16-2008 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by IamJoseph
04-16-2008 4:40 AM


Re: "The Desire of all the nations"
Read again. The first two commands were given by God, wherein the people asked Moses to cease the direct revelation [least their souls leave them and aspire to the source]. All the rest were given via Moses, as per the texts. So there was in fact a DIRECT and OPEN Revalation - a factor which does not make the Hebrews or Jews wrong/bad for asking the same MANNER OF REVELATION - specially if there is to be any variance from it. This was my point to you. if you feel comfy via the JC path and can be saved from there - good luck to you, I dont see why it has to be via mine or any other person's path. 'HE SPEAKS IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLES' applies.
It was very late last night (around 1:30 am here), and I may have erred in some detail.
As you request, before I continue, I will re-read Exodus on this point.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by IamJoseph, posted 04-16-2008 4:40 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 224 of 517 (463405)
04-16-2008 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by IamJoseph
04-16-2008 4:40 AM


Re: "The Desire of all the nations"
Read again. The first two commands were given by God, wherein the people asked Moses to cease the direct revelation [least their souls leave them and aspire to the source]. All the rest were given via Moses, as per the texts.
Yes. I stand corrected on this point.
"And Jehovah said to Moses, I am coming down to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you and may also believe you forever." (Exo: 19:9)
In Exodus 20 appears to me that God publically spoke the ten commandments (verses 1 -17) before the people asked Moses that he would be the mediating speaker in verse 19:
"And they said to Moses, You speak with us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak with us, so we do not die" (Exo 20:19)
Then Moses drew near to the deep darkness where God was in verse 21.
So there was in fact a DIRECT and OPEN Revalation - a factor which does not make the Hebrews or Jews wrong/bad for asking the same MANNER OF REVELATION
I assume that you mean a very PUBLIC revelation witnessed by a large multitude of people.
Well, firstly, I did not say that the Jews were "wrong/bad" for asking for the same manner of revelation. Certainly the Jews can ask of God whatever they wish.
My second response is where would you point to as the instance in which they asked for a revelation in this same manner? Or is this a personal aspiration with you and some Jews that you know?
Thirdly, in the New Testament there is much PUBLIC confirmation of His ministry. Some of His acts were just as much public as Exodus 20:1-17.
Fourthly, I would remind you that even though the Jew had this mighty PUBLIC manifestation of God's words and power, it did not stop at least a largeg number of them to rebel anyway.
When Moses was absent from the camp too long they forgot the PUBLIC manifestation soon enough and made for themselves an idol of a golden calf to replace Jehovah.
The mighty PUBLIC manifestation of God's speaking is not always a sure garuantee that the unbelief in man will not sway him to rebel against divine revelation. This is not only true in the old covenant but in the new covenant as well.
If the public manifestation of God on MT. Sinai was to overwhelmingly more valid than why the golden calf, the rebellion of Korah, the rebellion to refuse to enter into Canaan at the report of the spies?
The public manifestation was indeed great. But there still is an unbelieving element in man which can tempt him to disbelieve anyway.
- specially if there is to be any variance from it. This was my point to you.
I understand your point. But I think the first "variance" that God points out is that the Jews were not able to keep His covenant. Look again at what Jeremiah wrote:
"Indeed, days are coming, declares Jehovah, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by their hand to bring them our from the land of Egypt,
MY COVENANT WHICH THEY BROKE, although I was their Husband, declares Jehovah." (Jer. 31:31-33 my emphasis)
God's reason for changing the covenant is not simply because He wishes to do so willy nilly. The first covenant is that which they recipients failed to keep - "MY COVENANT WHICH THEY BROKE"
Joshua, Judges, First and Second Kings, and other books reveal the repeated failure of the nation to keep the covenant. The law was given to expose the weakness of man (the Jews in particular) to keep the commandments of God.
So God the commandment giver will Himself become the commandment keeper in the form of a God-Man, His Son. And He will impart the Son into the hearts as a living Spirit. This is the writing of the law in thier hearts. He will impart into the believers in the life, death, and resurrection of the Son, the divine nature of God that they may learn to walk by this divine nature:
" ... the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
And the preparation of this Savior was accompanied with much piblic manifestation of His Deity, authority, wisdom, power, and great love.
These manifestations of God in Christ are written in the New Testament. And many of them were in fulfillment to prophecy.
And there are further manifestations of Him reserved for a future time at His second coming.
if you feel comfy via the JC path and can be saved from there - good luck to you, I dont see why it has to be via mine or any other person's path. 'HE SPEAKS IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLES' applies.
According to Moses, you know there was to be another Prophet like Moses. And the Jews were to listen to Him. Aside from being the Son of God, He also speaks for God the Father and is that prophet that the people were to listen to.
A Prophet will Jehovah your God raise up for you from your midst, from among your brothers, like me; you shall listen to Him.
This is according to all that you asked of Jehovah your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear any more the voice of Jehovah my God, and let me not see this great fire any longer, lest I die.
And Jehovah said to me, They have done well in what they have spoken.
A Prophet will I raise up for them from the midst of their brothers like you; and I will put My words in His mouth, and He will speak to them all that I command Him. And the man who will not listen to My words which He will speak in My name, I Myself will require it from him.
(Deuteronomy 18:15-19)
The Jews themselves asked for a mediator in this great public manifestation. God promises them a Prophet like Moses who will speak the words of God to them.
How do you know that Jesus is not that Prophet speaking? Here Jesus says that He speaks the words of the Father within Him:
Philip said to Him, Lord show is the Father and it is sufficient for us.
Jesus said to him, Have I been so long a time with you, and you do not know Me Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how is it that you say, Show us the Father?
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me?
THE WORDS THAT I SAY TO YOU I DO NOT SPEAK FROM MYSELF, BUT THE FATHER WHO ABIDES IN ME DOES HIS WORKS. (John 14:9-10 my emphasis)
Truly, truly, I say to you, The Son can do nothing from Himself except what He sees the Father doing, for whatever that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner. (John 5:19)
Jesus therefore answered them and said, My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone resolves to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. (John 7:16,17)
But Jesus cried out and said, He who believes into Me does not believe into Me, but into Him who sent Me;
And he who beholds Me beholds Him who sent Me. (John 12:44,45)
So we Christians have believed in the manifestation of a Man totally subjected to God in Christ the Son. He is that Prophet speaking the words of God. And He is that manifestation of God in a man so that God and man are one.
You must be careful what you ask God for. You might get it. They asked for a mediator to spare them the direct manifestation of God in His glory. That God came concealed in the flesh of Jesus of Nazareth.
Are you going to hear now the words of this Prophet? Are you going to hear what this promised Prophet says about Himself and His Father? I want to hear Him.
I think that you are coming out with excuse after excuse why not to listen to this One. All this about the manner of open revelation amounts to just another excuse not to here the words of God through His Son Who is that promised Prophet also.
Of coz I beieve only one God [pristine, strict Monotheism] - but with many paths thereto. IMHO, it is the NT which forbids this premise, with its exclusive kingdom keys doctrine,
The "keys" are plural. It is not one key. It is plural "keys".
I believe that Christ meant a key for the Jews and a key for the Gentiles. Peter opened the door of the church to the Jews first at Pentacost and to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius.
God is definite, but He is not narrow as you charge. In Exodus He commanded Moses to erect a tabernacle. In the tabernacle would dwell God. In all the earth, over the entire surface of the planet there was one tabernacle erected in the wilderness where man could say "God is in there".
Was this elitist or narrow? This was God being DEFINITE. And this is the Old Testament.
I don't think you have a case. Besides we are told that the saved are from every tongue and people and tribe and nation. And we are told that they come into the kingdom of God from the north, south, east, and west. The gates of the New Jerusalem are opened to the four directions of the world.
Whosover believes is very broad. And when skeptics try to replace the gospel with their human ideas they usually end up with a plan to know truth which is MORE restrictive than that Gospel and not LESS restrictive.
one reflected by muslims in its no Gd w/o Mohammed and all else are infidels. The OT is very clear on this issue: equal rights; only the soul that sinneth it shall pay. No qualifications of which religion one belongs to. And I think that is absolutely correct. But it won't dent a belief.
Every soul has sined. So the whole world is in need of the Savior.
And He is a living Person and not a religion. He said "No one comes to the Father except through Me."
He did not say that no one comes to the Father except through Christianity as a religion. The "Me" there is a living Person.
If anyone comes to the Father in any culture or being born into any religious backround, it will be because of this "Me" of the living Person of the Son of God.
This is not "no one comes to the Father except through Western Civilization". It is that the Son of God as a living Person is the only way anyone can come unto the Father.
New covenant can only come from the one who gave the original covenant.
That is right. And that Person is God in Christ. He had lunch with Abraham in Genesis 18. He also wrestled with Jacob. He appeared to Isaiah and to Ezekiel and to Daniel.
Finally God became a man. He did so to join not just one man to God but to join man to God in His salvation. That is those who through Him become sons of God.
Now in the New Testament He is born into the womb of a virgin as prophesied and is incarnated - the Word became flesh. He was the first covenant giver and He is now incarnated in a man as the second covenant establisher.
But you don't believe that God was incarnate. I know that you should reconsider the incarnation.
That is all I have time to discuss this morning.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by IamJoseph, posted 04-16-2008 4:40 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by IamJoseph, posted 04-16-2008 9:55 AM jaywill has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 225 of 517 (463406)
04-16-2008 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by jaywill
04-16-2008 9:02 AM


Re: "The Desire of all the nations"
IMHO, the religions were meant to be seperate. This is reflected in the 'MANY' nations which will stem from Abraham, and is the same seen in the animal kingdom.
The most mysterious factor is that these seperations are so well positioned in a conflicting mode - it had to be purposeful, as opposed random. There are bariers on all levels, and they bar amalgamation in a very precise and critical manner. It could not be an accident or by the hand of any nation or person.
Further, a representative from any one religion will not change anything. IMHO, this can only be a test scenario. Eventually, all the names will be cast aside, they will stand down alongside the people, and only a sole Will will prevail and direct humanity. There is conflict and there is a blatant insanity hovering humanity, and they are not all to blame - its inherited.
Humanity must make laws their universal paradigm - for humanity's sake - and if a Messenger comes, he has to abide by those laws. Love is a law - not a summary of all laws. If the Creator reveals himself - it will then have to be unto all humanity equally - this must be a universal covenant of humanity. This must be the test awaiting our reaction eventually. Humanity, specially the 3 M/E groups, are pointing only at a disaster ahead. IMHO, Jesus would not sanction a single verse of the NT - but a belief cannot be contested. I think it is very possible that someone corrupted the NT - there are indicators of this.
There is no proof of anything jesus said or did - probably because these never existed. We should not forget, when Jesus lived, it was a time when writings were commonplace, and a prophet wants to make his message not confusing - else he cannot point the finger at anyone. A christian would not have accepted Jesus if they had 2000 years of Judaism in their dna - guaranteed!
NO SUBJECTS WITHOUT A KING.
NO KING WITHOUT SUBJECTS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by jaywill, posted 04-16-2008 9:02 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by jaywill, posted 04-17-2008 6:51 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024