Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Heaven: How to Get In
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 61 of 91 (523274)
09-09-2009 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Peg
09-09-2009 7:40 AM


Minor matter off topic
but you are wrong yet again.
we know that if the earth was merely 5% closer to the sun, we'd burn up
In the next 4 months we will move 4% closer to the sun than we were 2 months ago. We will not come anywhere near burning up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Peg, posted 09-09-2009 7:40 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Peg, posted 09-10-2009 3:29 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 62 of 91 (523400)
09-09-2009 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by iano
09-09-2009 7:19 AM


Re: Getting into Heaven the Bible Way
Hi iano.
I hope aall is well.
I'm workin' on a response to your post and have only made it to a certain point. I decided to post this bit separately.
Consider the picture of a fisherman catching a fish - whose nature is geared towards staying out of the fishermans reach. If the fish is landed it is due to the fisherman exhausting the will of the fish using the hook and line to exert a force. The fish hasn't done a thing to contribute to it's being landed. If the fish is lost it is due to the will of the fish insisting on it's escape. God, although a skilled fisherman won't insist on a person being saved if the persons will insists otherwise.
quote:
2 Thessalonians 2:10.. they perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Refusal to love the truth is the act of will in question, the wriggling off Gods hook. It's an insistance of will unto damnation. So you can say that salvation doesn't require we do anything - God will do the drawing in to himself .. and that damnation requires we do something -
we pull ourselves away from God.
Finally - an objective statement. Now, how it that done iano: how does one pull away from God?
Or, if you prefer to have it put another way: What must one do to not become unsaved.
* believe something
* not believe something
* do something
* not do something
* believe anything
* not believe anything
* do anything
* not do anything
Let's start with baby steps. Do we not belief something or do we not do something?
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by iano, posted 09-09-2009 7:19 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by iano, posted 09-10-2009 6:55 AM Bailey has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 63 of 91 (523408)
09-10-2009 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by NosyNed
09-09-2009 9:26 AM


Re: Minor matter off topic
the earth is about 93 mil miles from the sun
and 5% closer is how much?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by NosyNed, posted 09-09-2009 9:26 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by onifre, posted 09-10-2009 4:12 PM Peg has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 64 of 91 (523415)
09-10-2009 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by iano
09-09-2009 7:19 AM


Re: Getting into Heaven the Bible Way
Thank you for the exchange iano.
I hope things are well with you.
iano writes:
weary writes:
As an aside, even the evangelical sect of levitical christianity requires the act of metanoia to procure salvation, which, I reason, nullifies your original point.
Christianity generally recognises God as the empowering agent behind a mans repentance ...
Believe it or not, I have quite a few brothers who consider themselves to be within the confines of the christian traditions. I am familiar enough with these practitioners, and their variant traditions, to have learned they don't recognize God as the 'empowering agent behind' their repentance. That is the single step that one takes towards God iano. However, I would quickly agree that, after that step's taken, God meets anyone where they stand. Anyway ...
... and attributes salvation ultimately, to Gods grace. So no, my point isn't nullified so.
Oops - I totally misunderstood you. I thought you were promoting the doctrine of penal substitution. I strongly agree that it is the grace of God that will, ultimately, salvage mankind. When combined with the faith of Abraham, it always has. The the ancient Noahide tradition demonstrates this effectively.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Honestly, I can hardly believe I'm spending any energy or taking the bit of time necessary to respond to this query. Are you at all aware of how many indigenous belief systems do not entertain the notion of condemning mankind to 'hell'? Obviously not - apologies for the stupid question. Be encouraged.
Btw, even the Kondhs - or Kui, as they call themselves ...
My apologies for being non-specific unto wasting your time.
No apology necessary - after all, I'm the one lacking in energy and patience.
Let me expand on the spirit behind the term 'salvation by works' by describing works as anything you do or don't do in order to get on the right side of whatever deity/deities/energy/lifeforce/etc that lies at the root of the religion in question.
In all fairness, I think we should take strides towards reducing our definitions whenever possible, rather than expand - and perhaps, increase ambiguity.
So, anyway, you don't hold that repentance plays a part in salvation? While I'll admit that's interesting, I'll, however, strongly disagree.
That is basically the only 'doctrine' I hold to, aside from the two I put forth towards the end of the last post, those being ...
* Love and trust the Father with all your heart, all of your being and all of your force.
* Love, but not trust, all of mankind in an identical fashion.
For your tradition, it is then - what exactly?
And let's describe salvation not so much an issue of heaven instead of hell, but as 'a positive afterlife outcome' vs a negative one.
That's the same thing iano. Perhaps there's no need to increase your tendency to be extremely ambiguous, considering that is what Tea&uni is troubled by.
Rightly so, I may add.
Thus, a works-based salvation can be said to involve your doing/not doing things in order to ensure a positive afterlife outcome for yourself.
A succint and salient premise to begin from. I hold.
We don't have to look too deeply in order to conclude the Kondhs religion works-based according to this definition, Hinduism being awash with works.
quote:
The Dongria are Hindus with syncretic beliefs combining animism. Their pantheon has both the common Hindu gods and their own...
There's been no time for college, so I take it you went the Google 101 route. Dongria are a sub-group of the Kui, later proselytized through Hinduism bud.
The Kui are an indigenous people of India that have been around for thousands of years, practicing anywhere from variant forms of animism, nature worship, shamanism, ancestor worship and fethism, to the more highly evolved forms of religion like Brahmanism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism. Basically, the Kui have been indoctrinated by almost all imperialist faiths, including - but in no way limited to, Levitical Christianity.
quote:
Christianity in Orissa blossomed during the British Rule. It is some time around 1850 to 1947 A.D. The church in Orissa is a mosaic of places where the church is thriving and places where it is merely surviving.
People who came to faith were frequently put out of their own communities with no place to go but to the mission. One mission in the 1930s reported that 80 percent of their converts were financially dependent on the mission. These factors removed the converts from their own culture.
These new Christians were perceived as giving allegiance to a foreign land and culture. Most Protestant denominations are represented in Orissa, the result of missionary activities throughout the Orissa, starting with the onset of British rule.
Link
The Kui weren't being suggested as a people who don't practice works-based atonement methods - although they fit in many instances, in as much as I was attempting to set them forth as an example of a people who have successfully evolved from the archaic notion and practice of a human ritual atonement killing in order to attain God's favor. So then, the point is ultimately mute if you're not advocating p-sub, but rather the pure grace of God.
They are after all, not necessarily equivalent by any stretch.
Unless, perhaps, you contend that God's grace is abundantly displayed by God not eradicating those who promote the bloodshed of Yisraeli prophets.
To that, I may hold - lol
Similarily..
quote:
Noahidism (Wikipedia, 2009) Noahidism is a monotheistic ideology based on the Seven Laws of Noah. According to Jewish law, non-Jews are not obligated to convert to Judaism, but they are required to observe the Seven Laws of Noah...
Wait a sec ...
Are you equivocating the observance of six rules within an assemblance of governance to the notion of a works-based atonement method?
I feel it's important and very much worth keeping things in context here. Within the verses below from the booklet of Matisyahu, Joshua has gone up to the mountain to begin teaching his disciples after seeing the crowds. A couple of chapters later, by the time he offers this warning regarding the discernment of the pretenders, we are not told exactly who is being spoken to. Then, in the following verses provided from the booklet of Luke, it is made relatively clear that Joshua is not speaking to his disciples or Pharisees, but rather a bystander of sorts who asks 'Master, will only a few be saved?'.
quote:
Matisyahu 7:22
On that day, many will say to me,
Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?’
23 ~ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’
quote:
Luke 13:25
Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, then you will stand outside and start to knock on the door and beg him,
Lord, let us in!’ But he will answer you, ‘I don’t know where you come from.’
26 ~ Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’
27 ~ But he will say, saying to you, ‘I don’t know where you come from! Go away from me, all you workers of iniquity!’
lol - following six rules is work? Talk about 'workers of iniquity' and those who practice 'lawlessness'. I digress.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Perhaps, you should have let this one go, as now I'm feelin' motivated.
Again, my apologies if I've wasted your time (although in my partial defence ...
Again, no apology necessary - after all, I'm the one lacking in energy and patience. I do thank you for the courtesies though. Very nice of you.
I'd remind you that I did bracket my original claim to major religions and sects - recognising that there might exist, somewhere in the world, a religion aside from Christianity who'd buck the works-based trend.
Ohhh, I see what you are saying, I think. Indigenous people do not 'count', so to speak, in regards to a religion worthy of comparison to your own.
{cough, cough ... bigot ... cough, cough}
Ahem, I strongly disagree.
But as your your examples demonstrate, even the minor sects can be trusted to produce those same..er.. goods.
Seeing as you consider following an assemblance of governance revolving around even six basic rules 'work', I suppose I did not deliver.
I'll not attempt to display anymore of those measly 'minority' indigenous traditions - who happen to constitute the majority of the planet's religious practitioners, again either, as you have made it abundantly clear that their traditions are certainly unworthy of a comparison unto your own fantastic tradition.
{cough ... bigot, bigot ... cough}
Ahem, I'm just kidding - sort of, but seriously ... thank God for the UN.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Again, Brother Joshua never referred to himself as a sacrifice, but rather a ransom.
Please, demonstrate otherwise - so as I may concede, within a good conscience, to the seemingly peculiar theory many attempt to put forth.
See later..
How about, just post 'em if ya got 'em. If you can't find any verses where the Anointed One referred to himself as a sacrifice, then, perhaps, be honest.
Either there is an example of such a reference in your bible or there is not such an example in your bible. It's not a difficult request from where I stand.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Hopefully you will understand why I would rather believe the words attributed to Brother Joshua within these ancient scripture texts over the word of confused sectarian churches who nullify huge swaths of the bible. After all, before he was murdered, Brother Joshua poured out his wisdom to teach every man and woman how sins are removed; however, Joshua never discussed any penal substitution method whatsoever. Please, demonstrate otherwise.
Every man and woman?
Yes - indeed, anyone who is either literate or willing to listen to a few simple verses that promote forgiveness, bold faith and abundant love.
If you will, imagine - for at least one second, what the world may have turned out like if Joshua's murders displayed these traits.
These three things can change the world when adhered to on a consistent basis.
But Paul tells us that the natural (unsaved) mans mind cannot understand the things of God, that such things are but foolishness to him.
So, let me get this straight ...
You are suggesting that 'the natural (unsaved) mans mind cannot understand the things of God' which 'are but foolishness to' them when they hear or read the words attributed to Joshua the Anointed One - who's words were understood clearly and concisely as need be for him to ascertain a large enough following to threaten the authoritative power of the ruling sects of Yuhdea into a sense of justification condoning the Prophet's murder; but that the 'things' which 'are but foolishness to' the 'the natural (unsaved) mans mind' are more clearly understood when they hear or read the writings attributed to uncle Paul - which the apostle Peter testified contained certain 'things in these letters {that} are hard to understand'? Is that what you are saying??
No jive talk here, please - a simple YES or NO answer will, more than, suffice. At that point, I'll continue into a response to your additional comments.
Seriously dude. Please, a simple YES or NO.
What use this wisdom of Jesus to every man and woman if that wisdom cannot, per definition, be considered by them as anything but foolishness. You might as well tell a pig to fly.
* Place marked until you respond to the query above.
And what of those who could never have access to Jesus words - living as they did on the other side of the world when they were being written down? Are you suggesting something along the lines of Calvinisms abominable "for God so loved the ... elect"?
* Place marked until you respond to the query above.
And how can anyone nullify huge swathes of the Bible when what was written is there for people to see and judge for themselves? Your not supposing your dissent the result of your discernment with all the others gullible fools by any chance?
* Place marked until you respond to the query above.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Brother Joshua displayed that he had authority to forgive sins through bold faith alone (no penal substitution or blood required).
quote:
Luke 5:19
When they found no way to carry him in because of the crowd,
they went up on the roof and let him down on the stretcher through the roof tiles right in front of Joshua
.
20 ~ When Joshua saw their faith he said, Friend, your sins are forgiven.
Are you suggesting that Christ's split blood (assuming for a moment that it is indeed the means whereby sin can be forgiven) could only be effective from the day he died, onwards?
No.
You are quite the contortion artist, huh? I just can't figure out if you are doing that on purpose, or if you genuinely have trouble reading - lol
What I'm suggesting is that Joshua the Anointed One's 'blood' - and his very murder, are - and were, completely unnecessary in order to forgive sins.
Why do you think Joshua kept asking Pete - if he truly did love him to, 'go learn what this means: 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'??
If you answer one question in this whole post, please let it be this one: Why do you think Joshua went on the record testifying that ...
quote:
Matisyahu 12:7
If you had known what this means: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.
quote:
23The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousnessfor us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
  —Romans 4
This would fly in the face of Romans 4 in which the means of our justification is modelled on Abrahams example ...
Yes, had I been suggesting that 'Christ's split blood could only be effective from the day he died', it would certainly nullify the faith of Abraham. However ...
It should prove more than reasonable that the notion that an all powerful and magnificent God, who rains down unconditional agape love upon ALL of mankind, would need any blood or murdered Yisraeli prophets in order to accomplish the forgiveness of sins through repentance, bold faith, abundant love and pure grace seems to effectively and most completely nullify the childlike faith of Abraham just as quick, if not even quicker.
... with the statement that that self-same mechanism applies to us today and that it hinges on Jesus death and resurrection.
So much for no p-sub or relying on pure grace ...
quote:
John 11:35
Joshua wept.
Now if Abraham is justified by faith (distant past) and we are justified by faith (present day) then what problem with that man-in-between-times on a stretcher being forgiven too when he, like we, firstly demonstrates his faith?
There is absolutely no problem at all iano; it is as it has always been said by every Prophet that ever spoke on God's behalf - repent, and be saved.
Apparently your definition of 'repent' is, 'cling to an animal sacrifice'. Unfortunately, no Prophet is on record in the common bible suggesting that.
Please, demonstrate otherwise.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Within the text of 1 John, we are told to repent, confess our sins and they will be forgiven (no penal substitution or blood required).
Yes.
Thank you for conceding to this point.
But if the 'us' referred to happen to be those who are born again/in Christ then we are already relying on Christs blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sin.
quote:
John 11:35
Joshua wept.
quote:
Matisyahu 12:7
If you had known what this means: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.
That would be the operative mechanism by which forgiveness occurs.
The operative 'mechanism', would quicker seem to be repentance, coupled with the the raw, unadulterated and unlimited power of God.
It need not be mentioned at every opportunity ... although 1 John does.
You are certainly right - it need not be mentioned at every - or any, opportunity. That is the point of the Good News iano.
No one needs to have been murdered, nor have murdered any animals, for the forgiveness of sins or to attain continuous living.
quote:
Yirmiyahu 9:24
Let the one who boasts, boast of this fact - That they understand and know the Almighty
And that they know and understand that the Almighty Father acts out of lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth
And that it is God's desire for people to do these same things
.
quote:
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
We can't strongly establish the sense of two types of person (the saved/unsaved) from 1 John but it is elsewhere made clear enough so that we can assume the 'us' to whom 1 John is addressing itself, to be the saved. The saved will sin and do, as Jesus points out, need their feet washed - even though they themselves are clean
Perhaps, depending on the honesty you display in other responses preceding this one, we can come back to this, together, to discuss what is taking place.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Before he was murdered, Brother Joshua poured out his wisdom to teach every man and woman how sins are removed; however, Joshua never discussed any penal substitution method whatsoever. Please, demonstrate otherwise.
Can you even imagine how many member's of the ruling sect were noticing a decrease in wages as brother Joshua set out freely forgiving sins?
Can you see now, why those who promoted penal substitution atonement methods and sacrificial blood rites wanted to murder Brother Joshua ??
John wanted Jesus murdered?
That's what you took away from the context of that portion of the post?? Oh well - lol
Yea, I guess the author, editor and/or redactor of the booklet of John must have, right? How else would yoos guys have been saved??
quote:
Matisyahu 26:4
They planned to arrest Joshua by stealth and kill him.
Mark 14:1
Two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread,
The chief priests and the experts in the ToRaH were trying to find a way to arrest Joshua by stealth and kill him
.
Luke 13:31
At that time, some Pharisees came up and said to Joshua, Get away from here, because Herod wants to kill you.
22:2
The chief priests and the experts in the ToRaH were trying to find some way to execute Joshua, for they were afraid of the people.
John 11:48
If we allow Joshua to go on in this way, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation.
49 ~ Then one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said, You know nothing at all!
50 ~ You do not realize that it is more to your advantage to have one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.
...
...
53 ~ So from that day they planned together to kill him.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Universalism (Wikipedia, 2009)
Universalism is a belief which affirms that in the fullness of time all souls will be released from the penalties of sin and restored to God. Historically known as apokatastasis, final salvation denies the biblical doctrine of eternal punishment and is based on a faculty reading of Acts 3:21; Rom. 5:18 - 19; Eph. 1:9 - 10; 1 Cor. 15:22; and other passages. Belief in universal salvation is at least as old as Christianity itself and may be associated with early Gnostic teachers.
See my comments in defence above re: major religions and sects: Islam, Roman Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jehovahs Witnessism, Mormonism .. that kind of thing. The point being that if someone was considering where to dip an investigative toe in the religious water, then a works-based Religion isn't perhaps the best one.
And again, I'll not attempt to display anymore of those measly 'minority' indigenous traditions - who happen to constitute the majority of the planet's religious practitioners, again either, as you have made it abundantly clear that their traditions are certainly unworthy of a comparison unto your own fantastic tradition.
As well, providing you do concede that you equivocate the observance of six rules within an assemblance of governance to the notion of a works-based atonement method, I'll not bother you anymore as you revel in your bloody lawlessness. That is, as long as you don't go too far out of your way to proselytize everyone to their very death with your bloody anarchist based salvation system - you ol' worker of iniquity, you
iano writes:
weary writes:
However, the Anointed One consistently referred to his decision to forgo aggressive self-defense and be mutilated on a torture stake as that of a ransom. Again, I would'nt expect you to take the word of a man, who claimed to have spoken only the words of the Father, over that of another - or even seriously.
Especially if the scheme interferred with one's theological upbringing.
All scripture is God breathed.
lol
You truly don't recognize any of the documented forgeries that God has made privy to us, huh??
lol - quick question ... how many chapters are currently within the booklet of Mark that you employ?
Whilst some parts deal with bigger issues than other parts and so can be considered to be more important than other parts, I can't see how one could take one part as being more authorititive than another.
As I said iano, I wouldn't expect you to if the scheme interferred with your 'sacred' doctrine or theological upbringing in any way.
In the end of the matter, the issue is not really about what's authoritative, but rather what is required by God's authority.
I understand that you've arrived at a personal canon by convoluted means.
Oohhh - lol
You honestly feel that acknowledging a prophet such as Yirmiyahu when he says the ToRaH was forged - a definitive fact further evidenced to a certain extent by the scholarly work that went into the documentary hypothesis, and then, further basing the initial premise of one's 'canon' from texts which are spoken of directly by the Anointed One himself and found entirely within a common bible, is somehow arriving 'at a personal canon by convoluted means'?
You can't be serious??
Whilst admiring the time and dedication that must have gone into such a pursuit ...
It took an hour.
* note the texts spoken of by Joshua: the ToRaH (Law), the Nevi'im (Prophets) and the Tehellim (Psalms) - check
* note the repeated assertion by the prophet Isaiah that states animal sacrifices are an abomination to God - check
* note the fact that the Yirmiyahu asserts animal sacrifices were not asked for and the ToRaH was forged - check
* note, by reveiwing the documentary hypothesis, that the ToRaH - while allegedly 'written by Moses', indeed has multiple authors - check
Like I said, it takes about an hour and seems to require much less effort than nullifying the information canonized within the booklets of Prophets such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hoshea, Amos, Jonah, Micah and Yirmiyahu while simultaneously ignoring the scholarly evidence which corroborates his assertions.
... it's indicative of a means of salvation open only to the very bright ...
While I appreciate the compliment, as I've said before - I'm about as bright as a stump, with faith the size of a mustard seed.
It also clarifies the fact that God never asked for animal sacrifices, as Yirmiyahu risked his life to state and that Joshua the Anointed One needn't have been murdered for any other reason except for the greed of a handful of angry nationalists coupled with the naivety of those persuaded to believe that blood sacrifices were, for some bizarre reason, required to forgive sins. The means of salvation then reverts back to the childlike faith of Abraham. However ...
Childlike faith does not hinge on a murder iano.
... and of those, to only the one's with access to the means whereby an accurate opinion as to what is and isn't God-inspired can be formed.
There's nothing to form an opinion about bro. The writings were written by men and forged by men - everybody except dogmatics already knows that and has known that for years. God made sure the canonized bible maintained that fact within it's pages, through the testimonies of trusted prophets such as Isaiah, Yirmiyahu and the likes, and then God further allowed for archaeologists and scholars to confirm the fact.
Additionally, we have Joshua the Anointed One on record - in the same common bible, reiterating the message given by Hoshea and pleading with people, asserting that if anyone had known what 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice' meant, he wouldn't have had to have undergone execution. That basically wraps it up - what more information would anybody need?? God does not ever leave anybody hanging and God is not obscure.
We are the ones who are faithless, unreliable and ambiguous by nature friend.
Call me simple ...
You are simple.
... but if it's possible to reconcile the text by straightforward, internal means, I don't see the necessity of suspecting it of being erroneous/uninspired.
If it were 'possible to reconcile the text by straightforward, internal means' I have a sneaking suspicion that it would have been done by someone by now - after all, it's been hundreds and hundreds of years since Constantine had the book assembled. The fact that Teapots&unicorns has started this very thread and repeatedly stated, along with numerous others, that absolutely none of you makes any actual sense whatsoever seems to suggest the notion that ...
No religious dogmatic has the ability 'to reconcile the text by straightforward, internal means'.
merriam-webster writes:
sacrifice : an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar
ransom : a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something from captivity
For example: are ransoms and sacrifices mutually exclusive things? I think not.
Ok. If you remember, in Message 56 I already stated ...
quote:
It is quite obvious, at this point, that a sacrifice and a ransom are easily equivocated to those persuaded towards trusting second hand sources.
Thanks for proving the point though.
Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that ...
Sound them out iano. Listen - a sacrifice is a sacrifice and a ransom is a ransom.
So, a tomato is not a hot dog, and they are not both skyscrapers - cut ... it ... out.
You'd go to any length necessary to defend your 'sacred' doctrines. Right or wrong?
Iano, I'm going to be honest with you bro - one issue, when you start doing shit like that, is it turns people who are not in your fairytale right off, because you begin to make no sense at all. That is the shit that drives people away from any genuine believe in God. Ask any athiest and I'm sure they'll tell you the same. If you had the ability to witness for God and make sense - you would be stylin'. That's not to imply that I necessarily have that ability either - lol
if the unit of currency used to pay the ransom wasn't considered precious by the recipient then the efficiacy of the ransom would be seriously depleted.
Yea, whatever ... an apple is an orange - I know. Thanks again.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Let me ask you one final question before I retire from this debate with you - what must one do to receive this free gift you speak of?
If no 'works' are involved, there mustn't be anything required at all - right? That is referred to as universalism and doesn't require a fee.
Surely we needn't even hear about it or listen according to sola fide, because that may be considered a 'good deed'.
In a nutshell? You don't have to do a thing.
If we are all saved, there's no need to discuss peculiar bloody details at the risk of making absolutely no sense and driving people further from God.
Why run around tellin' everybody about this archaic human ritual atonement killing? Let it go already. There must be a reason you are unwilling to do this.
Consider the picture of a fisherman catching a fish - whose nature is geared towards staying out of the fishermans reach. If the fish is landed it is due to the fisherman exhausting the will of the fish using the hook and line to exert a force. The fish hasn't done a thing to contribute to it's being landed.
Let's look at that example from another angle. The fish was deceived by the fisherman, much like Eve was by the serpent in the Eden narrative.
If the fish is lost it is due to the will of the fish insisting on it's escape.
If the fish wasn't being hunted by some form of deception it would have likely been fine - now, it has a nasty hook embedded within it's gill.
God, although a skilled fisherman won't insist on a person being saved if the persons will insists otherwise.
quote:
2 Thessalonians 2:10.. they perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Refusal to love the truth is the act of will in question, the wriggling off Gods hook.
quote:
Towards the beginning of this post iano stated:
A works-based salvation can be said to involve your doing/not doing things in order to ensure a positive afterlife outcome for yourself.
Ummm - I'm afraid refusing 'to love the truth' is, most certainly indeed, 'doing/not doing things in order to ensure a positive afterlife outcome for yourself'.
That's your definition of 'works' iano.
Earlier you set off 'describing works as anything you do or don't do in order to get on the right side of whatever deity/deities/energy/lifeforce/etc that lies at the root of the religion in question'; yet, willing yourself to begin loving the truth may certainly be construed as 'work' - indeed, this certain 'act of will in question', as you say, may be very challenging work for some people bud. Laying aside the internal inconsistency of your various statements for a brief moment ...
From where many others stand, there seems to be a whole lot of truth you do not even like, much less love.
Are you sure you want to hold - and even promote, that challenge as a deciding factor of your salvation?
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
The question now is whether or not the balls can be juggled and in the case of Jesus words harmonising with Pauls words there isn't an enormous problem.
There really isn't, except when those who have been persuaded to disagree with the plain testimony put forth by the Anointed One twist things.
One mans twisting (ransom vs. sacrifice) is another mans reasonably straightforward, if multi-layered, puzzle.
lol - wtf is a 'reasonably straightforward, if multi-layered, puzzle'? Is this your coy way of acknowleding that Joshua never refers to himself as a sacrifice?
As I've said elsewhere, it seems we're our own worst enemy when refusing ourselves the joys of taking a definitive stance on a definition. So then, much like the game of politiks, the religious authoritarians then seem to take great strides towards employing an ever present sense of ambiguity in their games.
If words are Play-DohTM, we can form from them whatever definitions, and so - doctrines, we decide.
However, I do not contend words are Play-DohTM, but rather words.
So then, priestly doctrines and traditions are, perhaps, Play-DohTM.
A ransom deals with that part of the problem which indicates man a captive and slave to sin. A (self)sacrifice deals with that part of the problem which demands that any forgiver pay the price of the transgression against himself, himself. If men require both release from captivity from sin and forgiveness of his sins, then he needs both a ransomer and a self-sacrifice.
I don't see the problen in God providing the two (and more) in one.
I know you don't bud. That's part of the issue here.
Perhaps, depending on the level of ambiguity you display in other various responses, we can come back to this, together, and discuss it.
iano writes:
weary writes:
While I, honestly, am - as of yet, unable to perceive their testimonies and words equivocally, I hope and pray folks would err on the side of Joshua.
So far I've not seen reason to side with either. Harmony is to be found.
Perhaps there is no conflict at all; then again, perhaps you see 'no reason' because you're unwilling, and so, unable?
No offense - harmony is always found when one allows no questions my friend.
iano writes:
weary writes:
I have only two doctrines and they have proven challenging enough for me to achieve ...
* Love and trust the Father with all my heart, all of my being and all of my force.
* Love, but not trust, all of mankind in an identical fashion.
Your two doctrines can be summed up in one. Works. Or they can be summed up in one. Grace. The former demands you succeed in the challenge or else Hell. The latter demands you succeed in the challenge or spit in the face of unconditional love.
I'm inclined to suppose the latter as providing the greater by way of motivation.
Along with my repentance, I prefer to sum these two doctrines up like this ...
quote:
Matisyahu 22:36-40
Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?
Joshua said to him
...
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
This is the greatest and first commandment.
And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
On these two commandments hang all the
ToRaH and the Nevi'im.
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by iano, posted 09-09-2009 7:19 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by iano, posted 09-10-2009 1:07 PM Bailey has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 65 of 91 (523421)
09-10-2009 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Bailey
09-09-2009 11:06 PM


Re: Getting into Heaven the Bible Way
Bite size is fine
-
how it that done iano: how does one pull away from God?
Or, if you prefer to have it put another way: What must one do to not become unsaved.
What I prefer is; "How does one avoid being saved?" for that is what pulling away from God results in if one pursues that option to the bitter end - the successful avoidance of salvation.
Or to put it another way: everyone will be saved except for those who successfully avoid it.
Or to put it another way: salvation is the default destination you'll arrive at - all you can do is get off along the way.
It's all down to your will..
-
* believe something
* not believe something
* do something
* not do something
* believe anything
* not believe anything
* do anything
* not do anything
Let's start with baby steps. Do we not belief something or do we not do something?
Avoidance involves suppression of the truths to which we are exposed by God (via eg: conscience). That suppressing action is the result of an act of our will. Baby step example;
- one of God's truths to which we are exposed is that stealing that which rightfully belongs to another is wrong. Yet we steal. The way we do that is to suppress this truth (or to put it another way; we ignore our conscience). We decide they can afford it. We decide it's not rightfully theirs. We decide it doesn't matter because we don't like them. We decide it'll pay them back for some hurt, real or imagined. We self-justify in other words, to fill the void left by the suppression of that which pronounces to us on the justness or otherwise of our actions.
On the other hand we might not steal. In which case truth hasn't been suppressed and it's restraining hand (in the face of temptation to steal) holds us from sin. You could picture it as if we were suspended over the sin by a thread of truth: no act of will is required in order that we stay suspended and out of sin. The only thing an act of our will can achieve is to suppress truth - which effectively cuts the thread - resulting in our plunging into whatever the sin happens to be.
The truth is instrinically lovable/admirable/attractive because God, who is truth is intrinsically loveable/admirable/attractive. Exposure to truth will result in that response from us: we will love it, admire it, find it attractive - unless we will otherwise. Exposure to truth will restrain us - unless we will otherwise.
There's a baby step for now: the mechanism whereby we are pulled in Gods direction by God ('s truth) or we pull away from God (and his truth) by act of own will. Where we finally end up is an associated matter, reliant upon this general mechanism. The subject of another baby step or two.
____________
The above mechanism see's a place for expression of our will in one direction only and that direction is contra-God. Any movement towards God is the result of his will unto drawing us - not our will contributing. In other words; in order for us to be drawn in the direction of God, our will only has to do nothing/ not express itself. This idea aligns with the notion of man's spiritually dead-to-God nature as expounded upon by Paul. It also aligns perfectly with the doctrine of salvation by Gods grace and action alone.
The landed fish takes no credit for his being landed - for he did, precisely, nothing to contribute. He merely didn't refuse to love the truth and so was saved.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Bailey, posted 09-09-2009 11:06 PM Bailey has not replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 66 of 91 (523435)
09-10-2009 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Peg
09-09-2009 7:40 AM


Re: I've got the ticket - where's the station?
Hi Peg
Well, thanks for your attempt at an explanation, though I'm sure you won't be surprised that I'm not in any way convinced by it.
The obvious question to ask is where do you or this chap Timothy get your information from, especially in light of Timothy's comment, "not one of men has seen or can see"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Peg, posted 09-09-2009 7:40 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Peg, posted 09-10-2009 9:23 AM tuffers has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 67 of 91 (523439)
09-10-2009 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by tuffers
09-10-2009 8:36 AM


Re: I've got the ticket - where's the station?
Hey tuffers,
no problem and no, im not surprised at all...understanding God is even hard for those who believe lol
Hard to grasp, but not impossible to contemplate.
tuffers writes:
The obvious question to ask is where do you or this chap Timothy get your information from, especially in light of Timothy's comment, "not one of men has seen or can see"?
the information comes from God himself. You may have heard people say that the bible is 'inspired' "All Scripture is inspired of God.." 2Tim. 3:16
this means that God is able to communicate his thoughts to humans, from his mind to theirs he can speak to them... we might call it mental telepathy.
Bible writers acknowledged that their inspiration came from Gods spirit. The Apostle Peter said, "men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit." 2Pe 1:20,21
Holy spirit is another name for Gods power, energy or force. Its the same power he used as mentioned in Genesis when he was preparing the earth
Gen 1:2 "and Gods active force (spirit) was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters"
Because God is the source of all living things, and its by his own power that they live, then he could tap into them whenever he wanted. Just as we can tap into him if he lets us.
Of course im not expecting you to believe any of this either, but it might help you to understand how some christians understand it.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by tuffers, posted 09-10-2009 8:36 AM tuffers has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 68 of 91 (523457)
09-10-2009 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Bailey
09-10-2009 4:40 AM


Climbing a stairway to Heaven
Bailey writes:
Oops - I totally misunderstood you. I thought you were promoting the doctrine of penal substitution. I strongly agree that it is the grace of God that will, ultimately, salvage mankind. When combined with the faith of Abraham, it always has. The the ancient Noahide tradition demonstrates this effectively.
I'm not sure what penal substitution (a mechanism through which grace is applied) has to do with the point raised. The assertion was that it is God's grace that lies at the very root of all aspects of salvation. For example: where would Abraham get his faith - if not through the gracious action of God?
-
Let me expand on the spirit behind the term 'salvation by works' by describing works as anything you do or don't do in order to get on the right side of whatever deity/deities/energy/lifeforce/etc that lies at the root of the religion in question.
In all fairness, I think we should take strides towards reducing our definitions whenever possible, rather than expand - and perhaps, increase ambiguity.
When referring to the major religions, including ones that have no salvation as such (eg: Buddhism), expanding definitions so as to arrive at an all-inclusive phrases such as "positive afterlife outcome" is a necessity.
-
So, anyway, you don't hold that repentance plays a part in salvation? While I'll admit that's interesting, I'll, however, strongly disagree.
It plays a part alright. Just like believing on the one who God sent plays a part. Just like being sanctified plays a part. But the critical point - the fulcrum over which you tip from lost-to-found isn't, I hold, repentance. The tipping point is a little further back at conviction - for it is only the man convinced he his wrong that has his mind changed to the new view.
Which is why the Spirit is sent: to convince the world of sin. Jesus insisted a man repent alright, but issued the command to those who had the (convicted) ears to listen. Without open ears his call falls on deaf ones.
God is the one who convinces men and in doing so opens their ears. Their subsequent repentence is but a consequential domino fall - not a starting point.
-
For your tradition, it is then - what exactly?
I dunno that it has a name. Whatever it's called, 100% of the credit goes to God for my salvation. There isn't the merest whiff of an act of my will to sully the glory and honour due to him.
-
The Kui weren't being suggested as a people who don't practice works-based atonement methods - although they fit in many instances, in as much as I was attempting to set them forth as an example of a people who have successfully evolved from the archaic notion and practice of a human ritual atonement killing in order to attain God's favor. So then, the point is ultimately mute if you're not advocating p-sub, but rather the pure grace of God.
Again, I'm not sure where p-sub fits in this given that it's merely (if I might respectfully use that word) a mechanism whereby God applies grace. Kind-deed works or keeping-to-law works differ not at all from human ritual atonementworks. All rely on you and your actions for a positive afterlife outcome.
If the Kui's 'Christianity' is a works based version then they haven't evolved at all.
-
Wait a sec ... Are you equivocating the observance of six rules within an assemblance of governance to the notion of a works-based atonement method?
Er.. I undertood Noahidism to be posited by you as a system concerned with a positive afterlife outcome (P.A.O.) which was not reliant on works. If it's adherance to the 6 laws is critical to a positive afterlife outcome then it's a works based system. If adherence the 6 laws have nothing to do with a P.A.O in Noahidism then I'd be interested in hearing what does have to do with a P.A.O in that system.
I'd bet my bottom Euro that it centres on works of some sort.
-
lol - following six rules is work?
One rule or a thousand rules. All works.
-
Ohhh, I see what you are saying, I think. Indigenous people do not 'count', so to speak, in regards to a religion worthy of comparison to your own.
{cough, cough ... bigot ... cough, cough}
Cast your mind back from whence we came. I pointed out to an unbeliever that a distinguishing feature of all but one 'religion' is that they are works based. Someone poking around at the edges of investigation (a not unreasonable possibility given that said person is engaging in a religious discussion) might find that noteworthy.
Something to put in one's pipe and smoke for a while.
How about, just post 'em if ya got 'em. If you can't find any verses where the Anointed One referred to himself as a sacrifice, then, perhaps, be honest.
Either there is an example of such a reference in your bible or there is not such an example in your bible. It's not a difficult request from where I stand.
What about parts of the Bible that refer to him as a sacrifice? Will they do - or are we still singing from different Himsheets?
-
Every man and woman?
Yes - indeed, anyone who is either literate or willing to listen to a few simple verses that promote forgiveness, bold faith and abundant love. If you will, imagine - for at least one second, what the world may have turned out like if Joshua's murders displayed these traits. These three things can change the world when adhered to on a consistent basis.
That's an Everest-sized 'when'. The proof is in the pudding - it's simply not in man's range of abilities to live like Jesus said he should live.
-
But Paul tells us that the natural (unsaved) mans mind cannot understand the things of God, that such things are but foolishness to him.
So, let me get this straight ...
You are suggesting that 'the natural (unsaved) mans mind cannot understand the things of God' which 'are but foolishness to' them when they hear or read the words attributed to Joshua the Anointed One - who's words were understood clearly and concisely as need be for him to ascertain a large enough following to threaten the authoritative power of the ruling sects of Yuhdea into a sense of justification condoning the Prophet's murder; but that the 'things' which 'are but foolishness to' the 'the natural (unsaved) mans mind' are more clearly understood when they hear or read the writings attributed to uncle Paul - which the apostle Peter testified contained certain 'things in these letters {that} are hard to understand'? Is that what you are saying??
YES or NO
Yes.
How often have unsaved men read Jesus and admired his teaching and rated him as a remarkable man - yet failed to understand his dire warnings. How many stood by him at his death of the many followers he garnered? How often have unsaved (and saved at times) men read Jesus and concluded a works-based salvation when the standard Jesus set was an impossible one to reach. Did Jesus ever insert a "try your best to.." before his instruction to live according to the standard set?
-
What I'm suggesting is that Joshua the Anointed One's 'blood' - and his very murder, are - and were, completely unnecessary in order to forgive sins.
Despite..
quote:
Romans 4:25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
..? You'd agree that if we're reading from two hymnsheets then discussion is rather pointless?
-
Why do you think Joshua kept asking Pete - if he truly did love him to, 'go learn what this means: 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'??
Did Jesus instruct Peter to go learn what that meant?
Matthew 12:7 has Jesus direct these comments at the Pharisees in what appears to be a straightforward condemnation of legalism (ie: works). The reference both here and in Hosea would have me suppose that God isn't truly interested in man's sacrifices at the expense of humane treatment of others.
Which is an altogether different thing to God being uninterested in his own sacrifice, ie: the lamb of God. Which reminds me: what kind of parallel do you yourself suppose for this expression, "the lamb of God"? Are you suggesting there is no sacrificial element involved despite it being so apparently obvious?
-
It should prove more than reasonable that the notion that an all powerful and magnificent God, who rains down unconditional agape love upon ALL of mankind, would need any blood or murdered Yisraeli prophets in order to accomplish the forgiveness of sins through repentance, bold faith, abundant love and pure grace seems to effectively and most completely nullify the childlike faith of Abraham just as quick, if not even quicker.
An all powerful God who applies mechanism instead of magic - the magic involving how you might square the notion of universal unconditional love with the requirement that you do something in order to ensure you continue receiving it.
-
... with the statement that that self-same mechanism applies to us today and that it hinges on Jesus death and resurrection.
So much for no p-sub or relying on pure grace ...
I don't recall denying p-sub other than to mention (iirc) it not being mentioned in a particular passage (which says nothing about whether p-sub is the way it is).
Neither do I see how something relying on Jesus death and resurrection in anyway diminishes the purity of the grace directed us-wards. Perhaps you could tease out for me why you think purity would be diminished - I'm getting curious about the depth of your arguments.
-
Now if Abraham is justified by faith (distant past) and we are justified by faith (present day) then what problem with that man-in-between-times on a stretcher being forgiven too when he, like we, firstly demonstrates his faith?
There is absolutely no problem at all iano; it is as it has always been said by every Prophet that ever spoke on God's behalf - repent, and be saved.
First the conviction, then the changing of mind: commoner garden logic and experience tells you that much. Abraham didn't first repent btw - he believed God. Same as me really.
-
Apparently your definition of 'repent' is, 'cling to an animal sacrifice'. Unfortunately, no Prophet is on record in the common bible suggesting that.
Hymnsheets - issue stalemated.
-
Thank you for conceding to this point.
Hymnsheets actually - issue stalemated.
-
We can't strongly establish the sense of two types of person (the saved/unsaved) from 1 John but it is elsewhere made clear enough so that we can assume the 'us' to whom 1 John is addressing itself, to be the saved. The saved will sin and do, as Jesus points out, need their feet washed - even though they themselves are clean
Perhaps, depending on the honesty you display in other responses preceding this one, we can come back to this, together, to discuss what is taking place.
Perhaps. Although it's looking increasingly unlikely given our respective canonika.
-
quote:
Matisyahu 26:4 They planned to arrest Joshua by stealth and kill him.
Mark 14:1 Two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread,The chief priests and the experts in the ToRaH were trying to find a way to arrest Joshua by stealth and kill him.
Luke 13:31 At that time, some Pharisees came up and said to Joshua, Get away from here, because Herod wants to kill you.
22:2 The chief priests and the experts in the ToRaH were trying to find some way to execute Joshua, for they were afraid of the people.
John 11:48 If we allow Joshua to go on in this way, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation.
...
...
I'm not sure I understand what the problem is here. The Establishment had nefarious reasons to kill Jesus and succeeded in doing so. The ineffective (and ultimately undesired by God) system of blood sacrifice, a system which demonstrably doesn't change the evil hearts of men, is replaced by a system of blood sacrifice which does change the evil hearts of men.
Hasn't that an elegance that causes the breath to catch - so much so it's worth highlighting:
quote:
a system which isn't the antidote to evil is itself destroyed by evil - making way for a system which is the antidote to evil?
Evil shoots itself in the foot the day it put Christ on the cross. What could be more elegant than that!!
-
As well, providing you do concede that you equivocate the observance of six rules within an assemblance of governance to the notion of a works-based atonement method, I'll not bother you anymore as you revel in your bloody lawlessness. That is, as long as you don't go too far out of your way to proselytize everyone to their very death with your bloody anarchist based salvation system - you ol' worker of iniquity, you
Antinomianism is a charge all to frequently levelled by those who have difficulty in swallowing their grace neat.
Captivation by the law of the Spirit of life that is in Christ Jesus isn't a picnic, let me tell you. But compared to the law of sin and death - however few you happen to boil it down to..
-
You truly don't recognize any of the documented forgeries that God has made privy to us, huh??
lol - quick question ... how many chapters are currently within the booklet of Mark that you employ?
Trick answer: as many as can be reconciled within the theological mechanism whose wheels I watch turning smoothly. If there's a spanner thrown into the works at some point in my travels I'm sure I'll notice something grinding to a halt - such is the nature of mechanisms. And if the machine should collapse to the point of my arriving at a works-based salvation then you'll be the 2nd to know - there's another works-based-salvationist I know who I promised to tell 1st.
-
You honestly feel that acknowledging a prophet such as Yirmiyahu when he says the ToRaH was forged - a definitive fact further evidenced to a certain extent by the scholarly work that went into the documentary hypothesis, and then, further basing the initial premise of one's 'canon' from texts which are spoken of directly by the Anointed One himself and found entirely within a common bible, is somehow arriving 'at a personal canon by convoluted means'?
Sorry, I thought your canon included Pauls/other epistles to some extent what with your praise of Truthlover who shoehorns at least some of them into his works doctrine.
On the basis of different hymnsheets I'll ignore subsequent discussion based around that difference for timesake
-
If we are all saved, there's no need to discuss peculiar bloody details at the risk of making absolutely no sense and driving people further from God.
Why run around tellin' everybody about this archaic human ritual atonement killing? Let it go already. There must be a reason you are unwilling to do this.
Er... I didn't say we're all saved. I said you don't have to do anything/avoid doing anything in order to be saved. You'll have seen my post outlining the mechanics of that so I'll not say much more about it here.
As to why telling? To gospel is the power of God unto salvation and is worth sharing in order that it's power is spread. Not to mention Jesus' instruction that we do so.
-
A works-based salvation can be said to involve your doing/not doing things in order to ensure a positive afterlife outcome for yourself.
Ummm - I'm afraid refusing 'to love the truth' is, most certainly indeed, 'doing/not doing things in order to ensure a positive afterlife outcome for yourself'.
Aah I see your point!
It's a semantical issue I know, but the intention behind 'doing' was eg: "help the lady across the road / offering up human sacrifice" and my intention behind 'not doing' was eg: "not stealing". Both being works YOU do/don't do to ensure youself a positive afterlife outcome.
To further underline the point let me suggest that you can't choose to love the truth so can't do something for your salvation in that regard. And not doing by way of a "refusal to love" is something that results in your damnation - so can't be considered relevant to your getting a positive afterlife outcome either.
-
A ransom deals with that part of the problem which indicates man a captive and slave to sin. A (self)sacrifice deals with that part of the problem which demands that any forgiver pay the price of the transgression against himself, himself. If men require both release from captivity from sin and forgiveness of his sins, then he needs both a ransomer and a self-sacrifice.
Perhaps, depending on the level of ambiguity you display in other various responses, we can come back to this, together, and discuss it.
You've an uncanny nose for kicking all the ..er.. interesting challenges into touch.
As you will.
-
So far I've not seen reason to side with either. Harmony is to be found.
Perhaps there is no conflict at all; then again, perhaps you see 'no reason' because you're unwilling, and so, unable? No offense - harmony is always found when one allows no questions my friend.
I dunno that that's much of a response.
Anyway, Jesus burst that rich young rulers bubble with a well-aimed arrow. An arrow that circumvented the need to debate him regarding his murder (murder as understood by Jesus) of others. I imagine he'll do the same to any proud enough to suppose, as that young ruler did, that they are capable of meeting Gods' standard. Hopefully for them the puncturing of their balloon will happen on this side of Judgement.
Did you notice that mans question btw? "what must I do to inherit eternal life"? And his finding out that I couldn't do what Jesus demanded? There's a message in there for all the other I's in the world who suppose they too can do something to inherit eternal life.
The disciples recognised the impossibility of man doing. You don't.
Once you appreciate the standard Jesus sets for you, once the arrow that would deflate your own particular bubble strikes home, you too will be panting for salvation by grace, like a deer pants for water. It was riches in that young rulers life - it'll be something else in our own. We've all got a balloon(s)
-
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
If only he had said "Try your best to love the Lord your God..."
But he didn't say that. He commanded "You shall love..."
And you don't love - not with ALL your heart, soul and mind.
Happy (if ultimately fruitless) working, Bailey.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Bailey, posted 09-10-2009 4:40 AM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Bailey, posted 09-14-2009 8:37 PM iano has replied
 Message 72 by Bailey, posted 09-14-2009 10:34 PM iano has replied
 Message 73 by Bailey, posted 09-14-2009 10:39 PM iano has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 69 of 91 (523477)
09-10-2009 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Peg
09-10-2009 3:29 AM


OFF-TOPIC
the earth is about 93 mil miles from the sun
and 5% closer is how much?
I think you missed Nosy's point. The Sun-Earth distance varies throughout the year, it is not a fixed distance. They vary about 4% of the original 93 mil miles that you refered to - coming as close as 91 mil miles, and as far as 95 mil miles.
The variation that you said isn't possible is part of the normal variation in our elliptical orbit.
Also, what happens when the Sun enters the Red Giant stage (about 5 billion years)? - As a red giant, the Sun will extend beyond the Earth's current orbit, so what happens to our "perfect" position then?
And that's not even the beginning of life on Earth ending. Before it even gets to the Red Giant stage, every 1 billion years or so, the Sun's surface temperature will slowly rise by about 10%. The increase in temperature will make the surface of the Earth too hot for liquid water to exist, ending all terrestrial life.
Not such a perfect situation, eh?
- Oni
{The off-topic better stop here - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above. Also changed subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Peg, posted 09-10-2009 3:29 AM Peg has not replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5312 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 70 of 91 (523593)
09-11-2009 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns
09-03-2009 11:10 AM


What is this obsession amongst believers with heaven anyway?
In the Christo-Judaic tradition, the ‘heavenly’ account of the Garden of Eden in Genesis would make us wonder why. Adam and Eve seemed positively underwhelmed by what their god had to offer them in their earthly paradise and wasted little time making their escape. The subsequent sales pitch to lure them back doesn’t seem like it’s going too well eitherit’s been two thousand years since the second coming was imminent, but still no sign
Jesus is probably chomping at the bit to get back down here (where the action is), but the old fella keeps telling him, You better wait until some interesting people sign up for this gig.
Edited by dogrelata, : Typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 09-03-2009 11:10 AM Teapots&unicorns has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 71 of 91 (524202)
09-14-2009 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by iano
09-10-2009 1:07 PM


In regards to waltzing with dogmatic ambiguity - Part 1 (of 3)
Hi iano ...
I hope things are well with you.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Oops - I totally misunderstood you. I thought you were promoting the doctrine of penal substitution. I strongly agree that it is the grace of God that will, ultimately, salvage mankind. When combined with the faith of Abraham, it always has. The the ancient Noahide tradition demonstrates this effectively.
I'm not sure what penal substitution (a mechanism through which grace is applied) has to do with the point raised.
The thread is entitled 'Heaven: How to Get In'.
I think it's fair to consider and examine the dynamics of your 'mechanism through which grace is applied'.
If you are contending that it is 'grace' that allows one to enter 'heaven', then especially so, as this 'mechanism' is something other than pure faith (our part) or pure grace (our Father's part). It is a ritual atonement killing involving blood magic, otherwise known as a 'mechanism', apparently.
The assertion was that it is God's grace that lies at the very root of all aspects of salvation.
Exactly. Yet, it is an inhumane, torturous and unjust murder that lies at the very root of your p-sub mechanism.
A human animal sacrifice doesn't seem to be the same thing as pure grace; maybe to someone who thinks an apple is an orange.
For example: where would Abraham get his faith - if not through the gracious action of God?
Abraham didn't demonstrate a human animal sacrifice after leaving behind the pagan religion of his father in Ur.
Abraham's faith did not arise from a ritual atonement killing according to the witness of a common bible, so ...
What is your point?
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
Let me expand on the spirit behind the term 'salvation by works' by describing works as anything you do or don't do in order to get on the right side of whatever deity/deities/energy/lifeforce/etc that lies at the root of the religion in question.
In all fairness, I think we should take strides towards reducing our definitions whenever possible, rather than expand - and perhaps, increase ambiguity.
When referring to the major religions, including ones that have no salvation as such (eg: Buddhism) ...
Buddhism has a salvation referred to as Nirvana.
It is accomplished through the Noble Eightfold Path. Nirvana is a blissful state of transcendental spiritual fulfillment.
quote:
To reach Nirvana you must follow the Noble Eightfold Path. The Noble Eightfold Path is:
1. Right Understanding: accepting the Four Noble Truths. (The existence of suffering; the cause of suffering; the end of suffering; and the end of pain.)
2. Right Resolve: renounce the pleasures of the body. Change your lifestyle so that you harm no living creatures and have kind thoughts for everyone.
3. Right Speech: do not gossip, lie or slander anyone.
4. Right Action: do not kill, steal or engage in an unlawful sexual act.
5. Right Occupation: avoid working at any job that could harm someone.
6. Right Effort: heroically work to eliminate evil from your life. Through your own effort develop good conduct and a clean mind.
7. Right Contemplation: make your self aware of your deeds, words and thoughts so that you can be free of desire and sorrow.
8. Right Meditation: train your mind to focus on a single object without wavering so as to develop a calm mind capable of concentration.
Link
I even pulled that from an apologetic site, so if you would like assistance denigrating that world belief system, you can just draw from that well again.
They have already started doing a pretty good job, as can be seen by anybody who has studied Buddhism in, even, a basic college course.
... expanding definitions so as to arrive at an all-inclusive phrases such as "positive afterlife outcome" is a necessity.
It seems increasing ambiguity is a dire necessity to make sure you're arguments and theories stay nice and ambiguous.
Perhaps learning about other cultures and religions in an attempt to better communicate with people is a necessity.
iano writes:
weary writes:
So, anyway, you don't hold that repentance plays a part in salvation? While I'll admit that's interesting, I'll, however, strongly disagree.
It plays a part alright. Just like believing on the one who God sent plays a part. Just like being sanctified plays a part. But the critical point - the fulcrum over which you tip from lost-to-found isn't, I hold, repentance. The tipping point is a little further back at conviction - for it is only the man convinced he his wrong that has his mind changed to the new view.
For murderers and convicts perhaps the 'tipping point' is at conviction.
However for those who love the idea of seeking and serving God, as well as their fellow wo/man, perhaps this point comes with compassion and love.
They both hold truth to some extent apparently, as conviction has lead you to:
* consider forgiving others, having bold faith and loving abundantly as a matter of works
* and promote Joshua's murder as a blissfull and necessary ritual atonement killing
And compassion and love for God, as well as mankind, has lead me to:
* consider repenting, forgiving others, having bold faith and loving abundantly as a way to have ones sins forgiven
* and promote Joshua's murder as one of the saddest and, indeed, most horrible unnecessary injustices that has ever occured within recorded history
Which is why the Spirit is sent: to convince the world of sin.
More inconsistency.
It seems that is a christians job, as that is who we evidence making attempts to convince others of sin.
Are you, therefore, suggesting that the holy spirits is somehow incompetent to perform it's duties ...
Or that it, perhaps, relies on tag team partners??
I would quicker agree that the holy spirit guides one into faith, hope and love.
Jesus insisted a man repent alright, but issued the command to those who had the (convicted) ears to listen.
Would you like to demonstrate a biblical example of this?
Or would you rather I demostrated otherwise?
Without open ears his call falls on deaf ones.
The deaf ones were - and still seem to be, the ones relying on animal sacrifices to forgive sins, and so, gain God's favor.
This is evidenced repeatedly in the roman bibles latter testaments.
God is the one who convinces men and in doing so opens their ears. Their subsequent repentence is but a consequential domino fall - not a starting point.
As I've already demonstrated, this can go more than one way.
For some, a sense of God convicting them led them to repentance.
For others, a sense of God loving them led them to repentance.
Perhaps these two traditions reflect the difference between a ransom and a sacrifice.
iano writes:
weary writes:
For your tradition, it is then - what exactly?
I dunno that it has a name. Whatever it's called ...
I didn't ask a name. Stop diverting please.
100% of the credit goes to God for my salvation.
We'll see ...
Btw, was your willingness to accept and promote Joshua's murder as a levitical ritual atonement killing an act of your will or an act of God's will?
A simple yes or no answer first, please - then, a brief explanation if you feel the need.
There isn't the merest whiff of an act of my will to sully the glory and honour due to him.
Yes there is. Stay consistent.
In Message 59 you stated that the 'act of will in question' was a willingness to not entertain any 'refusal to love the truth'.
Now, if you want to say that God was responsible for that too, then you are disagreeing with Paul.
Also, you seem to be, at that point, moving into predestination territory.
Is that what you are claiming then ...
Paul is a liar and nobody can approach God unless they are one of the chosen ones and that if God doesn't pick someone, they cannot go to heaven?
iano writes:
weary writes:
The Kui weren't being suggested as a people who don't practice works-based atonement methods - although they fit in many instances, in as much as I was attempting to set them forth as an example of a people who have successfully evolved from the archaic notion and practice of a human ritual atonement killing in order to attain God's favor. So then, the point is ultimately mute if you're not advocating p-sub, but rather the pure grace of God.
Again, I'm not sure where p-sub fits in this given that it's merely (if I might respectfully use that word) a mechanism whereby God applies grace.
Again, p-sub, as a 'mechanism', is quite relevant to the topic.
If you are not sure where p-sub fits in, although you acknowledge it as a mechanism of sorts, why do you subscribe to - and promote, it?
Kind-deed works or keeping-to-law works differ not at all from human ritual atonementworks. All rely on you and your actions for a positive afterlife outcome.
Nobody is talking about 'human ritual atonementworks'. The word and doctrine that is in question is the doctrine of ritual atonement killings.
In modern levitical christianity, the doctrine of p-sub is rooted within a ritual atonement killing of an innocent jewish prophet who was anointed.
Are you saying that being nice to people, following the law of one's government and relying on p-sub - as some sort of 'mechanism', are all works?
If the Kui's 'Christianity' is a works based version then they haven't evolved at all.
Irrelevant. As I said in Message 64 ...
quote:
The Kui weren't being suggested as a people who don't practice works-based atonement methods - although they fit in many instances, in as much as I was attempting to set them forth as an example of a people who have successfully evolved from the archaic notion and practice of a human ritual atonement killing in order to attain God's favor.
Christians who subscribe to p-sub are definitely behind the times of the Kui, who have eliminated ritual atonement killing's almost entirely.
Christians who subscribe to p-sub are subscribing to the doctrine of a ritual atonment killing which relies on blood magic as a means to seek God's favor.
Please pay better attention.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Wait a sec ... Are you equivocating the observance of six rules within an assemblance of governance to the notion of a works-based atonement method?
Er.. I undertood Noahidism to be posited by you as a system concerned with a positive afterlife outcome (P.A.O.) which was not reliant on works. If it's adherance to the 6 laws is critical to a positive afterlife outcome then it's a works based system.
The adherence, within Noahidism, to it's seven basic tenets are not critical to a positive afterlife outcome.
What is critical to a positive afterlife outcome, within Noahidism - when one of the basic tenets is transgressed, is repentance.
If adherence the 6 laws have nothing to do with a P.A.O in Noahidism then I'd be interested in hearing what does have to do with a P.A.O in that system.
In that case, go reread Message 56.
The active substance of a POA is as it has always been said by every Prophet that ever spoke on God's behalf - repent, and be saved.
I'd bet my bottom Euro that it centres on works of some sort.
As the ol' saying goes - for most men, 'til by losing rendered sager, will back their own opinions by a wager.
iano writes:
weary writes:
lol - following six rules is work?
One rule or a thousand rules. All works.
Than you are either assigning your tradition within the confines of predestination or you are admitting that it consists of at least one work.
Paul was pretty clear that the choice to be saved belonged to the one who accepted it, so I would assume the latter.
I don't imagine you as anyone who would accuse Paul as being a liar.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Ohhh, I see what you are saying, I think. Indigenous people do not 'count', so to speak, in regards to a religion worthy of comparison to your own.
{cough, cough ... bigot ... cough, cough}
Cast your mind back from whence we came. I pointed out to an unbeliever that a distinguishing feature of all but one 'religion' is that they are works based.
True. Yet, allegedly, you can't even name your tradition. You said earlier that 'I dunno that it has a name. Whatever it's called ...'.
Now we can see that even your nameless tradition actually does have a work that must be accomplished in order to secure a POA.
Someone poking around at the edges of investigation (a not unreasonable possibility given that said person is engaging in a religious discussion) might find that noteworthy.
More than likely, if they are on the search, they will find the assertion falsified or overly ambiguous.
Something to put in one's pipe and smoke for a while.
If that's the substance within your pipe, perhaps you should quit smoking for a while ...
Then again, you could always go hit up onifre or Larni for something more potent - lol
Chances are, it won't be quite as musty smelling ...
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by iano, posted 09-10-2009 1:07 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by iano, posted 09-15-2009 9:29 AM Bailey has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 72 of 91 (524209)
09-14-2009 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by iano
09-10-2009 1:07 PM


In regards to waltzing with dogmatic ambiguity - Part 2 (of 3)
Hi iano ...
I hope things are well with you.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
weary writes:
Again, Brother Joshua never referred to himself as a sacrifice, but rather a ransom.
Please, demonstrate otherwise - so as I may concede, within a good conscience, to the seemingly peculiar theory many attempt to put forth.
See later..
How about, just post 'em if ya got 'em. If you can't find any verses where the Anointed One referred to himself as a sacrifice, then, perhaps, be honest.
Either there is an example of such a reference in your bible or there is not such an example in your bible. It's not a difficult request from where I stand.
What about parts of the Bible that refer to him as a sacrifice?
What about them?
Is it easier to call an apple an orange, or a fig a thorn, rather than simply provide the verse I've requested?
A sign of an honest debater would be one who admitted the non existence of such a verse, if that were the case.
Please be an honest debater iano - either provide the verse or say 'such a verse does not exist'.
Will they do - or are we still singing from different Himsheets?
Himsheet - cute lol.
No. That won't do. We are not on different 'Himsheets'. We are in debate forum. Enough is enough already.
I have requested your acknowledgement of this point of debate in Message 56, Message 64 and now I'm asking you one more time.
Please provide a biblical reference where Joshua refers to himself as a sacrifice or honestly and kindly admit that you cannot or will not do this.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
weary writes:
Before he was murdered, Brother Joshua poured out his wisdom to teach every man and woman how sins are removed; however, Joshua never discussed any penal substitution method whatsoever. Please, demonstrate otherwise.
Every man and woman?
Yes - indeed, anyone who is either literate or willing to listen to a few simple verses that promote forgiveness, bold faith and abundant love.
If you will, imagine - for at least one second, what the world may have turned out like if Joshua's murders displayed these traits.
These three things can change the world when adhered to on a consistent basis.
That's an Everest-sized 'when'.
Irrelevant to the point of debate, again.
Before he was murdered, Brother Joshua poured out his wisdom to teach every man and woman how sins are removed (Matisyahu 6:14; Luke 5:19, 7:47, etc.); however, Joshua never discussed any penal substitution method whatsoever.
Please provide a biblical reference where Joshua discusses any penal substitution method whatsoever or honestly and kindly admit that you cannot or will not do this.
The proof is in the pudding ...
The proof of our contentions are within the common bible. Please stay on track.
... it's simply not in man's range of abilities to live like Jesus said he should live.
How great is your faith!!
It's been said before, predominant opinions are generally the opinions of the generation that is vanishing.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
weary writes:
Before he was murdered, Brother Joshua poured out his wisdom to teach every man and woman how sins are removed ...
But Paul tells us that the natural (unsaved) mans mind cannot understand the things of God, that such things are but foolishness to him.
So, let me get this straight ...
You are suggesting that 'the natural (unsaved) mans mind cannot understand the things of God' which 'are but foolishness to' them when they hear or read the words attributed to Joshua the Anointed One - who's words were understood clearly and concisely as need be for him to ascertain a large enough following to threaten the authoritative power of the ruling sects of Yuhdea into a sense of justification condoning the Prophet's murder; but that the 'things' which 'are but foolishness to' the 'the natural (unsaved) mans mind' are more clearly understood when they hear or read the writings attributed to uncle Paul - which the apostle Peter testified contained certain 'things in these letters {that} are hard to understand'? Is that what you are saying??
Yes.
This just keeps getting more and more interesting. Who is your 'savior' again?
How often have unsaved men read Jesus and admired his teaching and rated him as a remarkable man - yet failed to understand his dire warnings.
As many as were confused by the latter commentary??
How many stood by him at his death of the many followers he garnered?
Four, if I remember correctly.
How often have unsaved (and saved at times) men read Jesus and concluded a works-based salvation when the standard Jesus set was an impossible one to reach.
I doubt any. The standard of repentance is not impossible to reach.
However, I'd quickly agree that plenty of people who didn't read Joshua's words were convinced by various church systems that he preached things other than loving the Father with all one's heart, mind and force, as well as, loving one's fellow wo/man as oneself, while having bold faith, abundant love and forgiving others as often as the occasion arises, so the Father could return these blessings, and, indeed, do all these things for you as well. Most importantly perhaps, was the command to repent when one missed these marks of the Anointing, so they could be saved.
Again, The standard of repentance is not impossible to reach.
Did Jesus ever insert a "try your best to.." before his instruction to live according to the standard set?
Not that I know of - yet, why should he have??
iano writes:
weary writes:
What I'm suggesting is that Joshua the Anointed One's 'blood' - and his very murder, are - and were, completely unnecessary in order to forgive sins.
Despite..
quote:
Romans 4:25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
..? You'd agree that if we're reading from two hymnsheets then discussion is rather pointless?
Perhaps if we read the One Himsheet, before skipping ahead to the latter commentary, you wouldn't incur this sense of pointlessness ...
I would agree that when one is unable and/or unwilling to address one point before shuffling around to others, debate and discussion are difficult ...
Also, when one constantly refuses to address specific points of debate by way of ignorance, nullification and obsfucation, debate may become impotent.
I would appreciate any effort you could afford us towards addressing the points previously raised, in an honest fashion, before introducing new ones.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
weary writes:
Brother Joshua displayed that he had authority to forgive sins through bold faith alone (no penal substitution or blood required).
quote:
Luke 5:19
When they found no way to carry him in because of the crowd,
they went up on the roof and let him down on the stretcher through the roof tiles right in front of Joshua
.
20 ~ When Joshua saw their faith he said, Friend, your sins are forgiven.
Are you suggesting that Christ's split blood (assuming for a moment that it is indeed the means whereby sin can be forgiven) could only be effective from the day he died, onwards?
No.
You are quite the contortion artist, huh? I just can't figure out if you are doing that on purpose, or if you genuinely have trouble reading - lol
What I'm suggesting is that Joshua the Anointed One's 'blood' - and his very murder, are - and were, completely unnecessary in order to forgive sins.
Why do you think Joshua kept asking Pete - if he truly did love him to, 'go learn what this means: 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'??
Matthew 12:7 has Jesus direct these comments at the Pharisees in what appears to be a straightforward condemnation of legalism (ie: works).
Please stop with the high caliber long jumps.
This passage is a clear condemnation of sacrificial blood rites by way of animal sacrifice.
The passages wherein Joshua's priestly executioners decide to murder him for their country have already been displayed.
quote:
Matisyahu 26:4
They planned to arrest Joshua by stealth and kill him.
Mark 14:1
Two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread,
The chief priests and the experts in the ToRaH were trying to find a way to arrest Joshua by stealth and kill him
.
Luke 13:31
At that time, some Pharisees came up and said to Joshua, Get away from here, because Herod wants to kill you.
22:2
The chief priests and the experts in the ToRaH were trying to find some way to execute Joshua, for they were afraid of the people.
This dogmatic scheme was further propagated, soley within a curious set of parantheses (seen below), as an alleged prophecy of sorts.
quote:
John 11:48
If we allow Joshua to go on in this way, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation.
49 ~ Then one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said, You know nothing at all!
50 ~ You do not realize that it is more to your advantage to have one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.
51 ~ (Now he did not say this on his own, but because he was high priest that year, he prophesied Joshua was going to die for the nation of Yuhdea,
52 ~ and not for the nation of Yuhdea only, but to gather together into one the children of God who are scattered in all the world.)
53 ~ So from that day they planned together to kill him.
These resentful priests claimed Joshua's murder would serve as a ritual atonement killing - a human animal sacrifice, which would facilitate three goals ...
* salvage the Yerusalem Temple from the Roman Empire
* salvage the Yuhdean's nation from the Roman Empire
* gather together into one the children of God who are scattered in all the world
This is an evident false prophecy, for if it were not, the Yuhdean's nation - and the Yerusalem Temple would not have been destroyed; yet, they were.
As one can read through the historical writings of Josephus, the Yerusalem Temple was destroyed by the Romans, along with the Yuhdean's nation state.
All of the dogmatics who placed their faith in this alleged prophecy were destroyed in, what may perhaps be referred to as, Gehinom fire.
The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem (Wikipedia, 2009)
The Wars of the Jews (or The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, or as it usually appears in modern English translations, The Jewish War - original title: Ἰ ἱ Ἰῦ ὸ Ῥ ) is a book written by the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus.

It is a description of Jewish history from the capture of Jerusalem by the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 BC to the fall and destruction of Jerusalem in the First Jewish-Roman War in AD 70. The book was written about 75, originally in Josephus's "paternal tongue", probably Aramaic, though this version has not survived. It was later translated into Greek, probably under the supervision of Josephus himself.

The sources of knowledge that we have of this war are: Josephus's account, the Talmud (Gittin 57b), Midrash Eichah, and the Hebrew inscriptions on the Jewish coins minted.

The text also survives in an Old Slavonic version.

It should prove more than reasonable that:
Since, neither, the Yerusalem Temple or Yerusalem itself were salvaged, neither will the latter prophecy - or derivative doctrine, be fulfilled.
The 'propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of all mankind' doctrine takes root within an evident false prophecy. Please, demonstrate otherwise.
The reference both here and in Hosea would have me suppose that God isn't truly interested in man's sacrifices at the expense of humane treatment of others.
So, let me get this straight ...
Your God would rather maintain a sacrificial system of penal substitution, than see mankind being treated nicely by the pharisaical priests?
You honestly believe that?? In other words, God desires priestly sacrifice more than humanity??
Please tell me you mistyped here.
Which is an altogether different thing to God being uninterested in his own sacrifice, ie: the lamb of God. Which reminds me: what kind of parallel do you yourself suppose for this expression, "the lamb of God"? Are you suggesting there is no sacrificial element involved despite it being so apparently obvious?
Iano - please, stop diverting. I have told you plainly what I believe and why.
Btw, Joshua never referred to himself as a lamb anyway.
Please, feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
Are you suggesting that Christ's split blood (assuming for a moment that it is indeed the means whereby sin can be forgiven) could only be effective from the day he died, onwards?
What I'm suggesting is that Joshua the Anointed One's 'blood' - and his very murder, are - and were, completely unnecessary in order to forgive sins.
This would fly in the face of Romans 4 in which the means of our justification is modelled on Abrahams example ...
Yes, had I been suggesting that 'Christ's split blood could only be effective from the day he died', it would certainly nullify the faith of Abraham. However ...
It should prove more than reasonable that the notion that an all powerful and magnificent God, who rains down unconditional agape love upon ALL of mankind, would need any blood or murdered Yisraeli prophets in order to accomplish the forgiveness of sins through repentance, bold faith, abundant love and pure grace seems to effectively and most completely nullify the childlike faith of Abraham just as quick, if not even quicker.
An all powerful God who applies mechanism instead of magic ...
Incorrect. You are referencing a 'mechanism' that is entirely based on blood magic that is, furthermore, apparently rooted in false prophecy.
... the magic involving how you might square the notion of universal unconditional love with the requirement that you do something in order to ensure you continue receiving it.
You appear to be making even less sense than usual. Will miracles never cease - lol
How would anyone do anything to receive unconditional love?
It is, by definition, unconditional!
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
... with the statement that that self-same mechanism applies to us today and that it hinges on Jesus death and resurrection.
So much for no p-sub or relying on pure grace ...
quote:
John 11:35
Joshua wept.
I don't recall denying p-sub ...
This goes back to Message 56, where I stated ...
quote:
As an aside, even the evangelical sect of levitical christianity requires the act of metanoia to procure salvation, which, I reason, nullifies your original point.
In Message 59, you then stated ...
quote:
Christianity generally recognises God as the empowering agent behind a mans repentance and attributes salvation ultimately, to Gods grace. So no, my point isn't nullified so.
It was at that point, in Message 64, I overlooked your earlier reasoning and stated ...
quote:
Oops - I totally misunderstood you. I thought you were promoting the doctrine of penal substitution. I strongly agree that it is the grace of God that will, ultimately, salvage mankind. When combined with the faith of Abraham, it always has. The the ancient Noahide tradition demonstrates this effectively.
I thought you were implying, as I reasoned later within that message, that the operative 'mechanism' through which God accepted his children was repentance, coupled with the the raw, unadulterated and unlimited power of God, as the Nevi'im consistently state in their booklets, rather than p-sub.
However, you nullified the prophetic tradition - and condemned the innocent, by clarifying your reasoning in Message 59 when you stated ...
quote:
But if the 'us' referred to happen to be those who are born again/in Christ then we are already relying on Christs blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sin. That would be the operative mechanism by which forgiveness occurs.
In the end of the matter, you did not deny p-sub at all.
You, rather, negated and nullified how Joshua and others state that sins were forgiven instead (forgiveness, bold faith, abundant love, repentance, etc.).
... other than to mention (iirc) it not being mentioned in a particular passage...
Note that the curious set of paratheses within John 11:52-53, asserting multiple false prophecies, plainly evidence the root of p-sub.
...(which says nothing about whether p-sub is the way it is).
I suppose not, if one - for whatever reason, believes in evidential false prophecies, blood magic and a certain 'justice' when murdering the innocent.
Neither do I see how something relying on Jesus death and resurrection in anyway diminishes the purity of the grace directed us-wards.
Your perogative.
Perhaps you could tease out for me why you think purity would be diminished - I'm getting curious about the depth of your arguments.
Stating false prophecies to gullible practitioners to condone the murder, in an attempt to maintain a temple, a nation and an economy, diminish the purity.
Joshua, as innocent as they come, being mutilated on a torture stake further negate any purity factor as far as I'm concerned.
I have not been ambiguous throughout our debate.
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by iano, posted 09-10-2009 1:07 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by iano, posted 09-15-2009 11:33 AM Bailey has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 73 of 91 (524211)
09-14-2009 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by iano
09-10-2009 1:07 PM


In regards to waltzing with dogmatic ambiguity - Part 3 (of 3)
Hi iano ...
I hope things are well with you.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
Now if Abraham is justified by faith (distant past) and we are justified by faith (present day) then what problem with that man-in-between-times on a stretcher being forgiven too when he, like we, firstly demonstrates his faith?
There is absolutely no problem at all iano; it is as it has always been said by every Prophet that ever spoke on God's behalf - repent, and be saved.
First the conviction, then the changing of mind ...
Abraham was convinced that his former pagan religion in Ur was erroneous. He repented and believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.
Study the greek word metanoia. To repent is to make a paradigm shift in one's world view and turn to God and trust God.
... commoner garden logic and experience tells you that much.
I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
Abraham didn't first repent btw ...
Yes, he did. Abraham left the former pagan world view of his ancestors that he was born into.
... he believed God.
Correct.
Same as me really.
Nothing like you. Abraham did not rely on p-sub as any sort of 'operative mechanism' through which God could otherwise not apply his own grace.
He simply turned and trusted God. He certainly didn't promote the murder of prophets, resurrected or otherwise.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Apparently your definition of 'repent' is, 'cling to an animal sacrifice'. Unfortunately, no Prophet is on record in the common bible suggesting that.
Hymnsheets - issue stalemated.
Stop being dishonest please. There is no stalemate.
Repentance has a specific connotation and definition.
As well, Nevi'im continually condemn animal sacrifices.
Your stalemate, if any, is with those truths.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
We can't strongly establish the sense of two types of person (the saved/unsaved) from 1 John but it is elsewhere made clear enough so that we can assume the 'us' to whom 1 John is addressing itself, to be the saved. The saved will sin and do, as Jesus points out, need their feet washed - even though they themselves are clean
Perhaps, depending on the honesty you display in other responses preceding this one, we can come back to this, together, to discuss what is taking place.
Perhaps. Although it's looking increasingly unlikely given our respective canonika.
Nonsense. The premise of your canon initiates with the letters of a single Pharisee. The premise of mine initiates with the booklets of the Nevi'im.
We are brothers through a believe that Joshua is the Anointed One. In both cases, our 'canonika' is the common bible.
iano writes:
I'm not sure I understand what the problem is here.
Hopefully you will as you study your bible more often.
Remember Paul was a ToRaH observant Jew who accepted Joshua as the Anointed One.
Learn what the Pharisees that murdered Joshua, as well as the Sadducees, taught that the ToRaH was.
Consider, then, what Joshua taught in regards to an interpretation of ToRaH.
If Paul accepted Joshua as the Anointed One, and understood Joshua's interpretation accurately, than Paul the Jewish Pharisee won't contradict his leader.
Try to understand Paul's letters from the veiw of a ToRaH observant Jew within the Pharisaic traditions who had made a realization that his former interpretation of ToRaH was erroneous. There is no reason to accept someones veiw of Paul as a lawless pagan. Think about it iano.
The Establishment had nefarious reasons to kill Jesus and succeeded in doing so. The ineffective (and ultimately undesired by God) system of blood sacrifice, a system which demonstrably doesn't change the evil hearts of men, is replaced by a system of blood sacrifice which does change the evil hearts of men.
Translation = Ineffective farm animal sacrifices are replaced human animal sacrifices.
The claim that men's hearts are changed, by any animal sacrifices, carries little weight.
Did the ritual atonemet killing of Joshua, prophesied by Yosef Bar Kayafa, change any of those Yuhdean nationalist's hearts?
Please, draw your answer, regarding these Yuhdeans attitudes at the time of the murder, from the common bible.
Hasn't that an elegance that causes the breath to catch - so much so it's worth highlighting:
quote:
a system which isn't the antidote to evil is itself destroyed by evil - making way for a system which is the antidote to evil?
Evil shoots itself in the foot the day it put Christ on the cross. What could be more elegant than that!!
I am so disheartened that people are overtly elated by Joshua's murder. That you could, in any way, describe Joshua's time being mutilated as 'elegant' ...
This really makes me want to weep myself.
iano writes:
weary writes:
As well, providing you do concede that you equivocate the observance of six rules within an assemblance of governance to the notion of a works-based atonement method, I'll not bother you anymore as you revel in your bloody lawlessness. That is, as long as you don't go too far out of your way to proselytize everyone to their very death with your bloody anarchist based salvation system - you ol' worker of iniquity, you
Antinomianism is a charge all to frequently levelled by those who have difficulty in swallowing their grace neat.
Please stop with your facetious and well rehearsed martyr complex. Also, hopefully you are not, regarding grace, implying that towards me.
After all, I do not even contend that Joshua need have ever been murdered in order for my reception towards such abundant grace to be accomplished.
However, there is a sense that you are indeed promoting predestination. Due to ambiguity, I am not sure if this is what you actually beleive though.
Do you disagree that you have suggested that you are under no obligation to obey any laws concerning ethics or morality, in order to acquire a POA?
Captivation by the law of the Spirit of life that is in Christ Jesus isn't a picnic, let me tell you.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however, I strongly disagee with this statement.
Aside from being cursed at and ridiculed by dogmatics, my picnic with Joshua has been rather enjoyable.
But compared to the law of sin and death - however few you happen to boil it down to..
Whether fifty goats, twenty five lambs or One human, the law of sin and death is, almost by definition, murdering animals to attain God's favor.
iano writes:
weary writes:
You truly don't recognize any of the documented forgeries that God has made privy to us, huh??
lol - quick question ... how many chapters are currently within the booklet of Mark that you employ?
Trick answer: as many as can be reconciled within the theological mechanism whose wheels I watch turning smoothly.
Please, enough with your ever present and quite transparent tactics of evasion.
How about an honest answer instead - you are capable of honesty and unambiguity, correct?
Seriously iano - how many chapters are currently within the booklet of Mark that you employ?
If there's a spanner thrown into the works at some point in my travels I'm sure I'll notice something grinding to a halt - such is the nature of mechanisms.
Again, you lost me ...
And if the machine should collapse to the point of my arriving at a works-based salvation then you'll be the 2nd to know - there's another works-based-salvationist I know who I promised to tell 1st.
I offered truthlover a commendation based purely on his willingness to promote a religious tradition that recognizes a certain value to humanitarian values.
As can likely be seen, one may quicker identify my tradition as a 'repentance based salvation'.
iano writes:
weary writes:
You honestly feel that acknowledging a prophet such as Yirmiyahu when he says the ToRaH was forged - a definitive fact further evidenced to a certain extent by the scholarly work that went into the documentary hypothesis, and then, further basing the initial premise of one's 'canon' from texts which are spoken of directly by the Anointed One himself and found entirely within a common bible, is somehow arriving 'at a personal canon by convoluted means'?
Sorry, I thought your canon included Pauls/other epistles to some extent what with your praise of Truthlover who shoehorns at least some of them into his works doctrine.
Truthlover is quite justified in doing this, as Joshua and Paul were both ToRaH observant Jews who struggled with the poli-religious influence that had hijacked ToRaH within their days. Paul's writing's are quite plain about works being a direct result of grace, just as James and his older brother held.
On the basis of different hymnsheets I'll ignore subsequent discussion based around that difference for timesake
Translation = I'm a dishonest debater with little to no respect for the truth, whatsoever, when it interfers with my theology; I nullify the prophets meanderings, so please - by all means, shit in your hat.
I have only taken one semester of Ambiguity 101 - is that translation about right?
iano writes:
weary writes:
If we are all saved, there's no need to discuss peculiar bloody details at the risk of making absolutely no sense and driving people further from God.
Why run around tellin' everybody about this archaic human ritual atonement killing? Let it go already. There must be a reason you are unwilling to do this.
Er... I didn't say we're all saved. I said you don't have to do anything/avoid doing anything in order to be saved.
You refer to this as something other than 'lawlessness' though, right?
You'll have seen my post outlining the mechanics of that so I'll not say much more about it here.
I wish some type of formal outline was visible in your posts, as it would probably help your case, in whole - and in regards to specifics, to say the least.
As to why telling? To gospel is the power of God unto salvation and is worth sharing in order that it's power is spread.
Nice rehearsal. How about using your own words iano - or would that be too much to ask?
Not to mention Jesus' instruction that we do so.
No one needs to have been murdered, nor have murdered any animals, for the forgiveness of sins or to attain continuous living.
Brother Joshua never referred to himself as a sacrifice, but rather a ransom.
Brother Joshua never discussed any penal substitution method whatsoever.
Please, demonstrate otherwise.
Brother Joshua the Anointed One attested that if you forgive others the Father will forgive you (no penal substitution or blood required).
quote:
Matisyahu 6:14
For if you forgive others their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
Brother Joshua displayed that he had authority to forgive sins through bold faith alone (no penal substitution or blood required).
quote:
Luke 5:19
When they found no way to carry him in because of the crowd,
they went up on the roof and let him down on the stretcher through the roof tiles right in front of Joshua
.
20 ~ When Joshua saw their faith he said, Friend, your sins are forgiven.
Again, with no penal substitution or blood required, the Anointed One declared - to someone with many sins ...
quote:
Luke 7:47
Truly I say to you, her sins, which were many, are forgiven, thus she loved much; but the one who is forgiven little loves little.
In this instance, an abundance of love caused a sinner's many sins to be erased from the Father's memory.
iano writes:
weary writes:
quote:
Towards the beginning of Message 59 iano stated:
A works-based salvation can be said to involve your doing/not doing things in order to ensure a positive afterlife outcome for yourself.
Ummm - I'm afraid refusing 'to love the truth' is, most certainly indeed, 'doing/not doing things in order to ensure a positive afterlife outcome for yourself'.
That's your definition of 'works' iano.
Earlier you set off 'describing works as anything you do or don't do in order to get on the right side of whatever deity/deities/energy/lifeforce/etc that lies at the root of the religion in question'; yet, willing yourself to begin loving the truth may certainly be construed as 'work' - indeed, this certain 'act of will in question', as you say, may be very challenging work for some people bud. Laying aside the internal inconsistency of your various statements for a brief moment ...
From where many others stand, there seems to be a whole lot of truth you do not even like, much less love.
Are you sure you want to hold - and even promote, that challenge as a deciding factor of your salvation?
Aah I see your point!
Excellent.
Nice divertion btw ...
It's a semantical issue I know ...
And then you step right in the same hole once again ... just know that you are the only one fooled by your rhetoric iano.
The honest report is in any common bible - albeit mingling with forgery, I hope and pray you won't always be fooled ...
... but the intention behind 'doing' was eg: "help the lady across the road / offering up human sacrifice" and my intention behind 'not doing' was eg: "not stealing". Both being works YOU do/don't do to ensure youself a positive afterlife outcome.
So by your own admission, you offering up a human sacrifice implemented by the high priest of Yuhdea, Yosef Bar Kayafa, is a 'work'.
While you didn't carry out the act of murder ...
You condone the ruthless murder as righteous and offer it to God, as a means of reconciliation, in an attempt to procur a PAO.
I appreciate this honesty and hopefully you, as well as others, will too.
To further underline the point let me suggest that you can't choose to love the truth so can't do something for your salvation in that regard.
That is predestination, and so, along the lines of Antinomianism, no??
And not doing by way of a "refusal to love" is something that results in your damnation - so can't be considered relevant to your getting a positive afterlife outcome either.
Again, just know that you are the only one fooled by your rhetoric.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
A ransom deals with that part of the problem which indicates man a captive and slave to sin. A (self)sacrifice deals with that part of the problem which demands that any forgiver pay the price of the transgression against himself, himself. If men require both release from captivity from sin and forgiveness of his sins, then he needs both a ransomer and a self-sacrifice.
I don't see the problen in God providing the two (and more) in one.
I know you don't bud. That's part of the issue here.
Perhaps, depending on the level of ambiguity you display in other various responses, we can come back to this, together, and discuss it.
You've an uncanny nose for kicking all the ..er.. interesting challenges into touch.
As you will.
For the record, I am not the one who has continually ignored the request, or rather - challenge, to provide any portion of scripture, apocrypha or otherwise, wherein Joshua the Anointed One refers to himself as a sacrifice. That has been your interesting challenge repeatedly kicked to the curb.
I am happy to let the audience, made up of dogmatics and critics alike, decide if I have a knack for performing the same way.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
weary writes:
While I, honestly, am - as of yet, unable to perceive their testimonies and words equivocally, I hope and pray folks would err on the side of Joshua.
So far I've not seen reason to side with either. Harmony is to be found.
Perhaps there is no conflict at all; then again, perhaps you see 'no reason' because you're unwilling, and so, unable?
No offense - harmony is always found when one allows no questions my friend.
I dunno that that's much of a response.
Anyway ...
Then, perhaps, you are unfamiliar with the terms confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.
Btw, you did not offer much of a response as to why you think mine was lacking ...
... Anyway, Jesus burst that rich young rulers bubble with a well-aimed arrow. An arrow that circumvented the need to debate him regarding his murder (murder as understood by Jesus) of others. I imagine he'll do the same to any proud enough to suppose, as that young ruler did, that they are capable of meeting Gods' standard. Hopefully for them the puncturing of their balloon will happen on this side of Judgement.
Did you notice that mans question btw? "what must I do to inherit eternal life"? And his finding out that I couldn't do what Jesus demanded? There's a message in there for all the other I's in the world who suppose they too can do something to inherit eternal life.
The disciples recognised the impossibility of man doing. You don't.
With God, all things are possible - you know this.
Perhaps you are cutting me down because I don't adhere to your idea of murdering the Anointed One as an 'extravagant' or 'blissful' ordeal.
Once you appreciate the standard Jesus sets for you, once the arrow that would deflate your own particular bubble strikes home, you too will be panting for salvation by grace, like a deer pants for water. It was riches in that young rulers life - it'll be something else in our own. We've all got a balloon(s)
Yes iano - divert some more with a beatiful story about archers and balloons.
The story of the rich young ruler had nothing to do with murder iano, as we all know, but rather nationalism and wealth, and the problems they create.
That being, they often become a stumbling block towards us loving one another, and so, God. There is, of course, more to the story ...
iano writes:
weary writes:
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
If only he had said "Try your best to love the Lord your God..."
But he didn't say that. He commanded "You shall love..."
And you don't love - not with ALL your heart, soul and mind.
You know that's right, not yet with all of them to full capacity - yet, I love you more than you may ever know.
I am thankful for all things.
Happy (if ultimately fruitless) working, Bailey.
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by iano, posted 09-10-2009 1:07 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by iano, posted 09-15-2009 1:32 PM Bailey has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 74 of 91 (524217)
09-15-2009 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns
09-03-2009 11:10 AM


For all we know, 72 virgins in heaven could be waiting for Yaser Abdel Said while his 2 daughters Sara and Amina could be rotting in hell as we speak for being too American.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 09-03-2009 11:10 AM Teapots&unicorns has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 75 of 91 (524243)
09-15-2009 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Bailey
09-14-2009 8:37 PM


Re: In regards to waltzing with dogmatic ambiguity - Part 1 (of 3)
Hi iano, I hope things are well with you.
They were until I saw the length of response .
In order to pare things back a bit, I'll limit responding to those parts of your post that (appear to) rely on positioning one piece of scripture above another (ie: Jesus words more authorititive than Pauls words in forming our doctrine). Since there is no meeting ground to be had, merely restating your/my point from our respective position is a bit pointless.
If I'm mistaken in my application of this 'rule' in any instance you can perhaps be so good as correct me?
-
iano writes:
I'm not sure what penal substitution (a mechanism through which grace is applied) has to do with the point raised.
Bailey writes:
The thread is entitled 'Heaven: How to Get In'. I think it's fair to consider and examine the dynamics of your 'mechanism through which grace is applied'. If you are contending that it is 'grace' that allows one to enter 'heaven', then especially so, as this 'mechanism' is something other than pure faith (our part) or pure grace (our Father's part). It is a ritual atonement killing involving blood magic, otherwise known as a 'mechanism', apparently.
If salvation at sea is by rescue helicopter and not by anything we did to contribute, then an examination into the workings of a helicopter engine (the means whereby salvation was delivered to us) represents a besides-the point.
Not that I've a problem with looking at the workings of the helicopter engine. It's just that it has no bearing on salvation by helicopter alone. Consider it a sub-set of the main topic.
-
Yet, it is an inhumane, torturous and unjust murder that lies at the very root of your p-sub mechanism.
Different hymnsheets (ie: Jesus-as-sacrifice would address these objections)
-
For example: where would Abraham get his faith - if not through the gracious action of God?
Abraham didn't demonstrate a human animal sacrifice after leaving behind the pagan religion of his father in Ur.
Abraham's faith did not arise from a ritual atonement killing according to the witness of a common bible, so ...
What is your point?
I'm not suggesting that anyones faith should or did arise from a ritual atonement killing / Christs sacrifice.
My point? Faith, in the general sense of the word, arises out of our being convinced. For example, I have faith that my brakes will stop me because they have done so before - my brakes have provided me with conviction unto faith in them. I also have faith that my friend Brian would prove a good scuba diving buddy - because he's proven himself level- headed and reliable in other parts of my life. Brian has provided me with conviction unto faith in him as scuba buddy.
If our faith in something generally, arises out of an action by that something itself, then we can suppose the specific case of Abrahams faith to arise out of something external to himself too. That something being an action of God. Thus;
Bailey writes:
is something other than pure faith (our part) or pure grace (our Father's part)
..is incorrect. Our part (faith) is actually the result of a prior action on God's part. That is, if it wasn't for his prior action, I wouldn't have faith. Meaning it's all of his grace.
The spirit was sent to convict. When we are convinced then we shall believe/have faith.
-
When referring to the major religions, including ones that have no salvation as such (eg: Buddhism) ...
Buddhism has a salvation referred to as Nirvana.
Granted - if only to avoid a discussion about the sin one is supposedly saved from in Buddhism.
We can return to the central point from whence we came; Buddhism, like all major (and a great many minor) world religions and sects, is through-and-through works based. Obtaining a PAO is contingent upon what YOU do.
-
Perhaps learning about other cultures and religions in an attempt to better communicate with people is a necessity.
It's hardly necessary. If there is but one way to God then all the other ways are false from the outset. There being one person behind these false ways (satan) it's hardly surprising that the underlying lie is the same in all cases (your salvation relies on you). And when you don't find works you'll find out-and-out denial of a just and holy God (Atheism/Agnosticsm/Universalism).
Or are you forgetting the point from whence we came?
-
It plays a part alright. Just like believing on the one who God sent plays a part. Just like being sanctified plays a part. But the critical point - the fulcrum over which you tip from lost-to-found isn't, I hold, repentance. The tipping point is a little further back at conviction - for it is only the man convinced he his wrong that has his mind changed to the new view.
For murderers and convicts perhaps the 'tipping point' is at conviction.
Different hymnsheets (ie: two states of lost and found with no distinction being drawn as to the type of sinner one happened to be influencing the nature of salvation).
That said, there are many ways to arrive at the bottom of the barrel an so be brought to your knees. Sickness, depression, addictions, perversions, loss, approaching death. The gospel accounts give us many examples of the kinds of wretched needs that brought people to God.
-
It seems that is a christians job, as that is who we evidence making attempts to convince others of sin.
Different hymnsheets (ie: the gospel of Jesus Christ includes statements about the state of sinful man before God. It delivers the bad news which makes the good news so good).
Delivery of the gospel is our task. Conviction (or application of the gospel), the Holy Spirits. Personally speaking I don't aim to convince folk - rather, discussion is used as a Trojan Horse for delivery of the gospel.
-
Jesus insisted a man repent alright, but issued the command to those who had the (convicted) ears to listen.
Would you like to demonstrate a biblical example of this?
Sure. I'm assuming we agree that "eyes/ears" refers to spiritual discernment? If so then it is clear that the command cannot have been issued to those who can't hear/see. It's irrational to command something which can't respond to do something it can't do.
And the only time it makes sense to do otherwise is when God is doing the empowering - like commanding the lame to walk or the blind to see.
quote:
"...the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14-15
-
God is the one who convinces men and in doing so opens their ears. Their subsequent repentence is but a consequential domino fall - not a starting point.
As I've already demonstrated, this can go more than one way. For some, a sense of God convicting them led them to repentance. For others, a sense of God loving them led them to repentance. Perhaps these two traditions reflect the difference between a ransom and a sacrifice.
Your demonstration only highlights different hymnsheets. You are either lost or you are found. If lost and yet to repent you won't "love the idea of seeking and serving God, as well as their fellow wo/man" for you are at emnity with God and hating God. The best that one could be doing is seeking and serving a god of their own manufacture.
-
100% of the credit goes to God for my salvation.
We'll see ...
I doubt it. The discussion seems to spend most of it's time pointing out that we're reading from different hymnsheets
-
Btw, was your willingness to accept and promote Joshua's murder as a levitical ritual atonement killing an act of your will or an act of God's will?
A simple yes or no answer first, please - then, a brief explanation if you feel the need.
You can't answer Yes or No to an either/or question but seeing as you demand
It was an act of God's will.
Remember though that it's an act of God's will if it comes about. It can be prevented from occurring by an act of my will. Which brings us back to the actual topic at hand: the mechanism of salvation or "How you get to Heaven"
Remember the fisherman analogy - the one where the fish can't contribute to his being caught, his being caught being the will of the fisherman? But that he can contribute to his escaping the fisherman.
-
There isn't the merest whiff of an act of my will to sully the glory and honour due to him.
Yes there is. Stay consistent.
In Message 59 you stated that the 'act of will in question' was a willingness to not entertain any 'refusal to love the truth'.
There is no inconsistancy - for this is actually what I stated in msg 59.
quote:
Refusal to love the truth is the act of will in question, the wriggling off Gods hook. It's an insistance of will unto damnation. So you can say that salvation doesn't require we do anything - God will do the drawing in to himself .. and that damnation requires we do something - we pull ourselves away from God.
You'll see that 'refusal to love' is an act of the will - ultimately leading to damnation if persisted in to the bitter end. 'Loving the truth', on the other hand, doesn't require an act of the will. The truth is loveable and will evoke our love unless we will to resist it. In other words: will active (in the only way it can be active) results in damnation and will inactive/passive results in salvation. That was the analogy given by the fisherman story - fisherman analogies being used by Jesus.
Your error here is to re-formulate what I've said so that we "will to love the truth".
It might be worth noting that the mechanism I'm describing here works well in an environment where we haven't a free will (requiring God to be the one to pull us in a direction we can't will for ourselves - if we are to be saved). It's a scenario majored on by Paul (ie: helpless enslavement to sin) and one I'd say the Calvinists have right.
-
Now, if you want to say that God was responsible for that too, then you are disagreeing with Paul. Also, you seem to be, at that point, moving into predestination territory. Is that what you are claiming then ...
Paul is a liar and nobody can approach God unless they are one of the chosen ones and that if God doesn't pick someone, they cannot go to heaven?
Hopefully I've set your mind at rest given the above? God is responsible for our being landed if we are landed (all by God's grace). We are responsible if we are not landed and are lost (all by our will)
The place for predestination, I hold, is limited to 'what has been predestined to occur to those who are saved by the above mechanism' (they are placed in Christ, are justified, are to be made holy and righteous (sanctified). What isn't predestined is who is to be saved. That element of (hyper?)Calvinism is, I think, an abomination.
-
Again, p-sub, as a 'mechanism', is quite relevant to the topic.
If you are not sure where p-sub fits in, although you acknowledge it as a mechanism of sorts, why do you subscribe to - and promote, it?
The helicopter analogy might have pointed out my confusion in this matter.
If you want to discuss this element of the mechanism then perhaps you could revive that yet-to-be-dealt-with portion of a previous post of mine in which the-forgiver-pays-the-price-of-the-offence-himself was posed as a rational for the sacrifice.
-
Christians who subscribe to p-sub are definitely behind the times of the Kui, who have eliminated ritual atonement killing's almost entirely.
Christians who subscribe to p-sub are subscribing to the doctrine of a ritual atonment killing which relies on blood magic as a means to seek God's favor.
Please pay better attention.
Eliminating human-sacrifice eliminates a human-works element, I don't know what the Kui believe now. God presenting and slaughtering his own sacrifice is a completely different matter to man doing such a thing. You need to take the matter up with his doing so - not a Christian being the beneficiary of his doing so.
-
The adherence, within Noahidism, to it's seven basic tenets are not critical to a positive afterlife outcome.
What is critical to a positive afterlife outcome, within Noahidism - when one of the basic tenets is transgressed, is repentance.
Fair enough. So what happens if, between transgression and repentance, one get's run over by a bus?
-
The active substance of a POA is as it has always been said by every Prophet that ever spoke on God's behalf - repent, and be saved.
I'd bet my bottom Euro that it centres on works of some sort.
As the ol' saying goes - for most men, 'til by losing rendered sager, will back their own opinions by a wager.
It appears I win. Follow the rules or else. And if you don't follow the rules, an act of your will will sort things out - provided you can steer clear of buses in the intervening period.
-
Than you are either assigning your tradition within the confines of predestination or you are admitting that it consists of at least one work.
Paul was pretty clear that the choice to be saved belonged to the one who accepted it, so I would assume the latter.
Where was Paul so abundantly clear about this?
-
Now we can see that even your nameless tradition actually does have a work that must be accomplished in order to secure a POA.
There is no action on my part involved and no expression of will. What possible work of mine could be left?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Bailey, posted 09-14-2009 8:37 PM Bailey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Bailey, posted 09-19-2009 7:32 PM iano 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