When a person is CAPABLE of making the choice of accepting the offer of a free full pardon offered by God they are condemned and responsible for themselves.
I'm sure like me you've heard all the "be a good boy/girl and do what God wants" type explanations on how to get into heaven long before you posted your question.
What I'd like to hear, and I wonder if you would to, is how you actually get to heaven - I mean physically, or supernaturally, or soulfully, or whatever. I mean how do you actually get transported from this world to heaven and eternal life.
I hate to keep asking the same question, as I have done under previous posts, but what are people ACTUALLY talking about? Let's say I've given all my money to the poor and I've asked God/Jesus to forgive me for all my sins. I.E. I've got a valid ticket to heaven. Now, what is ACTUALLY going to happen to me to get me to heaven?
(I'm not asking you directly, of course. Just wondered if this is what you wanted to hear and if anyone else can shed some light on this.)
I must remind you that Jesus said that he came to save the 'ailing' and those needing a physician. while these words have a spiritual application, surely they must have a physical application also?
You got some strange Bible there. I can't find where Jesus said he came to save the 'ailing' nor those needing a physician.
I do find where He says:
Luke 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
Peg writes:
If God has no means of saving those who are incapable of saving themselves, then the sacrifice of Jesus is meaningless and not achieving the expressed purposed it was intended for.
The purpose of the death on the cross was to restore mankind and the universe back to the original state they were in in Genesis 1:1.
John 3:16 tells us "God so loved the kosmos (universe) that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Peg writes:
There must be a salvation for ALL humans both good and bad for the scriptures indicate as such
Really???
Peg writes:
Notice in 1John 2:2 he says "not only for OUR sins" but also for "whole worlds"
1John 4:14 world = kosmos.
1John 2:2 world = kosmos.
Peg writes:
there is further evidence that even people who never did good works or had faith in God will be saved...Acts 24:15 says There is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.
Act 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
You do love to cherry pick don't you?
Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection. 20:6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
It seems like there are some people who will be in a resurrection that will rule and reign with Christ whom the second death will have no power over.
It seems like there are some people that will be in a resurrection from the grave and hell that will be judged and cast into the lake of fire suffering the second death, eternal separatin from God.
Peg writes:
Its a shame because the truth is that everyone who has ever died will be coming back to live right here on earth.... a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous....salvation for all mankind.
Everybody is not coming back here to live on earth.
There will be a new heaven and a new earth as they will be restored to their original perfection. The New Jerusalem will come down to the new earth and God will come down to earth and live with mankind.
But as pointed out above there will be a lot of people that will be in the lake of fire.
God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
What I'd like to hear, and I wonder if you would to, is how you actually get to heaven - I mean physically, or supernaturally, or soulfully, or whatever. I mean how do you actually get transported from this world to heaven and eternal life.
the bible is very clear on the answer. the apostle Peter states that Jesus died in the flesh but was resurrected in the spirit. (1Pe 3:18) Paul said that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom.
Paul also said If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. It is even so written: ‘The first man Adam became a living soul.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (1Corinthians 15:44-45)
Jesus had a body of flesh, but after his resurrection he was given a new spiritual body because to be in the spirit realm, one must have a spiritual body. Those who are born again are told that
quote:1Corinthians 15:44It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. 45It is even so written: The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam (Jesus) became a life-giving spirit. 46Nevertheless, the first is, not that which is spiritual, but that which is physical, afterward that which is spiritual. 47The first man is out of the earth and made of dust; the second man is out of heaven. 48As the one made of dust [is], so those made of dust [are] also; and as the heavenly one [is], so those who are heavenly [are] also. 49And just as we have borne the image of the one made of dust, we shall bear also the image of the heavenly one.
50However, this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption. 51Look! I tell YOU a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed, 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed
So those who are going to heaven, those born again, will be given a new spiritual body just as Jesus was given. When they die they are in effect 'born again' because they receive a new spiritual body with which to carry on living in heaven.
tuffers writes:
what is ACTUALLY going to happen to me to get me to heaven?
you are going to die. then God is going to give you a new spiritual body.
I can't find where Jesus said he came to save the 'ailing' nor those needing a physician.
Im sorry, i should put the reference when i quote a scritpure.
Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but those who are ailing do. I have come to call, not righteous persons, but sinners to repentance. (Luke 5:27-32)
ICANT writes:
It seems like there are some people who will be in a resurrection that will rule and reign with Christ whom the second death will have no power over.
It seems like there are some people that will be in a resurrection from the grave and hell that will be judged and cast into the lake of fire suffering the second death, eternal separatin from God.
Yes, thats right Revelation speaks of the first resurrection and the 2nd death.
the way this is understood is that those who recieve the first resurrection are the Apostles and anointed christians or Born Again Christians who have the heavenly hope of ruling with Christ as Judges.
The second resurrection will be for the rest of mankind who have the hope of living on the earth. They will be given a '2nd chance' to learn about God and all that he requires of them. If they choose to remain a part of Gods new world, then they will live forever, or if they rebel they will undergo the 2nd death and permanently cut off in the 'figurative' lake of fire.
The purpose of those who go to heaven, we are told, is to judge. Seeing they are going there to be judges, then its reasonable to believe that revelation is talking about a resurrection to life on earth for a group of people who are not going to heaven, otherwise, who are those in heaven judging over?
ICANT writes:
There will be a new heaven and a new earth as they will be restored to their original perfection. The New Jerusalem will come down to the new earth and God will come down to earth and live with mankind.
i agree
and so there must be people who will be resurrected to life in that new earth...otherwise what is the purpose of restoring the earthly paradise? Earth is for physical beings, heaven is for spiritual ones.
who else can the 'mankind' be that God will dwell with on earth? it cant be those who are in heaven, it must be a different group of people.
I'm still a bit confused though. I don't understand what a "spirit" is, so I still don't understand how I will get transported to heaven (I don't even know what or where heaven is, but we'll leave that on the back-burner for the moment).
Does becoming a "spirit" mean I'll be a sort of gas or some kind of energy force? That's not very appealing, to be honest.
Does becoming a "spirit" mean I'll be a sort of gas or some kind of energy force? That's not very appealing, to be honest.
Jesus states: God is a Spirit" the bible uses the greek word Pneu′ma and it literally means breathe or blow, so spirit can literally be likened to wind.
so a spirit still has a thinking conscience, but they do not have a physical body.
I can understand why it doesnt sound appealing. Trying to understand what a spiritual body is like, is similar to trying to explain colour to a blind person. Very difficult for us to understand.
So, do you believe that you are going to heaven to live as a spirit when you die? And if so, how did you come to that belief? How do you know that God has chosen you?
No, I don't believe anything of the sort. The fact that nobody can explain what God ACTUALLY is, what heaven ACTUALLY is, what a spirit ACTUALLY is, is all I need to know to be sure that they mean absolutely nothing at all.
No, I don't believe anything of the sort. The fact that nobody can explain what God ACTUALLY is, what heaven ACTUALLY is, what a spirit ACTUALLY is, is all I need to know to be sure that they mean absolutely nothing at all.
Ah, fair enough
does that mean that you might believe if someone could explain what God,heaven and spirit actually were?
Yes. A straight-up explanation without metaphors, without similies, without allegories, without a vagueness that could be made to fit almost anything.
That would be the first step forward. Obviously, I'd still have to see what the explanation was before I could say whether or not I was convinced by it.
Thanks for the exchange brutha iano. I hope things are well with you ...
Please forgive me and take a stride towards seeing past my tone; while having much to say, I am very low on energy and patience.
As of now, I am still just a man, and so, a sinner; just like uncle Paul and yourself.
brutha iano writes:
weary writes:
brutha iano writes:
brutha truthlover writes:
It's not popular in Christian circles to say so nowadays, but ...
According to the Bible you go to heaven by doing good works.
It's certainly not popular in Christian circles and here isn't the place to go into why not. But it's interesting to take the opportunity provided by Truthlover to point out that works-based salvation is the basis for salvation in every major Religion and sect ...
Of couse there are plenty of indigenous 'religions', as well as, universalist belief systems that render this statement completely false ...
Such as?
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.
That specific point being, as is said - evangelical levitical christianities doctrine of sola fide, somehow, equates to a non works-based salvation method.
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, living throughout the jungles of Eastern Ghats of Orissa, India, while declining in their practice of ritual killing, have employed buffalo to replace their human victims. So then, when will these other tribes stop promoting the bloodshed of the Prophets of Yisrael? Maybe when they start reading more than uncle Paul's letters and begin to have a little more faith in God than in their ancestors and relatives ...
Perhaps enroll in a basic religion course at a community college or even Google 101. Reading the same letters all the time seems a bit dangerous. Anyway, you'll have to do your own homework, as I have lil' faith you'd be convinced, even if the Father told you directly. I have little desire to make the attempt.
However, here's a couple links you can begin to read and, perhaps, follow up on ...
I think it is certainly worth noting three points of interest within this ancient tradition.
* One need not ever recognize a 'god' in any capacity in order to be salvaged.
* There are no 'good works' or mitvah required at all in order to be salvaged.
* A system of governance must be placed in effect.
Salvation, in this tradition, requires 'abstaining' from six various acts therein considered evil, but not especially 'doing' anything - much less 'works', at all.
If, by chance, one of the six laws are transgressed, the fix is rather easy. Watch Ezekiel dismantle the putrid doctrine of 'original sin' in the following verses.
The person who sins is the one who will die. A son will not suffer for his father’s iniquity,
And a father will not suffer for his son’s iniquity;
The one who adheres to justice will be judged according to his justice, and the wicked person according to his wickedness.
21 ~ Butif the wicked person turns from all the sin he has committed and observes all my statutes and does what is just and right,
He will surely live; he will not die.
22 ~ None of the sins he has committed will be held against him; because of the justice he has done, he will live.
Wait a sec - why, again, 'will he live', brutha Ezekiel - 'because of the justice he has done', lil' fella. Oh really, you may say - but how many sins will be held against the one who 'turns from all the sin' they have 'committed and observes all' the Father's 'statutes', so then, doing 'what is just and right'? None, lil fella.
quote:The central theme of the priestly traditions consisted of various rituals, in particular the greatest ‘sacrament' of the sacrifice of animals. This religious system was condemned by the Prophets of ancient Yisrael as a hypocritical charade intended to divert the people into sterile activities and the hollowness of religion and its dogmas, and so subvert the pursuit of true justice in the land.
The priests, as described by the Prophets, were in bed with the government and with a rising oligarchy in the land, and were using the sterility of their hollow rituals and doctrines as a device to keep the population dulled and stupid, attempting to please the Father with religion and its hollow practices, while turning a blind eye to the gross injustices taking place in the land, the oppressions of the poor, and the greed that was running rampant at the time.
Which seems, most certainly, to be what we evidence running rampant today within our current landscape.
These priestly traditions are exactly where this doctrine of brother Joshua, as a levitical animal sacrifice, originated - not at all with the Prophets of ancient Yisrael. This was, further, promoted as an outright diversion, within our own canonized bibles - quite plainly I might add, by a handful of angry nationalists ...
Brutha Yirmiyahu's contemporaries plotted to murder him when he exposed their vanity and forgeries, just as brother Joshua was plotted against ...
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.
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.
And then, that angry mob found their 'way' as a scheme is put into motion through the high priest in an attempt to further their doctrine of animal sacrifice.
Remember, when dealing with nationalists, it's almost always about three things ...
* Keepin' that nation.
* Makin' all that easy money.
* Pullin' the wool over your eyes.
Watch closely and perhaps you may perceive the beginning of the lovely 'propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of all mankind' doctrine take form ...
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.
Yea, he prophesied it all right - all the way to the bank.
You can almost hear the registers of the money handler's goin' 'cha-ching, cha-ching' in v.52.
What's more interesting - one cannot find this so called 'prophecy' anywhere within any canonized prophetic booklet whatsoever.
This lil' verse, encapsulated within a curious set of parentheses, is the only place you'll ever find the notion. Perhaps somebody can prove me wrong there.
And so, the Romans went right along with it after they kicked the Yuhdeans asses, as they're the ones still dribblin' the ball all over the court. One cannot serve the Father and mammon. Luckily, I'm not very athletic - religiously speaking, or perhaps I could have made some perdy good money with all them folk.
This next part's totallyawesome though - while brutha Yirmiyahu and brother Joshua were both persecuted, Yirmiyahu demanded justice ...
Yet, brother Joshua, the Anointed One, forgave his handlers ...
But you, Lord, know all their plots to kill me. Do not pardon their crimes!
Do not ignore their sins as though you had erased them! Let them be brought down in defeat before you!
Deal with them while you are still angry!
That, my friend, is but one reason I testify to Master Joshua's Anointing. Read carefully and he will tell you how sins are forgiven as well.
Again, Brother Joshua never referred to himself as a sacrifice, but rather a ransom. He ransomed me from people who won't read their bible.
Please, demonstrate otherwise - so as I may concede, within a good conscience, to the seemingly peculiar theory many attempt to put forth.
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.
He attested that if you forgive others the Father will forgive you (no penal substitutionorblood required).
Then I confessed my sin; I no longer covered up my wrongdoing. I said, I will confess my rebellious acts to the Lord.
And then you forgave my sins. (Selah)
Can you see now, why those who promoted penal substitution atonement methods and sacrificial blood rites wanted to murder Brother Joshua ??
So he would be dead, gone and out of their hair - the same reason they wanted Yirmiyahu dead and gone after he blew the whistle on their forgeries!!
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?
Remember this brutha iano - according to the G.O.S.P.E.L.S, it is not a tantalizing piece of Edenic Garden variety fruit that is the root of all evil ...
For the love of money is the root of all evils. Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains.
Again, this 'propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of all mankind' did not originate with the Prophets of Yisrael, but rather with 'the lying pen of the scribes' who 'have made [ToRaH] into a lie' according to the Prophet Yirmiyahu. Augustine and the likes then, whether through deceit or naivety - nullification or murder, or perhaps all of the above, employed ancient corrupted texts, proceeding to corrupt them and as many other people as possible, even further.
As stated by brother Joshua, the role of the Anointed One - or 'Messiah', was to fulfill ToRaH and the Nevi'im by dividing the truth from lies; and not by the pen, which is prone to corruption, but rather through a living testimony of obedient and righteous existence.
Brother Joshua testifies rather plainly that, while his example will be set forth in the spirit, the lies within the written ToRaH code, found in the law books of Levitical regulations as stated by Brother Yirmiyahu, will not be abolished until everything takes place, including heaven and earth pass away.
There is a sense that this is a polite way of telling us that, 'you cats just ain't gonna learn, 'til ya have just about destroyed everything'.
While I have no faith that the Father will allow that to happen, these last couple of hundred years have certainly been tumultuous.
Do not think that I have come to abolish the ToRaH or the Nevi'im. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them.
18 ~ I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the ToRaH until everything takes place.
Take note - brother Joshua is not on record saying that he will in any way fulfill the priests, but rather the Prophets, who the priests murdered.
Ok, now, back to basics ...
Another tradition that does not require anything but existence. Both of these traditions are Abrahamic in nature, which I thought you may find comforting.
Interestingly enough, while being considered the 'father of christian theology', Origen was indeed declared a heretic and the trend is carried on by the latter evangelical breeds. Regardless, Joshua never referred to himself as a sacrifice - not in the roman scripture texts, nor even within any apocrypha I've seen.
I would be grateful if you could demonstrate otherwise.
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.
It is quite obvious, at this point, that a sacrifice and a ransom are easily equivocated to those persuaded towards trusting second hand sources. After all, there is no question that the consistent manipulations of uncle Paul's writings, as mentioned by brutha Pete, must be spot on, right? Here's what you say ...
... the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve,
And to give his life as a ransom for many.
Curiously, in the preceding verse where brutha Pete mentions the writings of uncle Paul, he carefully refers to brother Joshua's patience as salvation, rather than his murder. 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'.
Believing something special is definitely to be construed as a good deed. Noahides got it made.
‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven — only the One who does the will of my Father in heaven.
The first point to make centres around your canon vs. a Christians canon. You have writings of certain people which I assume are taken by you to reflect the words of Jesus. In order to give them the weight you do, I'd go further in assuming that you consider them in some way heaven sent (ie: very accurately reflecting the words of Jesus). Fair enough?
Absolutely fair e'nuf - the tradtion I walk in, as it's been revealed to me, employ's the same canon as everyone else brutha iano. Consider ...
All scripture inspired by God is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness ...
Perhaps where we differ is that, my conscience does not allow for me to accept that all scripture text is inspired by the Father. I then, carefully ...
So then, I do not hold fast to what is, most certainly, suspect. Again, I cannot discount the value of CE historical data as easy as most seem willing to do. Archaeologists have uncovered numerous forgeries throughout the additional testaments within the Roman tradition. Most thankfully, the Father has made it completely impossible for me to contend that the roman scripture texts are inerrant in the way a great number of souls have been persuaded.
As another example, brutha Yirmiyahu testifies plainly to the fact that the ToRaH was forged by scribes within the Yerusalem temple of his day. I have no reason to trust the doctrine or word of a priest over a Prophet such as Yirmiyahu. So then, I cannot blindly trust the five blood law books filled with sacrificial priestly rites known as the ToRaH. Moreover, I can in no way accept that the Father desires or requires sacrifices of any sort over childlike obedience.
While those booklets plainly declare that certain sacrificial rites were given to Moses at the time of an exodus, brutha Yirmi testifies to the fact that there were no such sacrificial rites issued at that time. It then becomes very convincing to me that Yirmiyahu's tradition is in direct conflict with the priestly traditions. This can be further evidenced by their fellow priests throwing them headlong into a cistern to rot, as well as scheming to do away with them completely, after he and Baruch ben Neriah blew the whistle on them.
However, while I do fully understand how difficult it is for some to even trust the 'bible' after they have learned and accepted the fact that it's numerous texts have been forged multiple times, it is - thankfully, not difficult for me to decide regarding who is to be believed. As it is written: the letter kills, but the spirit gives Life. In the end of the matter, the texts we study most focus around the canon promoted by the Anointed One, numerous times, throughout the roman scripture texts, which include the law books which have been tampered with, as well as, a few other booklets ...
quote:Do not think that I have come to abolish theToRaH or the Nevi'im; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the ToRaH until all is accomplished.
quote:In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is theToRaH and the Nevi'im.
quote:Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?
He 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.'
Nevertheless, brother Joshua admonishes us - not brutha Pete or uncle Paul, or any of the original crew - what literature will serve his disciples well as far as the Anointed One is concerned. Within the few gospels selected for compilation into the Roman scripture text collection, Joshua refers to three parts of the TaNaKh by name - the ToRaH (Law), the Nevi'im (Prophets) and the Tehellim (Psalms).
For a number of others and myself, this is where the canon of the prophetic tradition begins.
Now I do the same with the writings of other people - including eg: Paul. So far so equitable.
That is great. I love uncle Paul.
However, he is not my 'savior' or my Anointed One, but rather a great man who's writing's we consider very special in a number of different ways.
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.
Certainly so, if reading Jesus words through the equally important lens of Pauls words. If you can't juggle the two then of course it's an either/or - in which case folk are likely to err on the side of Jesus ...
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.
(or in the case of one stripped-down-canonist I know, to only those bits of the gospels which didn't interfere with his reincarnation doctrine)
lol - cute. For some reason, I don't think you are joking though. 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.
Beyond these, as far as I can tell, is just make believe.
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : grammar
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 anddesire 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.
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150
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 and attributes salvation ultimately, to Gods grace. So no, my point isn't nullified so.
-
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.
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. 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. 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.
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... —Wiki
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...
-
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 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. But as your your examples demonstrate, even the minor sects can be trusted to produce those same..er.. goods.
-
Please, demonstrate otherwise - so as I may concede, within a good conscience, to the seemingly peculiar theory many attempt to put forth.
See later..
-
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? But Paul tells us that the natural (unsaved) mans mind cannot understand the things of God, that such things are but foolishness to him. 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.
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"?
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?
-
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 ...
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? This would fly in the face of Romans 4 in which the means of our justification is modelled on Abrahams example - with the statement that that self-same mechanism applies to us today and that it hinges on Jesus death and resurrection.
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
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?
-
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. 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. It need not be mentioned at every opportunity ... although 1 John does.
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
-
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?
-
quote:Universalism (Wikipedia, 2009)
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.
-
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. 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.
I understand that you've arrived at a personal canon by convoluted means. Whilst admiring the time and dedication that must have gone into such a pursuit, it's indicative of a means of salvation open only to the very bright 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. Call me 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.
For example: are ransoms and sacrifices mutually exclusive things? I think not. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that 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.
Baileys definition writes:
1 : an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar
1 : a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something from captivity
-
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.
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.
-
Perhaps where we differ is that, my conscience does not allow for me to accept that all scripture text is inspired by the Father. I then, carefully ...
quote:1 Thessalonians 5:21 ...examine all things; hold fast to what is good.
Fair enough. As I say..
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. 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.
-
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.
-
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.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : Slight mods + some reformatting so as to being to approach the layout quality of a typical Bailey post
well i can't convince you of Gods existence but the simplest and most direct explanation of God would be to say that he is an energy force with a consciousness and personality.
1 Timothy 6:16 says about God that he "...dwells in unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see"
now think about this....we know how powerful the sun is, we know that if the earth was merely 5% closer to the sun, we'd burn up. We know that we can damage our eyes by looking at the sun... But still we can see the sun and we can feel its rays
However, we cannot do this with God for his energy is too powerful for us to even view from a distance. The fact that we can see the sun, but not God gives us some idea of the amount of energy we are talking about. He is the source of all energy and matter in the universe, he's an ever pervasive stream of energy that keeps the whole universe and all life in motion.
™ Version 4.2
