I would like to begin by saying that although I am only 14 years old, I spent a great deal of my life worrying about those who were not saved and would go to Hell, such as the one person I care about more than anybody.... :HeartThrob:
I have read this article and it has opened my eyes to Universal Reconcilliation, along with the fact that I feel that God was telling me that it was true and thinking about it more I see even more reasons UR could be true... The article I read is known as http://tentmaker.org/articles/hell_test.html (http://tentmaker.org/articles/hell_test.html) and, if not for it I would have never known about UR.
After reading this my mind changed completely. My mood changed and I stayed up all night thinking seriously about UR and contemplating all the questions in my mind... I have many things that support UR and at the same time many things that deny UR. So I decided, I am going to write all my questions down here and if you can help me out at all then please, feel free to do so. I will also write down the major statements that support the fact of UR, some from my own mind, some from the article...
Here I will start with the statements I have proposed that SUPPORT UR........
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-(*)- If there was a Hell, and if people that were not saved began to enter Hells gates after Jesus ascended into Heaven then what about the people that were around the world when Jesus first ascended. People die every second, so does that mean that, if Hell existed, that one second after Jesus ascended into Heaven someone died and went to Hell? That would not be just and would make God seem like a major liar. And look at every second after that, more deaths around the world, more people going into Hell... :Shoot:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-(*)- Probably more than 50% of people on the earth have not even heard of God or Jesus and even if they have many of them that do not believe do not know much about Jesus. So if they heard that they would die and go to Hell one day out of random that would be like you hearing that Santa Claus was going to suck you up when you die and trap you in the North Pole for eternity as an elf. In other words... THEY WOULDNT BELIEVE IT! Although some of them do, not all of them say, Im not siding with God and choose to go to Hell... many just dont believe. It would not be very Just of God to punish them for simply not believing something theres not even much evidence supporting on the earth, expecially by sending them to a Hell for eternity. That would just be horrible. :sigh:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-(*)- People say that if you dont believe in God then your not his children, that you are sided with the Devil. Like I said before not everyone will even believe that it is true, much less say "Ok im the Devils." Also God created us, despite what we believe, we are all his creations... we are all his children. If your child suddenly ran to your arch nemesis and joined him that would not stop you from loving him, or stop him from being your child... much less to God who loves us all so eternally much. You would not just disown your child and stick him in a lake of fire, much less would God who is millions of times more merciful than all of us combined.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-(*)- If ALL people will praise and worship God in the end as said many times in the Bible than Hell cannot exist. If people suffered in agony for all of existense how or why would they praise him? I wouldnt praise my father for throwing me in a pit of fire for eternity, I would hate and despise him! But it says ALL will praise him... You may be thinking, "That only applies to people in Heaven." Well ill take it back when you quote me one verse that says "All people in Heaven, not in Hell will praise him."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-(*)- I have read a scary article a while back of people who had proof that Hell was in the center of the earth. I even heard an mp3 of people screaming from the core that was recorded by a driller. Well if this was true then what would happen when the earth is destroyed in the end? Hells supposed to be everlasting, not remade. The spirits of evil wont have "time off" from their torture until the new earth is created and even when it is, its supposed to be pure, so there cannot be a Hell in its core.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-(*)- Here is one statement: If there is a hell where people will be punished for their sins forever, why didn't Jesus go there on our behalf and why isn't he there now? If this is the debt some must pay for their sins, then this debt hasn't been paid yet for anyone? Why doesn't everyone have to suffer this punishment?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And as we all know, there are many more, too many to count. These are just basic things I thought of and decided to post in detail. Now, I also have many questions that are Anti-UR and, although I am beginning to believe in UR these questions are the only thing holding me back from truly believing.
Some of them I have come up with an answer for, or a Possible Answer that may be true but is not proven, just theorys, but ill still post them with the answer for those who wonder...
Here are the questions...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Q: If Hell does not exist then what is the punishment for sin? It has to be punished somehow. Its not like Hitler will just be let in the Heavenly gates.
A: The wages of sin is death, nothing more nothing less. The lake of fire, hell, is just a correction not a punishment. God is a consuming fire. His ministers are a flame of fire. The works will be burned up not the person. (1 Cor. 3:13-16) Here in the lake of fire you will be baptized with fire.
PA (possible answer): There may be a temporary "Hell" that sinners go to for a short while, like a prision sentence, to atone for sins. Then they will be ""saved"" so to say and be allowed into Heaven. Another possibility is that there could be more to the afterlife than just Heaven. There could be an outside kingdom as well and, although saved people can go outside to the other land surrounding Heaven to see loved ones, only Saved people are actually allowed into Heaven. That way you can still see your friends and relatives but they wont suffer for eternity. They just wont get the best in the afterlife. :thumbsup:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Q: Whats the big hype for being saved if Hell is not true? What benefit would it get you besides knowing God...
A: N/A
PA: It could simply be a way for you to know your Lord or, if my PA for the last question is true, it could prevent you from having this temporary punishment and pain after you die.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Q: What about the mp3 of Hell in the core of Earth? The proof that it was there? Was it fake? What does it mean?
A: N/A
PA: I have a detailed theory about this one... What if, Hell is real in a sence. "Hell" is in the center of the earth and people do go there when you die and are not saved. But, you are only there until God creates his new earth. It did say that evil would be unleashed back onto the earth for a short time. Maybe that simply means that everyone would be back together, good or bad, and soon all the evil would be obliterated and ALL people could finally live in peace, praising God like the scriptures say. Also if you want to hear this mp3 or see the proof here is the site.
http://www.av1611.org/hell.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Q: If there is no Hell... Where is Satan.
A: I actually have the answer to this one... We all know that there are actually Demons on the earth, (Such as Jesus casting demons into swine) so they are obviously on earth, not in this "Hell." Ive also read, although not sure where, that Satan is reincarnated into a human form, although he still is actually Satan, on the earth. He is not actually in Hell... Remember, it says that there will be many antichrists, and also remember that, the Antichrist is the reincarnation of Satan during the tribulation... so when it says there will be many antichrists, its basicly saying, There will be many reincarnations of Satan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
These are just a few of the questions I can think of at the time. I will update this regularly and PM me (dont post it, PM it) if you have anymore proofs or questions and I will look at them, study them, and (if its a question) possibly develop an answer or possible answer to it and then post it here...
So check back often. This thread can be used to discuss the questions and proofs, argue against them (as long as flame does not occur), and post answers to them... if you post a legitimate answer, that cannot be argued against, or even a possible answer, I will update the question with your answer or PA.
Have fun discussing... And helping to answer these questions and, hopefully soon many more...
God Bless...
Hi Angel_O_T
Good questions and I am thankful that God is drawing you to contemplate the true message of his Love. I will take one question at a time as I do not have time to answer all in one sitting.
Quote
Q: If Hell does not exist then what is the punishment for sin? It has to be punished somehow. Its not like Hitler will just be let in the Heavenly gates.
A: N/A
The thing to remember is how people view hell in the first place. A large number of people don't even know that the word Hell did not always mean eternal damnation. Go to Dictionary.com and lookup the word hell and scroll clear down to about the bottom and you will find the original definition was to "cover or conceal". So, really, when we say "Hell" does not exist, what maybe we should be saying is that "punishment is not eternal". A lot of people perceive when a universalist says hell does not exist that we are ignoring all the verses that contain the word.
I do not ignore them, I see a temporary state rather than an eternal one. And because of the spiritual nature of the bible I do not see it the same as physical torture. I do not believe it will be pleasant, but I know how I feel when I truly see where I have been wrong and God works on me to change.
People just don't seem to believe this can take place after we die, I believe it can.
Simply looking into Gods eyes as he tells you your sins would be torture for me. o.O
But I understand what your saying. Ive had similar thoughts before, although they did involve physical pain. just not eternally. Also just having this, almighty, perfect God staring down at them telling them they were wrong would be enough to bring them to their knees crying and repenting...
Quote from: The Angel of Truth
Q: If Hell does not exist then what is the punishment for sin? It has to be punished somehow. Its not like Hitler will just be let in the Heavenly gates.
Hi,
I can't answer all of your questions now, don't have the time but I am sure they all will be answered by others.
The wages of sin is
death, nothing more nothing less. The lake of fire, hell, is just a correction not a punishment. God is a consuming fire. His ministers are a flame of fire. The works will be burned up not the person. (1 Cor. 3:13-16) Here in the lake of fire you will be baptized with fire.
Here is one statement: If there is a hell where people will be punished for their sins forever, why didn't Jesus go there on our behalf and why isn't he there now? If this is the debt some must pay for their sins, then this debt hasn't been paid yet for anyone? Why doesn't everyone have to suffer this punishment?
CHB
CHB I love your answer to the question. ^_^ And ill add your statement. Thanks. :thumbsup:
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on May 31, 2008, 11:38:34 PM
Here are the questions...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Q: Whats the big hype for being saved if Hell is not true? What benefit would it get you besides knowing God...
A: N/A
PA: It could simply be a way for you to know your Lord or, if my PA for the last question is true, it could prevent you from having this temporary punishment and pain after you die.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Q: What about the mp3 of Hell in the core of Earth? The proof that it was there? Was it fake? What does it mean?
A: N/A
PA: I have a detailed theory about this one... What if, Hell is real in a sence. "Hell" is in the center of the earth and people do go there when you die and are not saved. But, you are only there until God creates his new earth. It did say that evil would be unleashed back onto the earth for a short time. Maybe that simply means that everyone would be back together, good or bad, and soon all the evil would be obliterated and ALL people could finally live in peace, praising God like the scriptures say. Also if you want to hear this mp3 or see the proof here is the site.
http://www.av1611.org/hell.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
:goodpost:
Greetings AOT! First, are sure you're only 14? I rarely hear such wise questions and well thought out answers from someone of your age. Not only that, but you can spell!!! :thumbsup: I'm very impressed. You want answers and I don't blame you. I want answers too. I urge you to be patient and wait upon the Lord - he will reveal truth to you at just the right time. There are some things we may never understand - but the admonition in scripture is to BELIEVE, not necessarily understand all things.
If you're looking for absolute scriptural proof for UR, you may be disappointed. But seriously, the case (that is, the evidence) for UR is much stronger than that of ET. Let me give one example. Scholars have searched the Old Testament for centuries, hoping to find some evidence of eternal torment in hell there. And guess what - it's just not there. That's right, thousands of years of human history and not so much as a whisper of warning of what awaited the ignorant masses after death. How could God omit such an important doctrine if it's true? Why would the scriptures focus on temporary things such as what kinds of foods you could or could not eat, when a fate a billion trillion times worse than anything that could happen on earth awaited most of humanity? :dontknow:
I'll take a crack at your questions above:
About being saved....
The majority view is that salvation means salvation from hell - a kind of "fire insurance". But the first time "save" is in the N.T. is in Matthew 1:21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will
save his people from their sins.
Salvation is from sin, not hell. No where in scripture do we find that salvation is from hell. Just think how many lives are destroyed by all kinds of sin. Wouldn't it be great to be free from sin? This is just a partial answer because salvation is much more than this.
Here is something to read about the recordings from hell:
www.snopes.com/religion/wellhell.htm
What scared me more was some people's visions of hell. Many claim to have had visions of hell. But just as many claim to have been reicarnated, or been abducted by aliens, etc. I wouldn't put much faith in a vision or experience, even if it were my own.
Hope this helps.
Quote from: Average_Bear on June 02, 2008, 03:57:40 AM
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on May 31, 2008, 11:38:34 PM
Here are the questions...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Q: Whats the big hype for being saved if Hell is not true? What benefit would it get you besides knowing God...
A: N/A
PA: It could simply be a way for you to know your Lord or, if my PA for the last question is true, it could prevent you from having this temporary punishment and pain after you die.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Q: What about the mp3 of Hell in the core of Earth? The proof that it was there? Was it fake? What does it mean?
A: N/A
PA: I have a detailed theory about this one... What if, Hell is real in a sence. "Hell" is in the center of the earth and people do go there when you die and are not saved. But, you are only there until God creates his new earth. It did say that evil would be unleashed back onto the earth for a short time. Maybe that simply means that everyone would be back together, good or bad, and soon all the evil would be obliterated and ALL people could finally live in peace, praising God like the scriptures say. Also if you want to hear this mp3 or see the proof here is the site.
http://www.av1611.org/hell.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
:goodpost:
Greetings AOT! First, are sure you're only 14? I rarely hear such wise questions and well thought out answers from someone of your age. Not only that, but you can spell!!! :thumbsup: I'm very impressed. You want answers and I don't blame you. I want answers too. I urge you to be patient and wait upon the Lord - he will reveal truth to you at just the right time. There are some things we may never understand - but the admonition in scripture is to BELIEVE, not necessarily understand all things.
If you're looking for absolute scriptural proof for UR, you may be disappointed. But seriously, the case (that is, the evidence) for UR is much stronger than that of ET. Let me give one example. Scholars have searched the Old Testament for centuries, hoping to find some evidence of eternal torment in hell there. And guess what - it's just not there. That's right, thousands of years of human history and not so much as a whisper of warning of what awaited the ignorant masses after death. How could God omit such an important doctrine if it's true? Why would the scriptures focus on temporary things such as what kinds of foods you could or could not eat, when a fate a billion trillion times worse than anything that could happen on earth awaited most of humanity? :dontknow:
I'll take a crack at your questions above:
About being saved....
The majority view is that salvation means salvation from hell - a kind of "fire insurance". But the first time "save" is in the N.T. is in Matthew 1:21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.
Salvation is from sin, not hell. No where in scripture do we find that salvation is from hell. Just think how many lives are destroyed by all kinds of sin. Wouldn't it be great to be free from sin? This is just a partial answer because salvation is much more than this.
Here is something to read about the recordings from hell:
www.snopes.com/religion/wellhell.htm
What scared me more was some people's visions of hell. Many claim to have had visions of hell. But just as many claim to have been reicarnated, or been abducted by aliens, etc. I wouldn't put much faith in a vision or experience, even if it were my own.
Hope this helps.
Thanks for the info. :bigGrin: God bless.
Hi Arthur
Well I am one that does not believe in any afterlife punishment whatsoever. IMO the concept of even a temporary hell appears to be very much in line with the RCC purgatory doctrine which like many of them are unscriptural. I also believe it is a concept of "what if we are wrong?" when folk see a need for an afterlife punishment of sorts. For some it is just too radical to dismiss hell altogether.
That said temporary is still better than an eternal BBQ.
Sheol/Hades and Gehenna are all found in this life in the grave and a now defunct rubbish dump in Jerusalem which now looks like this:
(http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellPhotos/hinnon8.JPG)
So unless they intend to relight the fires that went out and convert this park again into a crematorium, then I think that it is likely that there IS NO hell whatsoever.
There is of course the Lake of Fire which ironically comes from a book of symbols and allegory, written specifically to the seven churches and is ironic that the beast that comes from the sea head and horns and all is translated to mean
the antichrist a "person" that will deceive the "very elect" etc. and also when we get to the LoF it is then taken literally.
Well that is a whooole long topic on its own. IMO the LoF is found in this life and on this side of the grave. We ARE NOT resurrected sin and all, we may still have our memories but that in itself will be hell enough for most when you finally meet the Lord face to face and realise how bad you really screwed up and in spite of that, He still welcomes you into the fold.
W/o going into too much detail here, on my blog, I have addressed all the supposed "hell teachings" of Jesus (8) including the teeth gnashers texts etc. and I share a bit more in detail about the meaning there. Basically, all of the texts in context addressed the religious of the day and NOT sinners or what were termed sinners by the religious elect.
Go to my Blog (http://www.mychurch.org/SeekerSA) and scroll down to the listings of all my posts and you will see the links to all the topics.
Blessings
willieH: Hi "AoT"... :hithere:
Welcome to TM! :welcome:
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on May 31, 2008, 11:38:34 PM
wonder...
Here are the questions...
Q: If Hell does not exist then what is the punishment for sin? It has to be punished somehow. Its not like Hitler will just be let in the Heavenly gates.
A: The wages of sin is death, nothing more nothing less. The lake of fire, hell, is just a correction not a punishment. God is a consuming fire. His ministers are a flame of fire. The works will be burned up :myahoo: not the person. (1 Cor. 3:13-16) Here in the lake of fire you will be baptized with fire.
JESUS CHRIST paid the price for SIN Angel... no amount of "punishment" can rectify even one sin... This lifetime IS the LAKE of FIRE, in which we suffer for SIN... the FLESH profits NOTHING... :dontknow:
The FIRE in THIS LIFE consumes THIS LIFE... and the FLESH which each of us SINS in, DIES and returns to the dust...
As
JESUS said: Let him WITHOUT SIN cast the first stone... we are all UNWORTHY to cast a stone at a SINNER, as we are found to hold that undistinguished title, ourselves... :winkgrin:
The observation of HITLER is an assumption that in some way, you consider your life a more worthy life than was his, based upon YOUR LIFE by comparision is it not? Not picking on you, just trying to get you to see... we ALL deserve death, for even ONE SIN, sends
CHRIST to the cross to redeem us!)
We are not to judge... If GOD WILLS to save HITLER (which HE DOES - 2 Peter 3:9)... that is entirely HIS BUSINESS, and we should REJOICE that the elasticity of His MERCY is able to "stretch" that far! :myahoo:
We must remain thankful individually, for HIS MERCY toward our own unworthiness, and in that, leave HIM to deal with the unworthiness of everyone else... REJOICING that His Mercy is THAT GREAT! (Rom 5:20) ...where SIN abounded,
GRACE did
MUCH MORE ABOUND! In EVERY CASE!
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on May 31, 2008, 11:38:34 PMPA (possible answer): There may be a temporary "Hell" that sinners go to for a short while, like a prision sentence, to atone for sins. Then they will be ""saved"" so to say and be allowed into Heaven.
Why does there have to be a
HELL at all, Angel? The only
HELL which exists is the proper translation of the word HADES which is GRAVE... and yes... we ALL go on the tour! :sigh:
The olde English word
HEL which was translated in the KJV (from the words Gehenna, hades and tartarus) meant at the time of translation: covered, concealed, unseen... it's definition further included: a celler or cool storage place where wine or vegetables were stored to PRESERVE them.
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on May 31, 2008, 11:38:34 PMAnother possibility is that there could be more to the afterlife than just Heaven.
There is no "afterlife" Angel... this is an UNBIBLICAL observation...
Upon the conclusion of this life, Our SPIRIT, ...RETURNS to where we emerged -- GOD...
In order to RETURN, one must have previously been there... We came FROM GOD... we RETURN to Him... in ETERNITY we ALWAYS are... TIME is a temporal "classroom" in which the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL is gained, and in gaining that knowledge we become AS IS our Father and HIS Son... (Gen 3:22)
Without this "KNOWLEDGE" we are short of PERFECTION for GOD is PERFECT and He HAS this knowledge! It is part of the process bro... GOD and HIS WORD are PERFECT (complete) and HAVE the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil... without it, we are short of PERFECTION (incomplete)
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on May 31, 2008, 11:38:34 PMThere could be an outside kingdom as well and, although saved people can go outside to the other land surrounding Heaven to see loved ones, only Saved people are actually allowed into Heaven. That way you can still see your friends and relatives but they wont suffer for eternity. They just wont get the best in the afterlife. :thumbsup:
This thinking is based upon the WORKS of man... If even ONE WORK in each life is found in
CHRIST, then
CHRIST is found IN that LIFE... and that LIFE is found IN
CHRIST... ALL works which are found WORTHY are DONE
by CHRIST ...IN... the life, NOT by US...
GOD is after an EQUALITY and COMPLETE PERFECTION in His family... to be ALL in ALL... not some in ALL or ALL in some, ...ALL in ALL...
JESUS mission: (Luke 19:10) for the Son of man IS COME, to
SEEK and to
SAVE that which is
LOST...
(btw the word translated,
LOST in this verse is the Greek word,
APOLLUMI (#G622 - strongs - look it up!) -- which means DESTROYED... that which is LOST, in God's eyes, is DESTROYED. This SAME WORD is used in the (Luke 15) Parables of the LOST SON, the LOST SHEEP, and the LOST COIN... all were eventually, FOUND!
So how many do you percieve are
LOST, Angel? Did
CHRIST accomplish His mission? At it's end, did He not say "
IT IS FINISHED"?
If there is still more to do (such as you suggest above in
blue), why did He say it was
finished?
GOD is stated as
ALL in
ALL upon the completion of ALL THINGS subdued unto
CHRIST... (1 Cor 15:28)
How can He be ALL in ALL, when some are on the OUTSIDE looking IN? This theory shows GOD to be MORE in some than in others, by giving them an access to "Heaven" that others do not get...
Get to the rest of your questions & answers tomorrow, have a great night! :thumbsup:
pEace......willieH :icon_king:
Quote
Q: Whats the big hype for being saved if Hell is not true? What benefit would it get you besides knowing God...
From a religion point of view, souls being saved increases revenue. Unfortunatly I am not making a joke.
From a scriptural point of view, salvation is actually the perception given to us for the process and journey we are on back to God.
In the Concordant Literal Version in Genesis it speaks of God "Creating" man in his image, implying that he is not done yet.
In 1 Timothy, we can find the verse talking about all mankind being saved, but along with that we will learn the knowledge of Truth.
In Isaiah we find that all the inhabitants of the earth will learn righteousness.
Salvation is a process of learning and instruction from the very beginning, sadly religion has separated mankind into the have's and have not's rather than seeing that every person has a purpose no matter how terrible they might be and our actions through choice or otherwise can do nothing to change the Love God has for us all.
That is not to say we won't progress from a point of unbelief to belief, but we do so by Gods will (John 6:44) rather than something we can determine for ourselves. It appears we make the choice of our own free will, but, if the carnal mind is emnity towards God, then on our own we are incapable of making the choice to serve God.
QuoteFrom a religion point of view, souls being saved increases revenue. Unfortunatly I am not making a joke.
2 Peter 2:1-3And there did come also false prophets among the people, as also among you there shall be false teachers, who shall bring in besides destructive sects, and the Master who bought them denying, bringing to themselves quick destruction, and many shall follow out their destructive ways, because of whom the way of the truth shall be evil spoken of, and in covetousness, with moulded words,
of you they shall make merchandise, whose judgment of old is not idle, and their destruction doth not slumber.
Not there is anything wrong with giving, and supporting a ministry. Many modern day church exists for the sole purpose to make you their merchandise. They lure you in with cunning and creative charismatics and with doctrines of fear and dependency in order to squeeze every last penny from you and your bank account. You have become merchandise in the eyes of the church, and each church tries to lure you into their lair in order that they may take advantage of your finances. If you don't give, you are cursed by the church; if you don't give, you are made out to be a greedy person.
It is no joke.
Holy crap WillehH! That... was... good. o.O
But let me ask this question then. We will all be eventually drawn back into our God, what exactly does that mean? Will he be inside us or us inside him... will we be in Heaven, or in God...
And Seeker...
There has to be some punishment. Your basically saying I could go get an MP5 Machine gun and go on a killing spree, set terrorist bombs, torture, and possibly take thousands of lives right now that could have amounted to something amazing in the future and the worst I could suffer is the electric chair...
That cant be right... I know God forgives... but thats just mad. There has to be some kind of temperal punishment for the sin...
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on June 02, 2008, 07:39:00 PM
But let me ask this question then. We will all be eventually drawn back into our God, what exactly does that mean? Will he be inside us or us inside him... will we be in Heaven, or in God...
I'm not sure we have a physical example that is adequate to explain. But, scripture is indeed intriguing.
Jn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Ps 82:6 . I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.
Being Gods, subject to a Spirit that is inherantly "LOVE" perfected as a part of that Spirit in total communion and purpose.
Just amazing to think about.
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on June 02, 2008, 07:39:00 PM
And Seeker...
There has to be some punishment. Your basically saying I could go get an MP5 Machine gun and go on a killing spree, set terrorist bombs, torture, and possibly take thousands of lives right now that could have amounted to something amazing in the future and the worst I could suffer is the electric chair...
That cant be right... I know God forgives... but thats just mad. There has to be some kind of temperal punishment for the sin...
Well when you find scripture that shows that we have to go though a temporal punishment of any sorts, I would be interested to read that.
Look at what you said:
..the worst I could suffer is the electric chair...
Then you want some "afterlife" punishment too and then this kinda negates the Jesus sacrifice bit too as then He did not cover everything then? (btw I am not a believer in substitution atonement - deep topic and study - later)
Well if you did what you implied I said you could do (which I didn't) you suffer the consequences in this life.
See with this perspective you haul out a sin list and also grade sins where in the eyes of God, sin is sin. See it is the church system that introduced a sin list and a grading system.
Well - when you think about it, then it make salvation dependant on us and that is not so.
Read my blog and then ask questions again.
Blessings
Quote from: SeekerSA on June 02, 2008, 09:41:31 PM
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on June 02, 2008, 07:39:00 PM
And Seeker...
There has to be some punishment. Your basically saying I could go get an MP5 Machine gun and go on a killing spree, set terrorist bombs, torture, and possibly take thousands of lives right now that could have amounted to something amazing in the future and the worst I could suffer is the electric chair...
That cant be right... I know God forgives... but thats just mad. There has to be some kind of temperal punishment for the sin...
Well when you find scripture that shows that we have to go though a temporal punishment of any sorts, I would be interested to read that.
Look at what you said:
..the worst I could suffer is the electric chair...
Then you want some "afterlife" punishment too and then this kinda negates the Jesus sacrifice bit too as then He did not cover everything then? (btw I am not a believer in substitution atonement - deep topic and study - later)
Well if you did what you implied I said you could do (which I didn't) you suffer the consequences in this life.
See with this perspective you haul out a sin list and also grade sins where in the eyes of God, sin is sin. See it is the church system that introduced a sin list and a grading system.
Well - when you think about it, then it make salvation dependant on us and that is not so.
Read my blog and then ask questions again.
Blessings
I have no more to say. You've made a good point. The wages of sin, is death. No more, no less... and everyone sins, and everyone dies...
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 02, 2008, 08:26:40 PM
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on June 02, 2008, 07:39:00 PM
But let me ask this question then. We will all be eventually drawn back into our God, what exactly does that mean? Will he be inside us or us inside him... will we be in Heaven, or in God...
I'm not sure we have a physical example that is adequate to explain. But, scripture is indeed intriguing.
Jn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Ps 82:6 . I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.
Being Gods, subject to a Spirit that is inherantly "LOVE" perfected as a part of that Spirit in total communion and purpose.
Just amazing to think about.
I would have to disagree with you.
There is at no time, will we ever be God or Gods. All such teaching, in my opinion, is the lie the serpent told Adam and Eve. Look VERY closely to the words of Jesus, and recognize He did not say 'the Law', or 'God's Law' but 'your law'.
Look again if you wish:
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written
in your law, 'I said, Ye are gods'?
What we will be, is like Him. We are beings capable of great love, and that is Who God is. We ourselves are not gods. If you read the context of psalms 82:6, the word 'gods' is used in jest to reveal the arrogant hearts of men who continue to believe they are God.
Throughout Scripture, you find men and women, kings and queens, who have said in their hearts, "I shall be like God", but to all who have desired such position or status, have been cast down from heaven continually in order that they may be humbled and recognize they are just men.
Psalms 82:6-7 "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler."
It is a very deceptive doctrine to believe that we were once gods, or will ascend as gods. It is not a subject that should be treated lightly either. Things are not always as they seem on the surface. Jesus at no time ever attributed anywhere that there was truth in the words, 'You are gods'.
Proverbs 26:5Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.
Just because a statement in the bible can be taken and made into something it is not, does not mean it is not true and should be discarded.
The hesitance to think we are Gods comes from religion brow beating society to not believe that there is any form of truth in certain types of beliefs.
We learn to equate certain words and phrases such as ascension, or becoming Gods to cult and newage belief systems and that cannot possibly be what scripture says for us in the context of Gods kingdom rather than mans need for power.
There is a hint of truth in those beliefs, the difference is the power behind the events. Man or God?
I have no problem with understanding whats on the surface isn't as it appears. God is not a literal fire, but the underlying spiritual or metaphorical meaning will not change the words.
The pharasees were trying to get one up on Jesus by accusing him of saying he was a God among men. Jesus responce says what is written in the Law that they are Gods themselves. He did this to point out to them that if they adhere to the law as they did then they were guilty of the same thing. The point was that there was nothing to be guilty of in that regaurd.
The verse that tells us we will die like mere men is showing the humbling place we will be and to not elevate the concept of being Gods above what it actually is, nor is it possible even if we try.
Jesus said that it is not wrong to see him as equal to the Father, we have no problem saying Jesus is a God, but scripture shows who Jesus is subject to nevertheless.
I agree you are passionate about this, so it is sensitive to you.
The question I ask is,
who is discarding it, Paul?
So I ask you, please consider what I present to you here.
When Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, 'I said, Ye are gods'? (John 10:34)
Why did He say, 'your' law and not 'God's Law'?
John 19:7The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."
Did you not know? Not all laws are God's laws, in fact, most of the laws the Jews had were not laws of God at all. Like the Apostle Paul wrote:
Colossians 2:20-23Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? These are all destined to perish with use, because
they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their
self-imposed worship, their
false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
Paul even called these things, "The law of our fathers", expressing that he had a zeal for God but no knowledge.
QuoteWe learn to equate certain words and phrases such as ascension, or becoming Gods to cult and newage belief systems and that cannot possibly be what scripture says for us in the context of Gods kingdom rather than mans need for power.
I respectfully disagree. That is a strawman argument and has no relevance to this discussion. I did not equate certain words or phrases to new age or cult belief systems, and you have yet to demonstrate Scripture even says this. The two Scriptures you have used, have been disqualified based on context and subtext concerning the audience it was addressing.
I find no promise that you will be, or ever be God. There is no promise in Scripture for this, nor has it ever been hinted or declared.
QuoteJesus responce says what is written in the Law that they are Gods themselves.
No, his response was, "It is written in YOUR law, that you are gods.", answering the fools according to their folly.
Proverbs 26:5Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.
It is a very deceptive doctrine to believe that we were once gods, or will ascend as gods. It is not a subject that should be treated lightly either. Things are not always as they seem on the surface. Jesus at no time ever attributed anywhere that there was truth in the words, 'You are gods'.
QuoteJesus said that it is not wrong to see him as equal to the Father, we have no problem saying Jesus is a God, but scripture shows who Jesus is subject to nevertheless.
Once again, this has nothing to do with being 'God', yourself. You have mixed two different concepts believing them to be one and the same. Jesus's defense, was to the Jews who had their own laws and according to those laws, they became blind to who Jesus was.
Jesus had a right to his defense, because unlike any one of us, He was and is God.
It would be the difference like you running around declaring yourself to be the "President of the United States", and George Bush declaring himself "President of the United States". Who is the President of the United States? Most certainly not you, so you cannot use that defense.
The Jews were blind, the Pharisees were blind, they knew nothing because many their laws were not God's laws, but laws of men. That is why they cannot know anything as long as Moses is read.
This is my opinion, and you don't have to agree with it. I find the concept that we are "God" no where in Scripture other than in the words of the devil himself and hence why I am strong in my opposition to the message that says we are.
Hi SotW,
First ,I have my point of view based on how I see scripture and I figure you do as well. I don't consider it to be stubborn or a refusal to consider simply because I don't agree with my opponent after the first reply.
Secondly, with that said, I do not intend to get personal as a means to fortify my position and apologize if my comments seemed to do so.
Quote
When Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, 'I said, Ye are gods'? (John 10:34)
Why did He say, 'your' law and not 'God's Law'?
The pharasees defined their righteousness by adherance to Law, so it was very personal to them. As a group of people it was theirs in the same way Salvation is attributed to us in this passage.
Philippians 2:12 So that, my beloved, according as you always obey, not as in my presence only, but now much rather in my absence, with fear and trembling, be carrying your own salvation into effect,
Does that mean salvation is of men and not of God since it is our own?
The specific passage in psalms is not known to be of men and abolished by Jesus.
Jesus made his point stronger by getting personal. That is my answer, so then why did not Jesus say Gods law in this verse?
Matthew 5:17 "You should not infer that I came to demolish the law or the prophets. I came not to demolish, but to fulfill.
Quote
I respectfully disagree. That is a strawman argument and has no relevance to this discussion.
I believe the pattern of thought I expressed is very relevant, you wrote
Quote
It is a very deceptive doctrine to believe that we were once gods, or will ascend as gods. It is not a subject that should be treated lightly either.
You call it doctrine, so what beliefs or organizations promote this "doctrine"? Sure isn't the Southern Baptists
Quote
I find no promise that you will be, or ever be God. There is no promise in Scripture for this, nor has it ever been hinted or declared.
It was declared in psalms and your context and subcontext is of your own opinion not an air tight scriptural rebuttle.
Considering the spiritual nature of our existance, If Jesus is Gods Son and we are his children, then what else would our spiritual destiny be if Jesus also will be subject to the Father as we will be?
Ro 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Just how would you define this spiritual cohesion?
Jn 14:20 In that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.
Galatians 4:6-7 Now, seeing that you are sons, God delegates the spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying "Abba! Father!"
"So that you are not longer a slave, but a son. Now if a son, an enjoyer also of an allotment from God, through Christ."
Just who are these Gods?
Ps 82:1 . <<A Psalm of Asaph.>> God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
Quote
Once again, this has nothing to do with being 'God', yourself. You have mixed two different concepts believing them to be one and the same.
What I did NOT say is that we would be God. We will be equal as Gods in the same way Jesus was. We will always be subject to God the father, but humanity is the Sons and Daughters of God, so what else could we be?
I believe you cannot use 'Children of God' as evidence we are God. We are indeed His offspring, but that does not make us God. How do you know Jesus was quoting Psalms? There were dozens of other books which were considered the law, in the eyes of the Jews. Jesus knew them all. Though, Psalms 82:6-7 says, "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." It doesn't mean what you think it means. Once again, 'you are "gods"' is not a declaration of the Truth that they are "God", but rather a re-affirmation that they are indeed 'gods', not God. Let me reaffirm what I just said, they are not 'God', they are 'gods'. Jesus used this Scripture to answer the foolish Jews in their own folly. They cannot stone a man who declares himself 'God', if they have in their own law, that they are called, 'gods'.
1 Corinthians 8:5-6
For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"),
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Did you miss this? Regardless if we are called 'gods' or 'lords', we are not God or Lord because there is but one God and Lord. I believe you absolutely made a leap in reasoning which is not found anywhere in Scripture, we have not, and will not be God. There is none like Him.
Let me go back to my example: Let us say: Sam Nationalist is the President.
There is but one President of the United States. If the president of the United States, Sam Nationalist, says, "I am the President" his words are true. A rally of American Lawyers accuse Sam Nationalist of treason, simply because he said he was President. Remember what the accusation is, he is being accused of treason, because he calls himself President. So Sam, knowing these men are lawyers, points out that the laws of America state a person can be president of anything. So indeed, anyone is a president and so if those Lawyers actually continue to accused Sam Nationalist of treason for his declaration of President, then even the presidents of their law firms are guilty of treason. Though there are many presidents of many things, and there is only one President. They cannot declare him a traitor guilty of treason simply on the declaration of his presidency. In all this, however, Same Nationalist continues and always has been, the President.
So now back to Jesus. They were angry that He called himself the Son of God, and so picked up stones to stone him for blasphemy. Yet, Scripture states they themselves are declared, 'children of God'. They could not kill him or accuse him of blasphemy for the declaration of being called a 'Son of God', without incriminating themselves.
You need to know law, and how the law works. Jesus knew it better than any of them. Jesus is not a 'child of God', but the 'Son of God', the promised Messiah, God manifest. So are you ready? Jesus was talking about the law, and therefore answered according to the law. He was not affirming they too were "God" or the "Son of God", he was befuddling them.
Proverbs 26:5
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.
1 Timothy 1:7
They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
Quote from: SOtW on June 03, 2008, 08:56:42 AM
I believe you cannot use 'Children of God' as evidence we are God.
Quote from: SOtW on June 03, 2008, 08:56:42 AM
Regardless if we are called 'gods' or 'lords', we are not God or Lord because there is but one God and Lord. I believe you absolutely made a leap in reasoning which is not found anywhere in Scripture, we have not, and will not be God. There is none like Him.
I never said we would be God. the closest I have come to that is stating that we will be equal in the same manner that Jesus is equal to his father while still being subject to the father.
I am not at all offended, and I am sorry if I offended. I do get rather hard-lined and need to kick back myself a bit.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 03, 2008, 03:43:12 PM
I never said we would be God.
Did you not say?
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 02, 2008, 08:26:40 PM
Being Gods, subject to a Spirit that is inherantly "LOVE" perfected as a part of that Spirit in total communion and purpose.
Just amazing to think about.
Then perhaps we have a misunderstanding, because you did say we are 'Gods', with "G" not "g" and then used some reasoning that I objected because I believe it was New Age or cultic. We are not 'Gods' subject to a Spirit. We are 'gods' subject to 'God', the God of gods. Yet, only 'gods' because He said so, no other reasons. If that is what you meant, then I admit I jumped the gun in my understanding of what you said.
Next.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 03, 2008, 03:43:12 PM
the closest I have come to that is stating that we will be equal in the same manner that Jesus is equal to his father while still being subject to the father.
Also I find Scripture says that we are not equal to God, it says we are in Jesus Christ, who is not afraid to call us brothers. Yet, how does that equate to being equal to the Father in the same manner as Jesus was to the Father? Is not all things done through and in Jesus Christ? Do you believe that we will be the Christ? Do you believe like Jesus, that you have the authority to lay down your life and take it back up again? Does not Scripture say, Christ did not consider equality with God was something to be grasped, so being the Nature God, lowered himself and took on the form of a man so that by His obedience He conquered all things and made the Head of all things? Did not Scripture say there is only but One God, and One Lord? So what do you mean by " the closest I have come to that is stating that we will be equal in the same manner that Jesus is equal to his father while still being subject to the father."?
You don't have to answer any of this, because I can chalk this up to misunderstanding on my part. Yet, if it is not, it is there to consider.
Hi Paul,
I believe you are right when you say that we WILL BE GOD'S. If we are children of God, of course we will be gods. We will have our Father's name. (Eph.3:15) "Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named".
Angels are referred to as gods, so is Satan and so are we, because we all are of God.
CHB
The word "gods" in Hebrew is a title, in the same way king, lord, master, is used. It is not because we are all of God. There is more to studying Scripture, than studying Scripture, one has to study the culture, the context, the references, grammar, figure of speeches, and other details which many do not have time for. Even then, it must be understood also by the spirit in which it was given. There yet has been a case which I have witnessed, which presents itself without fallacy, or error, which asserts that we are God or Gods.
Neither have I seen a proper argument in favor that "God" is a family name like "Smith" or "Cooper" which is passed down to His Children. The Scripture actually says, the whole family in heaven and earth derives their name from the Father. What is His Name? Ephesians continues and tells us, that we are through Christ, rooted and established by Love. What is the Name above all names, in which every knee will bow and every tongue will confess, the very same Name we also are called? Jesus Christ, and how do we know we are His Disciples? By our Love.
Unless this is a misunderstanding. From the presupposition that we are God (or multiples of God) brings no witness by my spirit by His Spirit, nor does it find itself in reason in the road maps provided to us by His Spirit..
willieH: Hi AoT... :hithere:
Here is a continuation of my answer to you... :reachout:
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on May 31, 2008, 11:38:34 PM
Q: Whats the big hype for being saved if Hell is not true? What benefit would it get you besides knowing God...
A: N/A
:omg: BESIDES? :omg:
What greater benefit can possibly BE, than a deeper and deeper and DEEPEST, relationship with our Creator? Our GOD, Angel? :cloud9:
We have been falsely taught by the apostate "church" that
"HELL" exists... but
HELL, is not what we are SAVED from my friend... We are redeemed from our SIN... which causes DEATH...
We are SAVED
OUT of DEATH (caused by SIN/self-exaltation), ...to LIFE (Redemption/self-
less exaltation of GOD)...
"HELL", ...is (1) irrelevant and (2) mythical... :dontknow: Born in the defiled regions of PAGANISM... and shared by the "church", which claims this LIE to be a part of truth which is HOLY... :thumbdown:
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on May 31, 2008, 11:38:34 PMPA: It could simply be a way for you to know your Lord or, if my PA for the last question is true, it could prevent you from having this temporary punishment and pain after you die.
There is no reason for
PUNISHMENT temporary or otherwise...
That which is found to be PUNISHMENT is a PUNITIVE action and a recompense (getting "even"), retaliation... the NATURAL view of an "eye for an eye"... which
JESUS taught to be short of SPIRITUAL action... as He taught, to FORGIVE, and to "turn the other cheek", and to "give your cloak, as well as your coat"...etc.
He taught in speech and action, to refrain from the NATURAL approach to MISBEHAVIOR, which is to "GET EVEN"... :dontknow:
PUNISHMENT is NOT something that LOVE does. In this life GOD has given humans positions of Parenthood, Grandparenthood, teachers, etc... CORRECTION is what proceeds from these positions when
LOVE for the child, is contained within the motive as these deal with the child's MISBEHAVIOR.
When PUNISHMENT is done by any of the above noted positional entities with RECOMPENSE and VENGENCE for misdeeds done by child, we quickly see others STAND AGAINST such treatment!
SOCIETY demands that position be REMOVED from that person... CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES will REMOVE the child and bring ACTION against the Parent, Grandparent, or teacher which ABUSES his/her position over the child...
Even in a PRISON, humane treatment is REQUIRED of the Overseers... :dontknow:
LOVE seeks to CORRECT, and redirect misbehavior onto proper pathways, rather than BEAT, TORMENT or PUNISH the misbehaved, into submission.
Correction is found to be the method of GOD (who is LOVE), by exposing the DARKNESS ...
WITHIN us ---
TO us, by the LIGHT of
JESUS CHRIST... which produces brokenness in us, ...and through which GOD redeems in the
bowing of the knee and
confession of the tongue... :bgdance:
A VICTORY of LOVE over negativity... not BULLYING in "divine proportions" as the "church" proposes with either
"HELL" or annhilation... The 2 choices she teaches the World that GOD brings to the table of MISBEHAVIOR... :sigh: :thumbdown:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on May 31, 2008, 11:38:34 PMQ: What about the mp3 of Hell in the core of Earth? The proof that it was there? Was it fake? What does it mean?
An
"mp3" of
"HELL"? :pointlaugh: Don't get me wrong brother, I'm not laughing at YOU, ...I'm laughing at this proposition and that anyone would believe such B-S! As if a so-called, SPIRITUAL PLACE which is called
"HELL" can be verified in PHYSICAL terms such as an mp3... :laughing7:
NEXT they will propose that you can buy LOVE in 12oz cans... :laugh: ...or that no
more than 2 million angels can at one time, be found standing on the head of a pin! :LH: Please! :rolleye:
What this proposition actually
"means", is that "science" (which BACKS the theory of evolution), persists in further OUTRAGEOUS fallacies...
It has no such PROOF that it is there! Have you seen or WITNESSED their "proof"? Please don't say that PHOTOGRAPHS can be proof (as if they have gone to the CENTER of the earth and "photographed it"), :laughing7:
And if they DID propose this to be RELIABLE EVIDENCE of
"Hell", ...ALL the UFO crowd shall insist their PROOF be so recognized as SOLID verification! (and RIGHTLY so!)
And even if they could produce PHYSICAL evidence (which they cannot), it does not VERIFY ...SPIRITUAL... things...
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on May 31, 2008, 11:38:34 PMA: N/A
PA: I have a detailed theory about this one... What if, Hell is real in a sence. "Hell" is in the center of the earth and people do go there when you die and are not saved. But, you are only there until God creates his new earth. It did say that evil would be unleashed back onto the earth for a short time. Maybe that simply means that everyone would be back together, good or bad, and soon all the evil would be obliterated and ALL people could finally live in peace, praising God like the scriptures say. Also if you want to hear this mp3 or see the proof here is the site.
http://www.av1611.org/hell.html
:laughing7: You really believe this Angel? Even consider it possible? :mshock:
Anyone can say anything... but this site is as foolish and UNPROVEN a gathering of PROPAGANDA as I have ever seen... Easily refuted... a waste of time... and certainly the only motive established in this site is to INSTILL
FEAR... The WORD of GOD says
this about
THAT:
(1 John 4:14) there is
NO FEAR in
LOVE; but
PERFECT LOVE casteth
OUT FEAR because
FEAR hath TORMENT. He that FEARETH is NOT MADE PERFECT in LOVE
You have quite the "imagination" there dear brother... No offense my friend, but this "PA" simply does not make any sense... Why would GOD save some, then torture others for a time, then SAVE them? It makes more logical sense that HE gathers ALL together at ONE MOMENT, in REDEMPTION, not broken up in scattered and interrupted portions...
Btw... GOD does not allow verification Himself to be done in PHYSICAL terms... which is WHY neither "Ark" has ever been found (either Noah's or "of the covenant").
This is evident in the definition of FAITH: The SUBSTANCE (verification) of THINGS UNSEEN (not physical) (Heb 11:1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on May 31, 2008, 11:38:34 PMQ: If there is no Hell... Where is Satan.
It is an important thing to first DEFINE "satan"... there are many which believe this to be some IMMENSELY and POWERFUL EVIL being... in which is given the attributes of GOD, one of which is OMNIPRESENCE, for it is believed that "satan" TEMPTS us all...
Let it be known to you that I DO NOT embrace this. The Hebrew word "satan" means adversary... I believe this was created within the makeup of man, and is found within the "ability" or "power" given man, to choose to DISOBEY the command of GOD... which, when it comes down to it,
IS what EVIL ...
IS...
To answer your question as to "where" satan ...
IS...
IT is Within the DESPARATELY WICKED, ...Heart of Man (Jer 17:9)
We (men) are the TEMPLE of the HOLY SPIRIT... (1 Cor 3:16) As ADVERSITY dwells on the throne (will) of our hearts, denotes SPIRITUAL WICKEDNESS in HIGH PLACES (within the Hearts of Men, which are rightly the THRONE of GOD) (Eph 6:12)
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on May 31, 2008, 11:38:34 PMA: I actually have the answer to this one... We all know that there are actually Demons on the earth, (Such as Jesus casting demons into swine) so they are obviously on earth, not in this "Hell."
There is NO RECORD that any such DEMONS were created, nor assigned to torment men. (if you have such Scripture references, I would LOVE to see them, thanks!)
That
CHRIST cast out "demons" into swine does not constitute them to be Spirit BEINGS...
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on May 31, 2008, 11:38:34 PMIve also read, although not sure where, that Satan is reincarnated into a human form, although he still is actually Satan, on the earth. He is not actually in Hell... Remember, it says that there will be many antichrists, and also remember that, the Antichrist is the reincarnation of Satan during the tribulation... so when it says there will be many antichrists, its basicly saying, There will be many reincarnations of Satan.
What (I believe) your memory is possibly recalling is the Scripture which states:
(2 Cor 11:14) And no marvel; for
satan himself is transformed into an
angel of light.
There are a few things to consider in the observation of this verse:
(1) The word "satan" is NOT a proper noun.
(2) All words which refer with pronouns such as he,she,
himself, etc... are inserted by the translators
(3) the word angel in this verse is Aggelos which means MESSENGER and does NOT connotate in definition a SPIRIT being, although it can refer to SPIRIT beings.
This verse actually means that ADVERSITY or the ADVERSARY is transformed into a MESSENGER of LIGHT... that being the FALSE teachings of the CHURCH which takes those LIES to the WORLD, witnessing them to be TRUTH (light).
Many, even MOST of the teachings of the Christian church in her many varieties are LIES such as:
(1) The trinity, (2) rapture, (3) salvation of few, (4) hell, (5) free will, (6) millenium, (7) sinners prayer, (8) easter, (9) christmas, (10) satan as a fallen angel,(11) eternal separation from God, (12) Sunday worship, (13) 2nd coming of
CHRIST, (14) making a "decision" for
CHRIST, (15) spiritual Israel, (16) Friday crucifixtion--Sunday resurrection, (17) leading souls to
CHRIST...
NONE of these are FOUND in the WORD of GOD... but ALL of which are freely taught in Christianity as TRUTH... and MOST are found in their various DOCTRINAL statements... :thumbdown:
So the church is ADVERSE to TRUTH, and found to "TRANSFORM" itself, naming ITSELF a MESSENGER of "LIGHT"... when she is found to be "satan" in the end... dealt with distaste BY
CHRIST:(Matt 7:21-22) Not every one that saith unto Me, LORD, LORD, shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the WILL of My Father which is in heaven...
MANY will say to Me in that day, LORD LORD, have
we not prophesied
[taught] in Thy NAME? and in Thy NAME, have cast out devils? and in Thy NAME
done many wonderful WORKS?
Notice the problem
enlarged which is overlooked by the church... That being: Did not ...
WE... do "this", and do "that"! Taking credit for themselves, instead of GIVING it to
CHRIST...
Their words should have been something like: "Did not
YOU do many wonderful WORKS
THROUGH us?" ...thereby giving the GLORY ...DUE... those wonderful WORKS to the ONE who ...ACTUALLY DID THEM!
This does not negate their SALVATION... for the Scripture cannot be broken, and it states that EVERYONE which CALLS upon the NAME of the Lord shall be saved (Rom 10:13)
These which ERR in Matt 7:21-22 are definitely BELIEVERS, for they called Him
LORD, which can only be done BY the POWER of the HOLY SPIRIT (1 Cor 12:3) ...but even the followers and believers of
CHRIST for the
MOST PART shall ERR (as indicated in the verses as
MANY)... and the number which shall find the TRUTH shall be
FEW...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on May 31, 2008, 11:38:34 PMThese are just a few of the questions I can think of at the time. I will update this regularly and PM me (dont post it, PM it) if you have anymore proofs or questions and I will look at them, study them, and (if its a question) possibly develop an answer or possible answer to it and then post it here...
So check back often. This thread can be used to discuss the questions and proofs, argue against them (as long as flame does not occur), and post answers to them... if you post a legitimate answer, that cannot be argued against, or even a possible answer, I will update the question with your answer or PA.
Have fun discussing... And helping to answer these questions and, hopefully soon many more...
God Bless...
I appreciate anyone who is searching for TRUTH... lay yourself before the throne of GOD, my new friend Angel... and search with ALL your HEART...
Do NOT just take another's "word" (including mine) for truth, ...open the WORD and compare what is claimed by others,
to that WORD.
Get a concordance with a Greek--Hebrew dictionary... and DAILY, go to work!
pEace...
...willieH :icon_king:
Wasn't Jesus called God? Not because he was the Father but because he was the Father's Son, and so are we.
You left out the big word "I" in explaining this verse,
(John 10:34) "Is it not written in your law I SAID YE ARE GODS".
Who called the Jew's gods? Jesus Christ. I cannot argue with him?
CHB
Quote from: CHB on June 03, 2008, 10:03:24 PM
Wasn't Jesus called God? Not because he was the Father but because he was the Father's Son, and so are we.
You left out the big word "I" in explaining this verse,
(John 10:34) "Is it not written in your law I SAID YE ARE GODS".
Who called the Jew's gods? Jesus Christ. I cannot argue with him?
CHB
I agree with you CHB... If
YHVH is to be ...
ALL...
IN ...
ALL... what part of us can then be said is
not HIM? :dunno: :JCThink:
We are not "gods" ...
of ourselves... we are "gods" because
(1) He
says we
are and
(2) because He, in ETERNITY,
permeates us! :happygrin:
What
part of an APPLE is not the APPLE? :dontknow:
I see this as a simple observation...
If
YHVH is found in EVERY minute PORTION of us... what then ARE we? ...I say we
are HIM and He of HIS CHOICE and WILL,
is US...
pEAce...
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: CHB on June 03, 2008, 10:03:24 PM
Wasn't Jesus called God? Not because he was the Father but because he was the Father's Son, and so are we.
You left out the big word "I" in explaining this verse,
(John 10:34) "Is it not written in your law I SAID YE ARE GODS".
Who called the Jew's gods? Jesus Christ. I cannot argue with him?
CHB
Read it again, Jesus said, "Is it not written in 'YOUR LAW', I said you are Gods." Jesus didn't call them gods, He said 'their law' called them gods. Pay attention to the words Jesus used, He used them specifically.
Quote from: willieH on June 03, 2008, 10:38:32 PM
Quote from: CHB on June 03, 2008, 10:03:24 PM
Wasn't Jesus called God? Not because he was the Father but because he was the Father's Son, and so are we.
You left out the big word "I" in explaining this verse,
(John 10:34) "Is it not written in your law I SAID YE ARE GODS".
Who called the Jew's gods? Jesus Christ. I cannot argue with him?
CHB
I agree with you CHB... If YHVH is to be ...ALL... IN ...ALL... what part of us can then be said is not HIM? :dunno: :JCThink:
We are not "gods" ...of ourselves... we are "gods" because (1) He says we are and (2) because He, in ETERNITY, permeates us! :happygrin:
What part of an APPLE is not the APPLE? :dontknow:
I see this as a simple observation...
If YHVH is found in EVERY minute PORTION of us... what then ARE we? ...I say we are HIM and He of HIS CHOICE and WILL, is US...
pEAce...
...willieH :cloud9:
Sorry Willieh,
I am need to reply. This is not to cause you offense, but you had a choice get into this part of the discussion or not, and you chose to enter. Perhaps against my better judgment, I will give you an opportunity to be civil in your disagreement with what I presented by establishing agreement with what I opposed.
You know this better than anyone else, the world is not about simple observations or bandaid, cookiecutter solutions. You have lived in a world that becomes more and more corrupt as people demand simple answers to complex problems, and those answers created even more problems than solved.
Do you not see that simple observations are most always flawed?
Let me demonstrate: Based on your simple observation, you have just reasoned and concluded that Satan, the devil, the serpent of old, along with his angels and demons, in actuality, God.
This, I conclude, is a deception from the very evil one who has always wanted to be your god.
1 John 2:29If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.
Does Satan practice righteousness? No, therefore He is not born of God.
1 John 3:10By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
What is this? Anyone who does not practice what is right (righteousness) is not of God? Is this not a direct contradiction to your statement: "If YHVH is found in EVERY minute PORTION of us... what then ARE we? ...I say we are HIM and He of HIS CHOICE and WILL, is US..."
Absolutely. Who has more authority in what we are?
Even Jesus rebuked the Pharisee when they implied that Jesus was casting out demons in the name of the one who sent the demons.
Luke 11:14-20Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon left, the man who had been mute spoke, and the crowd was amazed. But some of them said, "By Beelzebub, the prince of demons, he is driving out demons." Others tested him by asking for a sign from heaven.
Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: "Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall. If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand? I say this because you claim that I drive out demons by Beelzebub. Now if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your followers drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you.
Jesus made a very clear distinction between what is God and what is not God. John made a very clear distinction between what is God and what is not God.
Amos 2:4-7This is what the LORD says:
"For three sins of Judah, even for four, I will not turn back {my wrath}. Because they have rejected the law of the LORD and have not kept his decrees, because
they have been led astray by false gods, the gods their ancestors followed, I will send fire upon Judah that will consume the fortresses of Jerusalem."
This is what the LORD says:
"For three sins of Israel, even for four, I will not turn back {my wrath}. They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed. Father and son use the same girl and so profane my holy name.
They lie down beside every altar on garments taken in pledge.
In the house of their god they drink wine taken as fines. Now let us return to the first 'defense' that Jesus said we are god. Did he? Let us bring to rememberance again, Jesus did not say, "Does it not say in
God's Law, or in
'The Law', but in
'your law' (meaning their law), that they are gods. Even Scripture states that Judah and Israel worshiped a different god, then YHWH. In the house 'their god', they drink wine taken as fines.
There has yet to be a reason presented which states anything that was presented here in saying 'we are God', because we are 'Children of God'.
Jesus Christ is not us, He is God who became us. None but He has done this, none but He will do this, and none He will ever do this. We are privileged to be called 'brothers' but to be 'brothers' with Jesus, is not the same to equate equality with God in the manner Jesus is to the Father. Without understanding that God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one will continue to believe they are the Son, forgetting they are only sons.
willieH: Hi Craig... :hithere:
Quote from: SOtW on June 04, 2008, 01:03:43 AM
Sorry Willieh,
I am need to reply. This is not to cause you offense, but you had a choice get into this part of the discussion or not, and you chose to enter. Perhaps against my better judgment, I will give you an opportunity to be civil in your disagreement with what I presented by establishing agreement with what I opposed.
You are more than welcome to your opinion Craig... If I am opposed to you, so what? :dontknow:
As far as "giving me" an opportunity to be civil... though these appear to be somewhat provoking words, I will assume the intent was otherwise... :HeartThrob: If you decide to answer this post, you will be given the very same opportunity --- eh? :grin:
It is my prerogative to agree with whom I, in my observations, ...will agree with, and to disagree with whom I, in my observations, ...will disagree with... :dontknow:
That you claim that you
have correct understanding of something, is fine, and it may well be found to be true when all is said and done... but what YOU claim to know, is certainly not written in stone as truth... and I have the right to disagree with it... :winkgrin:
Quote from: SOtW on June 04, 2008, 01:03:43 AMYou know this better than anyone else, the world is not about simple observations or bandaid, cookiecutter solutions. You have lived in a world that becomes more and more corrupt as people demand simple answers to complex problems, and those answers created even more problems than solved.
Do you not see that simple observations are most always flawed?
First, because of my extensive experience in LIFE, I heartily :HeartThrob: disagree.
Simplicity is
ALWAYS the best course, and produces the least flawed results. It has carried me successfully throught a lifetime, and I shall not now abandon it at your suggestion... :wink1:
The Scripture agrees, and states opposition to your words bro... (Ps 19:7) SIMPLICITY is always the best way, for COMPLICATION only leads to confusion.
Quote from: SOtW on June 04, 2008, 01:03:43 AMLet me demonstrate: Based on your simple observation, you have just reasoned and concluded that Satan, the devil, the serpent of old, along with his angels and demons, in actuality, God.
You obviously have not read my so-called (by you) "simple observation", because THAT is
NOT what "I observe".
I observe "satan" as ADVERSITY, which is the ability to DISOBEY the command of GOD. This was created within Man, because GOD's WORD says:
ALL HAVE SINNED... Had this not been instilled from the beginning, those words would NOT have come to pass... and would be found ERRONEOUS and FALSE... However, ALL ...HAVE SINNED... and displayed those words written by PAUL as TRUE... :happyclap:
Our disobedience is not blameable on another being... it comes from within ourselves (James 1:14)
Quote from: SOtW on June 04, 2008, 01:03:43 AMThis, I conclude, is a deception from the very evil one who has always wanted to be your god.
Sorry again Craig... I disagree... the EVIL "ONE" is each MAN within the NATURAL... not some mythical spirit which is given the name/title of "Satan"...
Quote from: SOtW on June 04, 2008, 01:03:43 AM1 John 2:29
If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.
Does Satan practice righteousness? No, therefore He is not born of God.
"satan" is not a being, and
IT (not "he"), therefore does not "practice" anything...
Quote from: SOtW on June 04, 2008, 01:03:43 AM1 John 3:10
By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.
This verse simply attests to our NATURAL state which does NOT practice righteousness...
Quote from: SOtW on June 04, 2008, 01:03:43 AMWhat is this? Anyone who does not practice what is right (righteousness) is not of God? Is this not a direct contradiction to your statement: "If YHVH is found in EVERY minute PORTION of us... what then ARE we? ...I say we are HIM and He of HIS CHOICE and WILL, is US..."
:laughing7: My statement is about the
conclusion,
not the process Craig...
YHVH in the ETERNAL sense is ALL in ALL... for He never changes, nor becomes anything different for there is no need to change PERFECTION...
In this realm of TIME, a
process is occuring which is
TEMPORAL and
NOT ETERNAL... I did not mean to mislead you or anyone else into thinking that
YHVH is ALL in ALL in this realm. :mblush:
Quote from: SOtW on June 04, 2008, 01:03:43 AMNow let us return to the first 'defense' that Jesus said we are god. Did he? Let us bring to rememberance again, Jesus did not say, "Does it not say in God's Law, or in 'The Law', but in 'your law' (meaning their law), that they are gods. Even Scripture states that Judah and Israel worshiped a different god, then YHWH. In the house 'their god', they drink wine taken as fines.
Craig... I really think you have missed the point I have made concerning
YHVH...
READ the Scripture which
CHRIST quoted -- It SAYS... (Ps 82:6) I have SAID,
Ye are gods; and
ALL of you are the CHILDREN of the MOST HIGH...
When
JESUS said, "is it not written in YOUR LAW"... it was not some reference to some finite, even questionable, "JEWISH Conditions"...
What He WAS ACTUALLY doing, was challenging them to
believe what the HOLY Scriptures (which they held sacred) actually SAID! We are provoked to the very same CHALLENGE... as we read it as well...
Quote from: SOtW on June 04, 2008, 01:03:43 AMThere has yet to be a reason presented which states anything that was presented here in saying 'we are God', because we are 'Children of God'.
I do not say that we are GOD... GOD is GOD... but once He permeates us completely as ALL in ALL, there is no portion of us that is not Him...
Offspring / Children are of the same essence of the Parent... you are welcome to observe it as you will brother...
Quote from: SOtW on June 04, 2008, 01:03:43 AMJesus Christ is not us, He is God who became us.
JESUS CHRIST is the
Son of the GOD who became us ETERNALLY... :dontknow: The FULLNESS of DIVINITY dwelt in Him =
ALL of YHVH was in
CHRIST... the
FIRST BORN of MANY...
Quote from: SOtW on June 04, 2008, 01:03:43 AMNone but He has done this, none but He will do this, and none He will ever do this. We are privileged to be called 'brothers' but to be 'brothers' with Jesus, is not the same to equate equality with God in the manner Jesus is to the Father. Without understanding that God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one will continue to believe they are the Son, forgetting they are only sons.
You are welcome to observe this as you will... I do not see it as do you... one or both of us could be wrong... and it really doesn't matter as long as BOTH of us keep searching...
We could go on and on disagreeing brother... Let's just leave it be...
(was that civil enough? ...just kidn'! :laughing7:)
peAce...
...willieH :cloud9:
If I made a mistake in what I observed, I apologize. Are you able to say the same?
QuoteYou obviously have not read my so-called (by you) "simple observation", because THAT is NOT what "I observe".
Though, I did read it. I am not mistaken in what I read. The moment you said, "I agree CHB" is the moment you declared you agreed with her observation thus it was part of what you presented. It is no so-called, if what was presented is present.
Let us take a look:
Quote from: CHB on June 03, 2008, 08:10:16 PM
Hi Paul,
I believe you are right when you say that we WILL BE GOD'S. If we are children of God, of course we will be gods. We will have our Father's name. (Eph.3:15) "Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named".
Angels are referred to as gods, so is Satan and so are we, because we all are of God.
CHB
Were you paying attention to the discussion? Did you observe what was being said in this discussion? Why agree to something you do not agree with? Does that not set up grounds for confusion?
Yes, you can agree to disagree,though I ask you to pay attention before replying or agreeing with others have said, because you missed this in your observation. Now if you were mistaken you can take back your words, and straighten the confusion your observation has caused.
Sidenote:
QuoteFirst, because of my extensive experience in LIFE, I heartily :HeartThrob: disagree.
Simplicity is ALWAYS the best course, and produces the least flawed results. It has carried me successfully throught a lifetime, and I shall not now abandon it at your suggestion... :wink1:
The Scripture agrees, and states opposition to your words bro... (Ps 19:7) SIMPLICITY is always the best way, for COMPLICATION only leads to confusion.
Psalm 19:7The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.
Wise and Simple are opposites. in it's context, is speaking of how the testimonies, statutes, etc. of the Lord are without error. It is able to even make wise, those who are simple. It is literally saying, "The knowledge of the Lord is trustworthy, making wise the ignorant."
Let me show you.
Psalm 119:130The unfolding of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple.
Proverbs 1:32-33For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them; but whoever listens to me will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of harm."
Proverbs 9:4Let all who are simple come in here!" she says to those who lack judgment.
Proverbs 14:15A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps.
Proverbs 14:18The simple inherit folly, but the prudent are crowned with knowledge.
Proverbs 19:25Flog a mocker, and the simple will learn prudence; rebuke a discerning man, and he will gain knowledge.
Proverbs 21:11When a mocker is punished, the simple gain wisdom; when a wise man is instructed, he gets knowledge.
So I ask, be careful in what you present as your proofs, and be careful in whom you 'agree' with. There is more confusion in having error, than being in the truth. It is not an issue of simple, or complicated; it is about what is false and what is true and both of those can be simple and complex depending on where it comes from. Hopefully, you are a wise and discerning man.
And no, I wasn't meaning the 'civil' thing to be provoking, I am just used to personal attacks being used as 'reasons' from you and I am asking you politely not to do it.
We can agree to disagree though, I am okay with that.
Willie,
What Craig is saying is you shouldn't agree with CHB. :bigGrin:
Craig, it doesn't matter to me who agrees with me or who doesn't, I still think you are wrong.
Whatever Satan is, he/it originated from God and he/it is called the god of this world.
(1Cor. 8:5) For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there be gods many and lords many.
Of course there is only ONE God the Father and there is only ONE God the Son who is Christ, who came from God and went back to God.
In the epistles it always says, "from God our Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ" which means there are two beings.
(2Thess. 2:4) "above all that is called God". This scripture shows there are others who are called god.
(Psalms 82:6) I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are the children of the most High.
CHB
That is not what I said CHB. I said, if willieh agrees with you, then he should not be telling me he doesn't. You make things personal where they are not. That is your short coming in this discussion.
willieH: Hi Craig... :hithere:
Quote from: SOtW on June 05, 2008, 12:12:44 AM
That is not what I said CHB. I said, if willieh agrees with you, then he should not be telling me he doesn't. You make things personal where they are not. That is your short coming in this discussion.
So small is this comment... I agreed with a
portion that my friend CHB offered, ...I
quoted that portion, and then, agreed with IT... :dontknow:
I did not state COMPLETE agreement with all she has ever said... :mshock:
Heck, I've even (in a few instances)
agreed with YOU! :laughing7: That certainly doesn't equate to COMPLETE agreement with YOU... :laughing7:
A selective and unwarranted ASSUMPTION, resulting in a FALSE conclusion... :sigh:
pEace...
...willieH :cloud9:
willieH: Hi Craig... :hithere:
Quote from: SOtW on June 04, 2008, 06:40:44 PM
If I made a mistake in what I observed, I apologize. Are you able to say the same?
I already did this bro... maybe you did not see it as an apology because I did not
use the word APOLOGY, but it was
one nevertheless:
Quote from: willieH:laughing7: My statement is about the conclusion, not the process Craig... YHVH in the ETERNAL sense is ALL in ALL... for He never changes, nor becomes anything different for there is no need to change PERFECTION...
In this realm of TIME, a process is occuring which is TEMPORAL and NOT ETERNAL... I did not mean to mislead you or anyone else into thinking that YHVH is ALL in ALL in this realm. :mblush:
Quote from: willieHYou obviously have not read my so-called (by you) "simple observation", because THAT is NOT what "I observe".
Quote from: SOtW on June 04, 2008, 06:40:44 PMThough, I did read it. I am not mistaken in what I read. The moment you said, "I agree CHB" is the moment you declared you agreed with her observation thus it was part of what you presented. It is no so-called, if what was presented is present.
Let us take a look:
Quote from: CHB on June 03, 2008, 08:10:16 PM
Hi Paul,
I believe you are right when you say that we WILL BE GOD'S. If we are children of God, of course we will be gods. We will have our Father's name. (Eph.3:15) "Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named".
Angels are referred to as gods, so is Satan and so are we, because we all are of God.
CHB
Were you paying attention to the discussion? Did you observe what was being said in this discussion? Why agree to something you do not agree with? Does that not set up grounds for confusion?
Look at the (3) NEGATIVE points you made above Craig...
(1) you (as always) claim to be CORRECT, even though you ARE mistaken as to the degree of agreement I had noted with our dear sister CHB... I agreed with the portion of her words which I QUOTED...
(2) You insinuate that I have not been paying attention to this discussion... I did not address
the entire discussion, just a post by CHB, with which I agreed... It was not my intention to address ALL the points offered within it...
(3) You note that I set up grounds for confusion, by "agreeing with something I don't "agree" with (I did no such thing, I agreed with the portion I quoted... WITHOUT noting
COMPLETE agreement, which YOU have inserted as my intent.)
That you and I have different observations is a an on-going -- 3yr -- gimme... :grin: ...and
how we observe a discussion is also found to be different as well. (can't believe you have not recognized this by now!) :dontknow:
I did not say to CHB that I agree with
EVERYTHING she has stated, DID I? :thumbdown: ...I agreed with the portion of her words which, I quoted (and still do!)... :thumbsup:
This notation by CHB, made to Paul Hazelwood which you note above, is an entirely separated commentary, even though it is within the discussion. The fact remains, that I did not SPECIFICALLY note that I agree or disagree, with this portion, ...DID I? :mnah:
THIS is the portion of her words, which
I DID QUOTE, and with which I DEFINITELY agree:
Quote from: CHBWasn't Jesus called God? Not because he was the Father but because he was the Father's Son, and so are we.
You left out the big word "I" in explaining this verse,
(John 10:34) "Is it not written in your law I SAID YE ARE GODS".
Who called the Jew's gods? Jesus Christ. I cannot argue with him?
CHB
Quote from: SOtW on June 04, 2008, 06:40:44 PMYes, you can agree to disagree,though I ask you to pay attention before replying or agreeing with others have said, because you missed this in your observation. Now if you were mistaken you can take back your words, and straighten the confusion your observation has caused.
In a discussion, I reply to those within the discussion, not to the
discussion as a whole... You have your way, I have mine... :dontknow:
I have no words to "take back"... :sigh:
As far as
confusion, I think only YOU have become confused... and so I apologize to you for not being clear enough to YOU, as to how I am involved here...
I do not believe that anyone is either RIGHT or WRONG... I believe one is either VEILED or REVEALED in any given observation... So it is not an issue with me to be CORRECT about everything and I do not argue to that end...
For I know that Scripture notes
ALL as SEEING through a glass DARKLY... which means we only SEE to the degree and in the areas, which GOD REVEALS... no RIGHT, no WRONG... :dontknow:
No matter how long one searches, one will still be INCOMPLETE in understanding... believing what they have found in that search along the way...
If we are searching and found INCOMPLETE in any given area, ...it is not due to our lack of perserverance, rather to the WORKING of GOD, in our present understanding...
I believe that in that SEARCH, we must hold fast to what we believe... it is not my agenda to convince you or anyone else of ANYTHING... :dontknow:
I don't REQUIRE that you believe as do I Craig... for I already
KNOW that I am in error to a degree in those beliefs... :mblush:
Btw... Do
YOU have this KNOWLEDGE? :Chinscratch:
QuoteFirst, because of my extensive experience in LIFE, I heartily :HeartThrob: disagree.
Simplicity is ALWAYS the best course, and produces the least flawed results. It has carried me successfully throught a lifetime, and I shall not now abandon it at your suggestion... :wink1:
The Scripture agrees, and states opposition to your words bro... (Ps 19:7) SIMPLICITY is always the best way, for COMPLICATION only leads to confusion.
Psalm 19:7
The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple.
Quote from: SOtW on June 04, 2008, 06:40:44 PMWise and Simple are opposites. in it's context, is speaking of how the testimonies, statutes, etc. of the Lord are without error. It is able to even make wise, those who are simple. It is literally saying, "The knowledge of the Lord is trustworthy, making wise the ignorant."
Actually it is stating that the WORD of
YHVH is COMPLETE... and stating that it is able to COMPLETE (make wise) the SIMPLE (incomplete)
Wise and SIMPLE are NOT necessarily opposites... :laughing7:
WISE and FOOLISH are opposites Craig... the OPPOSITE of SIMPLE is also COMPLICATED... :dontknow:
The most SIMPLE person, can still be very WISE... I know a guy that is quite "slow" mentally. He doesn't drink, smoke, or corouse... He believes in GOD, and in the area of WISDOM, he is LARGE, for his life doesnt bear FOOLISHNESS... it bears WISDOM, yet he remains SIMPLE...
He is a great example of: (Matt 18:3) "except ye be converted and become AS
LITTLE CHILDREN
[simple], ye shall in NO wise, enter the Kingdom of Heaven"
CHRIST said this because, ...Little children, ...TRUST... and are
willing to LEARN... are subject to the PARENT, and FOLLOW that PARENT wherever the PARENT GOES... :dontknow: Without AGENDA, nor DEVICE... :boyheart: :girlheart:
Not needing anything, other than the PARENT... and that which the PARENT decides should be, ...i.e --- location, activity, etc....
I often pray Lord, send me to WHERE
you wish me to
GO, to DO what
you wish me to
DO, and to SAY what
you wish me to
SAY...
SIMPLICITY is the playing field upon which ALL can PLAY Craig! That is, ...unless the COMPLICATED ones in their pride, become unwilling to condescend (as does GOD) and refuse to "play" with the SIMPLE... :dontknow: ...Unwilling to "stoop" to SIMPLICITY...
GOD, who is INFINITE and without LIMIT concerning COMPLEXITY... has made the WISDOM of His WORD available to those which are at the farthest end of the COMPLEXITY (and COMPLETION) spectrum, ...the SIMPLE (BASICLY INCOMPLETE)... :bigGrin:
Whether you behold that simplicity as
FOOLISHNESS, or as
BASIC... I believe it to be BOTH... for BASICALLY we are FOOLISH... but in that state, we can move UPWARD into WISDOM...
And THAT is what Psalm 19:7 conveys... (in my observation brother, you are certainly
welcome to yours! You on the other hand,
insist I bow to
your understandings... Which is
basically the difference between us!)
In the below, the word SIMPLE is the area in which those who do NOT KNOW the Word of
YHVH are in...
They lack WISDOM (knowledge of the WORD of
YHVH), but are still, in their SIMPLICITY, able to gain that WISDOM, for GOD condescends to their level to build that WISDOM in them... for they are LITTLE CHILDREN... which are found to be SIMPLE.
PAUL noted (2 Cor 10:12) that there are those which MEASURE and COMPARE, ...THEMSELVES ...
BY... THEMSELVES... and are found
UNWISE...
Found thinking too highly of themselves, and their "knowledge"... I would rather be numbered amongst the SIMPLE... not comparing anyone or anything to myself... rather I compare myself to the WORD, seeking
IT (not men) to reveal to me the CORRECTION that I need in my life.
No MAN can do this for me... only the
WORD... believe what you will... :dontknow:
Quote from: SOtW on June 04, 2008, 06:40:44 PMLet me show you.
Psalm 119:130
The unfolding of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple.
Proverbs 1:32-33
For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them; but whoever listens to me will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of harm."
Proverbs 9:4
Let all who are simple come in here!" she says to those who lack judgment.
Proverbs 14:15
A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps.
Proverbs 14:18
The simple inherit folly, but the prudent are crowned with knowledge.
Proverbs 19:25
Flog a mocker, and the simple will learn prudence; rebuke a discerning man, and he will gain knowledge.
Proverbs 21:11
When a mocker is punished, the simple gain wisdom; when a wise man is instructed, he gets knowledge.
So I ask, be careful in what you present as your proofs, and be careful in whom you 'agree' with. There is more confusion in having error, than being in the truth. It is not an issue of simple, or complicated; it is about what is false and what is true and both of those can be simple and complex depending on where it comes from. Hopefully, you are a wise and discerning man.
Simplicity, is the basis for complexity... That which is COMPLICATED begins and has its ORIGIN in Simplicity... which is what the above Scriptures convey... You are welcome to see them as opposites... I see them as building blocks... for as GOD who is able to show WISDOM to the SIMPLE... does so... He builds upon that foundation...
You don't see it that way... fine with me... I don't see your "proofs" as confounding what I said... :sigh:
Because you believe you have TRUTH in this area... is reduced to YOUR view... which is not necessarily exalted to TRUTH...
Quote from: SOtW on June 04, 2008, 06:40:44 PMAnd no, I wasn't meaning the 'civil' thing to be provoking, I am just used to personal attacks being used as 'reasons' from you and I am asking you politely not to do it.
For the record, ...I stated that, though your words concerning the "civil thing" SOUNDED PROVOKING, that I believed that this was NOT your INTENT...
In my opinion by this reply, it shows you stated the "civil" thing to begin dissension between us... You could have easily left it out, but... you didn't... :sigh:
How unflattering of you to drag skeletons out of the closet Craig... It just shows that you haven't grown...
Our Savior instructed us to FORGIVE... try it brother C, ...you'll like it! :happygrin:
pEace...
...willieH :cloud9:
Hi willie, Craig,
I will take the blame for this one, I shouldn't have responded to what Craig said to you about me. Sorry for any role I played in this. willie, I do enjoy reading your post and agree with pretty much of what you have to say. Like you, I don't agree with any one 100% of the time and I don't think any one else does either, at least I haven't seen it on here or any other forum. I have learned a lot from reading others post though, but really what difference does it make whether we agree with each other or not? What do we have that wasn't given to us? We shouldn't be striving about little things like that, there are more important things to discuss. I am spiritually hungry, lets eat.
willie, I love you brother, Craig, I love you too. :ilu: God bless you both.
Sorry for this interruption, Carry on. :bgdance:
CHB
Quote from: CHB on June 09, 2008, 12:37:21 AM
Hi willie, Craig,
I will take the blame for this one, I shouldn't have responded to what Craig said to you about me. Sorry for any role I played in this. willie, I do enjoy reading your post and agree with pretty much of what you have to say. Like you, I don't agree with any one 100% of the time and I don't think any one else does either, at least I haven't seen it on here or any other forum. I have learned a lot from reading others post though, but really what difference does it make whether we agree with each other or not? What do we have that wasn't given to us? We shouldn't be striving about little things like that, there are more important things to discuss. I am spiritually hungry, lets eat.
willie, I love you brother, Craig, I love you too. :ilu: God bless you both.
Sorry for this interruption, Carry on. :bgdance:
CHB
:goodpost:
For the record,
(1) I love to read your comments as well sis! :cloud9:
(2) And find much agreement with you as well! :bgdance:
(3) there is absolutely nothing here that is "your fault"... :mpardon:
Love you too sis! :friendstu: :giveheart:
...willieH :cloud9:
CHB.
Although the moment you made it personal, is when you failed; the moment you apologized, is when you succeeded in this discussion.
Thanks
In love,
Craig
Quote from: willieH on June 08, 2008, 03:08:45 AM
willieH: Hi Craig... :hithere:
Quote from: SOtW on June 05, 2008, 12:12:44 AM
That is not what I said CHB. I said, if willieh agrees with you, then he should not be telling me he doesn't. You make things personal where they are not. That is your short coming in this discussion.
So small is this comment... I agreed with a portion that my friend CHB offered, ...I quoted that portion, and then, agreed with IT... :dontknow:
I did not state COMPLETE agreement with all she has ever said... :mshock:
Heck, I've even (in a few instances) agreed with YOU! :laughing7: That certainly doesn't equate to COMPLETE agreement with YOU... :laughing7:
A selective and unwarranted ASSUMPTION, resulting in a FALSE conclusion... :sigh:
pEace...
...willieH :cloud9:
Nope there was no assumption. You did not agree to a portion, you agreed. Leaving that you agreed to all of it. Therefore you, are responsible for clarification, since you offered no rebuttals to the portion you did not agree with. You need to take responsibility for your inability to communicate. The rest of what you replied, after this 'quote', has nothing of relevance, and means nothing, since you still do not accept you erred in your reply. So, instead of addressing it any longer, you should have apologized for the misunderstanding, and then ignored my response in relation misunderstanding that nobody knew about. That is your weakness, you cannot see beyond your feelings, or your what you think is obvious to others. You accuse others of assumptions, but cannot see where you have made assumptions and allowed them to be made.
Do not reply to this, I have no further purpose to continue this conversation. I already apologized if what I saw was a misunderstanding, and you failed to see it therefore I have no respect for your replies (notice I said your replies, not "you"). I have feelings also, so think very very clearly, and behave like an 'elder' in Christ, before you make any more responses.
willieH: Hi sotw... :cloud9:
In my detailed reply I showed you respect several times... which YOU have opted to do otherwise in this "answer"... :sigh:
It is not my intent now, nor ever was, to "hurt you
feelin's" brother... :friendstu:
You just have an agenda which
insists it is correct... I do not... :dontknow:
I prefer to believe that no one is actually right or wrong... we are either veiled or revealed in any given area...
We are ALL veiled to a degree Craig, this includes YOU and I... :dontknow:
It is the work of GOD to remove the veils... which impede our understanding... :cloud9:
Quote from: SOtW on June 09, 2008, 04:12:49 AM
Quote from: willieH on June 08, 2008, 03:08:45 AM
willieH: Hi Craig... :hithere:
Quote from: SOtW on June 05, 2008, 12:12:44 AM
That is not what I said CHB. I said, if willieh agrees with you, then he should not be telling me he doesn't. You make things personal where they are not. That is your short coming in this discussion.
So small is this comment... I agreed with a portion that my friend CHB offered, ...I quoted that portion, and then, agreed with IT... :dontknow:
I did not state COMPLETE agreement with all she has ever said... :mshock:
Heck, I've even (in a few instances) agreed with YOU! :laughing7: That certainly doesn't equate to COMPLETE agreement with YOU... :laughing7:
A selective and unwarranted ASSUMPTION, resulting in a FALSE conclusion... :sigh:
pEace...
...willieH :cloud9:
Nope there was no assumption. You did not agree to a portion, you agreed. Leaving that you agreed to all of it. Therefore you, are responsible for clarification, :laughing7: since you offered no rebuttals to the portion you did not agree with. You need to take responsibility for your inability to communicate. :pointlaugh: The rest of what you replied, after this 'quote', has nothing of relevance, and means nothing, since you still do not accept you erred in your reply. :laugh: So, instead of addressing it any longer, you should have apologized for the misunderstanding, :drama: and then ignored my response in relation misunderstanding that nobody knew about. That is your weakness, you cannot see beyond your feelings, or your what you think is obvious to others. :violin: You accuse others of assumptions, but cannot see where you have made assumptions and allowed them to be made. :shakepoint:
Do not reply to this, :whistleshake: I have no further purpose to continue this conversation. I already apologized if what I saw was a misunderstanding, and you failed to see it therefore I have no respect for your replies (notice I said your replies, not "you"). I have feelings also, so think very very clearly, and behave like an 'elder' in Christ, before you make any more responses.
Do not reply? Please... :laughhand:
:Yeahright: When is it going to dawn on you that I don't owe YOU anything, nor am I "responsible" to answer you... get a clue brother...
I post for the benefit of others, ...they (as well as you) can read what I post and are welcome to accept or reject what I say... It just doesn't matter to me what
you think of my observations... :dontknow:
I gave you a concise and detailed answer, ...you don't agree with it, understand it, or accept it... :dontknow: ...not my problem... :Mcry:
I wish you no ill, regardless... :HeartThrob:
pEace...
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 03, 2008, 03:43:12 PM
I never said we would be God. the closest I have come to that is stating that we will be equal in the same manner that Jesus is equal to his father while still being subject to the father.
Paul, I think you may be mistaking
subsisting within God (God's immanence within us through Christ) for
existing as God in the same way Jesus was God over and above created beings (God's transcendence).
Subsistence and existence are related, but not equal.
Do you see a difference between the two?
Mary Ellen
Quote from: CHB on June 03, 2008, 08:10:16 PM
Hi Paul,
I believe you are right when you say that we WILL BE GOD'S. If we are children of God, of course we will be gods. We will have our Father's name. (Eph.3:15) "Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named".
Angels are referred to as gods, so is Satan and so are we, because we all are of God.
CHB
We're told by John that those who believe are the right to be called the children of God, which is why we can call God "Abba" or Father. Yet, Paul clarifies this in Eph 1: 5 by identifying the nature of that sonship—we are
adopted children of God.
Yes, we have the same rights of inheritance as the Son (as John says) because we are given the Father's name through Jesus Christ, but we cannot change our created state of being (as Paul tells us) because adopted children do not have the same " genetic makeup" of the begotten Son, who is God by nature and essence, not adoption.
As I mentioned to Paul in my first post, you mistake our subsistence in Christ for self-existent Godhood.
Either that or you do not view Jesus Christ as divine, the Son who is equal in essence to the Father.
Can't tell others what to believe about Jesus; He calls us each in His own way according to His own will, not ours; but I do think you've conflated several concepts from different sources to make something palatable to your own beliefs. I don't mind that, but for clarity's sake it should be identified as Gnostic/New Age Christianity, which relies heavily on the Immanence of God in creating its doctrines, but ignores His Transcendence because it is inconvenient.
Mary Ellen
Quote from: CHB on June 03, 2008, 10:03:24 PM
Wasn't Jesus called God? Not because he was the Father but because he was the Father's Son, and so are we.
You left out the big word "I" in explaining this verse,
(John 10:34) "Is it not written in your law I SAID YE ARE GODS".
Who called the Jew's gods? Jesus Christ. I cannot argue with him?
CHB
I believe the bible is a unity of Truth. The truth is not found in individual passages pulled out of context, but in weighing one passage against another and filtering ALL of it through Jesus' words and teachings.
For instance, the quote from Psalm 82 under discussion here that many cherrypick from the bible to prove their personal Christology that "ye are gods" does not hold up in context or meaning when examined either alone, or in light of what Jesus was saying to them. It can only hold true in isolation.
The context of that phrase includes such things as the audience it is addressed to, the purpose for which they are being addressed, the one doing the speaking, and an understanding of the historical and contemporary meanings of the vocabulary used.
In the case of Psalm 82, we can understood who the "congregation" mentioned is by referring back to Jesus' words in John 10:35 when He quoted this Psalm
"If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came. . . ."
The congregation being spoken to in the Psalm is those "to whom the word of God came." What is this "word"? Jesus tells us in the previous verse in John:
"Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"
The word He is talking about is the Law--the Pentateuch, the Torah, the first five books of our bible.
Does this fit with the rest of Psalm 82? If we read the entire psalm, yes, it does fit. God, through the Psalmist is telling the Jews that they are like gods because He gave them the power to judge the people. However, they used this power poorly and failed to take care of the poor and the widowed and the orphaned. The Psalm ends with God basically saying "I am the only one who can judge with justice."
So, understanding this, that the Psalms are not saying all men are little gods waiting to become Christ Consciousness beings, but is referring instead to a specific group within the Jewish community given permission to do something which only God Himself is capable of doing justly, we can understand what Jesus is saying in John 10.
Jesus is speaking to the descendents of the very same people in Psalm 82, the Jews of the Sanhedrin, those given a small bit of power by God to judge the people and maintain the Law. If they, to whom God gave a just a little of His power to could be called little gods, then who were they to say He (Jesus) was a blasphemer when He, who was completely holy and had been sent into the world, called Himself the Son of God.
Jesus is not saying they had been sanctified by the Father and sent into the world in the same way He had been (which is what you are saying when you speak of Christ Consciousness--and whether you use the term or not, this is exactly what you and Paul are speaking about). He is merely comparing their limited authority to His own. And that's why He refers them to the work He is doing. They are incapable of such things and THAT is the sign that what He says is true.
When read in context, comparing the two scripture passages, it is easy to see that Jesus is making the OPPOSITE claim that you are, CHB.
Read Psalm 82 instead of blindly quoting it to make a point about your personal Christology. You might be surprised to see that the words following the oft quoted "ye are gods" phrase is this:
"but ye shall die AS MEN . . ."
Our natures do not change, only our relationship to God the Father through Jesus.
Mary Ellen
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 02:19:50 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 03, 2008, 03:43:12 PM
I never said we would be God. the closest I have come to that is stating that we will be equal in the same manner that Jesus is equal to his father while still being subject to the father.
Paul, I think you may be mistaking subsisting within God (God's immanence within us through Christ) for existing as God in the same way Jesus was God over and above created beings (God's transcendence).
Subsistence and existence are related, but not equal.
Do you see a difference between the two?
Mary Ellen
I wrote we are still subject to the Father. My point of view uses some scriptural consistancy.
Gn 1:27 And creating is the Elohim humanity in His image. In the image of the Elohim He creates it. Male and female He creates them.
Gn 3:22 And saying is Yahweh Elohim, "Behold! The human becomes as one of us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he stretch forth his hand, moreover, and take of the tree of the living, and eat and live for the eon--!"
Phl 2:6 Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God,
John 17:21 that they may all be one, according as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us, that the world should be believing that Thou dost commission Me.
22 "And I have given them the glory which Thou has given Me, that they may be one, according as We are One,
Quote from: SeekerSA on June 02, 2008, 09:41:31 PM
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on June 02, 2008, 07:39:00 PM
And Seeker...
There has to be some punishment. Your basically saying I could go get an MP5 Machine gun and go on a killing spree, set terrorist bombs, torture, and possibly take thousands of lives right now that could have amounted to something amazing in the future and the worst I could suffer is the electric chair...
That cant be right... I know God forgives... but thats just mad. There has to be some kind of temperal punishment for the sin...
Well when you find scripture that shows that we have to go though a temporal punishment of any sorts, I would be interested to read that.
Two points this brings to my mind:
1. Can any one scripture on its own "show" truth? Isn't this what Christians have done for years, pulled verses out of context to shore up personal doctrines? Doesn't UR face that same problem if we are not careful to adhere to what the scriptures say?
2. Do you see a difference between punishment and restitution for wrongs done?
I could point out many verses showing restitution is part of restoration. We cannot be restored without equal recourse to God's Justice as to His Love. They work together, imo, and cannot be isolated. Without that, you end up with the extreme opposite of those who hold hell is infinite torture for finite crimes. Neither one works for me personally and both seem to run counter to scripture.
Yes, those who accept Jesus' invitation are saved from condemnation, but how about those who refuse Him in this life and do face condemnation?
Don't get me wrong. I fully embrace the universal restoration of all things through Christ. I firmly believe we are called to follow Him because the Body of Christ plays an essential part in that ultimate plan to return all to God. But I do not think we can discount one extreme that ignores God's Love by embracing the opposite extreme that discounts His Justice.
From what I understand of Jesus' teachings, Justice executed through Mercy is Love. We cannot have the Love of God without both his Justice and Mercy--and that involves just condemnation before Mercy can be applied to arrive at that Love.
Mary Ellen
QuoteLook at what you said:
..the worst I could suffer is the electric chair...
Then you want some "afterlife" punishment too and then this kinda negates the Jesus sacrifice bit too as then He did not cover everything then? (btw I am not a believer in substitution atonement - deep topic and study - later)
Well if you did what you implied I said you could do (which I didn't) you suffer the consequences in this life.
See with this perspective you haul out a sin list and also grade sins where in the eyes of God, sin is sin. See it is the church system that introduced a sin list and a grading system.
Well - when you think about it, then it make salvation dependant on us and that is not so.
Read my blog and then ask questions again.
Blessings
fixed quote
Quote from: CHB on June 02, 2008, 12:23:47 AM
Quote from: The Angel of Truth
Q: If Hell does not exist then what is the punishment for sin? It has to be punished somehow. Its not like Hitler will just be let in the Heavenly gates.
Hi,
I can't answer all of your questions now, don't have the time but I am sure they all will be answered by others.
The wages of sin is death, nothing more nothing less. The lake of fire, hell, is just a correction not a punishment. God is a consuming fire. His ministers are a flame of fire. The works will be burned up not the person. (1 Cor. 3:13-16) Here in the lake of fire you will be baptized with fire.
CHB
I have similar ideas to yours about God's Love being a consuming fire, that the works not the person is consumed, and that the Lake of fire is a correction not a punishment. I'm curious, though, could you explain in more detail when you do have time available how you actually view this correction? Where and how is it done? When works are burned up, is the person unaffected? Do they stand by untouched as they watch their works undergo the flames of God's Love?
I guess I'm asking if you differentiate between the first and second death? If so, which represents the payment for the debt sin incurred in man? Does Jesus' death cover both? If so, in what ways?
I believe Jesus' death on the cross overcame death (so the debt for Adamic sin is paid and for those who believe in this age, they are spared the condemnation (trial before the Throne on the last day).
Yet, scripture speaks of the condemnation of those who are not in Christ and a second death. It speaks also of Christians undergoing this "fire/flame as well concerning their "works" and what they've built upon that foundation Christ provided for us. Where does this fit into the beliefs you've developed around UR?
I ask because I believe this is a relatively new area of study and, though lots has been written, there are very many different ways people are interpreting the rest of scripture based on UR as a foundational belief. I'm curious how others view it, what ideas they've developed from it, and how consistent those ideas are with scripture.
Thanks,
Mary Ellen
Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
JESUS CHRIST paid the price for SIN Angel... no amount of "punishment" can rectify even one sin...
Hello, Willie. I agree with this: ultimately it is Christ's death which rectifies it all.
But, as I've asked elsewhere, do you see any difference between punishment and restitution in the name of Justice one makes for harms done others? Yes, Christ's death is the mercy that will transform that justice into Love, but is the Love available without that restitution being accepted first? And how does someone who has not accepted Christ in this life do so in the next--without doing what those who are called in this age must do, which is to allow GOd's Love to burn away everything in our egos that separates us from Him?
At death do those who never accepted salvation through Christ simply rise to a Loving life in God without any form of trial or condemnation taking place as Jesus said and as is explicit in many scriptural passages? Is Justice simply eliminated in favor of Love?
FTR, I agree that they will be offered the same mercy Christians have accepted in this life, but I think the second death in the Lake of Fire is a very real thing and it won't be a walk in the park, a terrible burning away of all that they held onto in life that separated them from God and which will then be burned away from them. Not a punishment, but the same Love all will be exposed to at the same time. How we each experience it will depend on the relationship we built with God in this life.
Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
This lifetime IS the LAKE of FIRE, in which we suffer for SIN... the FLESH profits NOTHING... :dontknow:
Sounds good . . . until we take into consideration the number of people in this life who seem to prosper from sin, who indisriminately hurt others and get away with it on a major scale. Your statement would not satisfy any of the billions of people who have suffered injustice at the hand of a despot of some sort who lived life to a ripe old age surrounded by their ill gotten gains. As I said, it sounds good, but it doesn't answer the practical questions people ask when faced with real life injustice that too often acts with impunity.
UR becomes a useless doctrine as a replacement for ET UNLESS it answers the questions people ask that lead them to believe in and accept such a strange concept about God to begin with. If the bible contains God's truth, then the answers must be in there and conform to UR for UR to be true. Otherwise, it's just another feel good religious point of view.
Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
... and the FLESH which each of us SINS in, DIES and returns to the dust...
And when that flesh rises as we've been promised? Where is the sin? What account can be made for sin people did not submit to Jesus for payment then? How is all recgtified at that point?
The assumption that it all just "disappears" regardless of how men accept Jesus' gift in this aeon or not baffles me.
If men simply died and never rose I might be able to accept your argument, but that ignores resurrection and the role of the second death.
Plus, we're back to the "is annhilation any better except in degree to ET? If Jesus meant all, He meant all.
So, no, I can't accept your theology here. It leaves too many unanswered questions for me.
Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
As JESUS said: Let him WITHOUT SIN cast the first stone... we are all UNWORTHY to cast a stone at a SINNER, as we are found to hold that undistinguished title, ourselves... :winkgrin:
No doubt, and that's why Jesus commanded us not to judge others. Yet, He did speak frequently of judgment and condemnation. Unless we can rectify those things with UR, keeping the character of God intact without eliminating either His Love or His Justice, we've got just another gnostic concept of how it all works according to our minds, and not the mind of God expressed in scriptures.
Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
The observation of HITLER is an assumption that in some way, you consider your life a more worthy life than was his, based upon YOUR LIFE by comparision is it not? Not picking on you, just trying to get you to see... we ALL deserve death, for even ONE SIN, sends CHRIST to the cross to redeem us!)
We all make assumptions, willie; you did , too, in assuming that "worthiness" instead of some concept of God's holines and justice leads one to ask the question AoT did. Yes, Chrit's death paid for our littler sins as surely as it paid for the many of Hitler's, yet, you are suggesting that without recourse to Christ Hitler can be automatically forgiven at death.
I certainly do believe God wills Hitler's salvation and that Christ has purchased that for him. Yet, Hitler must take the same responsibility for his many "big" sins as I and others have for our many "smaller" ones before that mercy can be applied.
Or did you come to Jesus Christ without some sense of metanoia/repentance?
I see nothing in your argument that requires a Hitler or a person at a mall with an AK47 to repent for their lack of love to others. They simply die and the wage (death) is paid?
It seems as if you are equating human death with Mercy. A very weak argument I do not accept in the least.
Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
There is no "afterlife" Angel... this is an UNBIBLICAL observation...
Upon the conclusion of this life, Our SPIRIT, ...RETURNS to where we emerged -- GOD...
If you are Christian, then where does resurrection fit into this picture, willie?
If not, okay, no argument from me, but I took it that AoT was asking for scriptural understandings about UR and how it impacts on beliefs he had before.
What you said above concerning the disposability of matter and the everlasting spirit indicates to me that you are a gnostic Christian. As I said, no problem with me because Christ leads us all in our own way, but since a 14 year old may not be familiar with the differences I would probably post questions to you identifying those differences a lot more than I would normally.
Since you say the afterlife is an unbiblical observation, I feel you've opened the door to debate based on scripture. So, please provide the scriptures for what you said next:
Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
In order to RETURN, one must have previously been there... We came FROM GOD... we RETURN to Him... in ETERNITY we ALWAYS are... TIME is a temporal "classroom" in which the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL is gained, and in gaining that knowledge we become AS IS our Father and HIS Son... (Gen 3:22)
That last was straight out of Genesis and is the precise definition of original sin: thinking we can discern good and evil through knowledge to become as gods . . .
Definitely gnostic, willie :) . . . and certainly a reversal of scripture, to say the least.
Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
So how many do you percieve are LOST, Angel? Did CHRIST accomplish His mission? At it's end, did He not say "IT IS FINISHED"?
If there is still more to do (such as you suggest above in blue), why did He say it was finished?
In the same way you indicated above--not in temporal time, but in the Eternal Now of God. It is the same "It is finished" as we hear in the Book of Revelation, willie, which has not yet occured in our time frame. Both events are one, but separated through linear time. When one was accomplished in the Eternal Now, the other was as well. But in linear time, only one has occured, the other is yet to come for us. Just as some are now found and some yet to be found in linear time who are still lost..
Don't mistake the entire process in the eternal now for the separate events as we perceive them in linear time. So, yes, in linear time, the only time man perceives and that GOd works with in His Love and Mercy, "there is still more to do." Meaning people remain responsible for what they do within this time frame, even though in the eternal now they have been forgiven and restored to the Father.
Mary Ellen
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 03, 2008, 03:43:12 PM
I never said we would be God. the closest I have come to that is stating that we will be equal in the same manner that Jesus is equal to his father while still being subject to the father.
The KJV and the NKJV quote a variant Greek manuscript which may be the more accurate one where Philippians 2 is concerned when it says "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who thought it not robbery to be called equal with God."
I probably won't be the best apologist tonight 'cause of waking up from an afternoon nap that ran a little long, but there's a major difference between
equal to
&
equal with
Ephesians says that we've been raised up together to sit with Christ in heavenly places -- side by side with Him, side by side with one another, and side by side with Father -- but not equal to Father. The New Age tries to promise people that they'll be equal to God, meaning that their word will be as true and as age-enduring as His -- which is absolute insanity. Our words are only enduring to the degree that we've made His Word, our Word, and have put away from us a disobedient mouth and have put perverse lips far from us. Equal with is a relational and positional relativity with regards to the rest of the Creation and for the specific purpose of raising up the rest of the Creation out of it's dung.
I think that there's still much confusion between the Kingdom age and what we shall be after 1Corinthians 15:28 when God is all in all, and both Christ and ourselves have abdicated after all things have been both subdued and reconciled. We positionally have things right now out of necessity and out of covenant right in order to fulfill all of Father's purposes for the restitution of all things that might not always be ours in the way that they're ours right this minute. That's an entirely different thing from being equal to and being able to use Kingdom resources, power, and wisdom for our own agendas. I know that a lot of people don't believe in Milton's Paradise Lost type of theology, but it's still a fitting analogy, that God's not letting us do with His resources and power at His right hand what Lucifer got kicked out of heaven for doing with trying to be "equal to" with his own agenda.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 16, 2008, 03:21:32 AM
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 02:19:50 AM
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 03, 2008, 03:43:12 PM
I never said we would be God. the closest I have come to that is stating that we will be equal in the same manner that Jesus is equal to his father while still being subject to the father.
Paul, I think you may be mistaking subsisting within God (God's immanence within us through Christ) for existing as God in the same way Jesus was God over and above created beings (God's transcendence).
Subsistence and existence are related, but not equal.
Do you see a difference between the two?
Mary Ellen
I wrote we are still subject to the Father. My point of view uses some scriptural consistancy.
I have no argument that we are subject to Father because that is part of subsisting within God as an adopted child through Christ. But that does not answer my question of whether or not you are claiming we will possess the equivalent divine essence and nature of Christ simply because we are graced to subsist within the divine?
Do we
subsist within God through Christ, or do we
exist AS the Godhead does, our human nature being changed to divine at that point?
Could you define for me what being an adopted child means to you in terms of our human nature and the divine nature of the Father and Son?
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 16, 2008, 03:21:32 AMGn 1:27 And creating is the Elohim humanity in His image. In the image of the Elohim He creates it. Male and female He creates them.
A biblical quote tells me nothing beyond what I believe it says unless you also explain why you chose it and how it relates to the point you wish to make.
What does being made in the image of God mean to you? Does a created thing have the same essence as the Creator? Are the beings equivalent because they are similar in likeness?
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 16, 2008, 03:21:32 AMGn 3:22 And saying is Yahweh Elohim, "Behold! The human becomes as one of us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he stretch forth his hand, moreover, and take of the tree of the living, and eat and live for the eon--!"
Do you see a difference between "The human
is one of us" versus "The human
is as one of us"? I ask because it makes a difference in how the next line is interpreted. Yes, man became similar to God in knowing good and evil, but this says nothing about man having the essence of God (Love) which knew how to use that knowledge for justice. He was "as a god" but not "a god."
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 16, 2008, 03:21:32 AMPhl 2:6 Who, being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging to be equal with God,
Martin covered this nicely already. I'll wait for your reply on that post.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 16, 2008, 03:21:32 AMJohn 17:21 that they may all be one, according as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us, that the world should be believing that Thou dost commission Me.
22 "And I have given them the glory which Thou has given Me, that they may be one, according as We are One,
Who do we become one with? Each other or God? We are to be one with each other as the Son is one with the Father. This does not change the fact that the oneness is then lived IN Christ as a unity of the human with each other and the divine through Him. Because Jesus Christ is in the Father, we will be in the Father as well. Subsistence, not a separate divine existence of our own.
Or, are you saying that Jesus was a man who attained Godhood and through Him we become God as well?
Mary Ellen
Quote from: martincisneros on June 16, 2008, 07:08:41 AM
That's an entirely different thing from being equal to and being able to use Kingdom resources, power, and wisdom for our own agendas.
I never said we would be able to use the kingdom in that manner. How would we be able to do that if we are subject to the Father.
I am still using biblical consistancy in my points, Jesus was subject to the Father.
Yet he did not find that it took anything away from the Father by saying he was equal, all the while saying that the Father was Greater.
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 08:13:19 AM
I have no argument that we are subject to Father because that is part of subsisting within God as an adopted child through Christ. But that does not answer my question of whether or not you are claiming we will possess the equivalent divine essence and nature of Christ simply because we are graced to subsist within the divine?
I said we would be equal to God in the same manner in which Jesus is. Jesus said the Father is greater than him. So Jesus being equal is not saying he is exactly the same.
Quote
Could you define for me what being an adopted child means to you in terms of our human nature and the divine nature of the Father and Son?
The verse that uses the term adoption is sometimes translated "a place as sons". I think the term adoption implys that we are separate and Gods grace allows our integration into the kingdom. While that could be true, I see us as being created "out of God" therefore our spiritual essence is equal to God in that manner, the same manner Jesus is. We are not "equivalent" concerning his power. This is why I specifically said in another post that we are equal in the same manner Jesus is.
Jesus could do nothing apart from the father, and neither can we. Yet we are Gods because our spiritual nature is in Gods image and equal in that sense.
Quote
Do you see a difference between "The human is one of us" versus "The human is as one of us"? I ask because it makes a difference in how the next line is interpreted. Yes, man became similar to God in knowing good and evil, but this says nothing about man having the essence of God (Love) which knew how to use that knowledge for justice. He was "as a god" but not "a god."
The verses that declare we are Gods do not say we are "as a" God. I have repeatedly said I know that we are subject to the Father, so it would be really tough for me to be saying that we are exactly God the Father and again why I said we are equal in the same manner as Jesus is.
Quote
Subsistence, not a separate divine existence of our own.
I have never said we have a separate existance on our own.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 16, 2008, 04:13:29 PM
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 08:13:19 AM
I have no argument that we are subject to Father because that is part of subsisting within God as an adopted child through Christ. But that does not answer my question of whether or not you are claiming we will possess the equivalent divine essence and nature of Christ simply because we are graced to subsist within the divine?
I said we would be equal to God in the same manner in which Jesus is. Jesus said the Father is greater than him. So Jesus being equal is not saying he is exactly the same.
Thank you for taking the time to explain more clearly. Got to be honest, though, I'm still not sure exactly what you believe about the nature and essence of Christ, but I doubt that in the long run it matters. I'm no heresy hunter by any means, just curious when I discuss things with people to know where we are similar and where we differ in our Christological points of view. Jesus didn't punish the other eleven for not answering correctly when He asked "Who do you say I am?" He just praised Peter for getting it right by God's grace.
Took me over 50 years to finally be able to say Jesus is divine and realize I believe in a trinitarian God, so I'm not out to convert others from however they view Him. I trust others have the same love for God and desire to find His truth that I do, and I trust God to lead them as He chooses.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 16, 2008, 04:13:29 PMThe verse that uses the term adoption is sometimes translated "a place as sons". I think the term adoption implys that we are separate and Gods grace allows our integration into the kingdom. While that could be true, I see us as being created "out of God" therefore our spiritual essence is equal to God in that manner, the same manner Jesus is.
This may be a good example of where the difference in belief concerning Jesus Christ's nature and essence influences the way we perceive ourselves and, by extension, all that we believe as Christians. I don't want to make assumptions about what you believe based on a few phrases here and there, that's why I ask so many questions. I hope you don't mind.
Okay, when you say we are "created 'out of God'" do you mean that man is given the same spirit as God
at his physical human birth? Is this why you say "therefore our spiritual essence is equal to God in that manner"?
On first read, I take this to mean you believe by nature man has God's spirit in him. Doesn't this deny the need for being reborn then? Isn't the purpose of accepting Jesus so that the "life"/spirit we lost through the fall can be returned to us?
If I read you correctly than you are saying we are the same "living souls" (Gen 2: 7) we were created to be before the fall. That we did not "die" and lose that spirit of life to become mortal "living bodies" (Lev 17: 11) after the fall.
The only way man by nature can have the divine spirit within him at physical human birth is if the fall hadn't happened. And then there would have been no need for Jesus Christ as a "quickening spirit" to redeem us from death (1Cor 15: 45). So his death and resurrection are meaningless.
If, however, by "created" you are referring to the time of our rebirth in Christ, then I can see what you're saying, but still would say the spiritual essence we now have is ours through Christ, not as some kind of fulfillment of our own human nature. Which is why I say we "subsist" in Christ, rather than become divine ourselves.
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 16, 2008, 04:13:29 PMJesus could do nothing apart from the father, and neither can we. Yet we are Gods because our spiritual nature is in Gods image and equal in that sense.
The same question here: are you referring to our having this spiritual nature at human physical birth or after rebirth in the Spirit through Christ?
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on June 16, 2008, 04:13:29 PMThe verses that declare we are Gods do not say we are "as a" God. I have repeatedly said I know that we are subject to the Father, so it would be really tough for me to be saying that we are exactly God the Father and again why I said we are equal in the same manner as Jesus is.
I was replying directly to one of those you listed, Paul:
Gn 3:22 And saying is Yahweh Elohim, "Behold! The human becomes
as one of us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he stretch forth his hand, moreover, and take of the tree of the living, and eat and live for the eon--!"
and based my reply to you on that, explaining that the simile shows we are NOT the same essence of God at all because of that fall, which is completely contrary to what you were attempting to show by that quote.
I did a quick exegesis of the "ye are gods" quote from the Psalms in another post on page 2, which shows the context and meaning of the verse in relationship to Jesus' use of the verse from Psalms in the gospels.
All the passages you use are usually taken out of context to make a case for the gnostic belief that Jesus was a man who achieved Christ consciousness and this is therefore the path we are on. When looked at in context, though, they usually show the exact opposite. One can only hold the gnostic point of view in isolation, ignoring the rest of scripture. This is why I do not accept it.
As I said above, we all answer the question Christ asked His disciples differently from each other, and even differently at various times in our own lives, so this isn't an argument with you. But, because these replies are being given to a 14 yr old Christian asking for info, I considered that Love requires us to clearly show what might not be evident at first glance to someone not familiar with the nuances of gnosticism and how it differs from more traditonal Christianity.
I trust AoT will be led by the SPirit in his search for truth, but it never hurts to clarify the info we are offering.
May seem like a little thing, but a litle difference can lead to wide variations within a variety of interconnected theological viewpoints.
Mary Ellen
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 02:57:05 AM
Quote from: CHB on June 03, 2008, 10:03:24 PM
Wasn't Jesus called God? Not because he was the Father but because he was the Father's Son, and so are we.
You left out the big word "I" in explaining this verse,
(John 10:34) "Is it not written in your law I SAID YE ARE GODS".
Who called the Jew's gods? Jesus Christ. I cannot argue with him?
CHB
I believe the bible is a unity of Truth. The truth is not found in individual passages pulled out of context, but in weighing one passage against another and filtering ALL of it through Jesus' words and teachings.
For instance, the quote from Psalm 82 under discussion here that many cherrypick from the bible to prove their personal Christology that "ye are gods" does not hold up in context or meaning when examined either alone, or in light of what Jesus was saying to them. It can only hold true in isolation.
The context of that phrase includes such things as the audience it is addressed to, the purpose for which they are being addressed, the one doing the speaking, and an understanding of the historical and contemporary meanings of the vocabulary used.
In the case of Psalm 82, we can understood who the "congregation" mentioned is by referring back to Jesus' words in John 10:35 when He quoted this Psalm
"If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came. . . ."
The congregation being spoken to in the Psalm is those "to whom the word of God came." What is this "word"? Jesus tells us in the previous verse in John:
"Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"
The word He is talking about is the Law--the Pentateuch, the Torah, the first five books of our bible.
Does this fit with the rest of Psalm 82? If we read the entire psalm, yes, it does fit. God, through the Psalmist is telling the Jews that they are like gods because He gave them the power to judge the people. However, they used this power poorly and failed to take care of the poor and the widowed and the orphaned. The Psalm ends with God basically saying "I am the only one who can judge with justice."
So, understanding this, that the Psalms are not saying all men are little gods waiting to become Christ Consciousness beings, but is referring instead to a specific group within the Jewish community given permission to do something which only God Himself is capable of doing justly, we can understand what Jesus is saying in John 10.
Jesus is speaking to the descendents of the very same people in Psalm 82, the Jews of the Sanhedrin, those given a small bit of power by God to judge the people and maintain the Law. If they, to whom God gave a just a little of His power to could be called little gods, then who were they to say He (Jesus) was a blasphemer when He, who was completely holy and had been sent into the world, called Himself the Son of God.
Jesus is not saying they had been sanctified by the Father and sent into the world in the same way He had been (which is what you are saying when you speak of Christ Consciousness--and whether you use the term or not, this is exactly what you and Paul are speaking about). He is merely comparing their limited authority to His own. And that's why He refers them to the work He is doing. They are incapable of such things and THAT is the sign that what He says is true.
When read in context, comparing the two scripture passages, it is easy to see that Jesus is making the OPPOSITE claim that you are, CHB.
Read Psalm 82 instead of blindly quoting it to make a point about your personal Christology. You might be surprised to see that the words following the oft quoted "ye are gods" phrase is this:
"but ye shall die AS MEN . . ."
Our natures do not change, only our relationship to God the Father through Jesus.
Mary Ellen
Mary Ellen,
Nice to meet you. You are certainly intitled to your opinion, although I respectfully disagree with you.
CHB
Quote from: CHB on June 17, 2008, 02:04:09 AM
Mary Ellen,
Nice to meet you. You are certainly intitled to your opinion, although I respectfully disagree with you.
CHB
Hi, CHB. Nice to meet you as well!
No problemo with an agreement to disagree. As long as my exegesis accurately interprets scripture, I'm content. The thing about being truth seekers is that we have to go where the truth is, not where our minds or hearts would prefer to be.
I've been reading gnostic texts since the late 70's when Nag Hammadi first got translated into English (had my local librarian get me a copy from NY to read it, in fact). I enjoy them and lots of them catch my attention, but God let me know a long time ago that even though He is me, I am not Him :)
Many want Immanence without Transcendence (gnostic/new age Christians). Others want Transcendence without Immanence (fear-based sola scriptura Christians). SOme of us learn that God is both and once we keep that in mind, we discover more clearly who we are in Him.
Blessings to you, CHB!
Mary Ellen
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 04:55:10 AM
Quote from: CHB on June 02, 2008, 12:23:47 AM
Quote from: The Angel of Truth
Q: If Hell does not exist then what is the punishment for sin? It has to be punished somehow. Its not like Hitler will just be let in the Heavenly gates.
Hi,
I can't answer all of your questions now, don't have the time but I am sure they all will be answered by others.
The wages of sin is death, nothing more nothing less. The lake of fire, hell, is just a correction not a punishment. God is a consuming fire. His ministers are a flame of fire. The works will be burned up not the person. (1 Cor. 3:13-16) Here in the lake of fire you will be baptized with fire.
CHB
I have similar ideas to yours about God's Love being a consuming fire, that the works not the person is consumed, and that the Lake of fire is a correction not a punishment. I'm curious, though, could you explain in more detail when you do have time available how you actually view this correction? Where and how is it done? When works are burned up, is the person unaffected? Do they stand by untouched as they watch their works undergo the flames of God's Love?
You ask if the person was unaffected? Only spiritually. When you came to see the truth were you unaffected? I had a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth myself.
Quote from: autoimmune
I guess I'm asking if you differentiate between the first and second death? If so, which represents the payment for the debt sin incurred in man? Does Jesus' death cover both? If so, in what ways?
Yes, the first death is physical, the second is spiritual. I believe Jesus death brought us spiritual life. His death didn't cover our physical death, we are all still dying. When I say our second death is a spiritual death, I believe we die to sin {ourselves} and are dead in Christ.
Quote from: autoimmune
I believe Jesus' death on the cross overcame death (so the debt for Adamic sin is paid and for those who believe in this age, they are spared the condemnation (trial before the Throne on the last day).
Yet, scripture speaks of the condemnation of those who are not in Christ and a second death. It speaks also of Christians undergoing this "fire/flame as well concerning their "works" and what they've built upon that foundation Christ provided for us. Where does this fit into the beliefs you've developed around UR?
Notice, it is our WORKS that will be burned up. When we are in Christ we don't have any works of our own, they are all the works of Christ.
CHB
I ask because I believe this is a relatively new area of study and, though lots has been written, there are very many different ways people are interpreting the rest of scripture based on UR as a foundational belief. I'm curious how others view it, what ideas they've developed from it, and how consistent those ideas are with scripture.
Thanks,
Mary Ellen
[/quote]
Quote from: autoimmune on June 17, 2008, 02:16:22 AM
Quote from: CHB on June 17, 2008, 02:04:09 AM
Mary Ellen,
Nice to meet you. You are certainly intitled to your opinion, although I respectfully disagree with you.
CHB
Hi, CHB. Nice to meet you as well!
No problemo with an agreement to disagree. As long as my exegesis accurately interprets scripture, I'm content. The thing about being truth seekers is that we have to go where the truth is, not where our minds or hearts would prefer to be.
I've been reading gnostic texts since the late 70's when Nag Hammadi first got translated into English (had my local librarian get me a copy from NY to read it, in fact). I enjoy them and lots of them catch my attention, but God let me know a long time ago that even though He is me, I am not Him :)
Many want Immanence without Transcendence (gnostic/new age Christians). Others want Transcendence without Immanence (fear-based sola scriptura Christians). SOme of us learn that God is both and once we keep that in mind, we discover more clearly who we are in Him.
Blessings to you, CHB!
Mary Ellen
Hi Mary Ellen,
I never said I was God, I am a child of God and that makes me god also. Jesus wasn't God the Father, he was God the Son. Jesus said "my Father is greater than I". The Father and Jesus are greater than I am but I am a god because I am a child of God. (1Peter 1:3) says we are begotten again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We have been spiritually begotten.
I believe you said you believe in the trinity which I see as a false doctrine. I do believe Jesus came from God but I just don't see in the scriptures that Jesus is his own Father. Nor do I see the Holy Spirit as a person but a power that God uses.
CHB
Quote from: CHB on June 17, 2008, 02:25:22 AM
You ask if the person was unaffected? Only spiritually. When you came to see the truth were you unaffected? I had a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth myself.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt myself, CHB. I asked the question because I know that when the gnashing and wailing happens with me, it also physically affects me, not just in my soul, but in my body as well. It isn't just a spiritual torment to see ourselves in the light of God's Love for us, but a physical response as well. The whole person is affected by repentence, imo, not just our souls.
FTR, I define soul as the mind, emotions and will of the human person. When I say spirit, I mean the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I believe humans are born with body and soul, but the spirit, the life of God, was lost to us through original sin. In Christ, we are reborn and live again through the power of the Spirit.
If the human person is a unity of body and soul, then spiritual pain cannot be isolated from physical pain. If all rise to judgment on the last day, then can we guarentee that the restoration of all will not involve any physical pain at all, just some ethereal spiritual pain?
I know it sounds like semantics, but I think a lot of people get the idea that Christians who believe in such universal restoration are saying there is no price we pay for sin, or that we are not responsible for the things we do in this life. I believe God is Love, but that doesn't mean He would never allow us to feel the pain we have caused ourselves.
I believe this is the issue AoT was speaking to when he first asked the question about traditional ET interpretation of the bible that there is a price to be paid for sin.
To be told God is love so everything will be okay doesn't seem to answer his question, nor those coming from other honest Christians who are attracted to the idea of UR, but fear it counters scriptures. I think discussions like these help because they bring out a lot of diverse interpretations. Thanks for being willing to engage.
Quote from: CHB on June 17, 2008, 02:25:22 AM
Yes, the first death is physical, the second is spiritual. I believe Jesus death brought us spiritual life. His death didn't cover our physical death, we are all still dying. When I say our second death is a spiritual death, I believe we die to sin {ourselves} and are dead in Christ.
Thank you for the further clarification. I'm sure you've probably said similar things elsewhere, and though I read a lot, this forum is quite large and it's easier fro me to ask for a "snapshot" of what someone believes than to search out their opinions elsewhere. Much appreciated!
Not necessary to add, but, FTR, this is similar to how I view it, though not quite the same. I'm always open to other ways of viewing it because this is one of those "in a mirror darkly" ideas that sometimes change in my mind. Right now I see physical death as just that, the end of physical life. Happens to all humans (except those Christians alive when Jesus returns). To me, the two deaths refer to the same event occurring at different times, just like the two resurrections. Death refers in both "deaths" to the death of the "old man" in us, the ego. So, though I wouldn't say it for certain as yet, I'm inclined to believe the two deaths refer to the death of the soul (ego: mind, body, will) as the person is transformed by the Spirit. When we are fully transformed, the Spirit operates completely rather than our soul-ish ego.
Those who are called and respond in this life willingly undergo the first death in this life. THe second death then, to me, is when others who were not called or who refused the call in this life, will undergo the death of their inner man as well, so that God can become all in all.
Quote from: CHB on June 17, 2008, 02:25:22 AM
Notice, it is our WORKS that will be burned up. When we are in Christ we don't have any works of our own, they are all the works of Christ.
I agree. At last, huh? :)
Been a pleasure, CHB.
Thanks,
Mary Ellen
Quote from: CHB on June 17, 2008, 02:39:42 AM
Hi Mary Ellen,
I never said I was God, I am a child of God and that makes me god also. Jesus wasn't God the Father, he was God the Son. Jesus said "my Father is greater than I". The Father and Jesus are greater than I am but I am a god because I am a child of God. (1Peter 1:3) says we are begotten again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We have been spiritually begotten.
I believe you said you believe in the trinity which I see as a false doctrine. I do believe Jesus came from God but I just don't see in the scriptures that Jesus is his own Father. Nor do I see the Holy Spirit as a person but a power that God uses.
CHB
Thank you, CHB. That clarifies it for me. I was looking toward the gnostics texts in what you said. Hadn't considered the statements I was questioning came from our difference in belief about the Trinity. My apologies. I should have thought to ask about that. What you say makes sense to me in that context then.
I could never say Jesus was divine until 2-3 years ago. Was a long, personal journey to that acceptance, so I'll leave the topic alone for now, except to clarify for you that those of us who believe in the Trinity do not say Jesus is His own Father. We believe Jesus has 2 natures (human and divine) in one Person, and that the Trinity is composed of three Persons (Father, Son, and Spirit) in one nature (divine).
Isn't a thing we can argue productively with each other about, imo, so I'm content to agree to disagree about this one.
Blessings on you, and thanks again for the exchange.
ME
Quote from: autoimmune on June 17, 2008, 01:41:20 AM
Thank you for taking the time to explain more clearly. Got to be honest, though, I'm still not sure exactly what you believe about the nature and essence of Christ, but I doubt that in the long run it matters. I'm no heresy hunter by any means, just curious when I discuss things with people to know where we are similar and where we differ in our Christological points of view. Jesus didn't punish the other eleven for not answering correctly when He asked "Who do you say I am?" He just praised Peter for getting it right by God's grace.
Your welcome, I'm not concerned with your motives, nor do I need anyone to agree with me. You can ask me whatever you like.
Quote
Took me over 50 years to finally be able to say Jesus is divine and realize I believe in a trinitarian God, so I'm not out to convert others from however they view Him. I trust others have the same love for God and desire to find His truth that I do, and I trust God to lead them as He chooses.
I have to be honest, I am not sure "why" I want to know whats in the bible half of the time, all I can say is that I want to know more.
Quote
Okay, when you say we are "created 'out of God'" do you mean that man is given the same spirit as God at his physical human birth? Is this why you say "therefore our spiritual essence is equal to God in that manner"?
To me it is the other way around, we were spirit before being subject into this physical realm. God knew us before we were formed in the womb. Whatever Spirit "is" that is what God "is" and if everything is "out" of him as opposed to the false assumption that God created from nothing, then we must be his spirit in a form God purposed, no matter what we perceive this existance to be.
I am not completely suggesting that we are living an illusion like mystics usually claim. I do believe our existance in our physical perception to be real and tangible right now. More recent scientific advances have discovered things on the atomic level that prove this physical world to be something more than once perceived.
Quote
On first read, I take this to mean you believe by nature man has God's spirit in him. Doesn't this deny the need for being reborn then? Isn't the purpose of accepting Jesus so that the "life"/spirit we lost through the fall can be returned to us?
By nature we are Sons and Daughters of God and we are living this existance through no choice of our own and no power of our own. We haven't lost anything, we are only learning something. We perceive being lost because we are limited in our knowledge. The fall is a story to make sense of what people do not like to see in scripture. We did not fall, we were created carnal and perfect for the purpose for which we were created.
Quote
The only way man by nature can have the divine spirit within him at physical human birth is if the fall hadn't happened. And then there would have been no need for Jesus Christ as a "quickening spirit" to redeem us from death (1Cor 15: 45). So his death and resurrection are meaningless.
There is really no context in which Jesus Death and Resurrection can be made meaningless, because it happened. Whether you are correct, whether I am correct, or whether someone elses interpretation is correct, Jesus Death and Resurrection was for a purpose in ANY context. Ecclesiastes 3:1 and since it happened for a purpose there is nothing that can make it meaningless.
God is a God of process, whether it matters to your thinking or not, Jesus Christ is the means through which all will be reconconciled. It is how God did it and it could not happen any other way, so it is not meaningless at all.
The concept of the fall contradicts scripture. The concept is that we were created perfect, then by our own free will chose to screw up. If we fell do to a free will choice to become unperfect, then it contradicts this scripture.
Romans 8:20 For to vanity was the creation subjected, not voluntarily, but because of Him Who subjects it, in expectation
Quote
If, however, by "created" you are referring to the time of our rebirth in Christ, then I can see what you're saying, but still would say the spiritual essence we now have is ours through Christ, not as some kind of fulfillment of our own human nature. Which is why I say we "subsist" in Christ, rather than become divine ourselves.
I am only going by the verse I quoted in John.
John 17:21 that they may all be one, according as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us, that the world should be believing that Thou dost commission Me.
22 "And I have given them the glory which Thou has given Me, that they may be one, according as We are One,
If "according as we are one" disagrees with what I have been saying, then explain.
Quote
I was replying directly to one of those you listed, Paul:
Gn 3:22 And saying is Yahweh Elohim, "Behold! The human becomes as one of us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he stretch forth his hand, moreover, and take of the tree of the living, and eat and live for the eon--!"
and based my reply to you on that, explaining that the simile shows we are NOT the same essence of God at all because of that fall, which is completely contrary to what you were attempting to show by that quote.
That also was not the only verse I used to come to my conclusion. I showed the transition through several scriptures. If you wish to address my conclusion using all of those scriputures to say your point can still say the same thing, please do.
Quote
All the passages you use are usually taken out of context to make a case for the gnostic belief that Jesus was a man who achieved Christ consciousness and this is therefore the path we are on. When looked at in context, though, they usually show the exact opposite. One can only hold the gnostic point of view in isolation, ignoring the rest of scripture. This is why I do not accept it.
Contextual arguments are tricky, the first responce from eternal torment believers is that we Universalists take everything out of context. So whos context argument is correct?
I'll stick with using scripture in a manner that does not contradict without adding or subtracting from scripture to make it fit, that context is good enough for me.
Quote
As I said above, we all answer the question Christ asked His disciples differently from each other, and even differently at various times in our own lives, so this isn't an argument with you. But, because these replies are being given to a 14 yr old Christian asking for info, I considered that Love requires us to clearly show what might not be evident at first glance to someone not familiar with the nuances of gnosticism and how it differs from more traditonal Christianity.
I have no problem taking the time to clarify, I indeed may need to clarify more. Unfortunatly, if I waited till I had ample time to write an essay I would never post at all. ;) So if I seem abrupt or short in my replies it is only because I basically have to make them a bit more hastily than I would prefer.
Quote
May seem like a little thing, but a litle difference can lead to wide variations within a variety of interconnected theological viewpoints.
I do not think it is a little thing at all. Thats why I do take the time as I can.
willieH: Hi Mary Ellen! Glad you're here at TM! :bgdance:
I hope your shall find my answers and understandings of your inquiries to be adaquate... :reachout:
Please don't hesitate to correct my understanding if I mistook any portion! :blush:
My answer to you will be in TWO PARTS due to its length...
PART ONE...Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
JESUS CHRIST paid the price for SIN Angel... no amount of "punishment" can rectify even one sin...
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMHello, Willie. I agree with this: ultimately it is Christ's death which rectifies it all.
But, as I've asked elsewhere, do you see any difference between punishment and restitution in the name of Justice one makes for harms done others?
I need the specific verse you are referring to in order to answer this question... I do believe (I agree with Bernie/SeekerSA), that there is
NOT PUNISHMENT
after this life is done.
We suffer in this life, for that which is done in this life... The elimination of deeds (not surviving into the Eternal) that were not done IN
CHRIST in my observation, is the "correction"...
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMYes, Christ's death is the mercy that will transform that justice into Love, but is the Love available without that restitution being accepted first?
LOVE is ALWAYS available to us Mary Ellen... NOTHING we ...
do MAKES it AVAILABLE... it is AVAILABLE because WE are LOVED despite what we ...
do (Rom 5:8)
Paul noted that the SINS (trespasses) of the WORLD, through RECONCILIATION was the WORK of
CHRIST, complete and FINISHED... (2 Cor 5:19)
The NATURAL observation is EYE for EYE... which requires RESTITUTION ...by... the INDIVIDUAL, to the degree of the offense...
The SPIRITUAL observation is FORGIVE your ENEMIES... BLESS them that CURSE you... NOT requiring RESTITUTION for those offenses...
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMAnd how does someone who has not accepted Christ in this life do so in the next
GOD reveals, and THAT is how we KNOW the REVELATION of
JESUS CHRIST... the Resurrection takes place on the LAST DAY, as does JUDGMENT... (John 6:44 & 12:48)...
ON or
IN, the LAST DAY (if not before) shall every knee have bowed and tongue confessed sis...
No one "ACCEPTS"
CHRIST... this is in my observation a non-biblical teaching... where is this "accepting
CHRIST teaching" noted? :dunno:
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AM--without doing what those who are called in this age must do, which is to allow GOd's Love to burn away everything in our egos that separates us from Him?
Our "ego's" do not
separate us from God, sis...
The Scriptures state that
NOTHING can SEPARATE us from the LOVE of GOD which is in
CHRIST (Rom 8:38-39)
It is the WORK of GOD which accomplishes these things Mary Ellen... Our WORKS are as FILTHY RAGS (as first displayed by Cain)... (Is 64:6)
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMAt death do those who never accepted salvation through Christ simply rise to a Loving life in God without any form of trial or condemnation taking place as Jesus said and as is explicit in many scriptural passages?
First, as I said before, if you wish a given Scripture to be commented on by me, then name it for me...
My Bible says: (John 3:17) For GOD ...
SENT NOT... His Son into the World to ...
CONDEMN... the World, but that the World
[which God so LOVED] through Him, might be SAVED.
Hate to answer a question with another question, but...
When YOUR eyes were opened to
CHRIST, were
you CONDEMNED?
Did
you have to PAY a price? :dontknow:
What TRIAL did you go through to gain Salvation Mary Ellen? :Chinscratch:
Was it
YOUR WORK that SAVED you? Or
CHRIST's? :dontknow:
Did
YOUR "decision or acceptance" SAVE you? If so, then YOU are your own SAVIOR! :thumbdown:
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMIs Justice simply eliminated in favor of Love?
Isn't that what He did with YOU Mary Ellen? :dontknow:
You must observe JUSTICE from a SPIRITUAL point of view, which is: FORGIVE your enemies... (not condemn them) Bless them which curse you (not exact VENGENCE)
GOD finds JUSTICE in His OWN WORK on our behalf... As I said above, NOTHING we can possibly DO can rectify even ONE SIN... so what BENEFIT would PUNISHMENT obtain? Would it make GOD feel better to KICK our BUTTS?
When the PRODIGAL returned... did you notice the Father with any WHIPS or CLUBS or Gas & Matches? :dontknow:
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMFTR, I agree that they will be offered the same mercy Christians have accepted in this life, but I think the second death in the Lake of Fire is a very real thing and it won't be a walk in the park, a terrible burning away of all that they held onto in life that separated them from God and which will then be burned away from them. Not a punishment, but the same Love all will be exposed to at the same time. How we each experience it will depend on the relationship we built with God in this life.
You are obviously unfamiliar with my views on DEATH... the FIRST DEATH is the DEATH of SPIRIT (which is the DEATH which
CHRIST redeems us from)...
the
SECOND DEATH is experienced by EACH human being, and is the WAGES of SIN... we RIGHTLY go to the Grave, for we deserve DEATH, having disobeyed LIFE...
JESUS said: I am the way, the truth, and THE
LIFE...
JESUS is the WORD... our disobedience is against the WORD or COMMAND of GOD...
Those which overcome (by submission to
CHRIST) in this life, are not found NAKED in JUDGMENT, rather are CLOTHED in
CHRIST... (Rev 3:18) ...and thereby are not "hurt" of the 2nd Death... which we rise from...
Adam & Eve were NATURAL and NAKED in the SPIRITUAL presence of
YHVH... those who fail to submit in this life... shall experience that same
SHAME (Rev 3:18)
Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
This lifetime IS the LAKE of FIRE, in which we suffer for SIN... the FLESH profits NOTHING... :dontknow:
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMSounds good . . . until we take into consideration the number of people in this life who seem to prosper from sin, who indisriminately hurt others and get away with it on a major scale. Your statement would not satisfy any of the billions of people who have suffered injustice at the hand of a despot of some sort who lived life to a ripe old age surrounded by their ill gotten gains. As I said, it sounds good, but it doesn't answer the practical questions people ask when faced with real life injustice that too often acts with impunity.
In my observation you yet observe NATURALLY Mary Ellen... What you name above is in the NATURAL...
All these "crimes" you list above which are performed:
(1) Are or were performed by those who were brought forth by
YHVH, in spite of His foreknowledge that they would PERFORM them...
WHY Mary Ellen?
(2)
YHVH does NOTHING to stop these crimes from being PERFORMED...
WHY Mary Ellen?
(3) GOD sustains both the ASSAILANT and VICTIM... throughout the duration of the "crime"...
WHY Mary Ellen?
I can answer that question sister, but I'm interested to hear your answer... :cloud9:
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMUR becomes a useless doctrine as a replacement for ET UNLESS it answers the questions people ask that lead them to believe in and accept such a strange concept about God to begin with. If the bible contains God's truth, then the answers must be in there and conform to UR for UR to be true. Otherwise, it's just another feel good religious point of view.
It has got nothing to do with a "feel good" religious point of view...
GOD set Adam & Eve on earth with the ABILITY to DISOBEY... then set the scene, with the "Tree" and the "serpent" (which is that adversity within men, not a talking snake). Once all was in place, GOD notified his 2 innocent humans of the location of the tree they were NOT to eat of... :rolleye:
The reason GOD sent His Son to SAVE the WORLD, was because it was ORDAINED to fall into sin, and thereby GAIN the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil, which was the ONE KNOWLEDGE that ONLY GOD held...
You wish JUSTICE Mary Ellen? JUSTICE demands
YHVH redeem us from something we could not avoid.
Let me say that I am a parent of 3 and grandparent of 9 (almost 10)... I have asked this question of PARENTS which LOVE their children... see whatcha think!
If there was a HOUSE on fire... and your 10 children were in the house, ...and you HAD the TIME and ability to SAVE them all... How many would you SAVE Mary Ellen?
Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
... and the FLESH which each of us SINS in, DIES and returns to the dust...
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AM(1) And when that flesh rises as we've been promised? Where is the sin? (2) What account can be made for sin people did not submit to Jesus for payment then? How is all rectified at that point?
CHRIST said: (John 19:30) It is
FINISHED! What part of "FINISHED" don't you understand sis? :laughing7:
What part of something FINISHED, requires more WORK? When you are FINISHED writing a letter, do you write more? Or when you are finished painting your living room do you continue to paint? Or when you finish eating a peach, do you eat more of it? come on M.E... :sigh:
I really don't mean to be a "smart alec"... Sorry :mblush: :blush: :Oops:
Again, Mary Ellen... the "submission" shall happen for them, as it has for you... GOD is NOT PARTIAL to anyone... (Acts 10:34 / Rom 2:11 / Job 34:19)
(1) Where does it say we shall in the ETERNAL, ...have FLESHLY bodies? :Chinscratch:
(2) The SIN is already
TAKEN AWAY from the ETERNAL perspective...
(John 1:29) Behold the Lamb of GOD which TAKETH AWAY, the SIN of the
WORLD...
How is PRESENCE found in something TAKEN AWAY?
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMThe assumption that it all just "disappears" regardless of how men accept Jesus' gift in this aeon or not baffles me.
If men simply died and never rose I might be able to accept your argument, but that ignores resurrection and the role of the second death. Plus, we're back to the "is annhilation any better except in degree to ET? If Jesus meant all, He meant all.
As I have already explained, it is in how YOU VIEW and PERCIEVE what the "2nd DEATH" actually ...IS... that makes the difference...
Let me give you
J. Preston Eby's look at the following verse... I agree with it, and it is how I see it to be read --- First I shall give you an example which shows the same facts expressed in different order which either way mean the SAME, (THEN I will do this with same process with Revelation 20:14):
(1) An ISLAND is a BODY of LAND, surrounded by Water.
(2) A BODY of LAND surrounded by Water, is an ISLAND.
Rev 20:14 ...And DEATH and HELL
[hades] were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the 2nd death... (KJV)
Rev 20:14 ...This is the 2nd death, DEATH and HELL were cast into the Lake of FIRE.
As I said... it is how you view language and understand terminology that give you a viewpoint or perspective...
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMSo, no, I can't accept your theology here. It leaves too many unanswered questions for me.
It does not matter to me whether you accept anything I say or not... :boyheart: I have answered your questions and posed others for you...
I percieve that the main difference between you and I, is that I KNOW that a degree of my belief is VEILED... and am avidly seeking GOD to correct those portions which are veiled.
That you presently cannot accept what I say, either is because I am VEILED, or REVEALED... which in turn means, if I am REVEALED, you are VEILED... if I am VEILED it is possible you are REVEALED...
I have visited BOTH schools of thought: ETERNAL TORMENT (20yrs in the Salvation Army) and ANNHILATION (5 yrs in the SDA church)... NEITHER of these portray LOVE, nor are they found to be SPIRITUAL understanding in my observation, they portray an ALMIGHTY GOD as IN NEED of VENGENCE against something
HE brought forth... KNOWING beforehand ALL that it would DO... sorry...
That IN ITSELF is UNREASONABLE...
In my observation, there is no one which is RIGHT nor is there one which is WRONG in any given area... we are either REVEALED or VEILED...
********* END of
PART ONE... ********
pEace...
...willieH :happygrin:
willieH: Hi Mary Ellen... :hithere:
PART TWO:Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
As JESUS said: Let him WITHOUT SIN cast the first stone... we are all UNWORTHY to cast a stone at a SINNER, as we are found to hold that undistinguished title, ourselves... :winkgrin:
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMNo doubt, and that's why Jesus commanded us not to judge others. Yet, He did speak frequently of judgment and condemnation.
No verses, no comment... you observe that He frequently did this... but fail to note the verses...
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMUnless we can rectify those things with UR, keeping the character of God intact without eliminating either His Love or His Justice, we've got just another gnostic concept of how it all works according to our minds, and not the mind of God expressed in scriptures.
GOD is JUST, and it DOES NOT matter HOW you or I observe that JUSTICE... presently we view it from different mountaintops...
This is such generalization without SPECIFICS that there is really no way to reply...
You are welcome to your observation sister... Sorry I see it as lack of SPIRTUAL vision...
Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
The observation of HITLER is an assumption that in some way, you consider your life a more worthy life than was his, based upon YOUR LIFE by comparision is it not? Not picking on you, just trying to get you to see... we ALL deserve death, for even ONE SIN, sends CHRIST to the cross to redeem us!)
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMWe all make assumptions, willie; you did , too, in assuming that "worthiness" instead of some concept of God's holines and justice leads one to ask the question AoT did. Yes, Chrit's death paid for our littler sins as surely as it paid for the many of Hitler's, yet, you are suggesting that without recourse to Christ Hitler can be automatically forgiven at death.
I must admit this passage didn't make much sense to me, but as best I can, let me say:
There is no such thing as a "littler sin", please! SIN is one thing and one thing only... SIN... it is TRANGRESSION of the LAW... It is YOUR VEIW of a given TRANSGRESSION which makes it RISE or FALL in "magnitude"
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMI certainly do believe God wills Hitler's salvation and that Christ has purchased that for him. Yet, Hitler must take the same responsibility for his many "big" sins as I and others have for our many "smaller" ones before that mercy can be applied.
Or did you come to Jesus Christ without some sense of metanoia/repentance?
There is NO Scriptural measurement of SIN as you propose... "bigger" -- "smaller", whatever... SIN is SIN... period.
In the above, you make your "SMALLER SINS" a comparison to HITLER, and his "BIGGER SINS" which the Apostle PAUL says is
UNWISE, Mary Ellen: (2 Cor 10:12) :pitiful:
I "came" to Him, ...via the SAME process ALL men "come", ...Him DRAGGING me to Himself... as Scripture identifies: (John 6:44) ...and HE revealed Himself to ME, and IN that LIGHT was MY DARKNESS exposed...
The sheep do not find the shepherd, it is the other way around... :dontknow:
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMI see nothing in your argument that requires a Hitler or a person at a mall with an AK47 to repent for their lack of love to others. They simply die and the wage (death) is paid?
It seems as if you are equating human death with Mercy. A very weak argument I do not accept in the least.
No, you attribute Salvation due to a "worthiness" which comes via something WE DO... which is foolishness. There is nothing ANY MAN can DO to gain the MERCY of GOD...
GOD is MERCIFUL to ALL because that is what LOVE does... that is what SPIRIT does...
As far as an arguement being WEAK... Your reply here has been completely devoid of Scripture! ...That, in my observation leaves it to be nothing but opinion, and stands wobbly upon the sand of that opinion... :laughing7:
Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
There is no "afterlife" Angel... this is an UNBIBLICAL observation...
Upon the conclusion of this life, Our SPIRIT, ...RETURNS to where we emerged -- GOD...
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMIf you are Christian, then where does resurrection fit into this picture, willie?
First, I claim to be a disciple of
CHRIST... I have grown to dislike the name "
Christian"... because those who use it, attaches themselves to one portion of Othodoxy or another...
Concerning "Resurrection" ...is
NOT of the FLESH Mary Ellen, it is the re-emergence of the SPIRIT... (John 3:6)
See
it and ME as you will...
We are the ETERNAL Sons of GOD... we have ALWAYS BEEN... you just see yourself as FINITE, because your view is from the NATURAL... and is of OTHRODOX roots...
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMIf not, okay, no argument from me, but I took it that AoT was asking for scriptural understandings about UR and how it impacts on beliefs he had before.
I can name over 100 verses which attest to UR... and one who is 14, shall have to take that offering slowly... If you are in such a rush to provide them, why haven't YOU done it Mary Ellen?
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMWhat you said above concerning the disposability of matter and the everlasting spirit indicates to me that you are a gnostic Christian. As I said, no problem with me because Christ leads us all in our own way, but since a 14 year old may not be familiar with the differences I would probably post questions to you identifying those differences a lot more than I would normally.
Your questions have at best been vague... and without Scriptural support. :faint:
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMSince you say the afterlife is an unbiblical observation, I feel you've opened the door to debate based on scripture. So, please provide the scriptures for what you said next:
You actually make me laugh there Mary Ellen... :laughing7: You have provided NO Scripture in your objections to what I say... and then REQUIRE me to provide them to you... :pointlaugh:
Well, just because I'm a nice guy, just this ONCE... :laughhand:
I'll number my references in the quote to make it easy onya... :laughing7:
Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
(1) In order to RETURN, one must have previously been there... We came FROM GOD... (2) we RETURN to Him... in ETERNITY we ALWAYS are... (3) TIME is a temporal "classroom" in which the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL is gained, and in gaining that knowledge we become AS IS our Father and HIS Son... (Gen 3:22)
(1) Job 38:7 ...
ALL the SONS (BEN) of GOD were shouting for Joy... The word BEN is the Hebrew word used UNIVERSALLY in the OT in naming SONS... it is used in ALL Geneologies, even in the beginning of JOB where JOB's ...SONS... were named in the first chapter several times...
If MEN are SONS of GOD, they were there BEFORE this World was created. ETERNAL means WITHOUT BEGINNING or END... Any SON which is in ETERNITY, is in a scenario DEVOID of BEGINNINGS or ENDINGS... and has ALWAYS BEEN...
(2) Luke 15:11 The PRODIGAL Son was WITH the FATHER, then LEFT... then RETURNED... to where He was ORIGINALLY.
Is 51:11 The REDEEMED RETURN... they cannot RETURN to a place they were not ORIGINALLY
Ecc 12:7 The flesh RETURNS to the EARTH from which it came, the SPIRIT of each man RETURNS to GOD who GAVE IT...
(3) Gen 3:22 Well I already noted that GOD notes that a KNOWLEDGE was gained by MAN which only GOD had... self explanatory...
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMThat last was straight out of Genesis and is the precise definition of original sin: thinking we can discern good and evil through knowledge to become as gods . . .
ORIGINAL SIN... :rolleye: another UNBIBLICAL notation... :thumbdown:
JESUS said (John 10:34): is it not WRITTEN in your law
[TORAH/Scripture -- Ps 82:6] that ye are
gods?
Why would He quote this, and if NOT TRUE, then WHY was it
WRITTEN Mary Ellen?
You see yourself as a HUMAN being... when the WORD says you are SPIRIT and a SON of GOD... You just don't believe what the Scripture SAYS... Nothing "GNOSTIC" or hidden... Right there in black & white...
You just hide behind this label (gnostic) you wish to give me, as your inability to establish BIBLICAL refutation continues to plague your words...
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMDefinitely gnostic, willie :) . . . and certainly a reversal of scripture, to say the least.
REVERSAL of what Scripture Mary Ellen? To this point you have named... uh, :Chinscratch: ...oh YEAH! :OhNo:
...
NONE... :thumbdown:
Your "refutation" here (if you wish to call it that), is pretty weak there Mary Ellen... You just use your own words to substanciate yourself... pretty weak... :thumbdown:
Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
So how many do you percieve are LOST, Angel? Did CHRIST accomplish His mission? At it's end, did He not say "IT IS FINISHED"?
If there is still more to do (such as you suggest above in blue), why did He say it was finished?
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMIn the same way you indicated above--not in temporal time, but in the Eternal Now of God. It is the same "It is finished" as we hear in the Book of Revelation, willie, which has not yet occured in our time frame.
This is your problem Mary Ellen... you look upon a book which speaks of REVEALING an ETERNAL entity (
JESUS CHRIST), and note it to be some "guide to the future" in the NATURAL TIME realm... Please... :laughhand:
More ORTHODOX thinking... noting REVELATION of
JESUS CHRIST to be a report of FUTURE TIME... when it is the REVEALING of
JESUS CHRIST in ALL THINGS, from each "thing's" ...ALPHA to its OMEGA...
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMBoth events are one, but separated through linear time. When one was accomplished in the Eternal Now, the other was as well.
You self defeat Mary... that which is ETERNAL does not "accomplish" for accomplishment implies that beforehand it was INCOMPLETE... and therefore, cannot be termed as ETERNAL...
That which is ETERNAL, ...IS... no
"was" or "will be" ...just ...
IS... UNCHANGING, established.
Within Linear time is the NATURAL course of EVIL... it is NOT PRESENT in ETERNITY, nor can be... it is UNHOLY and UNACCEPTABLE in the ETERNAL environment which
IS HOLY... (not "was or will be")
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMBut in linear time, only one has occured, the other is yet to come for us. Just as some are now found and some yet to be found in linear time who are still lost..
Don't mistake the entire process in the eternal now for the separate events as we perceive them in linear time. So, yes, in linear time, the only time man perceives and that GOd works with in His Love and Mercy, "there is still more to do." Meaning people remain responsible for what they do within this time frame, even though in the eternal now they have been forgiven and restored to the Father.
Mary Ellen
If "responsibility" is ours, then we must somehow, by that "responsibility", make restitution... again you words SELF DEFEAT...
I do not deny that Linear time exists, neither do I deny that we shall suffer in it... but WE are not RESPONSIBLE for anything...
GOD Declared the END (of time) from the BEGINNING... and called that which WAS NOT (in time), as if it WAS... (Is 46:10-11)
The process of linear "time" is the enaction of what IS DECLARED...
I have given this example before... If you place a gun in a child's hand and the child KILLS another human being...
YOU are held
RESPONSIBLE ...
NOT... the child. :dontknow:
GOD set us here sister... and
HE is
RESPONSIBLE for bringing us back, for HE, is the DELIVERER, we do NOT deliver ourselves... so ALL RESPONSIBILITY lies in Him...
Regardless of your NATURAL view of Him... :happygrin:
pEace...
...willieH :happygrin:
Hi Mary
Sorry I missed this post
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 04:30:07 AM
Quote from: SeekerSA on June 02, 2008, 09:41:31 PM
Quote from: The_Angel_Of_Truth on June 02, 2008, 07:39:00 PM
And Seeker...
There has to be some punishment. Your basically saying I could go get an MP5 Machine gun and go on a killing spree, set terrorist bombs, torture, and possibly take thousands of lives right now that could have amounted to something amazing in the future and the worst I could suffer is the electric chair...
That cant be right... I know God forgives... but thats just mad. There has to be some kind of temperal punishment for the sin...
Well when you find scripture that shows that we have to go though a temporal punishment of any sorts, I would be interested to read that.
Two points this brings to my mind:
1. Can any one scripture on its own "show" truth? Isn't this what Christians have done for years, pulled verses out of context to shore up personal doctrines? Doesn't UR face that same problem if we are not careful to adhere to what the scriptures say?
I am opposed to cherry picking too yet I have still to see any tangible proof of scripture whether stand-alone or in context that suggests a temporal punishment - IMO that is an offshoot of the RCC myth of purgatory - also NON BIBLICAL.
Quote2. Do you see a difference between punishment and restitution for wrongs done?
I could point out many verses showing restitution is part of restoration. We cannot be restored without equal recourse to God's Justice as to His Love. They work together, imo, and cannot be isolated. Without that, you end up with the extreme opposite of those who hold hell is infinite torture for finite crimes. Neither one works for me personally and both seem to run counter to scripture.
I would be interested to see those verses.
I have dismissed hell in its entirety based upon wrong translations and the introduction of pagan Greco/Roman myths and merging of those philosophies into Christianity.
QuoteYes, those who accept Jesus' invitation are saved from condemnation, but how about those who refuse Him in this life and do face condemnation?
How can you refuse if you are truly drawn?
Joh 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who has sent Me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day
Joh 6:65 And He said, Because of this I said to you that no one can come to Me unless it was given to him from My Father.
Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, If God were your father, you would love Me, for I went forth and came from God; for I did not come of Myself, but He sent Me.
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, If a man loves Me, he will keep My Word(s). And My Father will love him, and
We will come to him and
make Our abode with him.
Joh 15:26 And when the Comforter has come, whom
I will send to you
from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father,
He shall testify of Me.
QuoteDon't get me wrong. I fully embrace the universal restoration of all things through Christ. I firmly believe we are called to follow Him because the Body of Christ plays an essential part in that ultimate plan to return all to God. But I do not think we can discount one extreme that ignores God's Love by embracing the opposite extreme that discounts His Justice.
From what I understand of Jesus' teachings, Justice executed through Mercy is Love. We cannot have the Love of God without both his Justice and Mercy--and that involves just condemnation before Mercy can be applied to arrive at that Love.
Mary Ellen
The bolded bit in the 2nd para answers your question in the 1st para.
Like I said earlier, I would like to see the verse(s) that suggest a temporal punishment.
It is the "safe" route to accept a "temporal" punishment as opposed to no punishment whatsoever. For some a "NO HELL" is just too much for their brains to wrap around as that then removes in their minds the purpose of salvation.
Well once salvation does not save us from hell anymore then we are still left with as you suggested those that "reject" in this lifetime.
Those that "reject" reject NOT GOD but the system of myths and lies espoused by the church system. You cannot really be accepted by the system if you do not adhere to their creeds - a typical manufactured cherry picked doctrine.
Folk reject the concept of hell and then the system assumes that you thus reject "all the above" in whatever creed or statement of faith. At the end of the day, I find no (in context) scripture particularly the gospels where it suggests a temporal punishment and/or temporary hell.
But if it makes you feel better to believe that there awaits a temporal punishment, then we may as well dismiss the entire purpose of Jesus' supposed sacrifice (which I have done) as the requirement thus remains that WE need to appease God somehow. Well it sure seems that this POV holds man to a higher standard than God the Father as an earthly father does not always punish or admonish but many times simply forgives in spite of his anger/disappointment.
Blessings
SeekerSA, Willie and Paul:
I thank all three of you for your posts. I've read them and am considering them. I apologize for not yet taking the time to reply, but, the truth is that some days I'm not as "sharp" as others. Call it lupus fogbrain, but some days my mind reads long posts, becomes jumbled, and I can't formulate answers the way I do when I'm feeling well.
And each of your posts deserve an honest, well-thought reply.
For today, I'll share an anecdote, rather than scriptural knowledge. Please remember that this is from personal experience, not scripture. Yet, the spiritual experience is usually what leads to the interpretations of scripture we make . . .
I was raised severely abused. I don't think of it much any more because the hurt has been healed, yet, that abuse was probably the reason I continually searched for God as Love. I wanted the ideal Father, and very willingly accepted Abba as portrayed by Jesus in the bible.
Before my earthly father died, we had a short telephone conversation. Went like this
"You know I always loved you."
"Yes, dad, I accept that. You know I loved you in return as well."
"Yes, I know that." A short pause. "Well, it's okay between us then, isn't it?"
"Yes, dad. It is."
He died a few days later. I didn't go to the funeral because of the expense and distance involved. Also because I believe we go to funerals to mourn and come to terms with the love we had or didn't have with that person, and I was at peace with my dad since the phone call we had.
During the wake period, though, I sensed my father's presence in the room, as if he were actually standing there. I heard a voice within that said, "I ca't go to heaven without your permission."
"Great!" I said out loud. "If the measure I give is the measure I'll receive than I HAVE to say it's okay with me for you to go to heaven--or I'm condemning myself to hell. Go to heaven, Pop. I won't fight it."
Then I heard him say, "No, a begrudging acceptance isn't enough. You have to WANT me to go to heaven."
That was a bit much for me. I had to admit that in some way I expected a bit of a payback for my dad, that he would somehow feel the pain he had inflicted on me all those years. Didn't have to be a lot, but I expected Justice in some form or another to be served. Didn't have to be forever, but certainly, payback was due somehow, in some form.
"I can't say that right now, Pop. I just can't say I want you to go to heaven and be able to stand honestly before God myself. It would be a lie."
For the next day or so God worked with me on this issue. Won't go into all the details because they were the beginning of my own beliefs becoming UR, but I finally realized that, despite the abuse--or maybe somehow because of it--I had a life filled with Love. I quite often say that I have more Love than any one woman deserves in life . . .
My father had never known that kind of love because he was incapable of giving it himself. His own fears and angers kept him from it. And that was worse than any physical or emotional abuse he had done me.
I was finally able to say I wanted him to be with God, more than anything I had ever wanted before for myself.
Pop thanked me and since then I have the feeling that all the things I've learned in the last few years have been through his love for me, not just as his physical daughter, but as a member of the Body of Christ in heaven.
I learned a lot from this experience; a firm belief in UR, for one thing. But it also was the beginning of my understanding of how justice and love can and will be reconciled through mercy, without one suffering for the other.
It was also the beginning of my understanding of why some are called and chosen and others are not; of the role the Body of Christ will play in that final reconciliation of all things.
And I hold firm to the belief that reconciliation is a MUST for the restoration of all things to take place as Christ promised.
But it doesn't happen by our foregoing of justice. Justice becomes tansformed through mercy and ALL men who have not done this in Christ in this age will have to take responsibility for their sin in the next. They will ultimately come to see that they CANNOT make restitution without recourse to Christ and THAT is why every knee will finally, willingly, lovingly bend to Christ.
I don't mean to argue with those who think that since the PROCESS is finished and completed, that the steps we each much take in that process are magically eliminated. Yes, in the end it is grace that saves us, but the acceptance of grace comes through a human work of acceptance of responsibility for our sins and, along with that, the understanding that we are unable to ever truly reconcile ourselves to another we have harmed without the mercy of Christ.
Grace does not mean we are devoid of human responsibility for sin. In fact, it highlights it.
I think those who responded to me assumed that I meant "punishment" when I'm speaking of the Love of God as a restorative process of pruning away anything not of God in us when we face Him.
ME
A quick apology for not getting to more "theological" responses to the posts by SeekerSA, Willie and Paul. Most of my energy went toward family functions the last few weeks. I've re-read my anecdotal reply tonight, though, and I think I'll stick to the love of Jesus, and his scriptural teachings on mercy and justice, rather than theological debate.
I'm not out to prove my case to anyone; simply to state it, and I think that anecdote served the purpose well.
Blessings on all of you,
ME
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 07:46:11 AM
A quick apology for not getting to more "theological" responses to the posts by SeekerSA, Willie and Paul. Most of my energy went toward family functions the last few weeks. I've re-read my anecdotal reply tonight, though, and I think I'll stick to the love of Jesus, and his scriptural teachings on mercy and justice, rather than theological debate.
Nothing wrong with sticking to the love of
JESUS Mary Ellen... but rash statements such as you have made in this thread, shall be noted as ORTHODOX and unfounded concerning Scriptural basis... :dontknow:
QuoteI'm not out to prove my case to anyone; simply to state it, and I think that anecdote served the purpose well.
Could've fooled me! :omg: I answered ALL your questions, and you answered NONE of mine! (I'll list them in a separate post)
Within your activity earlier in the thread, your statements say otherwise! :mshock:
peacE...
...willieH :cloud9:
willieH: Hi Mary Ellen... :Chinscratch:
I answered ALL of YOUR QUESTIONS Mary Ellen... and you are certainly under no obligation to answer mine, however... if you wish questions to be ANSWERED, you must be WILLING to DO SO, yourself!
Here are my unanswered questions in PART ONE alone:
**** No one "ACCEPTS"
CHRIST... this is in my observation a non-biblical teaching... where is this "accepting
CHRIST teaching" noted? :dunno:
**** When YOUR eyes were opened to
CHRIST, were
you CONDEMNED?
**** Did
you have to PAY a price? :dontknow:
**** What TRIAL did you go through to gain Salvation Mary Ellen? :Chinscratch:
**** Was it
YOUR WORK that SAVED you? Or
CHRIST's? :dontknow:
**** Did
YOUR "decision or acceptance" SAVE you? If so, then YOU are your own SAVIOR! :thumbdown:
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMIs Justice simply eliminated in favor of Love?
**** Isn't that what He did with YOU Mary Ellen? :dontknow:
**** GOD finds JUSTICE in His OWN WORK on our behalf... As I said above, NOTHING we can possibly DO can rectify even ONE SIN... so what BENEFIT would PUNISHMENT obtain? Would it make GOD feel better to KICK our BUTTS?
**** When the PRODIGAL returned... did you notice the Father with any WHIPS or CLUBS or Gas & Matches? :dontknow:
In my observation you yet observe NATURALLY Mary Ellen... What you name above is in the NATURAL...
All these "crimes" you list above which are performed:
**** (1) Are or were performed by those who were brought forth by
YHVH, in spite of His foreknowledge that they would PERFORM them...
WHY Mary Ellen?
**** (2)
YHVH does NOTHING to stop these crimes from being PERFORMED...
WHY Mary Ellen?
**** (3) GOD sustains both the ASSAILANT and VICTIM... throughout the duration of the "crime"...
WHY Mary Ellen?
**** You wish JUSTICE Mary Ellen? JUSTICE demands
YHVH redeem us from something we could not avoid.
**** If there was a HOUSE on fire... and your 10 children were in the house, ...and you HAD the TIME and ability to SAVE them all... How many would you SAVE Mary Ellen?
**** CHRIST said: (John 19:30) It is
FINISHED! What part of "FINISHED" don't you understand sis? :laughing7:
**** What part of something FINISHED, requires more WORK? When you are FINISHED writing a letter, do you write more? Or when you are finished painting your living room do you continue to paint? Or when you finish eating a peach, do you eat more of it? come on M.E... :sigh:
**** (1) Where does it say we shall in the ETERNAL, ...have FLESHLY bodies? :Chinscratch:
(John 1:29) Behold the Lamb of GOD which TAKETH AWAY, the SIN of the
WORLD...
**** How is PRESENCE found in something TAKEN AWAY?
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMSo, no, I can't accept your theology here. It leaves too many unanswered questions for me.
Oh REALLY? :wacko2:
You don't even bother to answer questions! :thumbdown:
18 Unanswered questions... :rolleye:
pEace...
...willieH :happygrin:
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 08:40:19 AM
Nothing wrong with sticking to the love of JESUS Mary Ellen... but rash statements such as you have made in this thread, shall be noted as ORTHODOX and unfounded concerning Scriptural basis... :dontknow:
I'm content to let our mutual love of Jesus be our bond, but you have a point that I did ask questions and should reply. I think Paul understood my point, that I only wanted further clarification of what he believes and very politely and succinctly answered them. I'm fairly sure he took the discussion in the same spirit I did, as a sharing of our differences, rather than a debate. I will, however, try to reply to his last post out of the same courtesy he showed me. Same for SeekerSA.
I have to admit, though, that I believe you like to argue more than share ideas. I can't help but believe you don't usually give up until the other concedes your point or walks away out of frustration :)
Your word choices (such as calling my responses "rash statements" rather than reasonable responses and questions raised by your posts), an almost dare to respond, and previous condescending statements about my spiritual ignorance tends to show a spiritual combativeness I will usually ignore at a certain point. However, I also can't help but like you just because you ARE so fervent and myopic in your spiritual point of view. How can I NOT answer someone who takes so much time to re-ask his questions? :)
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 08:40:19 AM
Could've fooled me! :omg: I answered ALL your questions, and you answered NONE of mine! (I'll list them in a separate post)
Within your activity earlier in the thread, your statements say otherwise! :mshock:/
LOL! Then you are either very gullible, Willie, or deliberately obtuse.
The fact that I engaged in so much "earlier activity" was in order TO present my point of view on a variety of subjects raised. I asked questions for clarification, identified where I disagreed and gave my reasons why I did. Once I have presented my case for a particular belief, I try never to repeat myself. If someone insists on holding onto an argument by repeatedly covering the same ground, I usually decline to continue.
By the same token, once others clearly show the reasons why they have a different point of view than mine I usually say something to the effect that I never have a problem agreeing to disagree (if we do), or that I'm glad we have a point of agreement (if we do).
My last post was to say "I've had my say and am satisfied with all the responses I received."
Feel free to misread that if you choose, but I've been posting a long time in forums. I'm usually very honest with people, politely open about my disagreements with them, very authoritative in my tone because I sincerely believe what I share, but also understand that others who are secure in their beliefs are just as authoritative in their statements. As long as they show a spiritual maturity that has no desire to beat a dead horse or insist that I am ignorant or spiritually immature because of our differences, I'll continue in conversation with them, always open to hearing their point of view and showing where I agree or differ with them, asking and answering any further points or questions we both wish to share.
What I won't do is argue with spiritually immature people who want to convince me I am wrong or whose goal is to showcase their own perceived spiritual superiority. I have a tendency to honestly, but politely, identify condescending remarks, sarcasm and ego and then excuse myself from the conversation if it continues after that.
Now, having said that, I'll be happy to answer the new lists of questions you've asked me, as long as I haven't already covered the questions elsewhere in this thread.
ME
This MAYBE a good oppotunity for ALL concerned, those posting and for those Lurking who may not have read this.
Conduct and Etiquette
Although the forum is akin to physical fellowship, all we have is text and emoticons. Calling one's belief and/or interpretation as foolish or dumb is the same as calling the person that.
Be sensitive to each other, respect each others views, one can disagree to a view by stating "I disagree" or "that is not the way I see it" etc. Do not say that is a lie, that is trash, rubbish etc. This will merely fuel argument and not debate and that is helpful to no one.
Foul, abusive language will not be tolerated. One warning then we hit the
Courtesy issues
Please try and post your threads in the appropriate boards. Read the purpose of this board sticky in each board.
Please refrain from quoting a long post merely to give it a thumbs up or I agree, you can quote a portion of the poster's text and then say "I agree" or post a smiley or just say great post "Name-of-Poster".
Let us try and keep posts short, looong posts are often glazed over and your true intent may not come across with the lazy. This many times leads to threads going off topic.
Sometimes we are tempted to answer a question in a post aimed at a specific user. Let that user answer the question first, like real conversation we can apply the same etiquette
Let us also try and keep to the OP (original post) topic.
Do not hijack threads. Stay on topic
If something is going to take the thread off topic, start a new thread.
Blessings
Taffy
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
willieH: Hi Mary Ellen... :Chinscratch:
I answered ALL of YOUR QUESTIONS Mary Ellen... and you are certainly under no obligation to answer mine, however... if you wish questions to be ANSWERED, you must be WILLING to DO SO, yourself!
LOL! Is that a threat, Willie?
I've seen you use this argument in other threads. You're correct. I'm not under any obligation. Should I choose not to answer your many questions, you could consider that my way of saying "I choose not to argue with you, Willie." You, of course, are then perfectly free not to ever reply to one of my posts again (though, in that case, that might be exactly what I desire anyway :winkgrin:).
To be honest, I'm willing to answer simply because you asked and I enjoy sharing what I believe and why. Also because the lupus isn't causing much brain fog tonight and CHF is pretty much confining me to a chair right now, so I also have the time and ability to answer as well. A nice combination all around, imo.
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** No one "ACCEPTS" CHRIST... this is in my observation a non-biblical teaching... where is this "accepting CHRIST teaching" noted? :dunno:
Semantics, Willie.
Jesus invites us into His Kingdom. I accept that invitation by accepting His call to pick up my cross and follow Him. Jesus says there is no way to the Father but through Him. To go through a person to another we must "accept" them as the doorway. Jesus calls Himself the Way, the Life, the Truth, the Bread of Life, the Living Water, the Gate, the Good Shepherd . . . we accept Him as He describes Himself or we don't. Biblical, no matter how you word it, found in all His parables concerning His kingdom, in every place He invites others to follow Him, and in every description He applies to Himself.
You'll find that I don't do cut and paste biblical posts, Willie. I assume that other Christians are as familiar with the basics within the gospel as I am and can discuss each incident in them without citing chapter and verse. If you don't know the reference I'm making, ask, and I'll give you book, chapter and verse.
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** When YOUR eyes were opened to CHRIST, were you CONDEMNED?
As a matter of fact, yes. Condemnation is the acknowledgment of wrongs done, seeing what was done in the dark exposed to the Light of Christ (john 3). I think you may be mistaking condemnation for punishment; two different things entirely. Condemnation is a function of Justice. It is standing before the judge as wrong-doing is acknowledged.
No one can come to Jesus without repenting, or turning away from the darkness we once preferred and towards God and His Light--and that means acknowledging our human state without His mercy.
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** Did you have to PAY a price? :dontknow:
Not for the free gift of forgiveness, but the forgiveness does me no good without my acceptance of it, and that depends upon my acceptance of my just condemnation as a sinner. If I do accept that forgiveness, then the natural consequence is a desire to make restitution for wrongs I do/have done to others to show that I understand the nature of that free gift.
I cannot say I have been a gossip (liar, thief, whatever) and am forgiven unless I accept the just condemnation AS a gossip (liar, thief, whatever). I cannot say I have authentically accepted the free gift of forgiveness and NOT care that I have harmed others by my gossip (lies, theft, whatever) by ignoring the person I have harmed, content in my "free gift." The authenticity of my acceptance of that forgiveness lies in the restitution I make for past harms and my sincere desire not to harm others in the same way in the future.
I believe that we are saved by grace, Willie, but I understand the meaning of James, Jesus and others when they say our works are the visible signs of our invisible faith. Can't have one without the other.
As for paying a price as a Christian? Do we pay a price? Yes, in a way; the same one He did if we truly do accept His invitation to pick up our crosses and follow Him, but we do it willingly through His grace and as our own free gift in return after having accepted His free gift to us. Love is funny that way--it's reciprocal or it isn't love.
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** What TRIAL did you go through to gain Salvation Mary Ellen? :Chinscratch:
I don't believe we gain salvation. We are given it, Willie. Is a trial involved? Definitely, if you consider seeing yourself in the Light of Christ. I don't know about you, but accepting His Love was quite a trial for me. It involved being willing to see all the petty, ugly human flaws I am prone to. It's a trial to me every time I fail to live in His grace and end up hurting myself or someone else.
The trial doesn't gain our salvation; it is a
result of it if we are honest with ourselves and God.
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** Was it YOUR WORK that SAVED you? Or CHRIST's? :dontknow:
See above.
Our works don't save us, but faith without works afterward are dead. They should be the natural result of Christ alive in us, done through His grace, not our own efforts, though it has to be our choice to ask for, receive and use that grace.
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** Did YOUR "decision or acceptance" SAVE you? If so, then YOU are your own SAVIOR! :thumbdown:
No, my decision did not save me, though it was necessary for the free gift of Christ to become operative in me.
His gift would still be free and available had I not accepted it, but it would not have changed anything in my life without my assent to accept His Love.
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMIs Justice simply eliminated in favor of Love?
**** Isn't that what He did with YOU Mary Ellen? :dontknow:[/quote]
No. Justice still existed and had to be served by my just condemnation as a sinner as I turned toward God/Light and away from sin/darkness. What you are overlooking is the role His Mercy played in executing His Justice. Justice isn't eliminated; it is transformed by His Mercy into Love.
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** GOD finds JUSTICE in His OWN WORK on our behalf... As I said above, NOTHING we can possibly DO can rectify even ONE SIN... so what BENEFIT would PUNISHMENT obtain? Would it make GOD feel better to KICK our BUTTS?
Preaching to the choir re: our inability to rectify even one sin. But still confusing (1) punishment with just condemnation, imo, and (2) the natural desire to make
restitution for sin because we have been so loved with the
rectification of sin through punishment. I cannot make sin "right," but I am required by Love to make restitution for harm done to the best of my ability through His grace.
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** When the PRODIGAL returned... did you notice the Father with any WHIPS or CLUBS or Gas & Matches? :dontknow:
No, and I have never suggested sin requires punishment for it to be rectified. I have always maintained Christ's gift is sufficient to cover all punishment for all men.
But, by the same token, did you notice the son's admission of his sin? And his sorrow on his return, especially when confronted with the great and unexpected Love his father showed him?
Do you imagine he did his best to make restitution for the harm he did his family in the past by working hard for his father afterward, being gentle with his elder brother who felt slighted, and by avoiding the selfishness that led him to leave in the first place? Love calls forth love, Willie. It is the natural and logical consequence of being loved that way.
Taking responsibility for our sins (just condemnation), and making restitution for wrong done does not negate the free gift Christ gives us. They flow naturally from it.
This is getting long and I'm a bit tired now, Willie, so I will stop with the first set of questions and continue tomorrow with the rest if I can.
Pax,
ME
Hi Mary Ellen,
No apology necessary as far as I am concerned, we disagree on some things and thats about as simple as it gets.
Take your time and reply whenever you can.
willieH: Hi Mary Ellen... :cloud9:
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
willieH: Hi Mary Ellen... :Chinscratch:
I answered ALL of YOUR QUESTIONS Mary Ellen... and you are certainly under no obligation to answer mine, however... if you wish questions to be ANSWERED, you must be WILLING to DO SO, yourself!
Quote from: autoimmuneLOL! Is that a threat, Willie?
THREAT? How do you determine a THREAT? Is it done with "LITTLER SINS" logic? :laughing7:
Quote from: autoimmuneI've seen you use this argument in other threads. You're correct. I'm not under any obligation. Should I choose not to answer your many questions, you could consider that my way of saying "I choose not to argue with you, Willie." You, of course, are then perfectly free not to ever reply to one of my posts again (though, in that case, that might be exactly what I desire anyway :winkgrin:).
No "arguement" Mary... I just lobby for common courtesy! :friendstu:
Before I get into a big "hoop-de-doo" withya Mary Ellen... If you ASK questions, and GET answers, it is common courtesy to RECIPROCATE... you are welcome to (rudely) choose to NOT answer...
However, in doing this, you just make yourself look like one which has NO ANSWERS...
No
"arguement" is taking place... a DISCUSSION is taking place, so don't try to belittle the DISCUSSION (as you have attempted here), with FALSE pretences...eh? Such as
"me using this arguement in other threads"... please!
In my answer to your 8 questions, which required DETAILED replies, I asked several questions which were actually pretty much "yes/no" answers... :dontknow:
For example... you choose to ingnore such as this:
There was a point in PART TWO of my answer to you, about your statement that there
are "LITTLER SINS"... (which is exactly my point about your info or lack thereof)...
I know you would rather NOT (mostly likely because you CANNOT), but...
Please explain THAT which determines "
LITTLER SINS", and where the BIBLE indicates this measurement... along our BIBLICAL DIRECTIVE to determine them... :laughing7:
pEace...
...willieH :pointlaugh:
willieH: Hi Mary Ellen... :hithere:
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 08:40:19 AM
Nothing wrong with sticking to the love of JESUS Mary Ellen... but rash statements such as you have made in this thread, shall be noted as ORTHODOX and unfounded concerning Scriptural basis... :dontknow:
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 10:28:36 AMI'm content to let our mutual love of Jesus be our bond, but you have a point that I did ask questions and should reply. I think Paul understood my point, that I only wanted further clarification of what he believes and very politely and succinctly answered them. I'm fairly sure he took the discussion in the same spirit I did, as a sharing of our differences, rather than a debate. I will, however, try to reply to his last post out of the same courtesy he showed me. Same for SeekerSA.
I have to admit, though, that I believe you like to argue more than share ideas. I can't help but believe you don't usually give up until the other concedes your point or walks away out of frustration :)
You are making a false judgment of me Mary Ellen... I like to pursue the TRUTH, and glazing over ORTHODOX views as if they are not there, will not accomplish that.
I don't mind "sharing ideas", as long as they remain within the parameters of TRUTH and BIBLICAL support... if they step OUTSIDE those parameters, ...look for me to challenge them! :Sparkletooth:
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 10:28:36 AMYour word choices (such as calling my responses "rash statements" rather than reasonable responses and questions raised by your posts), an almost dare to respond, and previous condescending statements about my spiritual ignorance tends to show a spiritual combativeness I will usually ignore at a certain point.
My word choices are,
my word choices... if a statement is "rash" it will be UNFOUNDED, if it is NOT, ...you will SUPPORT it with SCRIPTURE... if you cannot, it remains "rash"... :dontknow: If you SUPPORT it with SCRIPTURE, then
my word choices are found "out of line" and proper retraction is due of me...
Quote an example of this, and if it is out of line, I shall make apology. I try to preface that I speak against the WORDS of a person, not the person themselves. If you are IGNORING something, and I call you on that IGNORANCE and you FAIL to note FOUNDATION for it, that is your problem, not mine... I mean no harm to you or anyone in that process... :HeartThrob:
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 10:28:36 AMHowever, I also can't help but like you just because you ARE so fervent and myopic in your spiritual point of view. How can I NOT answer someone who takes so much time to re-ask his questions? :)
Myopic eh? :grin: Now THERE is an everyday term... :laughing7:
Hey! As I said... I am a discussionist... and a seeker... Not all members at Tentmaker or any other forum, are participants such as you and I...
If we pass by a rock in the road, and refuse to acknowledge its presence, it can remain for another to stumble over... But if we take time to remove it... the road for those observing the discussion can be made clearer by our interaction.
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 08:40:19 AM
Could've fooled me! :omg: I answered ALL your questions, and you answered NONE of mine! (I'll list them in a separate post)
Within your activity earlier in the thread, your statements say otherwise! :mshock:
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 10:28:36 AMLOL! Then you are either very gullible, Willie, or deliberately obtuse.
Now who is being
condescending Mary Ellen? :laughing7:
I am neither gullible, nor obtuse... I am a seeker which not only wishes to know, but help others to KNOW as well... Several of your previous statements are UNFOUNDED in the WORD of GOD... I pointed them out in challenge to those statements... you choose to ignore those challenges to you... (I can make a detailed list if you like, and if you are UP to IT, you can try to note BIBLICAL support for them)
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 10:28:36 AMThe fact that I engaged in so much "earlier activity" was in order TO present my point of view on a variety of subjects raised. I asked questions for clarification, identified where I disagreed and gave my reasons why I did. Once I have presented my case for a particular belief, I try never to repeat myself. If someone insists on holding onto an argument by repeatedly covering the same ground, I usually decline to continue.
I do not care about YOUR point of view... I care about the TRUTH... if you are a true seeker, then you must be JUST as concerned for your viewpoint to bear TRUTH, as I.
Noting your stated your "viewpoint" is subject to it being questioned... You are just as welcome to question me... I have BIBLICAL basis for ALL that I believe... which, if you choose to discuss with me, you SHALL find to be true... Whether or not my observations are completely accurate is one thing... that they are based in the BIBLE is a FACT...
I will challenge ANY "viewpoint" which is UNBIBLICALLY based... get used to it...
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 10:28:36 AMBy the same token, once others clearly show the reasons why they have a different point of view than mine I usually say something to the effect that I never have a problem agreeing to disagree (if we do), or that I'm glad we have a point of agreement (if we do).
All this does is make it about ...SELF...
This is the great RELIGIOUS cop-out!
Agree to disagree...
All that does is enable someone who is DECIEVED, ...to remain DECIEVED... If you wish DARKNESS to remain in your views because it is comfortable... you are welcome to it... as for me, I seek LIGHT to shine in any area which I might be UNENLIGHTENED...
If that process is found to be UNCOMFORTABLE, ...it is the chastizing necessary in my experience, and benefits me even though it is UNCOMFORTABLE for a time... :dontknow:
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 10:28:36 AMMy last post was to say "I've had my say and am satisfied with all the responses I received."
In other words: "CLASS DISMISSED", Mary Ellen has left the building... :dontknow:
Get real Mary... Just because you state something and refuse to SUPPORT those statements WILL NOT end the CLASS... I post for the benefit of ALL... and many times, the answers are not always intended for the one who MADE those UNSUPPORTED statements... they are for those reading the thread and not particpating in it...
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 10:28:36 AMFeel free to misread that if you choose, but I've been posting a long time in forums. I'm usually very honest with people, politely open about my disagreements with them, very authoritative in my tone because I sincerely believe what I share, but also understand that others who are secure in their beliefs are just as authoritative in their statements. As long as they show a spiritual maturity that has no desire to beat a dead horse or insist that I am ignorant or spiritually immature because of our differences, I'll continue in conversation with them, always open to hearing their point of view and showing where I agree or differ with them, asking and answering any further points or questions we both wish to share.
What a lot of hoo-ha is this Mary... If you are so AUTHORITATIVE... why not NOTE that AUTHORITY? Your "tone" does not establish TRUTH... Basing your views on the BIBLE, gives it the opportunity to be so... not your "tone"... :dontknow:
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 10:28:36 AMWhat I won't do is argue with spiritually immature people who want to convince me I am wrong or whose goal is to showcase their own perceived spiritual superiority.
That is where we are VERY DIFFERENT Mary Ellen... I NEVER indicate you or anyone else to be WRONG... I believe we are ALL either REVEALED or VEILED in any given area at any given moment... and that condition is not due to US... it is where GOD has established us (and our viewpoints) at any given moment...
In order to determine another WRONG... such a determination can only be INEVITABLY derived by comparison of YOUR VIEW to the one presented by ANOTHER... which is FOOLISH... :thumbdown:
This is to say, ...just for illustration, ...(let us say) that YOU are presently WRONG about a given observation, ...and when another presents an opposing viewpoint, you determine that they must be WRONG for it opposes YOURS...
FOOLISHNESS is bound in this thinking...
If we seek TRUTH... we shall note our views... and if they are, upon another look, found to be either, ...
OUTSIDE of, ...or
UNFOUNDED by SCRIPTURE, then it is time to reconsider those views...
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 10:28:36 AMI have a tendency to honestly, but politely, identify condescending remarks, sarcasm and ego and then excuse myself from the conversation if it continues after that.
Now, having said that, I'll be happy to answer the new lists of questions you've asked me, as long as I haven't already covered the questions elsewhere in this thread.
ME
Consider your own "EGO" Mary... instead of subliminally inferring to mine... :pointlaugh:
If you CANNOT answer my questions... it's simple... DON'T! :dontknow:
The parameters and requirements of OUR conversation is NOT set up by YOU... and YOUR "rules" for it... It is a mutual interaction, in which BOTH of us must play a part, ...or NOT! :dsunny:
pEace...
...willieH :pointlaugh:
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 12:18:48 PM
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
willieH: Hi Mary Ellen... :Chinscratch:
I answered ALL of YOUR QUESTIONS Mary Ellen... and you are certainly under no obligation to answer mine, however... if you wish questions to be ANSWERED, you must be WILLING to DO SO, yourself!
LOL! Is that a threat, Willie?
I've seen you use this argument in other threads. You're correct. I'm not under any obligation. Should I choose not to answer your many questions, you could consider that my way of saying "I choose not to argue with you, Willie." You, of course, are then perfectly free not to ever reply to one of my posts again (though, in that case, that might be exactly what I desire anyway :winkgrin:).
To be honest, I'm willing to answer simply because you asked and I enjoy sharing what I believe and why. Also because the lupus isn't causing much brain fog tonight and CHF is pretty much confining me to a chair right now, so I also have the time and ability to answer as well. A nice combination all around, imo.
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** No one "ACCEPTS" CHRIST... this is in my observation a non-biblical teaching... where is this "accepting CHRIST teaching" noted? :dunno:
Semantics, Willie.
Jesus invites us into His Kingdom. I accept that invitation by accepting His call to pick up my cross and follow Him. Jesus says there is no way to the Father but through Him. To go through a person to another we must "accept" them as the doorway. Jesus calls Himself the Way, the Life, the Truth, the Bread of Life, the Living Water, the Gate, the Good Shepherd . . . we accept Him as He describes Himself or we don't. Biblical, no matter how you word it, found in all His parables concerning His kingdom, in every place He invites others to follow Him, and in every description He applies to Himself.
You'll find that I don't do cut and paste biblical posts, Willie. I assume that other Christians are as familiar with the basics within the gospel as I am and can discuss each incident in them without citing chapter and verse. If you don't know the reference I'm making, ask, and I'll give you book, chapter and verse.
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** When YOUR eyes were opened to CHRIST, were you CONDEMNED?
As a matter of fact, yes. Condemnation is the acknowledgment of wrongs done, seeing what was done in the dark exposed to the Light of Christ (john 3). I think you may be mistaking condemnation for punishment; two different things entirely. Condemnation is a function of Justice. It is standing before the judge as wrong-doing is acknowledged.
No one can come to Jesus without repenting, or turning away from the darkness we once preferred and towards God and His Light--and that means acknowledging our human state without His mercy.
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** Did you have to PAY a price? :dontknow:
Not for the free gift of forgiveness, but the forgiveness does me no good without my acceptance of it, and that depends upon my acceptance of my just condemnation as a sinner. If I do accept that forgiveness, then the natural consequence is a desire to make restitution for wrongs I do/have done to others to show that I understand the nature of that free gift.
I cannot say I have been a gossip (liar, thief, whatever) and am forgiven unless I accept the just condemnation AS a gossip (liar, thief, whatever). I cannot say I have authentically accepted the free gift of forgiveness and NOT care that I have harmed others by my gossip (lies, theft, whatever) by ignoring the person I have harmed, content in my "free gift." The authenticity of my acceptance of that forgiveness lies in the restitution I make for past harms and my sincere desire not to harm others in the same way in the future.
I believe that we are saved by grace, Willie, but I understand the meaning of James, Jesus and others when they say our works are the visible signs of our invisible faith. Can't have one without the other.
As for paying a price as a Christian? Do we pay a price? Yes, in a way; the same one He did if we truly do accept His invitation to pick up our crosses and follow Him, but we do it willingly through His grace and as our own free gift in return after having accepted His free gift to us. Love is funny that way--it's reciprocal or it isn't love.
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** What TRIAL did you go through to gain Salvation Mary Ellen? :Chinscratch:
I don't believe we gain salvation. We are given it, Willie. Is a trial involved? Definitely, if you consider seeing yourself in the Light of Christ. I don't know about you, but accepting His Love was quite a trial for me. It involved being willing to see all the petty, ugly human flaws I am prone to. It's a trial to me every time I fail to live in His grace and end up hurting myself or someone else.
The trial doesn't gain our salvation; it is a result of it if we are honest with ourselves and God.
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** Was it YOUR WORK that SAVED you? Or CHRIST's? :dontknow:
See above.
Our works don't save us, but faith without works afterward are dead. They should be the natural result of Christ alive in us, done through His grace, not our own efforts, though it has to be our choice to ask for, receive and use that grace.
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** Did YOUR "decision or acceptance" SAVE you? If so, then YOU are your own SAVIOR! :thumbdown:
No, my decision did not save me, though it was necessary for the free gift of Christ to become operative in me.
His gift would still be free and available had I not accepted it, but it would not have changed anything in my life without my assent to accept His Love.
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMIs Justice simply eliminated in favor of Love?
**** Isn't that what He did with YOU Mary Ellen? :dontknow:
No. Justice still existed and had to be served by my just condemnation as a sinner as I turned toward God/Light and away from sin/darkness. What you are overlooking is the role His Mercy played in executing His Justice. Justice isn't eliminated; it is transformed by His Mercy into Love.
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** GOD finds JUSTICE in His OWN WORK on our behalf... As I said above, NOTHING we can possibly DO can rectify even ONE SIN... so what BENEFIT would PUNISHMENT obtain? Would it make GOD feel better to KICK our BUTTS?
Preaching to the choir re: our inability to rectify even one sin. But still confusing (1) punishment with just condemnation, imo, and (2) the natural desire to make
restitution for sin because we have been so loved with the
rectification of sin through punishment. I cannot make sin "right," but I am required by Love to make restitution for harm done to the best of my ability through His grace.
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** When the PRODIGAL returned... did you notice the Father with any WHIPS or CLUBS or Gas & Matches? :dontknow:
No, and I have never suggested sin requires punishment for it to be rectified. I have always maintained Christ's gift is sufficient to cover all punishment for all men.
But, by the same token, did you notice the son's admission of his sin? And his sorrow on his return, especially when confronted with the great and unexpected Love his father showed him?
Do you imagine he did his best to make restitution for the harm he did his family in the past by working hard for his father afterward, being gentle with his elder brother who felt slighted, and by avoiding the selfishness that led him to leave in the first place? Love calls forth love, Willie. It is the natural and logical consequence of being loved that way.
Taking responsibility for our sins (just condemnation), and making restitution for wrong done does not negate the free gift Christ gives us. They flow naturally from it.
This is getting long and I'm a bit tired now, Willie, so I will stop with the first set of questions and continue tomorrow with the rest if I can.
Pax,
ME
[/quote]
Hi Mary E, I don't know what else took place in this thread, just read the last few replies, and for myself I agree with you on the answers you gave to Willies questions.
I don't know why Willie asked those questions but I agree with your answers
God bless
Quote from: pneuma on July 10, 2008, 09:54:05 PM
Hi Mary E, I don't know what else took place in this thread, just read the last few replies, and for myself I agree with you on the answers you gave to Willies questions.
I don't know why Willie asked those questions but I agree with your answers
God bless
Might help if you read the thread Scott... :dontknow:
pEace...
...willieH :pointlaugh:
willieH: Hi Mary E... :hithere:
Thanks for answering, which was the RIGHT thing to do, and I commend you for it! :thumbsup:
However, you probably won't like my replies to those answers... :sigh:
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** No one "ACCEPTS" CHRIST... this is in my observation a non-biblical teaching... where is this "accepting CHRIST teaching" noted? :dunno:
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 12:18:48 PMSemantics, Willie.
Jesus invites us into His Kingdom. I accept that invitation by accepting His call to pick up my cross and follow Him. Jesus says there is no way to the Father but through Him. To go through a person to another we must "accept" them as the doorway.
It is not semantics... it is either THERE or it is NOT... there is no Scripture which says we are to "ACCEPT"
CHRIST... This is ORTHODOXY within your view Mary... it is the other way AROUND... (John 15:16) Ye have
NOT CHOSEN ME, but
I'VE CHOSEN
YOU...
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 12:18:48 PMJesus calls Himself the Way, the Life, the Truth, the Bread of Life, the Living Water, the Gate, the Good Shepherd . . . we accept Him as He describes Himself or we don't. Biblical, no matter how you word it, found in all His parables concerning His kingdom, in every place He invites others to follow Him, and in every description He applies to Himself.
He either REVEALS Himself to us, or HE DOESN'T Mary... It is not OUR WORK to FIND SALVATION, it is HIS WORK to SEEK the SHEEP... (luke 19:10)
Again ORTHODOXY is found within your belief... that SALVATION is (1) accepted by us - which makes us our own savior (2) that We are to SEEK it - which makes US the shepherd instead of the sheep (3) that our following is due to OUR INCLINATIONS, rather than HIS...
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 12:18:48 PMYou'll find that I don't do cut and paste biblical posts, Willie. I assume that other Christians are as familiar with the basics within the gospel as I am and can discuss each incident in them without citing chapter and verse. If you don't know the reference I'm making, ask, and I'll give you book, chapter and verse.
If you ask a question about a given verse, then you are required to note it, or you will not gain an answer from me... I am quite familiar with the Word (don't know everything), have studied it for over 32 years...
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** When YOUR eyes were opened to CHRIST, were you CONDEMNED?
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 12:18:48 PMAs a matter of fact, yes. Condemnation is the acknowledgment of wrongs done, seeing what was done in the dark exposed to the Light of Christ (john 3).
I find this observation contrary to Scripture: (John 3:17) For GOD sent ...
NOT... His Son to
CONDEMN the World, but that the World, through Him might be saved...
When LIGHT shines in darkness, it does NOT CONDEMN it Mary... it
REMOVES IT... Darkness of itself, is shown to be
NOTHING when LIGHT is applied TO IT.
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 12:18:48 PMI think you may be mistaking condemnation for punishment; two different things entirely. Condemnation is a function of Justice. It is standing before the judge as wrong-doing is acknowledged.
No one can come to Jesus without repenting, or turning away from the darkness we once preferred and towards God and His Light--and that means acknowledging our human state without His mercy.
I see this as CONTRARY to the WORD: (John 6:44) No MAN, ...CAN... COME to Me except the FATHER which hath sent Me,
DRAW Him... The word DRAW in this verse means DRAG... we are DRAGGED to repentence, it is not a
vehicle in which we "ride" into the LIGHT...
We do not "turn away from" Darkness... this is the NATURAL veiw... We are
DRAWN to the LIGHT, which is the SPIRITUAL view...
It is the WORK of the LIGHT to DRAW us to It... and in that DRAWING, is DARKNESS dispelled in repentence... which is ACCOMPLISHED
by the LIGHT, not US...
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** Did you have to PAY a price? :dontknow:
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 12:18:48 PMNot for the free gift of forgiveness, but the forgiveness does me no good without my acceptance of it, and that depends upon my acceptance of my just condemnation as a sinner.
Ah... you are your own Savior! For Salvation is not COMPLETE until ENDORSED and ACCEPTED by YOU... therefore, God is subject to YOU, instead of YOU to HIM...
Again I find this (
CONDEMNATION) to be CONTRARY to Scripture... (John 8:10-11)
10 When
JESUS had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman, He said unto her: Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath NO MAN CONDEMNED thee?
11 She said: no
MAN, Lord... and
JESUS said unto her: NEITHER
DO I CONDEMN thee, go and SIN no more.
MEN do the
CONDEMNING Mary...
JESUS FORGIVES...
As the "man"
in you CONDEMNS you...
JESUS is found FORGIVING YOU...
JESUS did not CONDEMN this woman, and He neither does He
CONDEMN anyone else, including YOU Mary... He was SENT
NOT to
CONDEMN Mary...
NOT...
CONDEMNATION is within and FROM -- YOU, and does NOT come from
CHRIST...
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 12:18:48 PMIf I do accept that forgiveness, then the natural consequence is a desire to make restitution for wrongs I do/have done to others to show that I understand the nature of that free gift.
I cannot say I have been a gossip (liar, thief, whatever) and am forgiven unless I accept the just condemnation AS a gossip (liar, thief, whatever). I cannot say I have authentically accepted the free gift of forgiveness and NOT care that I have harmed others by my gossip (lies, theft, whatever) by ignoring the person I have harmed, content in my "free gift." The authenticity of my acceptance of that forgiveness lies in the restitution I make for past harms and my sincere desire not to harm others in the same way in the future.
Authenticity (from you) does not save you from your SELF CONDEMNATION Mary... LIGHT saves you from DARKNESS...
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 12:18:48 PMI believe that we are saved by grace, Willie, but I understand the meaning of James, Jesus and others when they say our works are the visible signs of our invisible faith. Can't have one without the other.
LIGHT produces repentence Mary... for if REPENTENCE is necessary for SALVATION and it EMERGES or ORIGINATES from YOU, ...then YOU are your own Savior...
The TRUTH
creates FREEDOM from BONDAGE Mary... (John 8:32) And ye shall KNOW the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall ...
MAKE...
you FREE.
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 12:18:48 PMAs for paying a price as a Christian? Do we pay a price? Yes, in a way; the same one He did if we truly do accept His invitation to pick up our crosses and follow Him, but we do it willingly through His grace and as our own free gift in return after having accepted His free gift to us. Love is funny that way--it's reciprocal or it isn't love.
No price is paid by you or I Mary... we are strictly BENEFICIARIES of GRACE...
"Truly accepting" His invitation, is done BY HIM ...IN YOU... not by YOU in HIM...
The GIFT of LIFE, requires NOTHING of the recipient...
Did you have to DO anything to be born here?
What did YOU DO, to gain LIFE on earth Mary?
Did you as a baby, first have to ACCEPT being alive, in order to BE ALIVE?
Let's face it... LIFE is given, and LIVED, not accepted... Whether we are born in the NATURAL or in the SPIRITUAL, ...LIFE is GIVEN to the recipient, and the recipient just LIVES the LIFE which is GIVEN...
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** What TRIAL did you go through to gain Salvation Mary Ellen? :Chinscratch:
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 12:18:48 PMI don't believe we gain salvation. We are given it, Willie. Is a trial involved? Definitely, if you consider seeing yourself in the Light of Christ. I don't know about you, but accepting His Love was quite a trial for me. It involved being willing to see all the petty, ugly human flaws I am prone to. It's a trial to me every time I fail to live in His grace and end up hurting myself or someone else.
The trial doesn't gain our salvation; it is a result of it if we are honest with ourselves and God.
You speak of the BRIMSTONE within this LAKE of FIRE in which we presently
ARE...
The "trials" you speak of are quite real... but have nothing to do with SALVATION... they are the purifying WORK which is done by GOD in the SPIRIT... which shall result in CHILDREN (to include Mary Ellen & willieH) that
YHVH is totally invested in... (1 Cor 15:28)
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** Was it YOUR WORK that SAVED you? Or CHRIST's? :dontknow:
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 12:18:48 PMSee above.
Which "above"? :laughing7:
QuoteOur works don't save us, but faith without works afterward are dead. They should be the natural result of Christ alive in us, done through His grace, not our own efforts, though it has to be our choice to ask for, receive and use that grace.
Oh... this above! :laughing7: Mostly good words... :thumbsup:
I take exception to "OUR CHOICE"... for
CHRIST, as I noted above specifically noted that the "CHOICE" is HIS, not ours... (John 15:16)
What "works" following FAITH means, ...is that
CHRIST is INDWELLING that one...
If "works" do not follow, ...then the spiritual state of DEATH remains in that one, making the claim of
CHRIST within...
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** Did YOUR "decision or acceptance" SAVE you? If so, then YOU are your own SAVIOR! :thumbdown:
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 12:18:48 PMNo, my decision did not save me, though it was necessary for the free gift of Christ to become operative in me.
His gift would still be free and available had I not accepted it, but it would not have changed anything in my life without my assent to accept His Love.
Boy Mary... You handcuff GOD with your "acceptance" and "decision"... for without it, HE is helpless to rescue you...
:omg:
YOUR ASSENT to accept
HIS LOVE? Please! A little less SELF, and a little MORE HUMILITY might be in order, ...if you would consider it! :dontknow:
Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMIs Justice simply eliminated in favor of Love?
Quote from: willieH**** Isn't that what He did with YOU Mary Ellen? :dontknow:
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 12:18:48 PMNo. Justice still existed and had to be served by my just condemnation as a sinner as I turned toward God/Light and away from sin/darkness. What you are overlooking is the role His Mercy played in executing His Justice. Justice isn't eliminated; it is transformed by His Mercy into Love.
You turned? The empowerment to leave darkness comes from YOU?
CONDEMNATION comes from within YOU, not HIM... as I attempted to explain above...
JUSTICE is GOD's
provision for us, found IN the MERCY of His Son's sacrifice FOR US... (Rom 5:18-20)
ORTHODOXY has you bound in the chains of SELF-CONDEMNATION which you percieve as coming from
YHVH and
CHRIST...
But is really born from the NATURAL condition of your heart passed down from ADAM, ...which GOD notes is DESPARATELY WICKED (Jer 17:9) ...and when it is exposed in its DARKNESS by the LIGHT of the SAVIOR... it SELF-CONDEMNS...
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** GOD finds JUSTICE in His OWN WORK on our behalf... As I said above, NOTHING we can possibly DO can rectify even ONE SIN... so what BENEFIT would PUNISHMENT obtain? Would it make GOD feel better to KICK our BUTTS?
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 12:18:48 PMPreaching to the choir re: our inability to rectify even one sin. But still confusing (1) punishment with just condemnation, imo, and
Punishment and Condemnation, ORTHODOXY's most fond toys... Without CONDEMNATION and PUNISHMENT, justice is concluded as non-existent... This is the NATURAL view...
How does GOD Justify? He provides it... (Rom 8:30-33)
And we are not to question that JUSTIFICATION... (Rom 9:19-20)
It seems you INSIST that PUNISHMENT or CONDEMNATION be exacted in order that JUSTICE is met... This is the NATURAL conclusive view, of a SPIRITUAL scenario...
And it is blatant ignorance of the work of GRACE... to expect PUNISHMENT or CONDEMNATION for that which is TAKEN AWAY (John 1:29)... that which is NOT IMPUTED (2 Cor 5:19) ...its GONE, but STILL there... :thumbdown:
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 12:18:48 PM(2) the natural desire to make restitution for sin because we have been so loved with the rectification of sin through punishment. I cannot make sin "right," but I am required by Love to make restitution for harm done to the best of my ability through His grace.
I cannot believe that you are unable to see the FALLACY which you state here Mary.
You say that we are REQUIRED by LOVE to make RESTITUTION, when RESTITUTION has already been made... what a crock!
First you say we CANNOT rectify (make sin "right")... then you proceed to REQUIRE it (make restitution) to be done!
Quote from: willieH on July 10, 2008, 09:04:53 AM
**** When the PRODIGAL returned... did you notice the Father with any WHIPS or CLUBS or Gas & Matches? :dontknow:
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 12:18:48 PMNo, and I have never suggested sin requires punishment for it to be rectified. I have always maintained Christ's gift is sufficient to cover all punishment for all men.
But, by the same token, did you notice the son's admission of his sin?
What PROMPTED that admission Mary? Was it not the GOODNESS of the Father, that brought him back? :dontknow:
Did the Father PUNISH him Mary? :dontknow:
Did he require restitution? :dontknow:
(btw the parable is in Luke 15:11-32 for those following along)
Quote from: autoimmune on July 10, 2008, 12:18:48 PMAnd his sorrow on his return, especially when confronted with the great and unexpected Love his father showed him?
Do you imagine he did his best to make restitution for the harm he did his family in the past by working hard for his father afterward, being gentle with his elder brother who felt slighted, and by avoiding the selfishness that led him to leave in the first place? Love calls forth love, Willie. It is the natural and logical consequence of being loved that way.
Taking responsibility for our sins (just condemnation), and making restitution for wrong done does not negate the free gift Christ gives us. They flow naturally from it.
More of the same... You complain of :bdh: ...then repeat the same mess over and over...
Let's just get it over and DONE with Mary, ...where does the Scripture say that we are RESPONSIBLE for our SINS... :JCThink:
pEace...
...willieH :pointlaugh:
Hi, Willie. You go a bit overboard with your colors, emoticons, and glaring, large-type warnings of my spiritual immaturity and "blatant ignorance" of grace and other spiritual truths, but I'll do a critique of your reply nonetheless.
I appreciate your concern for my orthodoxy, but I don't apologize for it, nor am inclined to take your sage advice and give it up. That would be a step backward for me. I've already taken a 25 year journey "outside the box," and God led me back almost full circle to those orthodox doctrines I once discarded, but with a deeper understanding of their underlying truths, why I misunderstood them, and how they all work together in a marvelous and loving plan for all creation to be returned to the Father through Christ.
Truth is truth, Willie, and when I find it I praise God for the grace He gave me to see what I once was blind to. I've read all that you've said and there isn't one thing in it I haven't examined for myself in the past and then let go of.
For someone to tell me I should discard these precious truths about myself, God and the world, only fills me with a tender compassion for your obvious and enthusiastic belief that only you know the truth from scripture and all the rest of us are blind.
I'd have preferred you accepted the spirit in which I entered this conversation--sharing what we each believe. I have no problem with someone saying they disagree with me and why. However, you have not yet learned to allow the other person their belief while standing fast in your own. There is a big difference between saying, "I disagree with you because ________" and "You are 'blatantly ignorant' because you disagree with me. The truth is _________."
You ignore what the person has said they mean and, instead rant at them based on your assumption of what they MUST mean in order for you to be right. That's a very unproductive way to learn anything yourself or teach someone else.
I've read your replies and we'll have to agree to disagree on most of them. I don't believe in a quietist, predeterminist, I-have-no-responsibility-cause-God-does-it-all kind of faith that thinks Love is a one way flow from God. To BE Love, it takes two and must be reciprocal. And that requires our free choice, which places a responsibility on us for the Love given so freely. We cannot truly love others as Christ commanded without understanding that.
I won't go over the same arguments again. I've explained what I believe and why. If you cannot accept that, I have no problem with it. Since I have no desire to disprove your point of view, I see no point in repeatedly saying "That's not what I said, Willie" and then re-explaining what I previously said. You asked, I told you what I believe. Not much more I can say.
I choose not to spend time answering the rest of your questions on the list because you don't seem to want to hear what I've said to understand what I believe and why. Any reply would simply be fodder for more "this is why you are wrong, Mary" replies from you. My sincere thanks for your desire to show me where I am wrong, Willie, but the Holy Spirit is my teacher and I'm not looking for a new one.
May God bless you, Willie, and keep you always.
Mary Ellen
Quote from: pneuma on July 10, 2008, 09:54:05 PM
Hi Mary E, I don't know what else took place in this thread, just read the last few replies, and for myself I agree with you on the answers you gave to Willies questions.
I don't know why Willie asked those questions but I agree with your answers
God bless
Hello, pneuma. Thank you for your kind words. I believe in universal restoration, have for many years, but it took years of scriptural searches and prayers for God to answer the many questions I had about how it related to other things within scripture. I wanted it to be true because I know God in the way John did, as Perfect Love, and UR made sense. Yet, I also knew that unless UR could answer the questions I had about the things Jesus said, I couldn't just accept it because it felt right or good. It had to be THE Good and that meant agreeing with Jesus' teachings and the rest of scriptures as fulfilled in Him.
Thankfully, God showed me that UR does not contradict anything Jesus said, taught or did.
Willie's questions have to do with my belief that God's Justice is not done away with because of His Love. I believe that God's Justice executed through His Mercy is Love. He disagrees with me, so I agreed to answer some of his questions. Have to admit that it was refreshing to be called "orthodox." Most other places I'm viewed as the radical, heretical Christian:)
I hope to see you throughout other threads and get a chance to share with you more deeply.
Thanks again,
Mary Ellen
Hi Willie long time no talk to
I don't have to read the whole tread to understand Mary's answers to your questions.
I can see the questions and see Mary's reply, and I agree with her replies.
But that does not mean I don't agree with you also.
Let me explain that if I can.
I think the difference between what you are sharing and what Mary is sharing is the different views of God shown in scripture.
Your view of God is that of the MOST HIGH God or EL Elyon, This is the highest view of God recorded in scripture, it shows forth His eternal (as in without beginning and without end) nature. Everything in this view stems from His infinite being where all things are done by Him and through Him. Everything starts with Him and ends with Him.
You know what I am referring to as I have seen many of your posts speaking of things outside of time, and that is the view of EL Elyon.
But that is not the only view of God recorded in scripture, we also have Elohim, Jehovah, El Shaddai (God Almighty), Adonai (Lord), El Olam (God of the ages) and Jehovah Sabaoth (Lord of Hosts).
So to say someone is in error or wrong or immature because they see God by the view of El Olam (God of the ages) or by one of the other different views expressed in His names is an error in itself.
For if God shows someone a view of Himself as El Olam how can that view of Him be in error?
When God deals with man in time He expresses Himself by that name, which is El Olam (God of the ages). This view is how God deals with man throughout every age, and He does not change from this view until man is outside of time.
In each view we see a different aspect of who God is, in one we see God in His creative works, in another we see God in covenant to man etc.
In each of these views we see something expressed of El Elyon (Most High God) because El Elyon is the overshadowing principal of all other views of God. For it shows God before the beginning and it shows Him after all time comes to an end. It show Him before creation, before covenant, before the different ages etc. It is the highest view or aspect of God, and it shows forth LIFE which is much more then the LIFE we experience in the created LIFE, in the covenant LIFE, in the LIFE of the ages etc. Each aspect of God shown throughout scripture bring us more fully into the LIFE of the MOST HIGH GOD, EL ELYON.
So what I see the difference between what you have given forth and what Mary has given forth come from two different aspects or views of God.
Neither are wrong or in error or immature.
You see God in the LIFE we will all have, Mary sees God in the LIFE we have right now.
You see God as having finished it all, Mary sees God as we are experiencing Him right now. Which view is that of God working in man and WITH man.
Hope you and Mary can understand what I am saying here, if not do a study on the names of God for every name has its own nature or LIFE aspect.
God bless
willieH: Hi Mary... :hithere:
I'll call this post
THE
NAME IT GAME... :laughing7:
Those points which need BIBLE SUPPORT will be REQUIRED in this GAME, from either YOU or ME... ahead of time, I'll insert MINE... that way, you don't have to hold your breath, as I DO have BIBLE SUPPORT for what I believe... :nod: let's see if YOU DO... :reachout:
The following are quotes of your statements which are UNBIBLICAL or erroneous quotation from the BIBLE as it
IS WRITTEN... deal with them as you will. If they have BIBLICAL support, then NAME it (book/chapter/verse-s), if not your SILENCE is answer enough:
(1)Quote from: autoimmune on June 16, 2008, 06:09:01 AMHello, Willie. I agree with this: ultimately it is Christ's death which rectifies it all.
But, as I've asked elsewhere, do you see any difference between punishment and restitution in the name of Justice one makes for harms done others? Yes, Christ's death is the mercy that will transform that justice into Love, but is the Love available without that restitution being accepted first?
There is no BIBLE verse to my knowledge, that states "
ACCEPTING"
CHRIST OR "RESTITIUTION" is necessary...
NAME IT...
(2)Quote from: autoimmuneAnd how does someone who has not accepted Christ in this life do so in the next--
Already addressed "accepting
CHRIST"....
There is no "NEXT LIFE" or "AFTERLIFE", ...
NAME IT...
(3)Quote from: autoimmunewithout doing what those who are called in this age must do, which is to allow GOd's Love to burn away everything in our egos that separates us from Him?
There is no verse that states our EGO's separate us from Him, ...
NAME IT...
On the contrary... the WORD says
NOTHING can SEPARATE us from the LOVE of GOD (Rom 8:38-39)
(4) Quote from: autoimmuneAt death do those who never accepted salvation through Christ simply rise to a Loving life in God without any form of trial or condemnation taking place as Jesus said and as is explicit in many scriptural passages? Is Justice simply eliminated in favor of Love?
No verse says SALVATION must be
ACCEPTED...
NAME IT...
(5)Quote from: autoimmuneSounds good . . . until we take into consideration the number of people in this life who seem to prosper from sin, who indisriminately hurt others and get away with it on a major scale. Your statement would not satisfy any of the billions of people who have suffered injustice at the hand of a despot of some sort who lived life to a ripe old age surrounded by their ill gotten gains. As I said, it sounds good, but it doesn't answer the practical questions people ask when faced with real life injustice that too often acts with impunity.
This is not a "God gets even thing" Mary...
And furthermore, it is not about SATISFYING billions of people... what they think and do, is inconsequential... What GOD thinks and DOES in HIS PURPOSES is ultimately what must BE...
I'm banking that you will wish that the SIN which you committed in life, is going to be forgiven, no? With no PUNISHMENT for it, forthcoming? GOD is no respecter of persons kiddo... Some were beautiful and some were UGLY in this world... are we to expect GOD to make a reversal of this in ETERNITY to "satisfy" billions of people?
(6)Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
... and the FLESH which each of us SINS in, DIES and returns to the dust...
Quote from: autoimmuneAnd when that flesh rises as we've been promised?
Where does it say that FLESH rises Mary? And where is this PROMISED? (flesh rising) ...
NAME IT...
(7)Quote from: autoimmuneWhere is the sin? What account can be made for sin people did not submit to Jesus for payment then? How is all recgtified at that point?
The "SIN" is TAKEN AWAY: (John 1:29) or do believe what the LAMB
TOOK AWAY, is still there? :mshock:
As far as submission to
CHRIST:
At the LAST DAY shall resurrection and Judgment take place (John 6:44 / John 12:48) in the resurrection, shall knees BOW that have not yet BOWED, and shall tongues CONFESS that have not yet CONFESSED... (Phil 2:10-11 / Rom 14:11)
There Mary, ...I
NAMED IT... :laughing7:
(8)Quote from: autoimmuneThe assumption that it all just "disappears" regardless of how men accept Jesus' gift in this aeon or not baffles me.
If men simply died and never rose I might be able to accept your argument, but that ignores resurrection and the role of the second death.
YOUR perception of what the 2nd Death IS... is what is instrumental in baffling you Mary...
Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
As JESUS said: Let him WITHOUT SIN cast the first stone... we are all UNWORTHY to cast a stone at a SINNER, as we are found to hold that undistinguished title, ourselves... :winkgrin:
(9)Quote from: autoimmuneNo doubt, and that's why Jesus commanded us not to judge others. Yet, He did speak frequently of judgment and condemnation.
So frequently that you did not name even one verse in which He did...
(10) Quote from: autoimmuneUnless we can rectify those things with UR, keeping the character of God intact without eliminating either His Love or His Justice, we've got just another gnostic concept of how it all works according to our minds, and not the mind of God expressed in scriptures.
More UNBIBLICAL Hoo-ha... GNOSTIC ...schmostic... :pointfinger:
Who are
YOU to determine what another sees in Scripture... You fail to name Bible verses continually... likely because there is little to support your beliefs...
I have already noted that GOD's JUSTICE is
not MAN'S justice... which is the "JUSTICE" you (naturally) entertain as being, His (spiritually)...
It is why there is an OLD TESTAMENT and a NEW TESTAMENT... the OLD was the picture of the NATURAL, ...the NEW is the TRUTH of the SPIRITUAL... and was WHY
CHRIST said to LOVE your ENEMIES... which
BY NATURE, we DO NOT DO... :dontknow:
(11)Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
The observation of HITLER is an assumption that in some way, you consider your life a more worthy life than was his, based upon YOUR LIFE by comparision is it not? Not picking on you, just trying to get you to see... we ALL deserve death, for even ONE SIN, sends CHRIST to the cross to redeem us!)
Quote from: autoimmuneWe all make assumptions, willie; you did , too, in assuming that "worthiness" instead of some concept of God's holines and justice leads one to ask the question AoT did. Yes, Christ's death paid for our littler sins as surely as it paid for the many of Hitler's, yet, you are suggesting that without recourse to Christ Hitler can be automatically forgiven at death.
My favorite! "LITTLER SINS"! CHRIST's death paid for our "littler sins", but the biggies are still ripe for the pickin eh? :laughing7:
LITTLER SINS...
NAME IT...
(12)Quote from: autoimmuneI certainly do believe God wills Hitler's salvation and that Christ has purchased that for him. Yet, Hitler must take the same responsibility for his many "big" sins as I and others have for our many "smaller" ones before that mercy can be applied.
:Yeahright:
CHRIST took away the "Littler sins", but we are ALL are
RESPONSIBLE for the BIG'NS? Unbiblical...
...
NAME IT...
QuoteOr did you come to Jesus Christ without some sense of metanoia/repentance?
I see nothing in your argument that requires a Hitler or a person at a mall with an AK47 to repent for their lack of love to others. They simply die and the wage (death) is paid?
That is WHAT the WORD
SAYS Mary... (Rom 6:23)
CHRIST tasted DEATH for EVERY MAN... (Heb 2:9) YET... YET... we all STILL DIE a physical DEATH... so obviously PHYSICAL DEATH is that which is PAID for SIN... by US in the FLESH because we SINNED in it... BY
CHRIST FOR US to LIVE... because HE did NOT...
Once again... I
NAMED IT!
(13)Quote from: autoimmuneIt seems as if you are equating human death with Mercy. A very weak argument I do not accept in the least.
WHO CARES that YOU don't "accept it"? Not me! :cloud9: I am not trying to convince YOU of anything! You are welcome to believe RHINO's can fly if you like! :pointlaugh:
Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
There is no "afterlife" Angel... this is an UNBIBLICAL observation...
Upon the conclusion of this life, Our SPIRIT, ...RETURNS to where we emerged -- GOD...
(14)Quote from: autoimmuneIf you are Christian, then where does resurrection fit into this picture, willie?
RESURRECTION is of the
SOUL which DIED... (Ez 18:20)
The SOUL that sinneth [all souls sin], it SHALL DIE... Man, in the FLESH is a LIVING SOUL... (Gen 2:7)
The SPIRIT which GOD gave in the breath of LIFE, is returned to HIM... the thoughts of MAN perish as this occurs: (Ps 146:4 / Ecc 9:5 / Ecc 12:7)
Once again, ...I
NAMED IT... your turn! :dontknow:
(15)Quote from: autoimmuneSince you say the afterlife is an unbiblical observation, I feel you've opened the door to debate based on scripture. So, please provide the scriptures for what you said next:
Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
In order to RETURN, one must have previously been there... We came FROM GOD... we RETURN to Him... in ETERNITY we ALWAYS are... TIME is a temporal "classroom" in which the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL is gained, and in gaining that knowledge we become AS IS our Father and HIS Son... (Gen 3:22)
LIFE in ETERNITY ...always IS... all SONS have ALWAYS BEEN... LIFE beyond TIME is not AFTERLIFE, nor BEFORELIFE... it is ETERNAL LIFE which has no beginning or end.
Job 38:7 ...when the morning stars sand together and
ALL the SONS of GOD shouted for joy... (all the SONS means ALL the SONS... the word BEN is in this text, and is the UNIVERSAL Hebrew word used for SONS [offspring] throughout the OT Scriptures...)
(Luke 15:12) A certain man had TWO SONS... the younger of them said to
his father, Father give me the portion of goods that falleth
to me and He divided unto them,
his living. In order for the SON to LEAVE and go to a FAR COUNTRY, he was ORIGINALLY there... :dontknow:
Thereyago... I
NAMED IT!
(16)Quote from: autoimmuneThat last was straight out of Genesis and is the precise definition of original sin: thinking we can discern good and evil through knowledge to become as gods . . .
Definitely gnostic, willie :) . . . and certainly a reversal of scripture, to say the least.
ORIGINAL SIN...
NAME IT...
Quote from: willieH on June 02, 2008, 08:38:35 AM
So how many do you percieve are LOST, Angel? Did CHRIST accomplish His mission? At it's end, did He not say "IT IS FINISHED"?
If there is still more to do (such as you suggest above in blue), why did He say it was finished?
(17)Quote from: autoimmuneIn the same way you indicated above--not in temporal time, but in the Eternal Now of God. It is the same "It is finished" as we hear in the Book of Revelation, willie, which has not yet occured in our time frame. Both events are one, but separated through linear time. When one was accomplished in the Eternal Now, the other was as well. But in linear time, only one has occured, the other is yet to come for us. Just as some are now found and some yet to be found in linear time who are still lost..
Don't mistake the entire process in the eternal now for the separate events as we perceive them in linear time. So, yes, in linear time, the only time man perceives and that GOd works with in His Love and Mercy, "there is still more to do." Meaning people remain responsible for what they do within this time frame, even though in the eternal now they have been forgiven and restored to the Father.
Mary Ellen
Sorry Mary... but there is NOT still MORE TO DO... IT ...IS... FINISHED... which means WHAT it SAYS... That manifestations of that FINISHED work are yet to be observed in time by TIME dwellers such as ourselves, ...does not PREVENT the COMPLETION, nor does it indicate there is MORE to
DO... :dontknow:
TIME must follow its order... but IN TIME, ...SALVATION and its COMPLETION as a work is DONE... 2000yrs ago DONE...
Believe what you will... I believe
CHRIST when He said IT IS FINISHED, and take Him at His WORD...
I do not try to use my limited vision of that work and note it as incomplete because I am FINITE, and cannot see that COMPLETION...
You are welcome to view it as you will... :happygrin:
peacE...
...willieH :laughing7:
QuoteHello, pneuma. Thank you for your kind words.
Your most welcome sis, glad to make your Acquaintance.
Scott
Hi, Willie. I choose not to play the game. Thank you for the invitation, though.
Mary Ellen
Hello, Scott. Nicely worded post and you may be correct in your estimation of the two different perspectives taken. It isn't that I don't comprehend the concept of the Eternal Now in which all processes are complete, or that I cannot see how the paradox of the eternal now and temporal events work together. It's that the original poster was a young man asking questions about how UR relates to specific scripturally orthodox questions, so I framed my answers in those terms.
I do appreciate your post and the intention behind it; not to mention it is something to think on (which I will). Thank you.
Mary Ellen.
willieH: Hi Mary... :hithere:
Quote from: autoimmune on July 11, 2008, 08:12:50 AM
Hi, Willie. I choose not to play the game. Thank you for the invitation, though.
Mary Ellen
You choose not to...
Simply because you CANNOT
NAME Scripture to support your beliefs... :shakepoint:
Whateversville... :dontknow:
peacE...
...willieH :laughing7:
willieH: Hi Mary... :cloud9:
Still can't find the quotes eh? :laughing7:
Or ..."LITTLER SINS" ...in the Bible... :Chinscratch:
Quote from: autoimmune on July 11, 2008, 06:54:58 AMHi, Willie. You go a bit overboard with your colors, emoticons, and glaring, large-type warnings of my spiritual immaturity and "blatant ignorance" of grace and other spiritual truths, but I'll do a critique of your reply nonetheless.
Critique? Please... :laugh:
Not only do you bear false witness concerning me and quotations, but now you resort to EXAGGERATION... I stated "blatant ignorance" of GRACE in light of your insistence to be part of SALVATION, and part of RESPONSIBILITY, and therefore part of RESTITUTIONS... etc...
Though I DID state it, ...I DID NOT put the words "blatant ignorance" in
LARGE type... and you know this is a further
FALSE WITNESS... which GOD is noting and observing and which you shall REGRET... whether you admit to it or not... :sigh:
That is your opinion, and as always, you are welcome to it... all it really amounts to is your opinion, which is mostly what your posts are... :rolleye:
You don't like my style Mary? :shakepoint: ...too bad! :sigh:
:Yeahright: I'll try and pick up the pieces, ...go cry on my wife's shoulder for a couple of hours, and then hopefully, move on... hoping not to toss & turn all night over it... :laughing7:
Next:
Quote from: autoimmuneI appreciate your concern for my orthodoxy, but I don't apologize for it, nor am inclined to take your sage advice and give it up.
Who said I was CONCERNED about your ORTHODOXY Mary? And... when did I ASK YOU to "give it up"? Please...
Not only do you not support your beliefs with Scripture, ...but you have on several occasions PUT WORDS in MY MOUTH which
I did not SAY... BEARING
FALSE WITNESS... :pitiful:
Please, if you will ...quote me:
(1) where I stated concern for your ORTHODOXY???? and...
(2) where I asked you to give it up???? If you cannot, then these assertions are LIES aren't they? Or at the very least, GROSS MISREPRESENTATIONS of me... :dontknow:
Quote from: autoimmuneThat would be a step backward for me. I've already taken a 25 year journey "outside the box," and God led me back almost full circle to those orthodox doctrines I once discarded, but with a deeper understanding of their underlying truths, why I misunderstood them, and how they all work together in a marvelous and loving plan for all creation to be returned to the Father through Christ.
More yadda-yadda... I glad you found your way back into wherever you are... Personally I have moved forward continuously since my journey began... learning and standing upon that which GOD has taught me, ...sorry to hear about your wild goose chase... :crywipe:
Quote from: autoimmuneTruth is truth, Willie, and when I find it I praise God for the grace He gave me to see what I once was blind to. I've read all that you've said and there isn't one thing in it I haven't examined for myself in the past and then let go of.
Show me oh enlightened one... where I am in error... and, by the way... try using the Bible as you do INSTEAD of your OPINION...
I will really appreciate your attempt, but don't really expect it... why should you do something for me? If I am in the prison of misunderstanding that YOU think I am, and YOU are the one which has found the LIGHT... let's discuss it... If I'm wrong and the BIBLE shows me this... I will be more than happy to conform...
Quote from: autoimmuneFor someone to tell me I should discard these precious truths about myself, God and the world, only fills me with a tender compassion for your obvious and enthusiastic belief that only you know the truth from scripture and all the rest of us are blind.
In my discussion with you I have admitted that I do not know everything... Also, in my discussion with YOU I have NOT asked you to DISCARD anything...
If I have asked you to DISCARD your ORTHODOXY, you will have no trouble quoting this statement, right? ... :rolleye:
FALSE WITNESS! :pitiful:
Quote from: autoimmuneI'd have preferred you accepted the spirit in which I entered this conversation--sharing what we each believe. I have no problem with someone saying they disagree with me and why. However, you have not yet learned to allow the other person their belief while standing fast in your own.
Once again, all you do is yammer on with your UNSCRIPTURAL opinions... I do not stand idle in the face of FALSE teaching... Just so you can "share it" with others...
You are welcome to ignore my challenges, but to date, you have NOT responded with SCRIPTURE, verifying yourself and your beliefs... and you HAVE in this process, stated that I have said things which I HAVE NOT SAID... misrepresenting ME in your lack...
Quote from: autoimmuneThere is a big difference between saying, "I disagree with you because ________" and "You are 'blatantly ignorant' because you disagree with me. The truth is _________."
You ignore what the person has said they mean and, instead rant at them based on your assumption of what they MUST mean in order for you to be right. That's a very unproductive way to learn anything yourself or teach someone else.
Mary... just use the BIBLE when you state a belief... it will disband with all this unnecessary clatter...
QuoteI've read your replies and we'll have to agree to disagree on most of them. I don't believe in a quietist, predeterminist, I-have-no-responsibility-cause-God-does-it-all kind of faith that thinks Love is a one way flow from God. To BE Love, it takes two and must be reciprocal. And that requires our free choice, which places a responsibility on us for the Love given so freely. We cannot truly love others as Christ commanded without understanding that.
More opinion without SCRIPTURE... My Bible says (Eph 1:11) that
YHVH God is WORKING
ALL [not some]
THINGS after the counsel of
HIS OWN WILL... which means your "free choice" is an illusion, as well as your "reciprocal" requirement which is NATURAL in perspective... for when GOD REVEALS Himself, no one can resist HIS love... It is not necessary for it to be generated from WICKED MEN... it is to be generated from
CHRIST within, and REVEALED without...
You wish to make me out as a Hard-A__ which has no FAITH according to you, and has no RESPONSIBILITY according to you, and because I lay ALL GLORY at the feet of GOD, you put me down for that to in your "GOD DOES IT ALL" address of me...
You SHALL find yourself changed in these things, that is a prophecy for you...
GOD
IS ALL in ALL... and does not require YOUR selfish little PART to be that... Nor your "reciprocation", nor your "free choice", nor your "responsibility"...
Your insistence on RESPONSIBILITY is unfounded and NOT in the Scriptures, for GOD is He who JUSTIFIES, ....
not on the basis of what YOU
do or
dont do... but based upon WHAT
HE DOES...
(1 Cor 1:29) No FLESH shall GLORY before HIM, by placing their "reciprocal", "free choice", "responsibility" package as evidence of their "part" in His PURPOSE... as was first attempted by CAIN...
Quote from: autoimmuneI won't go over the same arguments again. I've explained what I believe and why.
Yes you have, ...but you have done so, without SCRIPTURE, so they remain as just beliefs that reside on the sand of
self...
Quote from: autoimmuneIf you cannot accept that, I have no problem with it.
I could care less if you believe in santa claus or the tooth fairy, Mary Ellen... My concern is for those you might INFLUENCE with your UNBIBLICAL statements...
You are welcome to believe France is in Colorado, fine with me... :laughing7:
However if you SAY to others that France is in Colorado, I will take exception to it... :dontknow:
Quote from: autoimmuneSince I have no desire to disprove your point of view
Your way of saying... you Can't DISPROVE my point of view...
Quote from: autoimmuneI choose not to spend time answering the rest of your questions on the list because you don't seem to want to hear what I've said to understand what I believe and why.
First... Establish your beliefs in the Bible Mary E... if you cannot, then they are NOT Biblically based... simple as that...
Second... You have noted that I have stated things which I did NOT state... and have FAILED to show where I said them as well...
Third... I don't listen to EXTRA BIBLICAL beliefs... there are enough of them in the various RELIGIONS of the World, ...I find it sad that most in Christianity are like yourself... Believing and stating things which are NOT even IN the WORD... such as LITTLER SINS, and that we are RESPONSIBLE for the BIGGER SINS, ...and then FALSIFYING me in the process of your folly... by saying things I did NOT SAY...
All I get from you is a continuing whining :gmad: reprimand from you that I should NOT object to your RELIGION... whilst you fail to note the WORDS of GOD upon which it is based? :faint:
QuoteAny reply would simply be fodder for more "this is why you are wrong, Mary" replies from you.
More of things I have NEVER SAID... I have NOT SAID you are
WRONG about anything... I have BIBLICALLY objected to your UNBIBLICAL statements...
As I said... QUOTE please where I said YOU were
WRONG... it aint there and you know it!
FALSE WITNESS! :pitiful:
You self decieve about Scripture, and then wish to blame me... saying that I said you are
WRONG, when I have said
NO SUCH THING...
Quote from: autoimmuneMy sincere thanks for your desire to show me where I am wrong, Willie, but the Holy Spirit is my teacher and I'm not looking for a new one.
I have NEVER tried to show you
where you were WRONG Mary... I have posed BIBLICAL OPPOSITION to your unfounded B.S...
If the HOLY SPIRIT were your teacher Mary... you would ENLIST His WORD in your statements... which you DO NOT...
In all our conversation, I do not recall you using ONE VERSE from SCRIPTURE (The WORDS of the Holy Spirit
YHVH) on which you base your beliefs Mary... :dontknow:
Not ONE! :sigh:
Quote from: autoimmuneMay God bless you, Willie, and keep you always.
Mary Ellen
Same to you Mary... I pray you shall soon scrutinize the lack of GOD's WORD in the presentation of your beliefs...
peacE...
...willieH :laughing7:
Hi Willie. :icon_flower:
Its more than evident that ME no longer wishes to continue in sharing with you bro , Please can we just leave it there ? and move on. :icon_flower:
Many Thanks :icon_flower:
Taffy
Quote from: pneumaYour view of God is that of the MOST HIGH God or EL Elyon, This is the highest view of God recorded in scripture, it shows forth His eternal (as in without beginning and without end) nature. Everything in this view stems from His infinite being where all things are done by Him and through Him. Everything starts with Him and ends with Him.
You see God in the LIFE we will all have, Mary sees God in the LIFE we have right now.
You see God as having finished it all, Mary sees God as we are experiencing Him right now. Which view is that of God working in man and WITH man.
Hi Scott.. :icon_flower:
Good to see back around these parts bro :icon_flower:
Thanks for sharing on the thread it was enjoyable....I must admit ,I too see similar to willie in ones understanding of THE MOST HIGH GOD .
Blessings Bro :icon_flower:
Taffy
willieH: Hi Scott... :hithere:
How are you brother! Hope you are doing well... :HeartThrob:
I do appreciate your peacemaking efforts brother... and note that each person is on his/her particular pathway, of which GOD is completely cognizant and in control...
Instead of a long winded reply... I DID NOT say that Mary was WRONG about anything... She drummed it up... because I opposed her in this discussion...
I specifically did NOT say she was WRONG... I do not do this... I DID state that ALL MEN are either VEILED or REVEALED in any given area... which means that NOBODY "knows-it-all"... :laughing7:
As far as a notation of her as
IMMATURE... I don't recall stating this, ...and skimmed over my posts and did not find it...
If she or you could point out the specific place where I used this term... I would be happy to reword it... if in fact it was said...
The biggest objection I have with Mary Ellen's views are that she does NOT FOUND them in the WORD...
I don't mind opposition, and I know that ALL of us have many things to learn and are each in need correction as we search... but it must be done from the BIBLE, not from opinion, which is where Mary basically lives... :dontknow:
No matter what view we have of
YHVH, we must base that view from His WORDS... otherwise, it shall soon morph into complete fallacy...
There were SEVERAL occasions where Mary bore FALSE WITNESS of me... Stating I had said
this or that, (one of which is the "wrong" thing), ...which I did
NOT say... and she FAILED to quote me, simply because this was not stated
BY ME...
Quote from: pneuma on July 11, 2008, 07:38:21 AM
You know what I am referring to as I have seen many of your posts speaking of things outside of time, and that is the view of EL Elyon.
But that is not the only view of God recorded in scripture, we also have Elohim, Jehovah, El Shaddai (God Almighty), Adonai (Lord), El Olam (God of the ages) and Jehovah Sabaoth (Lord of Hosts).
So to say someone is in error or wrong or immature because they see God by the view of El Olam (God of the ages) or by one of the other different views expressed in His names is an error in itself.
I agree, no one is WRONG or RIGHT... we are ALL, either VEILED or REVEALED in any given observation of GOD or HIS WORD... :dontknow:
Which is why I have no desire to try to convince anyone of anything... but I do and will pose opposition to UNBIBLICAL presentations, which is IN FACT, what I did with Mary Ellen...
I absolutely, ...did
NOT say she was
WRONG about
ANYTHING! ...and could not find where she alledges that I said she was
immature (though I may have to stand corrected on that one.)
Again, thanks for a "peaceful" intervention bro... :friendstu:
peacE...
...willieH :laughing7:
Quote from: Taffy on July 11, 2008, 10:23:41 AM
Quote from: pneumaYour view of God is that of the MOST HIGH God or EL Elyon, This is the highest view of God recorded in scripture, it shows forth His eternal (as in without beginning and without end) nature. Everything in this view stems from His infinite being where all things are done by Him and through Him. Everything starts with Him and ends with Him.
You see God in the LIFE we will all have, Mary sees God in the LIFE we have right now.
You see God as having finished it all, Mary sees God as we are experiencing Him right now. Which view is that of God working in man and WITH man.
Hi Scott.. :icon_flower:
Good to see back around these parts bro :icon_flower:
Thanks for sharing on the thread it was enjoyable....I must admit ,I too see similar to willie in ones understanding of THE MOST HIGH GOD .
Blessings Bro :icon_flower:
Taffy
Hi Taffy, I to see the Most High God in much the same manner as Willie expressess Him, there are differances of course but on the whole I can agree with him.
But I don't just see God by this perspective, I see Him also in how He is working in man and WITH man.
One is a vision of what we will optain in Christ, the others are how God is working NOW throughout the ages.
It like this to me, we all know that death has been defeated, but we do not yet see death under His feet but we see Jesus.
The view of the Most High God shows forth death defeat, the God of the ages show forth how God is working out that defeat in our lives.
I wish I had the words to express this better bro, but just think of what is transpiring in our lives, we still sin and must repent of our sins, why if everything has been already done by the Most High God? is it not because we are yet experiancing or growing into the fullness of His life? Even a child knows thier parents, but thier knowledge of all that thier parent is, a child cannot comprehend, this knowledge only comes by way of experiance or growth. Thus the Most High God shows Himself to us through the other names He has revealed Himself to us by.
Simply put bro we must first experiance God by each of His manifestations before we experiance the fullness of who He is.
No one except Christ has experiance God in His fullness YET, but we see His fullness by revelation.
If one thinks they have experianced His fullness (Most High God) and beleive all things have already been done, they run the risk of falling behind in the race that is set before us, for if they stop running thinking the race is finished they won't continue to press toward the mark of the HIGH calling in Christ.
To the Most High all things are complete, but to us experiance tells us it is not, and the reason is because God is still dealing with man in time.
That's the best I can explain it bro, hope it is of some help.
Quote from: autoimmune on July 11, 2008, 08:20:04 AM
Hello, Scott. Nicely worded post and you may be correct in your estimation of the two different perspectives taken. It isn't that I don't comprehend the concept of the Eternal Now in which all processes are complete, or that I cannot see how the paradox of the eternal now and temporal events work together. It's that the original poster was a young man asking questions about how UR relates to specific scripturally orthodox questions, so I framed my answers in those terms.
I do appreciate your post and the intention behind it; not to mention it is something to think on (which I will). Thank you.
Mary Ellen.
Hi again Mary, I did not mean for my post to say you did not see or comprehend the Most High God, every aspect of God brings us further and further into compreheding the Most High God. God uses His other names for the exact purpose of revealing this to us.
I to see the Most High God, but experiance tells me I have YET to experiance Him, as long a sin is in my life I have yet to experiance His fullness because if I had His fullness I could not sin, it would simply be impossible.
The Most High God is only seen by revelation as of YET, no one but Christ has experianced His fullness, but we press towards the HIGH calling in Christ.
For myself I want that fullness of God, to experiance ALL of who He is.
Quotefor when GOD REVEALS Himself, no one can resist HIS love... It is not necessary for it to be generated from WICKED MEN...
11The LORD said to Moses, " I have done great things for these people,
and they still reject me by refusing to believe in my power. 12So they will no longer be my people. I will destroy them, but I will make you the ancestor of a nation even stronger than theirs."
26The LORD told Moses and Aaron 27-28to give this message to the people of Israel:
You sinful people have complained against me too many times! Now I swear by my own life that I will give you exactly what you wanted. 29You will die right here in the desert, and your dead bodies will cover the ground. You have insulted me, and none of you men who are over twenty years old 30will enter the land that I solemnly promised to give you as your own--only Caleb and Joshua will go in. 31You were worried that your own children would be captured. But I, the LORD, will let them enter the land you have rejected. 32You will die here in the desert! 33Your children will wander around in this desert forty years, suffering because of your sins, until all of you are dead. 34I will cruelly punish you every day for the next forty years--one year for each day that the land was explored. 35You sinful people who ganged up against me will die here in the desert.
There is no BIBLE verse to my knowledge, that states "ACCEPTING"CHRIST OR "RESTITIUTION" is necessary... NAME IT...
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. --John 1
Matthew 4:17
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
QuoteMy favorite! "LITTLER SINS"! CHRIST's death paid for our "littler sins", but the biggies are still ripe for the pickin eh?
LITTLER SINS... NAME IT...
31But you prove that you really are the relatives of the ones who killed the prophets. 32So keep on doing everything they did. 33You are nothing but snakes and the children of snakes! How can you escape going to hell?
34I will send prophets and wise people and experts in the Law of Moses to you. But you will kill them or nail them to a cross or beat them in your meeting places or chase them from town to town. 35That's why
you will be held guilty for the murder of every good person, beginning with the good man Abel. This also includes Barachiah's son Zechariah, the man you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 I can promise that you people living today will be punished for all these things!
35That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. --Matthew 23
QuoteInstead of a long winded reply... I DID NOT say that Mary was WRONG about anything... She drummed it up... because I opposed her in this discussion...
QuoteAs far as a notation of her as IMMATURE... I don't recall stating this, ...and skimmed over my posts and did not find it...
QuoteThere were SEVERAL occasions where Mary bore FALSE WITNESS of me... Stating I had said this or that, (one of which is the "wrong" thing), ...which I did NOT say... and she FAILED to quote me, simply because this was not stated BY ME...
Hi Willie, brother I do not say this to hurt or shame you but so you can maybe see where Mary is comming from.
one does not have to say the exact word to express one believes the other to be in error or immature.
Let me give you an example, you said
QuoteWe are the ETERNAL Sons of GOD... we have ALWAYS BEEN... you just see yourself as FINITE, because your view is from the NATURAL... and is of OTHRODOX roots...
And
QuoteNothing wrong with sticking to the love of JESUS Mary Ellen... but rash statements such as you have made in this thread, shall be noted as ORTHODOX and unfounded concerning Scriptural basis...
Now if you said that my views were NATURAL and ORTHODOX, to me you are expressing that I would be IMMATURE and in ERROR. For the NATURAL mind cannot comprehend the things of God and I know you believe the ORTHODOX to be in ERROR/WRONG.
ORTHODOX teaches eternal torment correct? And you do believe eternal torment to be wrong do you not?
So Mary was not baring false witness of you bro, she may have misunderstood your meaning just as I would have and so to I believe would others.
Now you may not have meant it that way bro but that how it comes across.
QuoteThe biggest objection I have with Mary Ellen's views are that she does NOT FOUND them in the WORD...
I don't mind opposition, and I know that ALL of us have many things to learn and are each in need correction as we search... but it must be done from the BIBLE, not from opinion, which is where Mary basically lives...
No matter what view we have of YHVH, we must base that view from His WORDS... otherwise, it shall soon morph into complete fallacy...
Willie Mary's view is based on scripture bro, not everyone speaks after the same fashion as you know. Some of us speak using a lot of scriptures and some of us just like to talk about their hope in Him instead of getting into scripture after scripture.
Myself I enjoy reading both ways and when one just speaks of their hope in Christ I can read between the lines so to speak and see the scripture references.
Without going into all of yours and Mary's posts I am only going to give you a couple of example.
Example: Mary said something about littler sins and you said there is no scripture that says anything about littler sins. And although the scripture do not use the term littler sins, I understand scripture to express just that. Two sets of scriptures that come to my mind upon reading Mary's littler sins are where it says 6 things God hate, yea even 7 and then proceeds to name these 7 sins God hates, are there more sins then 7? Surely, but it does not say God hates them. This to me would indicate that above all other sins God places these in a higher order if you will. The other scripture that comes to mind is the blaspheme of the Holy Ghost which implies it is a blaspheme greater then other blasphemes.
The next example is Mary said something about us needing to accept Christ and you said no scripture state such. But they do imply it bro. the scripture that comes to my mind is every knee bowing and tongue CONFESSING that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Confess-
1) to confess
2) to profess
2a) acknowledge openly and joyfully
2b) to one's honour: to celebrate, give praise to
2c) to profess that one will do something, to promise, agree, engage
Accept-
come to terms with something: to acknowledge a fact or truth and come to terms with it
believe something: to acknowledge that something is true
Plus we do have a few scriptures that attest to accepting Him
Acts 2:39-41
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received/ACCEPTED his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Not everything is as it seems bro, and sometimes we have to look behind the words when one just speaks to see the scriptures being used.
God bless
QuoteORIGINAL SIN... NAME IT...
Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die,...
Good afternoon, Willie. I don't bait easily. :)
I'm sincerely sorry that disturbs you, but we each learn in our own ways. I've learned not to accept invitations to scriptural battles because the intention always stems from ego, and the result is rarely edification of the Body. I refused for my good as well as yours.
FTR: without the Holy Spirit, I am a sarcastic, cynical, loud mouth New York Sicilian who cannot refuse a dare when it comes to my intellect. Believe me, my natural skill in the arena of forum sarcasm far surpasses what you exhibited in your last reply--and I can do it with a finesse you would envy if you could. I also have the tenacious, Sicilian vindictiveness that would enable me to outlast you at your game, and then savor my vengeance as a dish served cold. LOL! We could make quite a spectacle for onlookers if I agreed to your game :)
By God's grace, though, I no longer enjoy such things. He humbled me, showed me that such antics were not of Him (no matter how much I might protest I am doing it for His glory), and that I shouldn't take part in them anymore. You remind me so much of myself, Willie, that I can't help but love you. I pray for all God's best blessings to be bestowed on you.
Mary Ellen
Hello, Molly. Thank you for taking the time to provide the scriptures Willie was curious about. It's not that I can't provide the scriptural background material underlying what I believe, it just that I won't when it becomes a requirement to "prove" that what I believe is the "correct" interpretation of scripture. A fine point, I know, but one God holds me to.
If Willie truly wanted to know those scriptures because he had listened to my point of view and wanted to investigate the idea further, or because he simply wanted to be sure that what he believes isn't contradicted someplace in scripture, I'd have provided them. I won't do it when it is placed in the context of a contest or game.
A long while back I engaged in such a scriptural battle with a co-worker to prove that Christian women are not subservient to men. I knew what the man believed, which scriptures he would use to prove his point--and which I could use to baffle him. I deliberately used my intellect to step-by-step crack the foundation of his beliefs, leading him exactly where I knew he would go passage by passage so I could strike the final scriptural blow.
I left him feeling smugly confident that I had helped another Christian rid himself of an erroneous belief.
I found out the next morning that after I left him he "lost it" and ended up being taken to a mental ward in a straitjacket, screaming about women and scripture . . .
I had misused a wonderful gift from God terribly, was guilty of intellectual pride, self-righteousness and, worse of all, a egregious lack of love.
God used that to teach me many things; but the most important lesson for me was that it is better to be thought "wrong" and remain loving, than be "right" in our own eyes, but lacking in His Love for others.
Love trumps scriptural knowledge every time in my book :)
Once again, thank you for taking the time to do what I could not.
Mary Ellen
willieH: Hi Molly... :hithere:
Wish to dance :bgdance: ...with me again doya? :dontknow:
Quote from: Molly on July 11, 2008, 05:48:33 PM
Quotefor when GOD REVEALS Himself, no one can resist HIS love... It is not necessary for it to be generated from WICKED MEN...
11The LORD said to Moses, " I have done great things for these people, and they still reject me by refusing to believe in my power. 12So they will no longer be my people. I will destroy them, but I will make you the ancestor of a nation even stronger than theirs."
26The LORD told Moses and Aaron 27-28to give this message to the people of Israel:
You sinful people have complained against me too many times! Now I swear by my own life that I will give you exactly what you wanted. 29You will die right here in the desert, and your dead bodies will cover the ground. You have insulted me, and none of you men who are over twenty years old 30will enter the land that I solemnly promised to give you as your own--only Caleb and Joshua will go in. 31You were worried that your own children would be captured. But I, the LORD, will let them enter the land you have rejected. 32You will die here in the desert! 33Your children will wander around in this desert forty years, suffering because of your sins, until all of you are dead. 34I will cruelly punish you every day for the next forty years--one year for each day that the land was explored. 35You sinful people who ganged up against me will die here in the desert.
(Rom 9:16) So then
it is NOT of him that
WILLETH, NOT of him that
RUNNETH, but
OF GOD that sheweth mercy... :dontknow:
(Rom 9:18) THEREFORE, hath HE mercy on whom HE
WILL, and whom HE
WILL, ...HE
HARDENETH... :dontknow:
(Rom 9:19 Thou wilt SAY then unto me, WHY doth HE yet ...FIND FAULT? For ...
WHO hath
RESISTED HIS WILL? :dontknow:
(Rom 9:20) Nay but O ...MAN... who art
THOU that repliest [talks back] against GOD? Shall the thing
FORMED say to Him that
FORMED it, WHY hast
THOU ...
MADE ME... thus? :dontknow:
(Rom 9:21) Hath not the POTTER, power
OVER the CLAY, of the same lump to
MAKE one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor? :dontknow:
Something that is
MADE is not in the
actual decision making process... :dontknow:
If you don't GET IT... you don't GET IT... :dontknow: ...And dear sister Molly, ...you have already sufficiently shown beforehand and, NOW... BY this post, that YOU don't GET IT... :dontknow:
peacE...
...willieH :laughing7:
Quote from: autoimmune on July 11, 2008, 10:29:27 PM
Good afternoon, Willie. I don't bait easily. :)
I'm sincerely sorry that disturbs you, but we each learn in our own ways. I've learned not to accept invitations to scriptural battles because the intention always stems from ego, and the result is rarely edification of the Body. I refused for my good as well as yours.
FTR: without the Holy Spirit, I am a sarcastic, cynical, loud mouth New York Sicilian who cannot refuse a dare when it comes to my intellect. Believe me, my natural skill in the arena of forum sarcasm far surpasses what you exhibited in your last reply--and I can do it with a finesse you would envy if you could. I also have the tenacious, Sicilian vindictiveness that would enable me to outlast you at your game, and then savor my vengeance as a dish served cold. LOL! We could make quite a spectacle for onlookers if I agreed to your game :)
By God's grace, though, I no longer enjoy such things. He humbled me, showed me that such antics were not of Him (no matter how much I might protest I am doing it for His glory), and that I shouldn't take part in them anymore. You remind me so much of myself, Willie, that I can't help but love you. I pray for all God's best blessings to be bestowed on you.
Mary Ellen
:Yeahright: :laughing7: ...My inclination is to tell you to "bring it on", if you are able, ...I'm Italian myself... :laughing7:
You have no idea of what I am capable... but before this escalates any further...
I will be consulting with TAFFY and
in prayer before any further conversation with you...
No apology for your
FALSE WITNESS of me? ... :sigh:
peacE...
...willieH :laughing7:
Quote from: willieH on July 11, 2008, 11:06:44 PM
If you don't GET IT... you don't GET IT... :dontknow: ...And dear sister Molly, ...you have already sufficiently shown beforehand and, NOW... BY this post, that YOU don't GET IT... :dontknow:
peacE...
...willieH :laughing7:
The greater misunderstanding is probably she doesn't get you Willie and that is of no consequence.
For someone to say that no one can resist Gods love when God reveals himself is not a solid stand to take when there are scriptures that appear to show that God did reveal himself and they still rejected.
For if God intended for them to resist, even though he revealed himself to them, they indeed still resisted at the advent of him being revealed by all the things he did.
Possibly the message in that passage is that God is in control and no matter the reason for someones resistance, even if by Gods own hand, he will forgive them.
In any event, was Gods Love revealed to them in this passage or not? And did they resist or not?
11The LORD said to Moses, " I have done great things for these people, and they still reject me by refusing to believe in my power. 12So they will no longer be my people. I will destroy them, but I will make you the ancestor of a nation even stronger than theirs."
I am a race car driver on occasion, if a friend is in town and in the racing scene there is what is called bench racing where guys can boast about how fast what they want to build would be and how it could beat someone elses.
But this is gotta be the first thread where I have witnessed Bench Posting, and maybe thats not the right word for it.
QuoteBelieve me, my natural skill in the arena of forum sarcasm far surpasses what you exhibited in your last reply--and I can do it with a finesse you would envy if you could.
QuoteYou have no idea of what I am capable
Mary Ellen and Willie start your engines..... VAROOOOOOOOOMMMMM
Quote from: pneuma on July 11, 2008, 04:50:15 PM
Hi again Mary, I did not mean for my post to say you did not see or comprehend the Most High God,
I apologize, Scott, for my poor wording. The fault was mine, not yours. I meant only to identify that I'm on the same page as you concerning the time paradox in the God-man relationship; not that you thought I was unaware of it.
Quote from: pneuma on July 11, 2008, 04:50:15 PM
every aspect of God brings us further and further into compreheding the Most High God. God uses His other names for the exact purpose of revealing this to us.
And what a wonderful journey! The thing, though, is that the more He seems to reveal Himself to us, the less we feel we know about Him. Yet, that is the very thing that compels us to know more.
I agree very much that how we approach God and how He communicates to us over time changes, much the same as our love relationship to others on earth changes over time and our mental images of our loved ones change.
The problem, of course, is that human dialogue operates within "linear" time frame, and it can become confusing when people are talking out of two different frames of reference. I believe that God builds upon nature, so He expects us to use our human facilities in our search for and understanding of Him.
In the eternal Now all is accomplished, but as humans we are here in the temporal plane experiencing the linear events that are all part of that process which is seen as complete from God's point of view, but not from our's.
In the finished process, all are restored, but the process of getting there for us includes all the components OF that process (justice, mercy and love) experienced in linear time.
We all seem to differ on how we experience and live through that process, what part we play or don't based on how we see the nature of that relationship of man to God, but we do agree on the end result :)
Quote from: pneuma on July 11, 2008, 04:50:15 PM
I to see the Most High God, but experiance tells me I have YET to experiance Him, as long a sin is in my life I have yet to experiance His fullness because if I had His fullness I could not sin, it would simply be impossible.
LOL! I recall Paul discussing that same dilemma! I don't think any of us humans can escape it.
Thank God for His grace :)
Quote from: pneuma on July 11, 2008, 04:50:15 PMThe Most High God is only seen by revelation as of YET, no one but Christ has experianced His fullness, but we press towards the HIGH calling in Christ.
For myself I want that fullness of God, to experiance ALL of who He is.
That is my constant prayer also, "Lord, grant me the grace to be who you created me to be so that I may know you as you are."
We all want that, Scott, and the wonder of UR is that it provides the hope that it will be so, God's Amen to us.
ME
[/quote]
Quote from: willieH on July 11, 2008, 11:20:36 PM
:Yeahright: :laughing7: ...My inclination is to tell you to "bring it on", if you are able, ...I'm Italian myself... :laughing7:
LOL! Willie, your "bring it on" attitude is exactly why I did not accept you invitation. Not good for either of us Italians :)
Quote from: willieH on July 11, 2008, 11:20:36 PM
No apology for your FALSE WITNESS of me? ... :sigh:
I cannot apologize for someone else's perception of what I said.
I do apologize, though, for authentic harm I did by word or attitude in our exchange.
ME
Edited to add:
Paul just lovingly pointed out that I was responsible for taunting you. That IS an authentic harm, and I sincerely apologize. I shouldn't have done it, but my ego got the best of me.
Can we end this now , please? I wasn't kidding, I really do like you, Willie. I just don't want to engage in useless argument with you.
ME
ME
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on July 11, 2008, 11:25:19 PM
I am a race car driver on occasion, if a friend is in town and in the racing scene there is what is called bench racing where guys can boast about how fast what they want to build would be and how it could beat someone elses.
But this is gotta be the first thread where I have witnessed Bench Posting, and maybe thats not the right word for it.
QuoteBelieve me, my natural skill in the arena of forum sarcasm far surpasses what you exhibited in your last reply--and I can do it with a finesse you would envy if you could.
QuoteYou have no idea of what I am capable
Mary Ellen and Willie start your engines..... VAROOOOOOOOOMMMMM
LOL! Busted!
I should have listened to the Holy Spirit and deleted that line. The old me does sneak in occasionally. Keen eye, Paul. I accept your gentle and humorous brotherly correction with a thank you.
In New York we call it a "pissing up a wall contest." :bigGrin:
ME
P.S. Willie, Paul is correct. I owe you an apology. I taunted you. Forgive me.
ME
Quote from: Molly on July 11, 2008, 06:36:09 PM
QuoteORIGINAL SIN... NAME IT...
Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die,...
Thanks for naming verses which do not answer the question... typical of you Molly...
NAME IT, ...you did NOT... :dontknow:
Nothing in these verses state an "ORIGINAL SIN"...
"ORIGINAL SIN", like the "TRINITY", ...is a theological title, and is UNBIBLICAL, and despite your effort, ...continues to be so... :laughhand:
peacE...
...willieH :laughing7:
Hi Willie,
I would appreciate it if you've dropped it by now -- realizing that I'm seeing this thread a little late in the game. It's evident that as far as the old school designations of Universalists go, Mary Ellen is what would be termed a Restorationist Universalist, while you're what would have been called in the 19th century an Ultra Universalist. I'm personally sorta in between both of your perspectives, having come into UR through Andrew Jukes, Elhanan Winchester, Charles Chauncy, and others who pretty much preached the temporary Hell version.
As far as what can be interpreted as "accepting Christ," the Revelation 3:20 is a fallacy 'cause that's not even remotely talking about that. The ones that I can't shake though are Romans 10:9-10 and Acts 17:30-31 that was preached to Greeks and Romans hundreds of miles away from Jerusalem who didn't give a flip about Jerusalem. So, any 70AD arguments weaken with the context of Acts 17:30-31 although I can easily admit the force of the argument of Christ's declarations of judgment in the 4 Gospels being predominantly about Jerusalem's soon coming disaster from when Jesus was prophecying.
On a resurrection of condemnation, it does use that language in John chapter 5. But, I'm currently interpreting John chapter 5 as the resurrection itself and what one would go through in that bodily resurrection rather than as a destination to dread after the resurrection. Revelation chapter 20 doesn't seem applicable on any Biblical language about a bodily resurrection of the saints because the language there is the resurrection of the souls, which is either a reviving/refreshing after previous persecution or an argument for soul sleep or oblivion in the way that some Universalists would believe it. Or at least, that would seem to open up those possibilities to me. To say that the raising of the souls necessitates bodily resurrection in Revelation 20 is like saying that the salvation of the soul passages elsewhere is talking about making sure that you are raised from the dead. Perhaps it could mean "to have a better resurrection" as the language in Hebrews 11 would imply that some have striven for over the millenia.
Mary Ellen seemed to be saying the same thing that you were saying that it's all finished, but we don't see all of that in historical time YET, although it's all finished in the spirit. Re-read the last quotation of her's that you seemed a little critical of. Y'all seemed to be saying the same things on those points, although otherwise it was an argument over how God administers His redemptive work into each of our lives. Open that door, Willie, and if these boards were busier, you might accidentally have 75 people with 75 entirely different perspectives on how God administers that to people arguing like maniacs with you. There's an article over at the True Grace Ministries website in the UR section called "Different Views Among Universalists" that would briefly illustrate that. I've personally found that article in the past just by typing the name of it into google, though, without having to fish at the True Grace Ministries website. I think the book that it's from is from 1838 by someone named George Rogers, although I might have gotten the name wrong.
I still haven't gotten all of the resurrection language of the Scriptures sorted out. I've seen enough for afterlife punishments to at least be problematic, but when I get hateful emails like the one Gary Amirault posted on the "you mean Hitler's going to get saved??????" thread, then when there's no reasoning with them about anything because they have that kind of attitude, it helps to be able to throw at them a version of UR that embraces temporary afterlife punishments that at least would come closer to satisfying their carnal mind, and might plant a mustard seed in them about UR that could eventually take them away from any type of punishments whatsoever if that's where the Scriptures genuinely lead.
But most of the time, just getting your foot in the door of some people's thinking, sometimes you can't push your current level of understanding, but as Origen said regarding God's wrath, you've got to be willing to allow a condescension of language on your part to get that seed into their hearts and thinking at any cost to what you might consider a greater exactitude when you would do people some good, but aren't going to hit the homerun with them that you'd prefer to on all points. Origen called God's wrath a condescending of language on God's part rather than any kind of loss of control on His part or "wrath" in the way that a carnal mind would think of "wrath." The Scriptures do seem written in such a way to where the casual observer reading a genuinely good translation would have to come to an initial conclusion of temporary punishments in the afterlife. "worm that dieth not, fire that's not quenched, et. al." Further light on the Scriptures may indicate a better picture, a more complete picture, and the things that you've always insisted upon. But sinners in the hands of the temporarily angry God seems to be implicit in the Scripture's language to the masses, although digging just a little will reveal something altogether different.
But I just don't want to see a needless fuss over two groups of Universalists that at least agree that when we've walked through the 1Corinthians 15:28 door that absolutely everybody from everywhere from all times is there with us. Isn't the bottomline of the reclaiming of all on the part of God the glorious news, regardless of what level each of us are on in our understanding of the practical means that God is using in each heart in historical time [if He's using such] to bring about that spiritual reality that's already fulfilled and finished in the higher realms of superstring theory or whatever into historical "now you see it" time? As long as God's not ignorant of the means necessary for the reclaiming of sinners, then we can all sleep soundly at night, amen?
I have had similar exchanges where the focus seemed to be on less important things. One person (not here on this forum, even though it may end up being the same) viewed the "free" and all that entails about our will differently.
But in the end the result was the same. If God knows exactly how we are going to come to Christ, and he knows this for everyone, the means ends up being rather insignificant to me.
Martin said: "As long as God's not ignorant of the means necessary for the reclaiming of sinners, then we can all sleep soundly at night, amen?"
And then Paul said: "But in the end the result was the same. If God knows exactly how we are going to come to Christ, and he knows this for everyone, the means ends up being rather insignificant to me."
I add my "Amen" to both.
This may be why Jesus commanded us to love one another. Everything else is an exercise in futility.
May God grant us the grace to abide in that Love as brothers and sisters continually.
ME
QuoteI agree very much that how we approach God and how He communicates to us over time changes, much the same as our love relationship to others on earth changes over time and our mental images of our loved ones change.
The problem, of course, is that human dialogue operates within "linear" time frame, and it can become confusing when people are talking out of two different frames of reference. I believe that God builds upon nature, so He expects us to use our human facilities in our search for and understanding of Him.
In the eternal Now all is accomplished, but as humans we are here in the temporal plane experiencing the linear events that are all part of that process which is seen as complete from God's point of view, but not from our's.
In the finished process, all are restored, but the process of getting there for us includes all the components OF that process (justice, mercy and love) experienced in linear time.
We all seem to differ on how we experience and live through that process, what part we play or don't based on how we see the nature of that relationship of man to God, but we do agree on the end result :)
Exactly sis, I think we see this the same
Hi Martin, for myself I beleive in punishment after our physical death, but punishment has come to be seen as something terrible, whereas in scripture it is all about correction, making one as he aught to be made, in the image and likeness of God.
If punishment was always to be understood as correction as it should be then I don't see why people have a problem with God correcting people in the age to come.
The Father punishes/corrects all men for thier benefit, all must be corrected and repent before entering into the gates of the city.
that's my take anyway.
willieH: Hi Paul... :cloud9:
Know that I am not trying to convince you or anyone of anything...
I find several of your observations very good...
Quote from: Paul Hazelwood on July 11, 2008, 11:21:34 PM
The greater misunderstanding is probably she doesn't get you Willie and that is of no consequence.
This is very true bud... :nod:
QuoteFor someone to say that no one can resist Gods love when God reveals himself is not a solid stand to take when there are scriptures that appear to show that God did reveal himself and they still rejected.
REVELATION is not an "all at once proposition"... which should be obvious to all Bible students...
That GOD is rejected is not due to REVELATION, rather is due to the LACK of it... When GOD decides to REVEAL, resistence (as the Borg say) is futile! And cannot occur.
QuoteFor if God intended for them to resist, even though he revealed himself to them, they indeed still resisted at the advent of him being revealed by all the things he did.
This is true GOD's intentions shall always occur which include resistance, despite man's percieved "revelation" OF HIM...
QuotePossibly the message in that passage is that God is in control and no matter the reason for someones resistance, even if by Gods own hand, he will forgive them.
Again, an inspired comment... GOD justifies according to PERFECT Justification. No man, despite his inadaquate ability to observe that JUSTIFICATION, is qualified to question it... (Rom 9:18-21)
QuoteIn any event, was Gods Love revealed to them in this passage or not? And did they resist or not?
11The LORD said to Moses, " I have done great things for these people, and they still reject me by refusing to believe in my power. 12So they will no longer be my people. I will destroy them, but I will make you the ancestor of a nation even stronger than theirs."
GOD is LOVE... His POWER is therefore LOVE, ...so ANY REVELATION of Himself, is a REVELATION of LOVE...
GOD revealed enough of His LOVE to them as much as shall found HIS WORD to be TRUTH... which He DID in making His POWER known TO THEM...
But that Revelation is LESS than that which DECLARES the "ancestor of a nation" within it as well... and which shall succeed...
So in the end, the degree of REVELATION was enough to show GOD and HIS POWER, but not enough for these people to behold and cherish that power, and thereby
NOT REJECT it...
This is prevalent in ALL MEN... only SOME or FEW are REVEALED, the rest, ...even among those which are considered HIS PEOPLE as these were (Christians/Jews), come up short by REJECTING the truth.
And it is because GOD does not REVEAL Himself in an UNRESISTANT and HOLY degree TO most...
NO ONE has RESISTED His WILL... part of that WILL is that some REJECT, even though they are shown the truth... as in the case of the above Scripture, and most CHRISTIANITY...
REJECTION as well as SUBMISSION, ...is ALL within the WISDOM and PURPOSE of
YHVH, as He
does ALL HIS PLEASURE... (Is 46:10)
peacE...
...willieH :laughing7:
Quote from: willieH on July 11, 2008, 11:06:44 PM
willieH: Hi Molly... :hithere:
Wish to dance :bgdance: ...with me again doya? :dontknow:
Quote from: Molly on July 11, 2008, 05:48:33 PM
Quotefor when GOD REVEALS Himself, no one can resist HIS love... It is not necessary for it to be generated from WICKED MEN...
11The LORD said to Moses, " I have done great things for these people, and they still reject me by refusing to believe in my power. 12So they will no longer be my people. I will destroy them, but I will make you the ancestor of a nation even stronger than theirs."
26The LORD told Moses and Aaron 27-28to give this message to the people of Israel:
You sinful people have complained against me too many times! Now I swear by my own life that I will give you exactly what you wanted. 29You will die right here in the desert, and your dead bodies will cover the ground. You have insulted me, and none of you men who are over twenty years old 30will enter the land that I solemnly promised to give you as your own--only Caleb and Joshua will go in. 31You were worried that your own children would be captured. But I, the LORD, will let them enter the land you have rejected. 32You will die here in the desert! 33Your children will wander around in this desert forty years, suffering because of your sins, until all of you are dead. 34I will cruelly punish you every day for the next forty years--one year for each day that the land was explored. 35You sinful people who ganged up against me will die here in the desert.
(Rom 9:16) So then it is NOT of him that WILLETH, NOT of him that RUNNETH, but OF GOD that sheweth mercy... :dontknow:
(Rom 9:18) THEREFORE, hath HE mercy on whom HE WILL, and whom HE WILL, ...HE HARDENETH... :dontknow:
(Rom 9:19 Thou wilt SAY then unto me, WHY doth HE yet ...FIND FAULT? For ...WHO hath RESISTED HIS WILL? :dontknow:
(Rom 9:20) Nay but O ...MAN... who art THOU that repliest [talks back] against GOD? Shall the thing FORMED say to Him that FORMED it, WHY hast THOU ...MADE ME... thus? :dontknow:
(Rom 9:21) Hath not the POTTER, power OVER the CLAY, of the same lump to MAKE one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor? :dontknow:
Something that is MADE is not in the actual decision making process... :dontknow:
If you don't GET IT... you don't GET IT... :dontknow: ...And dear sister Molly, ...you have already sufficiently shown beforehand and, NOW... BY this post, that YOU don't GET IT... :dontknow:
peacE...
...willieH :laughing7:
The point is--if they have no potential in themselves for behaving differently, why does he punish them for their actions/ "sins"? Their actions bring a consequence to them which infers that God believes himself that they could have acted differently but chose not to. So, in this case, God has given them the capacity to do the right thing, and yet, they refuse--therefore they are punished. He forgives them (because Moses asks him to) but he paints an image of their carcasses lying in the desert that cannot be forgotten. There was something required of them which they failed at. It is on their heads, not God's.
You sinful people have complained against me too many times! Now I swear by my own life that I will give you exactly what you wanted. 29You will die right here in the desert, and your dead bodies will cover the ground. You have insulted me, and none of you men who are over twenty years old 30will enter the land that I solemnly promised to give you as your own--only Caleb and Joshua will go in. 31You were worried that your own children would be captured. But I, the LORD, will let them enter the land you have rejected. 32You will die here in the desert! 33Your children will wander around in this desert forty years, suffering
because of your sins, until all of you are dead. 34I will cruelly punish you every day for the next forty years--one year for each day that the land was explored. 35
You sinful people who ganged up against me will die here in the desert.
Hi Molly. Perhaps God set even that scenario into motion, to make a point and serve His purpose...similar to Him hardening Pharoh's heart. Pharoh also disobeyed, but God was in control of that situation. My :2c:. I personally tend to see God ultimately being in control of all, but in doing so, I have to take into account that there's sort of a paradox there, i.e., we either obey or disobey, but ultimately it's God working all according to His will. I'm sure I don't fully understand it. Our Dad's complicated and we're pretty puny, eh? God's blessing, James. :peckblush:.
Jab, do you think that all of us are always living up to the capacity that God has given us 100 percent?
Or, is it possible we could try harder, and for, whatever reasons of our own, we don't?
I agree with AI that God is a God of justice.
Thus, I don't see why he would punish people for something over which they have no control.
That would be like punishing a retarded person because they could not read at the college level.
My God would not do that.
Luke 12:48
But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
I'll repeat this as I edited my post and added this..."I personally tend to see God ultimately being in control of all, but in doing so, I have to take into account that there's sort of a paradox there, i.e., we either obey or disobey, but ultimately it's God working all according to His will. I'm sure I don't fully understand it."
Quote from: Molly on July 12, 2008, 02:40:50 AM
Jab, do you think that all of us are always living up to the capacity that God has given us 100 percent?
Or, is it possible we could try harder, and for, whatever reasons of our own, we don't?
I agree with AI that God is a God of justice.
To answer your Q wrt us living up to our capacity, no, not really. But here's the dilemma for me. I don't believe I can do
anything without God empowering me and working His will through me. I've tried it and failed miserably. That's why the scripture about living, breathing, having our being in Him is so important to me. Soooooo...I guess personally, I'm at a place of reconciling the two...our personal responsibility vs/along with God's sovereignty....not quite there yet, I just lean toward, again, "God working
all things according to the counsel of His will"...how that
exactly plays out, I'm not sure.
Looking at your scripture Mol, obviously I have to believe that. But what strikes me is how big of a topic this is, and if any of us fully understand it. I mean, this even gets into the topic of salvation...who's saved now and why now, and who's saved later, and why later and not now? Because men are really able to reject Jesus, or because He is only choosing some now? I will take no real hard dogmatic position on this, again, I just really lean toward God's sovereignity in all matters, thinking even my will and ability to believe and have faith is provided by Him.
willieH: Hi Scott... :hithere:
Quote from: pneuma on July 11, 2008, 06:11:09 PM
Hi Willie, brother I do not say this to hurt or shame you but so you can maybe see where Mary is comming from.
Your motive really doesn't matter to me Scott... but I do appreciate again, you willingness to address me in peace... :happyclap:
Quoteone does not have to say the exact word to express one believes the other to be in error or immature.
If I do not STATE the exact word, is to surmise assumption in and of my words... :dontknow:
QuoteLet me give you an example, you said
QuoteWe are the ETERNAL Sons of GOD... we have ALWAYS BEEN... you just see yourself as FINITE, because your view is from the NATURAL... and is of OTHRODOX roots...
And
QuoteNothing wrong with sticking to the love of JESUS Mary Ellen... but rash statements such as you have made in this thread, shall be noted as ORTHODOX and unfounded concerning Scriptural basis...
Now if you said that my views were NATURAL and ORTHODOX, to me you are expressing that I would be IMMATURE and in ERROR. For the NATURAL mind cannot comprehend the things of God and I know you believe the ORTHODOX to be in ERROR/WRONG.
ORTHODOX teaches eternal torment correct? And you do believe eternal torment to be wrong do you not?
No brother, I do NOT consider it WRONG... I consider it VEILED... there is a difference... and there IS a PURPOSE in it's presence in Christian thought...
Albeit a clumsy illustration...
If GOD has a large locked garage in which a certain number of cars are parked... and I determine by information HE has to date, provided me that the number is four, when it is actually two...
The VEIL (lack of revelation) is that which has prevented me from KNOWING the EXACT number, and my best "observation" is not a determination which is WRONG...
it is a determination which (by GOD's decision) is made by lack of VISION of the CORRECT number...
I do not determine another WRONG, because that in essence, would be according to MY VIEW as compared to THEIRS... However...
If you and I are in DISCUSSION, and I show BIBLICAL basis for a given thing, and you argue with me STRICTLY from your viewpoint and DO NOT produce BIBLICAL basis... then the VEIL which in part, exists is the refusal to cooperatively address our two views as COMPARED to SCRIPTURE, not compared to ONE ANOTHER...
Mary continuously refused to reveal her view as it is founded in the Word... :dontknow:
QuoteSo Mary was not baring false witness of you bro, she may have misunderstood your meaning just as I would have and so to I believe would others.
Now you may not have meant it that way bro but that how it comes across.
Sorry Scott... I appreciate what you say here, ...but it is NOT acceptable to me... As I explained above, VEILED as opposed to INCORRECT or WRONG is my observation...
Just as
JESUS "came across" to the Pharisees (religious of their day/people of God)... so is this situation...
Because the answer is UNAVAILABLE to a given person, does not equate them to being WRONG... I do not percieve Mary to be WRONG, and have told her so... She or you don't accept that... not my problem bro...
The JEWS to which
JESUS spoke PARABLES to, ...were NOT WRONG as they surmised Him ..."killing Himself" or ...wondered "HOW
JESUS could re-erect in THREE DAYS, that which took Years to erect", etc...
UNDERSTANDING of what was TRULY being stated by
CHRIST in SPIRITUAL terms, was WITHHELD from their NATURAL view of those terms...
So their view of His Words remained a NATURAL (veiled) observation, not a
WRONG observation...
I'll get to the rest later brother, gotta go play some tunes...
peacE...
...willieH :laughing7:
Quote from: Molly on July 12, 2008, 02:40:50 AM
Jab, do you think that all of us are always living up to the capacity that God has given us 100 percent?
Or, is it possible we could try harder, and for, whatever reasons of our own, we don't?
I agree with AI that God is a God of justice.
Thus, I don't see why he would punish people for something over which they have no control.
That would be like punishing a retarded person because they could not read at the college level.
My God would not do that.
Luke 12:48
But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
Hi, Molly. As women when we read scripture we cannot help but apply it in our own lives according to the experiences we have as women. Being a mom and grandma, I came to understand the interplay between God's justice, mercy and love through the eyes of child-rearing. My thoughts went something like this:
Before children are taught to value reason and logic too heavily, they understand intuitively that what adult men teach about God and His ways "just isn't fair" very often. We can learn a lot from children about God's Justice, imo.
Children don't mind correcting if it is "fair." In fact, they often seem relieved when the correction is done with love.
On the other hand, they will kick and scream bloody murder when they sense the punishment is "unfair," out of proportion, or done from a spirit of anger, rather than love.
In an earlier post I gave my basic position on God's Justice. I see it as an equation of sorts: Justice + Mercy = Love. When this equation is observed in disciplining children, they don't mind taking the natural or logical consequences of their actions.
Over the past centuries when men's ideas about hell were formulated and ingrained into society, they used a formula more like this: Justice = Punishment.
The two became identified with each other. And so, many ET Christians then reasoned that punishment is part of God's Love.
But, children who are punished (and told it is "just" because they have done wrong) immediately know and respond to the lack of mercy they feel, but usually cannot identify.
Now many Christians seem to be creating a new equation: Mercy = Love.
When parents are so "merciful" to their children that they never require them to be responsible for their wrong doing, it is permissive human love, not Godly Love. The child grows up unable to love others because they have no sense of responsibility for the harm they do others.
I know many UR Christians have as much difficulty with the concept of Justice being anything but God's Love for us as ET Christians have with God's Justice being anything but punishment for sin. Understood correctly, in light of Jesus' teachings about mercy being required, not sacrifice if we wish to understand God's justice, it is easier to see how it may all work together.
Christ is God's Mercy. When justice is executed through Him, it becomes Love.
ME
Quote from: jabcat on July 12, 2008, 02:49:52 AM
To answer your Q wrt us living up to our capacity, no, not really. But here's the dilemma for me. I don't believe I can do anything without God empowering me and working His will through me. I've tried it and failed miserably. That's why the scripture about living, breathing, having our being in Him is so important to me.
I agree, James, it's all a grace. I've already identified who and what I am like outside of God's grace earlier in this thread, so I certainly understand what you are saying. Yet, don't we "knock, seek, and ask" for that grace as Jesus instructed us to do? Don't we respond to it or not? And isn't there an element of choice tied into grace?
Jesus tells us that many are called, but few are chosen.
Ever consider the possibility that God "called" a dozen men to the role before Moses accepted it--and thereby became "chosen"?
Or how many women the angel might have approached and "called" before Mary agreed to the grace offered her and became "chosen" as the mother of Jesus?
I have :)
So, each time I get to feeling grateful for being "chosen," I immediately understand that at any point along the way I might, because I fail to respond to grace, just become another one of the "called," who will end up going through a different path to God than I might have as one chosen to be in His Body.
There is an interplay between grace and free choice, imo. Our wills may not be free in this life because God, others, the world are always impinging upon it, but God has given us the freedom to choose Love or not, no matter what our circumstance.
Quote from: jabcat on July 12, 2008, 02:49:52 AM
Soooooo...I guess personally, I'm at a place of reconciling the two...our personal responsibility vs/along with God's sovereignty....not quite there yet, I just lean toward, again, "God working all things according to the counsel of His will"...how that exactly plays out, I'm not sure.
When I was a teenage, I argued with a nun in class about this very issue of predetermination. She couldn't give me an answer that satisfied, but after class my friend Sue explained it in a way I could . . . as the eternal Now being a humongous series of choices all men make through linear time that God uses, no matter what we choose in any given situation. He is aware of those choices as we make them, but does not cause us TO make them. No matter which way we choose, He still is able to complete His plan for us. May take ten tries before He gets a Moses or Mary, but eventually one of the called accepts the grace to be chosen. It's not like our temporal time is a problem for Him :)
The why of it for me is Love. Without that free choice Love cannot exist. But, because God wills us to love Him freely, that required sin, justice, mercy and a host of other doctrinal issues we all argue about to come into play. The process we've mentioned several times here on this thread is, imo, the process of man learning what it means to be in a Love relationship with His Creator. And, through His grace, all men will eventually bend their knees to Love and accept what they might have chosen before to refuse for whatever reason.
ME
Hi, Mary Ellen,
"Christ is God's mercy." That's a great way of putting it. I also agree that there will be some formula of mercy and justice which will seem reasonable to us.
It doesn't seem reasonable to me that God will overlook what a Hitler did, or even somehow restore him. John the baptist says the axe is at the root of the tree. We do have some control over how we behave and what choices we make. Anyone who has known an abuser knows that when it suits him, he can treat everyone kindly and with respect. That shows he has control over his behavior. If he should choose to be abusive when he perceives the upper hand, that is also a choice. I think God is calling us to pay attention and consciously make the right choice. If he gives us everything we need to make the right choice, and we do not, then justice requires some sort of evening of the scales. Otherwise, evil rules. When Jesus says, take the beam out of your own eye, he expects us to do something. He is calling us to action. I think we get our sense of 'fairness,' as you noticed in those children, from God.
1Some of you accuse others of doing wrong. But there is no excuse for what you do. When you judge others, you condemn yourselves, because you are guilty of doing the very same things. 2We know that God is right to judge everyone who behaves in this way. 3Do you really think God won't punish you, when you behave exactly like the people you accuse? 4You surely don't think much of God's wonderful goodness or of his patience and willingness to put up with you. Don't you know that the reason God is good to you is because he wants you to turn to him?
5But you are stubborn and refuse to turn to God. So you are making things even worse for yourselves on that day when he will show how angry he is and will judge the world with fairness. 6God will reward each of us for what we have done. 7He will give eternal life to everyone who has patiently done what is good in the hope of receiving glory, honor, and life that lasts forever. 8But he will show how angry and furious he can be with every selfish person who rejects the truth and wants to do evil. 9All who are wicked will be punished with trouble and suffering. It doesn't matter if they are Jews or Gentiles. 10But all who do right will be rewarded with glory, honor, and peace, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. 11God doesn't have any favorites!
12Those people who don't know about God's Law will still be punished for what they do wrong. And the Law will be used to judge everyone who knows what it says. 13God accepts those who obey his Law, but not those who simply hear it.
14Some people naturally obey the Law's commands, even though they don't have the Law. 15This proves that the conscience is like a law written in the human heart. And it will show whether we are forgiven or condemned, 16when God appoints Jesus Christ to judge everyone's secret thoughts, just as my message says.
--Romans 2
I also believe in God's justice, I just don't think it's as many in ET teach it, i.e., "God sends people to hell forever and ever and that's justice!". I believe God chastises and will reward and punish as He sees fit and as it fits the crime. However, as was earlier alluded to, I believe it will ultimately be as a Father disciplines His children, not as a torturer. Make no mistake, God's judgments can be painful, but I believe ultimately for our good and His glory.
Wrt restoring Hitler...I don't see it as restoring Hitler, but more so God reclaiming a spirit that came from Him, and to do so, He will cleanse and purge it as by fire...the flesh (sin, anything that dishonors God and is unholy) destroyed "so the soul may be saved as by fire"...the works built on sand destroyed, picked up from the threshing floor, cast into the fire and burned. Hitler won't be Hitler anymore...Hitler will no longer exist. The spirit/soul will be the only thing of value to be saved...as with us all. I also tend to understand God's fire as being His awesome, consuming presence, in which nothing can stand apart from being sustained by God's holiness and the power of His Spirit...which obviously excludes flesh/sin. I may be wrong, but that's the way I'm leaning, as I'm not sure God really needs actual "fire" to accomplish His ultimate, divine purpose(s).
Anyway, some of my thoughts...maybe I'll have more understanding later (bye and bye, when the morning comes, when all the saints of God are gathered home, we will tell the story of how we've overcome, and we'll understand it better bye and bye).
God's blessing, James.
QuoteHitler won't be Hitler anymore...Hitler will have served his purpose in God's plan and will no longer need to exist.
I'm just thinking out loud, here, Jab, so don't think I am committed to one way of thinking or another. But, what if Hitler was not part of God's plan? Or--what if God is allowing evil to get bigger and bigger until we no longer can stand it anymore and we do something about it ourselves?
Certainly, we learned
nothing from Hitler. 60 years later it's deja vu all over again.
I think that everyone is just evil enough to go along to get along--for as long as they can stand it--even if they are witnesses to everything unholy.
Maybe God is allowing us to be pushed to our limit--until one day we can
see?
Yeah, again, I'm thinking and learning...being led through a process. One thing that strikes me about what you say is "maybe God is allowing us to be pushed to our limit--until one day we can see?" IMO, that may be very well part of what He's doing, but to me, then that would be His plan and He would ultimately still be in control...you know, the "man devises His plans but God directs His steps" thing. These last few months I have really been s/w in turmoil about these types of topics, and it seems God is using some others on here to teach me about evil, how God uses it to teach us His goodness (and I believe increase our reliance on Him toward totality), how He contrasts His Light against the darkness, how sickness shows us how good health is, etc. I still don't feel like I've "got it figured out yet", but if I accept that scripture teaches God creates evil (and I believe it does), then I also believe there's got to be a good reason for it, that is ultimately GOOD. My mind and thoughts (that are not His thoughts) sometimes just really grope and meander around as He leads me into understanding. I used to think I had the answers to this stuff, you know, God good, Satan bad...thinking that explained it all. But then, oops...what about God's sovereignty, His being in control, His creating evil...then it's been 'yikes', what's the 'splanation for that? :laughing7:. Oh well, God is merciful and teaches us a little at a time. He knows what we can handle. James.
Something Mary Ellen just said--
"He is aware of those choices as we make them, but does not cause us TO make them. No matter which way we choose, He still is able to complete His plan for us. May take ten tries before He gets a Moses or Mary, but eventually one of the called accepts the grace to be chosen. It's not like our temporal time is a problem for Him :)"
The thought behind that is that it will go according to God's plan, but it takes a person to step up to the plate. Moses tried to refuse, but God kept overcoming his objections--which leads me to believe that Moses did not have to take the job. Same thing with Gideon. Interesting, also, how God picks people who do not wish to have that role (of power) for themselves. Then he has to talk them into it lol.
Anyway, it makes me think of the story of Joseph, too, how the brothers intended it for evil but God intended it for good. No matter how bad it looked, God pushed it around so that the end result would be good--the saving of many lives.
Yet, and here's the rub, could all of this happen sooner [God's kingdom on earth] if everyone would step up to the plate? Or, another way to look at it, will it not happen --until--we are all ready to step up to the plate?
It's not like we don't know better. Then, why do we continue to allow evil to be done on such a massive scale?
Quote from: Molly on July 12, 2008, 07:31:16 AM
Yet, and here's the rub, could all of this happen sooner if everyone would step up to the plate? Or, another way to look at it, will it not happen --until--we are all ready to step up to the plate?
Your thought runs parallel to one I have about Christ's promised return. Is it that He has delayed, or that His return is predicated on the Body coming full stature? I don't believe the Body has come full stature simply because, for centuries, Christians have believed that the reason they preach the gospel is to save sinners from hell. How can a Body of Love be built out of fear?
If, as I believe, the reason we were given the Great Commission is so that those with eyes to see and ears to hear can be found so the church (ekklesia, called out ones) can be built to the full stature of Christ . . . then no wonder He hasn't returned yet!
I believe that when He does those of us still alive and in the Body will not be "raptured" off the earth while the rest suffer, but that we will be transformed into our immortal Body here on earth to help the Bride as she is cleansed (those in organized religions, who believe what they've been told about ET, rapture, and a number of other unloving doctrines misinterpreted from scripture). Once death loses it's sting, then nothing can stop the Word of God--and the meek truly will inherit and reclaim the earth.
Quote from: Molly on July 12, 2008, 07:31:16 AMIt's not like we don't know better. Then, why do we continue to allow evil to be done on such a massive scale?
Because the gospel hasn't really BEEN preached? Man's doctrines about the scriptures have been taught, not the good news about the Kingdom of God.
To be honest, I don't think the majority of Christians DO know better.
ME
Quote from: Molly on July 12, 2008, 07:31:16 AM
Moses tried to refuse, but God kept overcoming his objections--which leads me to believe that Moses did not have to take the job. Same thing with Gideon.
Some I've read would say that's exactly how God does it...that He creates the
circumstances so we will choose to do what fits His plan...that we have the ability to make choices, choices that are framed within only the options God gives us, but that that
still doesn't equate to what we call "free will".
Quote from: Molly on July 12, 2008, 07:31:16 AM
Interesting, also, how God picks people who do not wish to have that role (of power) for themselves. Then he has to talk them into it lol.
It
is interesting...maybe something about humility and those He has made ready. "Talks us into it", "directs our steps"...maybe the same thing?
Quote from: autoimmune on July 12, 2008, 07:46:23 AM
I believe that when He does those of us still alive and in the Body will not be "raptured" off the earth while the rest suffer, but that we will be transformed into our immortal Body here on earth to help the Bride as she is cleansed (those in organized religions, who believe what they've been told about ET, rapture, and a number of other unloving doctrines misinterpreted from scripture). Once death loses it's sting, then nothing can stop the Word of God--and the meek truly will inherit and reclaim the earth.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: autoimmune on July 12, 2008, 07:46:23 AM
Because the gospel hasn't really BEEN preached? Man's doctrines about the scriptures have been taught, not the good news about the Kingdom of God.
To be honest, I don't think the majority of Christians DO know better.
ME
That's partly what I was saying about "we operate within the amount of Light we've been given". I've personally said some stupid things that at the time I didn't know were stupid. I'll say some stupid things again that later I'll realize were stupid again. As God leads into His Light He dispels the (my) darkness....thank you Lord for your mercy and longsuffering.
God's blessing, James.
Quote from: autoimmune on July 12, 2008, 07:46:23 AM
Because the gospel hasn't really BEEN preached?
Col 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
Col 1:6 Which is
come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:
Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which
was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your
faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
Rom 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, t
heir sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Quote from: Molly on July 12, 2008, 06:16:43 AM
Hi, Mary Ellen,
"Christ is God's mercy." That's a great way of putting it. I also agree that there will be some formula of mercy and justice which will seem reasonable to us.
It doesn't seem reasonable to me that God will overlook what a Hitler did, or even somehow restore him.
God taught me to identify assumptions and then re-ask questions. The assumption I see here is that Merciful Love is overlooking a wrong-doing. Because human reason cannot comprehend the Love or Mercy of God satisfactorily in this life, we find it hard to believe even a person like Hitler can be restored by God's grace and power.
I gave an anecdote in this thread a few pages back when I didn't want to respond theologically any more. It was about my father who had seriously abused me. Because I am human and equated justice with punishment, I figured God would somehow punish my father for what he had done to me. Instead, after my father's death, I found myself being asked to forgive him so he could "go to heaven." Not just that, but I had to be HAPPY as I gave him permission to go.
That experience was the beginning of a deeper understanding of what mercy and justice is all about. How what we do for others in Love becomes our own link to further Love, and those who are forgiven then extend that mercy and love back to us and then outward to others.
Previous to that God had gifted me with a touch of his Love when I was 33 and I believe it was the first experience that gave meaning to the second, and I don't think I would have been able to understand what I do about UR without the two together.
During a particular weekend I first experienced His Love as "unitive" . . . I experienced what it means to find my identity IN God . . . and, for me, that was as perfect Freedom and Love. The Love was experienced from within, as total awareness of Life, an ecstatic feeling, because it was shared by two millenia of other members of the Body of Christ. It flowed in a never ending circle within that Body.
The next day the same experience began, but this time it was external, like something pouring over me. I fell to my knees within seconds and actually yelled out in pain, "Overload, God! Overload! Please, stop this or I'll die!"
I actually felt as if every cell in my brain and body and soul had ignited and were on fire, like an overloaded circuitry burning out in a flash of flaming pain. It was a pain beyond anything I had ever experienced before. Excruciating--and hell--are the only words I can think of to describe the experience.
I came to realize over time that it was the same experience of God's Love, but the first was how Love is experienced when we are IN God because Christ is in us. The second is when we experience that Love alone. We simply cannot bear such overpowering Love without the aid of the Spirit of God.
And that's what "hell" will be like, imo. Because we refused Love in this life, never made the "connections" with others, the Love will have nowhere to go, our individual "circuitry" will burn with a fire we can't imagine, and it will hurt to be THAT alone and see ourselves in the Light of God's Love and Truth.
I believe what Jesus said, that His Father's sun (Love) shines on the just and the unjust alike, that He rains (his Love) on the good and the evil.
How we experience that Love will depend on the choices we make now.
What I've come to understand since, because of the experience after my father's death, is that
this is the purpose of our calling and being chosen as Christians--to prepare as part of the Body of Christ to help those we love bear God's Love they refused in this lifetime. We are to be to them as Christ was to us. Mercy. We are to suffer innocently for and with them, as He suffered innocently for and with us. We are to follow Him and walk and do exactly as He did.
It isn't a pleasant thing to contemplate stepping willingly into that burning Love again with people I know who are totally unprepared for it. I know what it will be like and in some ways I dread it, for all that I am willing if called to do so.
In some ways I wish I could back to thinking "lucky me, I've been saved." :)
But just as God's grace enabled me to forgive my father and be happy for him to have Love at last, I'm sure His grace will suffice for the Body as well.
My father wasn't able to accept God in his lifetime. I believe that in the end, through my mercy on him, despite my desire for some sort of "payback" initially, he came to see what real Love is and his "metanoia" happened.
Hitler may have to stand unprotected in God's Love for a while as he asks for and receives forgiveness of all the wrong he did, but I believe it will happen and even he will ultimately be restored.
It would be hard for me to explain the mental image I have of the last judgment so many Christians fear so much. Much like the internet, I see a web of connections growing from Christ, to His Body, to the people those in His Body knew in this life, to those THEY knew and so forth, to all of creation. One link at a time, but not really in time anymore. A series of links that spans both time and people. It grows until at last all IS all in Christ and He gives all creation back to the Father able to love Him at last as He loves us.
My 2 cents at least :)
Quote from: Molly on July 12, 2008, 06:16:43 AM
14Some people naturally obey the Law's commands, even though they don't have the Law. 15This proves that the conscience is like a law written in the human heart. And it will show whether we are forgiven or condemned, 16when God appoints Jesus Christ to judge everyone's secret thoughts, just as my message says.
--Romans 2
Those who truly pick up their crosses and follow Christ cannot do so without being sorely tested in their lifetimes on the issue of forgiveness, imo. We are not saved from hell, but from condemnation.
All that means is that we will not stand convicted at the judgment because we are IN Christ. Condemnation is simply a process of law, not a handing down of punishment. Two separate things. Mercy is what mitigates the Justice as each person condemned learns to forgive.
Christ is my mercy. In Christ I become His mercy to those I knew in this life.
For instance, my husband is an atheist. He knows my beliefs, that when he stands alone before God I will (with God's grace) stand with him. Right now he thinks this is totally unfair. Why should I suffer with him? It's his choice to accept God's existence or not.
I usually laugh and say "Well, if you're right then it's a moot question anyway, honey. We'll both blink out into non-existence. So, allow me my beliefs for now.'
The point is that even though my hubby can see no purpose to Christ's death for our sins or His Love for us by doing that, I CANNOT imagine him being unmoved by my sharing his pain in the Light of God's Love for him. That kind of love he will understand, and it will, I believe, make him drop to his knees when he understand that it is only by the power of Jesus Christ's love for me that I would be able to love him (the hubby) that much as well.
He will undertand Love because of me personally, but it will be Christ IN me doing that loving.
I hope this helps you see a possibility for even Hitler, Molly. Perhaps this also might help James as he seeks to discover the answers to his why me, why now, how does this all work questions.
It's still all through a mirror darkly to me, but I am satisfied with what God has given me to know so far. Perhaps someday I will move into a more Love is All and nothing else is required understanding, but for now I'm content with this understanding of what Jesus meant in the many passages that talked about condemnation and judgment.
Sorry it was so long, but I figured it was time to give a clearer explanation of what I actually do believe.
ME
ME
Quote from: laren on July 12, 2008, 07:56:33 AM
Quote from: autoimmune on July 12, 2008, 07:46:23 AM
Because the gospel hasn't really BEEN preached?
Col 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
Col 1:6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:
Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
Rom 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
I apologize, Laren. I was making a generalization and thought that was understood. Not that the gospel has never been preached, but that for centuries it has been preached inaccurately, and perhaps that is why so much evil exists in this world.
ME
1And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
--1 Cor 3
12For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
13For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
--Hebrews 5
If he fed us with meat, we would not be able to bear it, he says. Why is that? Strong meat, he says, belongs to them who by reason of use have exercised their senses to discern both good and evil. What does that mean?
Is he explaining why we all instinctively turn away from evil? Who can bear to look it in the face? And, if you did, and learned it was bottomless, what then? And, if you did, and learned that it describes everyone, including yourself, what then? What if, forcing yourself to look at evil, you found you couldn't stop crying? What if there were not enough tears in the world to wash it away?
We are afraid, and so we look away. But what strong meat is fed to those who are of full age?
"...to discern good and evil." What does that word mean? Does it have overtones of judgment?
QuoteIf I do not STATE the exact word, is to surmise assumption in and of my words...
Willie everyone makes assumptions bro even you, did you not make an assumption that because Mary did not provide you scriptural reference that what Mary believed was not based on scripture?
You are aware that in this whole thread I have but quoted one scripture are you not, so would you say that what I believe is not based on scripture also?
Willie it all comes down to how one likes to post, most times I am like you and quote many scriptures, but sometimes I just like talk as I would in a conversation with someone.
Believe it or not bro some people relate better to just speaking to them then when we overload them on scripture.
QuoteNo brother, I do NOT consider it WRONG... I consider it VEILED... there is a difference... and there IS a PURPOSE in it's presence in Christian thought...
Albeit a clumsy illustration...
If GOD has a large locked garage in which a certain number of cars are parked... and I determine by information HE has to date, provided me that the number is four, when it is actually two...
The VEIL (lack of revelation) is that which has prevented me from KNOWING the EXACT number, and my best "observation" is not a determination which is WRONG...
it is a determination which (by GOD's decision) is made by lack of VISION of the CORRECT number...
I do not determine another WRONG, because that in essence, would be according to MY VIEW as compared to THEIRS... However...
If you and I are in DISCUSSION, and I show BIBLICAL basis for a given thing, and you argue with me STRICTLY from your viewpoint and DO NOT produce BIBLICAL basis... then the VEIL which in part, exists is the refusal to cooperatively address our two views as COMPARED to SCRIPTURE, not compared to ONE ANOTHER...
Mary continuously refused to reveal her view as it is founded in the Word...
QuoteActually Willie we all make arguments from our view point, whether or not scripture is used. How many times have you seen a scripture quoted and an argument break out over the different views of how one interprets that scripture? It happens all the time.
So just because one does not quote scripture back at you does not mean one is refusing to cooperate in a discussion. But I do believe Mary said that she would provide you scripture if you needed it to understand her position.
But even if she supplied the scripture Willie then the debate would have just turned into a debate over what that scripture really means. It's really a no win situation.
pneumaQuote
So Mary was not baring false witness of you bro, she may have misunderstood your meaning just as I would have and so to I believe would others.
Now you may not have meant it that way bro but that how it comes across.QuoteSorry Scott... I appreciate what you say here, ...but it is NOT acceptable to me... As I explained above, VEILED as opposed to INCORRECT or WRONG is my observation...
Just as JESUS "came across" to the Pharisees (religious of their day/people of God)... so is this situation...
Because the answer is UNAVAILABLE to a given person, does not equate them to being WRONG... I do not percieve Mary to be WRONG, and have told her so... She or you don't accept that... not my problem bro...
The JEWS to which JESUS spoke PARABLES to, ...were NOT WRONG as they surmised Him ..."killing Himself" or ...wondered "HOW JESUS could re-erect in THREE DAYS, that which took Years to erect", etc...
UNDERSTANDING of what was TRULY being stated by CHRIST in SPIRITUAL terms, was WITHHELD from their NATURAL view of those terms...
So their view of His Words remained a NATURAL (veiled) observation, not a WRONG observation...
Potato, patato bro you say it is veiled from them which is just another way of saying they are to IMMATURE to see the deep things of God so all they can eat right now is breast milk. For if one is perceiving things from the NATURAL they are yet carnal, to which Paul says they are babes in Christ.
But all this is neither here nor there Willie, all I was trying to show you was how your own words could be misconstrued, if you cannot see this you cannot see this.
QuoteI'll get to the rest later brother, gotta go play some tunes...
Whenever you have the time bro, but just so you understand all I was doing was showing how what Mary believed was indeed based on scripture. She might have had other scriptures in mind when she was speaking then the ones I provided but the ones I provided should be enough to show that what she said was based on scripture.
Quote from: autoimmune on July 12, 2008, 09:26:00 AM
Quote from: laren on July 12, 2008, 07:56:33 AM
Quote from: autoimmune on July 12, 2008, 07:46:23 AM
Because the gospel hasn't really BEEN preached?
Col 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
Col 1:6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:
Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
Rom 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
I apologize, Laren. I was making a generalization and thought that was understood. Not that the gospel has never been preached, but that for centuries it has been preached inaccurately, and perhaps that is why so much evil exists in this world.
ME
I was quoting those scriptures to show that the gospel
had been preached to "the whole world", and to "every creature" and that it has been "heard".
and in Col 1:5, it was an accurate gospel:
Col 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the
word of the truth of the gospel;
Col 1:6 Which is come unto you,
as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth
and in Col 1:23 what was preached was the "hope of the gospel" to all creatures, "which Paul was a ministe of".
I don't think Paul was a minister of an innacurate gospel.
and that the gospel "had been
heard" throughout the whole world
heard:
G191
ἀκούω
akouō
ak-oo'-o
A primary verb; to hear (in various senses): - give (in the) audience (of), come (to the ears), ([shall]) hear (-er, -ken), be noised, be reported,
understand.So anyway, my opinion; the gospel has been preached to the whole world, the true gospel, and it has been "heard". so I personally don't think that an "innacurate" preaching of the gospel is why "so much evil is in the world"
just my two cents.
Quote from: autoimmune on July 12, 2008, 09:26:00 AM
I apologize, Laren. I was making a generalization and thought that was understood. Not that the gospel has never been preached, but that for centuries it has been preached inaccurately, and perhaps that is why so much evil exists in this world.
I don't pretend to understand it, but if I am to try to see things in scripture then I have to at least see that scripture says, God created evil, and we were subject to it unwillingly so that we could learn to understand hope that we also are subject to.
The scriptures say we are given an experience to humble us.
I think that the lack of preaching the gospel or at least the teachings that cause contempt and hatred when you do not agree with who is treaching is also evil, rather than that being the reason.
Here is also another scripture that leads me to believe along these lines.
"And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not trouble: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet" (Matt. 24:6).
If something must come to pass, then how will it not come to pass?
Ec 3:1 For everything there is a stated time, And a season for every event under the heavens:
If it has a stated (appointed) time, what will keep it from happening?
Now, some have said that this is just generally speaking because of the limited list following the verse in eccesiastes. Well, I think we can reasonably say that the list is indeed a general list to give us the idea that whatever we think shouldn't of happened, did indeed happen for a reason.
Hi Laren, hows it going brother?
Yes the gospel was preached to the whole world during THIS TIME, but since the days of the apostles have faded into history the gospel has been misreprehened.
Paul preached a true gospel as did the rest in thier day, but it is not so now.
To make Paul's statement mean that the gospel being preached in the whole world to mean OUR DAY is a bit of a streach don't you think?
It HAD been preached, but it is not so NOW.
see what I mean?
Quote from: pneuma on July 12, 2008, 05:08:16 PM
Hi Laren, hows it going brother?
Yes the gospel was preached to the whole world during THIS TIME, but since the days of the apostles have faded into history the gospel has been misreprehened.
Paul preached a true gospel as did the rest in thier day, but it is not so now.
To make Paul's statement mean that the gospel being preached in the whole world to mean OUR DAY is a bit of a streach don't you think?
It HAD been preached, but it is not so NOW.
see what I mean?
Hi Scott, been doing pretty good, how are things with yu?
What I find interesting, and what leans me toward a preterist view is that the gospel was preached to the whole world, just as the verses say, and you agree with.
and then we have this verse:
Mat 24:14 And this
gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and
then shall the end come.
Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you,
This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be
some standing here, which shall not taste of death,
till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
etc. I'm sure u have read the imminent text's.
So, for me;
I agree there is a gospel preached out there that is preached that is not the true gospel, of unconditional LOVE.
but this imo,is done in ignorance of what has already been accomplished. I have no problem seeeing an internal (inward) working of the gospel in us; but do think if we place a hope of some "return of Christ" to punish/correct the "evil out there" and save "us" (us versus them belief) rather than an "evil" in us being burned up, and a "Christ in us' being preserved then we are in for a fulfillment of this:
Pro 13:12 Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life.
I think we too often look at the external world, and then say, "proof" the old covenant (between God and man) is still mostly in effect while only a few have been given eyes to see.
Then we have to come up with some theories on how to explain the verse that the gospel was preached to the whole world, and therefore the end came.
just where i'm at in my walk.
blessings
laren
Gee guys
This thread has grown some.... :icon_flower:
Some posts back a few words were added encouraging Willieh to bow out .
Id like to also mention that this is a discussion forum , if members are going to respond to a Post then at Least expect a response from the poster .
If one chooses to respond thereafter, then also expect another response , if you dont wish to discuss with certain individuals then I suggest dont entice be it them to do so.
Thank you.
Blessings
Taffy
QuoteHi Scott, been doing pretty good, how are things with yu?
Same here, pretty good
QuoteWhat I find interesting, and what leans me toward a preterist view is that the gospel was preached to the whole world, just as the verses say, and you agree with.
and then we have this verse:
Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
etc. I'm sure u have read the imminent text's.
So, for me;
I agree there is a gospel preached out there that is preached that is not the true gospel, of unconditional LOVE.
but this imo,is done in ignorance of what has already been accomplished. I have no problem seeeing an internal (inward) working of the gospel in us; but do think if we place a hope of some "return of Christ" to punish/correct the "evil out there" and save "us" (us versus them belief) rather than an "evil" in us being burned up, and a "Christ in us' being preserved then we are in for a fulfillment of this:
Pro 13:12 Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life.
I think we too often look at the external world, and then say, "proof" the old covenant (between God and man) is still mostly in effect while only a few have been given eyes to see.
Then we have to come up with some theories on how to explain the verse that the gospel was preached to the whole world, and therefore the end came.
just where i'm at in my walk.
I have no problem relating scripture inwardly either Laren, but also see how what is worked inwardly by the Spirit is also worked out naturally, first the natural then the spiritual.
Therefore to me it is both, I still see God working throughout the ages to be applied naturally.
Here a reply I made to Matt Slick regarding this because he said God does not get what God wills.
Now that's a well thought out explanation Matt Just gave IF God only dealt with man in this age. But we are all well aware God does not just deal with man in this age but also in the age to come.
When God said I will accomplish all My good pleasure and that He worketh all things after the counsel of His own will Is.46:10 & Eph.1:11 it is incumbent on the child of God to believe just what God Himself proclaims.
Matt does not believe Gods will, will be done because Matt is only looking at the present age we now live it where Gods will is not yet being done.
Jesus taught us to pray Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Mt.6:9-10
To me it is obvious the Fathers kingdom has not yet come nor is His will yet being done on earth.
Thus Matt concludes because the Fathers will is not yet done on earth as it is in heaven that the Fathers will, will be thwarted, but this is just not the case, for God Himself proclaimed I will accomplish ALL my good pleasure.
In the age to come when His kingdom is on the earth His will, will be done and He will accomplish ALL His good pleasure.
When the child of God looks to understand God and His purpose they must come into the realisation that He is the everlasting God or literally the God of the ages, and when they come into this realisation then Gods word does not contradict itself.
Isaiah 55:10-11
10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
The WORD did come out from God, made in the likeness of flesh for the salvation of the whole world. And as the WORD was sent forth it will not return void but shall accomplish EVERYTHING that it was sent to do.
Why do so many still believe His WORD came in vain? The salvation of the whole world was His purpose in coming so what can we say if He does not fulfill His purpose? There is only one conclusion, His WORD returned void. Believe what you will, I believe His WORD will do exactly what He came to do. Like it or not brothers and sisters Gods WORD Jesus Christ will fulfill to the fullest exactly what He came to do, THE SALVATION OF ALL.
So if Gods kingdom has already come and His will already done on earth then what Jesus taught us to pray becomes redundant.
It is only when we keep His commandments can we enter within the gates of the city.
Also read my first post in this thread to see the differences of how I see God working by His different names.
God bless
QuoteWhy do so many still believe His WORD came in vain?
um...maybe because we look around and see things getting worse and worse?
I like what you said about "God of the ages."
So--what is the purpose of this age?
And when will the next age arrive? date and time please because I'm on my last nerve.
Quote from: pneuma on July 12, 2008, 06:17:44 PM
I have no problem relating scripture inwardly either Laren, but also see how what is worked inwardly by the Spirit is also worked out naturally, first the natural then the spiritual.
Therefore to me it is both, I still see God working throughout the ages to be applied naturally.
God bless
So do you see this verse as fulfilled?
Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
since the gospel was preached to the whole world, why didn't the end come?? why is there ages yet to come??
willieH: Hi Scott... :happygrin:
Quote from: willieHThe biggest objection I have with Mary Ellen's views are that she does NOT FOUND them in the WORD...
I don't mind opposition, and I know that ALL of us have many things to learn and are each in need correction as we search... but it must be done from the BIBLE, not from opinion, which is where Mary basically lives...
No matter what view we have of YHVH, we must base that view from His WORDS... otherwise, it shall soon morph into complete fallacy...
Quote from: pneuma on July 11, 2008, 06:11:09 PMWillie Mary's view is based on scripture bro, not everyone speaks after the same fashion as you know. Some of us speak using a lot of scriptures and some of us just like to talk about their hope in Him instead of getting into scripture after scripture.
Myself I enjoy reading both ways and when one just speaks of their hope in Christ I can read between the lines so to speak and see the scripture references.
As you just stated YOUR preferences and observations, so do I brother Scott... That Mary abstains from Scriptural support of her beliefs is OK with you... NOT with me...
There are many which visit Tentmaker which no literally NOTHING of the content of Scripture, nor the need to base our beliefs UPON IT... and posts such as Mary Ellen's "style" displays... can potentially mislead those who are not as "well-read" as is Mary, you or I... And
THAT is
WHY I object to her presentations...
You don't object to this, and I respect your right to do so... as far as I am concerned, I DO OBJECT to it, and equally hold that right to do so... :dontknow:
Quote from: pneuma on July 11, 2008, 06:11:09 PMWithout going into all of yours and Mary's posts I am only going to give you a couple of example.
Example: (1) Mary said something about littler sins and you said there is no scripture that says anything about littler sins. And although the scripture do not use the term littler sins, I understand scripture to express just that. (2) Two sets of scriptures that come to my mind upon reading Mary's littler sins are where it says 6 things God hate, yea even 7 and then proceeds to name these 7 sins God hates, are there more sins then 7? Surely, but it does not say God hates them. (3) This to me would indicate that above all other sins God places these in a higher order if you will. The other scripture that comes to mind is the blaspheme of the Holy Ghost which implies it is a blaspheme greater then other blasphemes.
(1) "Not going into" the posts shows what you have NOT SEEN in those posts Scott... :mshock:
The point was not as much "littler sins" Scott... (although that designation is NOT Scriptural and IS contested by me), it was about THIS:
Mary Ellen stated (in those posts into which you have NOT LOOKED) that
JESUS covers the "Littler sins" and
WE are
RESPONSIBLE for the
BIGGER ONES...
Which is to say that
JESUS' sacrifice TOOK AWAY the "littler sins" (stealing a piece of bubble gum) but not the BIGGER ones (grand theft auto) :dontknow: Sorry Scott, ...THIS statement is UNSCRIPTURAL, regardless of how you might or might not view, ..."littler sins"...
(2) Scripture does designate that GOD "hates" specific things... but on closer observation of the word HATE as translated into English... the word flows in meaning toward ENEMIES... and though it is not the specific word for ENEMIES in Hebrew it IS translated so, in 2 Sam 19:6...
My point here is that HATE and ENEMIES are of the same breeding... GOD actually "HATES" ALL that takes LIFE from His SON... even the stealing
of bubblegum... :dontknow: (I do not believe HATE proceeds from LOVE - I believe that it is Divine distaste which GOD condescends with the word HATE, that we might "get"
His drift)...
(3) You are welcome to assume that there is a set of levels which GOD observes SIN... But SCRIPTURE does NOT set those LEVELS... That GOD would find SIN detestable in any form is a more (IMO) accurate observation of SIN, not the NATURAL observation made by SINNERS of degrees...
As far as the "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit"... again you resort to ASSUMING it to be apart from other sin IN LEVEL... but Scripture does NOT state this. It states that concerning forgiveness (it WILL be FORGIVEN)... that in the AGE this sin was described, and the AGE to come, it would not be FORGIVEN...
If this SIN were UNFORGIVEABLE, because its LEVEL were higher than other SIN, then
JESUS did
not TAKE AWAY the SIN of the WORLD, ...for the "Blasphemy of the HS" ...is a PART of the SIN of the WORLD... therefore John 1:29 is compromised, as well as 2 Cor 5:19
Quote from: pneuma on July 11, 2008, 06:11:09 PMThe next example is Mary said something about us needing (1) to accept Christ and you said no scripture state such. (2) But they do imply it bro. the scripture that comes to my mind is every knee bowing and tongue CONFESSING that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Confess-
1) to confess
2) to profess
2a) acknowledge openly and joyfully
2b) to one's honour: to celebrate, give praise to
2c) to profess that one will do something, to promise, agree, engage
Accept-
come to terms with something: to acknowledge a fact or truth and come to terms with it
believe something: to acknowledge that something is true
Let me address the above before moving on bro... with all due respect to you as my brother (and I DO respect both YOU and your knowledge of Scripture - you know that!)...
(1) I stand by what I said... this marks TWO EXAMPLES in which you note IMPLICATION, as opposed to QUOTING plainly that the Scripture verifies the implication... Your own definitions of "ACCEPT" and "CONFESS" differ with one another... Even in the HIGHLIGHTS you have done... CONFESS says "acknowledge openly and joyfully" and ACCEPT says "acknowledge that something is TRUE"... the word
TRUE is absent in your defintion of CONFESS...
1. I can ACCEPT something
WITHOUT CONFESSING that acceptance, nor by that ACCEPTANCE do I necessarily make an acknowledgement of TRUTH, ...for instance, I can "ACCEPT" a given candidate in an ELECTION, and vote for him, without necessarily acknowledging BY CONFESSION to others, that all he says or does is TRUE...
...
AND 2. it is entirely possible to CONFESS something that one ...does NOT "ACCEPT"... I ACCEPT the citation that an officer gives me for speeding... but make NO CONFESSION of GUILT by that ACCEPTANCE...
The common belief of "accepting
CHRIST" is the "born again" belief... meaning that because one uttered a few words at church (sinners prayer), that from that point on, ...its "all good"...and they can behave as do those who haven't CONFESSED or ACCEPTED... and still, ..."its all good"...
This is in part, what
CHRIST was speaking of in Matt 7:21-23... these surely CONFESSED... for they
called JESUS Lord... (1 Cor 12:3)
How MISLEADING is all this Scott? :mshock: Many if not MOST Christians are Sunday believers, carrying with them and counting on their church attendance and eventual "CONFESSION"... as their "following of
CHRIST"... believing their other 6 days of purposed and willful misbehavior are covered by this "fire insurance" the preacher sold them at the Sunday service!
(2) The definitions you give above for CONFESS and ACCEPT are NOT completely parallel... and ONE can live without the other present.
Quote from: pneuma on July 11, 2008, 06:11:09 PMPlus we do have a few scriptures that attest to accepting Him
Acts 2:39-41
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received/ACCEPTED his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
This is a STRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRETCH and you know it brother Scott... continue reading the passage bro, and you will arrive at Acts 2:47... which shows GOD
ADDING these to His church, by
His DOING, not via ...their "acceptance"...
The word "received" in this verse amounts to HEARING... not "acceptance"...
(Rom 10:17)
FAITH cometh BY HEARING and HEARING, ...BY the WORD of GOD...
In other words HEARING which produces FAITH, is enabled TO the listener BY the WORD... the WORD opens the ears... and
IN rushes
FAITH...
We HEAR because GOD gives the EARS to HEAR His WORD (Rev 2:29 / 3:22) Not because WE decide to "accept it"...
"ACCEPTING" in ORTHODOXY is a decision MADE by the INDIVIDUAL and is PREACHED as such... I spent around 25 years in the Orthodox church and am well aware of their methods...
In Acts 2 ...it is GOD who
ADDS to His church, ...the church or individuals of that church do
NOT, ...ADD THEMSELVES... (Acts 2:47) ...which appears to be what you propose (adding themselves via their "receiving/acceptance") ...6 verses before...
Quote from: pneuma on July 11, 2008, 06:11:09 PMNot everything is as it seems bro, and sometimes we have to look behind the words when one just speaks to see the scriptures being used.
God bless
"Not everything is as it seems bro"... PneumaIf someone wishes to POSE beliefs... I believe those beliefs must be substanciated by the WORDS of GOD which in the end is OUR foundational WITNESS, ...our words standing alone are opinion only, whose essence is weakly implied, ...not garnished WITH POWER, GLORIFYING the One whose WORDS
should be GLORIFIED...
I certainly
agree with this statement Scott... and may I make the same SUGGESTION to you my dear brother... :shakepoint: :IloveU:
Blessed are the peacemakers Scott... God bless you for you words to me... :cloud9:
peacE...
...willieH :laughing7:
Quote from: laren on July 12, 2008, 08:43:16 PM
Quote from: pneuma on July 12, 2008, 06:17:44 PM
I have no problem relating scripture inwardly either Laren, but also see how what is worked inwardly by the Spirit is also worked out naturally, first the natural then the spiritual.
Therefore to me it is both, I still see God working throughout the ages to be applied naturally.
God bless
So do you see this verse as fulfilled?
Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
since the gospel was preached to the whole world, why didn't the end come?? why is there ages yet to come??
Not that I know, but it could be that it was the end of the age of Law [ministration of condemnation] and the beginning of the age of grace [ministration of righteousness], and the grafting in of the Gentiles...
Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.It just amazes me that the temple has never been rebuilt since 70 ad, and that this time was the end of animal sacrifice and the priesthood of Aaron.
So-- one could call this the "Messianic age."
9For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
13And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
17Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
--2 Cor 3
willieH: Hi brother Scott... :icon_flower:
Quote from: willieHIf I do not STATE the exact word, is to surmise assumption in and of my words...
Quote from: pneuma on July 12, 2008, 03:20:54 PMWillie everyone makes assumptions bro even you, did you not make an assumption that because Mary did not provide you scriptural reference that what Mary believed was not based on scripture?
No I did not... I asked her to prove that her belief was Scriptural by noting those upon which she based those beliefs... that is no assumption that she did not base her beliefs on Scripture, it was a request she do so, that others including myself, might see where she is coming from...
She opts not to do this, so her beliefs remain visibly based solely upon her words and not upon GOD's WORDS... (until such time, if ever, ...she reveals the foundational setting in Scripture upon which her beliefs rest)...
Quote from: pneuma on July 12, 2008, 03:20:54 PMYou are aware that in this whole thread I have but quoted one scripture are you not, so would you say that what I believe is not based on scripture also?
You are not trying to propose or substanciate your beliefs Scott...
You are analyzing the convo between Mary and myself... and therefore have no reason to
substanciate your observation of that convo in Scripture...
You DO mention a Scripture below, and I have commented upon it... :mwink:
Quote from: pneuma on July 12, 2008, 03:20:54 PMWillie it all comes down to how one likes to post, most times I am like you and quote many scriptures, but sometimes I just like talk as I would in a conversation with someone.
Believe it or not bro some people relate better to just speaking to them then when we overload them on scripture.
I often speak without noting Scripture when I am not proposing that GOD says something in His WORD, which I BELIEVE... Such as the interaction of this post to this point... You and I are not discussing particular BELIEFS brother, we are discussing the manner in which BELIEFS are substanciated... (or not substanciated)
Quote from: willieHNo brother, I do NOT consider it WRONG... I consider it VEILED... there is a difference... and there IS a PURPOSE in it's presence in Christian thought...
Albeit a clumsy illustration...
If GOD has a large locked garage in which a certain number of cars are parked... and I determine by information HE has to date, provided me that the number is four, when it is actually two...
The VEIL (lack of revelation) is that which has prevented me from KNOWING the EXACT number, and my best "observation" is not a determination which is WRONG...
it is a determination which (by GOD's decision) is made by lack of VISION of the CORRECT number...
I do not determine another WRONG, because that in essence, would be according to MY VIEW as compared to THEIRS... However...
If you and I are in DISCUSSION, and I show BIBLICAL basis for a given thing, and you argue with me STRICTLY from your viewpoint and DO NOT produce BIBLICAL basis... then the VEIL which in part, exists is the refusal to cooperatively address our two views as COMPARED to SCRIPTURE, not compared to ONE ANOTHER...
Mary continuously refused to reveal her view as it is founded in the Word...
Quote from: pneuma on July 12, 2008, 03:20:54 PMActually Willie we all make arguments from our view point, whether or not scripture is used. How many times have you seen a scripture quoted and an argument break out over the different views of how one interprets that scripture? It happens all the time.
So just because one does not quote scripture back at you does not mean one is refusing to cooperate in a discussion. But I do believe Mary said that she would provide you scripture if you needed it to understand her position.
But even if she supplied the scripture Willie then the debate would have just turned into a debate over what that scripture really means. It's really a no win situation.
I fully realize this brother... the point is that how may a differentiation which is ABOUT Scripture even be made, when the Scriptures are not even NOTED? :dontknow:
There is no debate! She refuses to name what might even propose a debate! :laughing7:
Quote from: pneuma on July 12, 2008, 03:20:54 PMpneumaQuote
So Mary was not baring false witness of you bro, she may have misunderstood your meaning just as I would have and so to I believe would others.
Now you may not have meant it that way bro but that how it comes across.
Quote from: willieHSorry Scott... I appreciate what you say here, ...but it is NOT acceptable to me... As I explained above, VEILED as opposed to INCORRECT or WRONG is my observation...
Just as JESUS "came across" to the Pharisees (religious of their day/people of God)... so is this situation...
Because the answer is UNAVAILABLE to a given person, does not equate them to being WRONG... I do not percieve Mary to be WRONG, and have told her so... She or you don't accept that... not my problem bro...
The JEWS to which JESUS spoke PARABLES to, ...were NOT WRONG as they surmised Him ..."killing Himself" or ...wondered "HOW JESUS could re-erect in THREE DAYS, that which took Years to erect", etc...
UNDERSTANDING of what was TRULY being stated by CHRIST in SPIRITUAL terms, was WITHHELD from their NATURAL view of those terms...
So their view of His Words remained a NATURAL (veiled) observation, not a WRONG observation...
Quote from: pneuma on July 12, 2008, 03:20:54 PMPotato, patato bro you say it is veiled from them which is just another way of saying they are to IMMATURE to see the deep things of God so all they can eat right now is breast milk. For if one is perceiving things from the NATURAL they are yet carnal, to which Paul says they are babes in Christ.
Tom A to... Tom AH to... :pointlaugh:
If the shoe fits, ...well, one knows what to do with it... :dontknow:
The fact remains that I DID
NOT say she was
IMMATURE... she provides herself such labels (without my assistance) with her inability or refusal to note the portions of GOD's WORD upon which she establishes her beliefs...
As far as
NATURAL... a portion of
ALL of
our views is in this state... for we look through a lens which is clouded by Darkness... and no one "knows it all"...
NO one is completely VEILED or REVEALED, it is a process we SUBMIT to over a lifetime, that GOD is enacting in us... That process includes both veiling and revelation... when someone is veiled he/she is not incorrect or wrong, their view of the TRUTH is shrouded purposely by GOD... One is WRONG when another, by comparison to their own view, determines the other INCORRECT...
When we present our beliefs, GOD is able and DOES change those FALSE images that we ALL have over time, according to HIS PURPOSES for us.
RIGHT and WRONG? I don't see it... I used to, :sigh: ...and found that GOD revealed ME as INCORRECT for determining another INCORRECT...
In this He showed me that ALL humans are partially veiled and revealed...
Some in Christianity are VEILED from certain SPIRITUAL things, that Hindus, Shintoists, Moslems, or Buddhists KNOW and daily practice... in turn, ...
CHRIST is REVEALED to the "CHRISTIAN"... a TRUTH of which, the Hindus, Shintoists, Moslems and Buddhists shall one day find was Veiled from their vision...
GOD is thereby keeping all men humble by this... :blush: :GBlush:
When someone refuses to name Scripture upon which they base their beliefs... it indicates concerning Scriptural foundation/substanciation, that either...
(1) They do not know where the verses
ARE...
(2) Do not know if there
ARE verses...
(3) Haven't looked to see if there
ARE verses...
(4)
ARE clinging to something another has told them, in whom they trust...
(5) They KNOW there
ARE not verses which provide that foundation...
(6)
ARE obstinate and possibly unsure of those verses...
What does this mean? It means they
ARE willing abstainers from the WORD.
Quote from: pneuma on July 12, 2008, 03:20:54 PMBut all this is neither here nor there Willie, all I was trying to show you was how your own words could be misconstrued, if you cannot see this you cannot see this.
I know I am misundertood and that I am capable of misunderstanding... and I have noted several times, that I appreciate your endeavor to help both Mary and myself as a 3rd party observer, find peace in our interaction... :Peace2:
Quote from: willieHI'll get to the rest later brother, gotta go play some tunes...
Quote from: pneuma on July 12, 2008, 03:20:54 PMWhenever you have the time bro, but just so you understand all I was doing was showing how what Mary believed was indeed based on scripture.
She might have had other scriptures in mind when she was speaking then the ones I provided but the ones I provided should be enough to show that what she said was based on scripture.
Though you do, ...I do not believe you have necessarily done that Scott... and besides, it is not up to you to provide Scriptural foundation for her beliefs...
THAT is up to her... and is and will be her right to abstain from doing so, regardless of your interventions here... or my objections to that abstaination...
It does not matter what "Scriptures" she "had in mind"... we can't read her "mind" and she (at least for now) is unwilling to reveal what is in "her mind" concerning Scripture... :dunno:
But once again, thanks :giveheart: ...for your efforts on behalf of peace! :Peace:
peacE...
...willieH :laughing7:
QuoteAs you just stated YOUR preferences and observations, so do I brother Scott... That Mary abstains from Scriptural support of her beliefs is OK with you... NOT with me...
There are many which visit Tentmaker which no literally NOTHING of the content of Scripture, nor the need to base our beliefs UPON IT... and posts such as Mary Ellen's "style" displays... can potentially mislead those who are not as "well-read" as is Mary, you or I... And THAT is WHY I object to her presentations...
You don't object to this, and I respect your right to do so... as far as I am concerned, I DO OBJECT to it, and equally hold that right to do so...
Willie you were NOT objecting to Mary's presentation bro, you were saying what she believes is NOT based on scripture. A big difference.
But as to writing styles, its like I said bro some people can relate better to one who does not over load them on scripture. You can object to that style of writing as is your right, but it simply is NOT your call, and you cannot force anyone to write after your style.
I to like people to point out what scriptures they are referring to as it makes it easier to understand where their coming from, but I do not need them to.
Quote(1) "Not going into" the posts shows what you have NOT SEEN in those posts Scott...
The point was not as much "littler sins" Scott... (although that designation is NOT Scriptural and IS contested by me), it was about THIS:
Mary Ellen stated (in those posts into which you have NOT LOOKED) that JESUS covers the "Littler sins" and WE are RESPONSIBLE for the BIGGER ONES...
Which is to say that JESUS' sacrifice TOOK AWAY the "littler sins" (stealing a piece of bubble gum) but not the BIGGER ones (grand theft auto) Sorry Scott, ...THIS statement is UNSCRIPTURAL, regardless of how you might or might not view, ..."littler sins"...
I disagree brother for I do see that recorded in scripture.
1 John 5:14-17
14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: 15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him. 16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
And
Hebrews 10:26
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SINS.
You can disagree with that interpretation of those SCRIPTURES Willie, but your disagreement does not mean that my interpretation is not based on scripture.
Quote(2) Scripture does designate that GOD "hates" specific things... but on closer observation of the word HATE as translated into English... the word flows in meaning toward ENEMIES... and though it is not the specific word for ENEMIES in Hebrew it IS translated so, in 2 Sam 19:6...
My point here is that HATE and ENEMIES are of the same breeding... GOD actually "HATES" ALL that takes LIFE from His SON... even the stealing of bubblegum... (I do not believe HATE proceeds from LOVE - I believe that it is Divine distaste which GOD condescends with the word HATE, that we might "get" His drift)...
(3) You are welcome to assume that there is a set of levels which GOD observes SIN... But SCRIPTURE does NOT set those LEVELS... That GOD would find SIN detestable in any form is a more (IMO) accurate observation of SIN, not the NATURAL observation made by SINNERS of degrees...
There is a sin UNTO DEATH and there is a sin NOT unto death, this tells me that there is littler sins bro, you can disagree with my interpretation but you cannot say its UNSCRIPTURAL.
QuoteAs far as the "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit"... again you resort to ASSUMING it to be apart from other sin IN LEVEL... but Scripture does NOT state this. It states that concerning forgiveness (it WILL be FORGIVEN)... that in the AGE this sin was described, and the AGE to come, it would not be FORGIVEN...
If this SIN were UNFORGIVEABLE, because its LEVEL were higher than other SIN, then JESUS did not TAKE AWAY the SIN of the WORLD, ...for the "Blasphemy of the HS" ...is a PART of the SIN of the WORLD... therefore John 1:29 is compromised, as well as 2 Cor 5:19
Willie again and again your disagreement with how one understands scripture does NOT make it UNSCRIPTURAL, which is what this is about. You said Mary's belief was not based on scripture, I gave you scripture that shows Mary's belief IS based on scripture.
Let me put it this way bro, do you honestly think I would have agreed with Mary's answers to you if I did not see scriptural references in her answers?
As to how Jesus takes away the sin of the world Willie I understand that differently then you do. But I am not going to go into it as I am trying to stay away from debates as it more time then not seems to lead to a fight and hard feelings and I am just plain tired of it.
QuoteLet me address the above before moving on bro... with all due respect to you as my brother (and I DO respect both YOU and your knowledge of Scripture - you know that!)...
(1) I stand by what I said... this marks TWO EXAMPLES in which you note IMPLICATION, as opposed to QUOTING plainly that the Scripture verifies the implication... Your own definitions of "ACCEPT" and "CONFESS" differ with one another... Even in the HIGHLIGHTS you have done... CONFESS says "acknowledge openly and joyfully" and ACCEPT says "acknowledge that something is TRUE"... the word TRUE is absent in your defintion of CONFESS...
1. I can ACCEPT something WITHOUT CONFESSING that acceptance, nor by that ACCEPTANCE do I necessarily make an acknowledgement of TRUTH, ...for instance, I can "ACCEPT" a given candidate in an ELECTION, and vote for him, without necessarily acknowledging BY CONFESSION to others, that all he says or does is TRUE...
...AND
2. it is entirely possible to CONFESS something that one ...does NOT "ACCEPT"... I ACCEPT the citation that an officer gives me for speeding... but make NO CONFESSION of GUILT by that ACCEPTANCE...
The common belief of "accepting CHRIST" is the "born again" belief... meaning that because one uttered a few words at church (sinners prayer), that from that point on, ...its "all good"...and they can behave as do those who haven't CONFESSED or ACCEPTED... and still, ..."its all good"...
This is in part, what CHRIST was speaking of in Matt 7:21-23... these surely CONFESSED... for they called JESUS Lord... (1 Cor 12:3)
How MISLEADING is all this Scott? Many if not MOST Christians are Sunday believers, carrying with them and counting on their church attendance and eventual "CONFESSION"... as their "following of CHRIST"... believing their other 6 days of purposed and willful misbehavior are covered by this "fire insurance" the preacher sold them at the Sunday service!
(2) The definitions you give above for CONFESS and ACCEPT are NOT completely parallel... and ONE can live without the other present.
Again bro it comes down to the way you read things, but that does not mean it is not based on scripture just because you do not agree with it.
QuoteThis is a STRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRETCH and you know it brother Scott... continue reading the passage bro, and you will arrive at Acts 2:47... which shows GOD ADDING these to His church, by His DOING, not via ...their "acceptance"...
The word "received" in this verse amounts to HEARING... not "acceptance"...
(Rom 10:17) FAITH cometh BY HEARING and HEARING, ...BY the WORD of GOD...
In other words HEARING which produces FAITH, is enabled TO the listener BY the WORD... the WORD opens the ears... and IN rushes FAITH...
We HEAR because GOD gives the EARS to HEAR His WORD (Rev 2:29 / 3:22) Not because WE decide to "accept it"...
"ACCEPTING" in ORTHODOXY is a decision MADE by the INDIVIDUAL and is PREACHED as such... I spent around 25 years in the Orthodox church and am well aware of their methods...
In Acts 2 ...it is GOD who ADDS to His church, ...the church or individuals of that church do NOT, ...ADD THEMSELVES... (Acts 2:47) ...which appears to be what you propose (adding themselves via their "receiving/acceptance") ...6 verses before...
Its not a STRRRRRRRRRRRETCH Willie it just the difference between how we both view scripture. You say it does not mean this or that and I say it does, and you can believe it is a STRRRRRRRETCH as is your right, but that does not make me veiled as you put it because for all you know I have the right of it and you are the one being veiled.
That's why I said even if Mary posted scripture it would not do any good because it would not matter what scripture she gave, you would just disagree with her interpretation of scripture, it's a no win situation bro.
Quote"Not everything is as it seems bro"... Pneuma
If someone wishes to POSE beliefs... I believe those beliefs must be substanciated by the WORDS of GOD which in the end is OUR foundational WITNESS, ...our words standing alone are opinion only, whose essence is weakly implied, ...not garnished WITH POWER, GLORIFYING the One whose WORDS should be GLORIFIED...
I certainly agree with this statement Scott... and may I make the same SUGGESTION to you my dear brother...
Again bro it comes down to what YOU BELIEVE must be done, but again bro that ain't your call. You can believe people have to post scripture in order to substantiate their belief or its just their opinion all you like, but that does NOT mean their opinion is not based on scripture, which is what you said of Mary.
Do you not believe the Spirit can show one about Christ without the use of scripture? If so why cannot Mary's words used without scripture be used of the Spirit to show forth Christ?
QuoteBlessed are the peacemakers Scott... God bless you for you words to me...
This made me laugh bro, kind of funny to me to think others might see me as a peacemaker after all the battles I have been in over scripture on this board.
So when its all said and done Willie you can believe that Mary is veiled but you cannot state that what she believes is not based on scripture just because she did not use any.
God bless bro.
QuoteSo do you see this verse as fulfilled?
Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
since the gospel was preached to the whole world, why didn't the end come?? why is there ages yet to come??
Laren Jesus is answering some questions put to Him by His disciples who asked "what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"
World here is AGE
So Jesus answering said And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
The end of what?
The AGE
Quote from: pneuma on July 13, 2008, 06:17:46 PM
QuoteSo do you see this verse as fulfilled?
Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
since the gospel was preached to the whole world, why didn't the end come?? why is there ages yet to come??
Laren Jesus is answering some questions put to Him by His disciples who asked "what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"
World here is AGE
So Jesus answering said And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
The end of what?
The AGE
I think I get what u are saying: so, the end of "the age", but not the end of "ages". and that "thy coming is not the same as the end of the age?? In other words the age ended, but thy coming did not occur???
What age do you think followed the end of that "age"??
and what determines in your opinion, the end of "ages". Does this happen collectively, all at once; or is this an ongoing individual thing? and do you see physical death as the end of ages for a person??
hopefully this is not too far of a sidetrack of the thread, and if so, moderators move it. thanks
thanks
willieH: Hi Scott... :hithere:
Although it has been quite a while, it seems that you and I once we get involved in discussion, rarely see eye to eye...
We've danced this tango before brother, and I see no point in going back & forth, with neither of us gaining anything by it... I shall not be moved, and neither shall you... so after this answer, I shall leave you to your deductions of Scripture and of
me as well, which from my vision, are quite inaccurate...
Many of the things written, if not MOST are SPIRITUAL (even though the Natural is both referenced and noted)... and there are multiple and layered meanings within those SPIRITUAL notations...
I do not deduce you wrong... as it seems you wish to do with me... so rather than spend much more time in the mud with you... I leave you to your conclusions and you and Mary are welcome to them...
No hard feelings... but you admitted that you had not looked into the thread concerning Mary and I, yet proceeded to comment nevertheless... bull in a china shop... :dontknow:
QuoteWillie you were NOT objecting to Mary's presentation bro, you were saying what she believes is NOT based on scripture. A big difference.
I do not object to anyones beliefs... you are welcome bro, to believe airplanes fly underwater if you choose, no sweat...
I object to statements which are aimed at the WORD which do not use it... whether you like it or not... it is my right to object...
Quote from: pneuma on July 13, 2008, 05:42:38 PMBut as to writing styles, its like I said bro some people can relate better to one who does not over load them on scripture. You can object to that style of writing as is your right, but it simply is NOT your call, and you cannot force anyone to write after your style.
If you wish to observe this, it is fine, but do not insist the method of observation I have to be as is yours... :thumbdown: Otherwise you are simply doing what you accuse me of doing to her! :dontknow:
Quote from: pneuma on July 13, 2008, 05:42:38 PMI to like people to point out what scriptures they are referring to as it makes it easier to understand where their coming from, but I do not need them to.
That's nice... I'm glad for you... :laughing7:
That does not do it for me... for it is unhelpful to those observing, to abstain from Scripturally proving ones views... Not everyone is as "versed and knowledgeable as are
you", Scott... :rolleye:
Quote from: willieH(1) "Not going into" the posts shows what you have NOT SEEN in those posts Scott...
The point was not as much "littler sins" Scott... (although that designation is NOT Scriptural and IS contested by me), it was about THIS:
Mary Ellen stated (in those posts into which you have NOT LOOKED) that JESUS covers the "Littler sins" and WE are RESPONSIBLE for the BIGGER ONES...
Which is to say that JESUS' sacrifice TOOK AWAY the "littler sins" (stealing a piece of bubble gum) but not the BIGGER ones (grand theft auto) Sorry Scott, ...THIS statement is UNSCRIPTURAL, regardless of how you might or might not view, ..."littler sins"...
Quote from: pneuma on July 13, 2008, 05:42:38 PMI disagree brother for I do see that recorded in scripture.
1 John 5:14-17
14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: 15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him. 16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
And
Hebrews 10:26
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SINS.
You can disagree with that interpretation of those SCRIPTURES Willie, but your disagreement does not mean that my interpretation is not based on scripture.
As I see it these Scriptures you pose are proposals of FEAR, and Mary's Littler/bigger SIN philosphy is embedded in the same essence... You both are welcome to it... :dontknow:
You and I have not been discussing
YOU Scott... we were discussing the interaction between Mary and I... try to stay focused... :dontknow:
I am surprised that you cannot see the essence Scott... YOU are posing SCRIPTURE for your "interpretation" or "observation"... and are welcome to that interpretation, and at least it finds SCRIPTURAL validity ...as it RESTS upon the Scripture YOU NOTED...
Quote from: pneuma on July 13, 2008, 05:42:38 PMWillie again and again your disagreement with how one understands scripture does NOT make it UNSCRIPTURAL, which is what this is about. You said Mary's belief was not based on scripture, I gave you scripture that shows Mary's belief IS based on scripture.
If Mary does not indicate Scripture for her beliefs, it is not MY assignment to find them so that I might gain her perspective....
As far as NOT basing them ON SCRIPTURE, it was my continuing request that she PROVIDE the "Scriptures" upon which she based her beliefs... she didnt do it, and still, despite your interventions on her behalf, YOU did not do it either...
As I have stated to many... I could care less what you believe... also, ...it is your right to believe whatever you do... and finally... It is NOT on my agenda to convince YOU of ANYTHING...
Quote from: pneuma on July 13, 2008, 05:42:38 PMLet me put it this way bro, do you honestly think I would have agreed with Mary's answers to you if I did not see scriptural references in her answers?
It does not matter and never has mattered to me, ...that you and I "agree" about
anything bro... :laughing7: Its nice when folks agree, but part of the placement of DISAGREEMENT in our scenarios has to do with GOD's PURPOSE for us... I accept it... and suggest that you would doing yourself a favor, in gaining the insight that everyone is not going to agree with
you Scott...
Quote from: pneuma on July 13, 2008, 05:42:38 PMAs to how Jesus takes away the sin of the world Willie I understand that differently then you do. But I am not going to go into it as I am trying to stay away from debates as it more time then not seems to lead to a fight and hard feelings and I am just plain tired of it.
He TAKES sin AWAY... that is plain and simple... HE saves that which IS LOST, by doing so... believe whatever you shall... :dontknow: If your vision of His work is any more complicated than that, then I believe it to be TOO COMPLICATED... SIMPLE as that... :dontknow:
Quote from: willieHLet me address the above before moving on bro... with all due respect to you as my brother (and I DO respect both YOU and your knowledge of Scripture - you know that!)...
(1) I stand by what I said... this marks TWO EXAMPLES in which you note IMPLICATION, as opposed to QUOTING plainly that the Scripture verifies the implication... Your own definitions of "ACCEPT" and "CONFESS" differ with one another... Even in the HIGHLIGHTS you have done... CONFESS says "acknowledge openly and joyfully" and ACCEPT says "acknowledge that something is TRUE"... the word TRUE is absent in your defintion of CONFESS...
1. I can ACCEPT something WITHOUT CONFESSING that acceptance, nor by that ACCEPTANCE do I necessarily make an acknowledgement of TRUTH, ...for instance, I can "ACCEPT" a given candidate in an ELECTION, and vote for him, without necessarily acknowledging BY CONFESSION to others, that all he says or does is TRUE...
...AND
2. it is entirely possible to CONFESS something that one ...does NOT "ACCEPT"... I ACCEPT the citation that an officer gives me for speeding... but make NO CONFESSION of GUILT by that ACCEPTANCE...
The common belief of "accepting CHRIST" is the "born again" belief... meaning that because one uttered a few words at church (sinners prayer), that from that point on, ...its "all good"...and they can behave as do those who haven't CONFESSED or ACCEPTED... and still, ..."its all good"...
This is in part, what CHRIST was speaking of in Matt 7:21-23... these surely CONFESSED... for they called JESUS Lord... (1 Cor 12:3)
How MISLEADING is all this Scott? Many if not MOST Christians are Sunday believers, carrying with them and counting on their church attendance and eventual "CONFESSION"... as their "following of CHRIST"... believing their other 6 days of purposed and willful misbehavior are covered by this "fire insurance" the preacher sold them at the Sunday service!
(2) The definitions you give above for CONFESS and ACCEPT are NOT completely parallel... and ONE can live without the other present.
Quote from: pneuma on July 13, 2008, 05:42:38 PMAgain bro it comes down to the way you read things, but that does not mean it is not based on scripture just because you do not agree with it.
:laughing7: You did not address what I said... and besides, does it not come down to "the way YOU
read things" as well? Please...
Quote from: willieHThis is a STRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRETCH and you know it brother Scott... continue reading the passage bro, and you will arrive at Acts 2:47... which shows GOD ADDING these to His church, by His DOING, not via ...their "acceptance"...
The word "received" in this verse amounts to HEARING... not "acceptance"...
(Rom 10:17) FAITH cometh BY HEARING and HEARING, ...BY the WORD of GOD...
In other words HEARING which produces FAITH, is enabled TO the listener BY the WORD... the WORD opens the ears... and IN rushes FAITH...
We HEAR because GOD gives the EARS to HEAR His WORD (Rev 2:29 / 3:22) Not because WE decide to "accept it"...
"ACCEPTING" in ORTHODOXY is a decision MADE by the INDIVIDUAL and is PREACHED as such... I spent around 25 years in the Orthodox church and am well aware of their methods...
In Acts 2 ...it is GOD who ADDS to His church, ...the church or individuals of that church do NOT, ...ADD THEMSELVES... (Acts 2:47) ...which appears to be what you propose (adding themselves via their "receiving/acceptance") ...6 verses before...
Quote from: pneuma on July 13, 2008, 05:42:38 PMIts not a STRRRRRRRRRRRETCH Willie it just the difference between how we both view scripture. You say it does not mean this or that and I say it does, and you can believe it is a STRRRRRRRETCH as is your right, but that does not make me veiled as you put it because for all you know I have the right of it and you are the one being veiled.
I have never said that I was the one REVEALED... I am searching daily for that REVELATION... I also have not said that you are VEILED either, so you argue upon FALSE basis...
I quoted that in the continuing CONTEXT (Acts 2:47), that it was GOD ADDING to the church, the "church" was not ADDING itself by ITS "receiving" (acceptance)... :dontknow:
You are very welcome to willfully refuse to see that GOD is the one who ADDS to His church... believing instead, that human "acceptance" accomplishes this...
FAITH (believing via HEARING) is the vehicle that GRACE saves us by, ...and IS also PROVIDED by GOD, we do not "muster it up" of ourselves, by our "acceptance"... (Eph 2:8-9)
Believe what you will... :dontknow:
Quote from: pneuma on July 13, 2008, 05:42:38 PMThat's why I said even if Mary posted scripture it would not do any good because it would not matter what scripture she gave, you would just disagree with her interpretation of scripture, it's a no win situation bro.
Scott... you are quite hard headed aren't ya... I was asking Mary to quote basis for her beliefs... I was NOT requesting them that I might AGREE with them... YOU choose to look at this NEGATIVELY, I do NOT... I believe it IS a WIN-WIN situation, bro!
Discussion is... "I think this, what do you think"... "well I don't agree with that, here is what I think"... within DISCUSSION interaction which USES God's WORDS, ...GOD shall possibly UNVEIL to either or BOTH sides... However, if one side ABSTAINS... then the other, is left outside the benefit of what the "abstainer" might know and present...
You look at this (disagreement thing) as if it is in vain... I look at it as ALWAYS POSITIVE to discuss the WORD... For how can VANITY be found when the WORD of LOVE appears?
Many of the things I believe today (though they are yet in process of REVELATION by GOD of course), were in part assisted by those which I discussed (God using such as yourself, as a tool in REVELATION to me, and vice versa)... Those discussions might not always end in agreement... but later reflection (of something you or maybe Mary said) sometimes occurs as I continue to dig for God's TRUTH...
No ACTIVITY of the WORD of
YHVH shall be in vain... For GOD stated such: (Is 55:11)... If you and I are discussing the WORD and using it
IN the DISCUSSION... that WORD is gone out to both of us, regardless of our individual and present observations of it...
Quote from: willieH"Not everything is as it seems bro"... Pneuma
If someone wishes to POSE beliefs... I believe those beliefs must be substanciated by the WORDS of GOD which in the end is OUR foundational WITNESS, ...our words standing alone are opinion only, whose essence is weakly implied, ...not garnished WITH POWER, GLORIFYING the One whose WORDS should be GLORIFIED...
I certainly agree with this statement Scott... and may I make the same SUGGESTION to you my dear brother...
Quote from: pneuma on July 13, 2008, 05:42:38 PMAgain bro it comes down to what YOU BELIEVE must be done, but again bro that ain't your call. You can believe people have to post scripture in order to substantiate their belief or its just their opinion all you like, but that does NOT mean their opinion is not based on scripture, which is what you said of Mary.
Of course it is "my call" Scott... and it is not "your call" to say that UNSUBSTANCIATION must be accepted by me... :laughhand:
I am completely PROUD of the WORD of my Maker... and shall use it, and require it as I see fit in my experience... If you choose to abstain, you shall find yourself questioned by me... and it does not matter to me that you object to that questioning...
As far as noting OPINION without SCRIPTURAL support... that OPINION remains standing SOLELY upon the sand of OPINION without it... and that IS my call... :laughing7:
One cannot go into a courtroom, without SUPPORTING evidence to PROVE their case... those who enter into BIBLICAL discussions which willingly do not provide the EVIDENCE in the SCRIPTURE of their claims, are spitting into the wind as far as I am concerned... and that too, is MY CALL... :laughing7:
Quote from: pneuma on July 13, 2008, 05:42:38 PMDo you not believe the Spirit can show one about Christ without the use of scripture? If so why cannot Mary's words used without scripture be used of the Spirit to show forth Christ?
I do believe this to be so, for NOTHING is IMPOSSIBLE with GOD... however, a willful unwillingness to bear the WORD to me that that WORD is not worthy to be stood upon by the claimant...
Those who do NOT have the WORD, can be enlightened without it by GOD, but those who are chosen to BEAR it before the world, and do not do so... in my observation are ashamed of it...
Quote from: willieHBlessed are the peacemakers Scott... God bless you for you words to me...
Quote from: pneuma on July 13, 2008, 05:42:38 PMThis made me laugh bro, kind of funny to me to think others might see me as a peacemaker after all the battles I have been in over scripture on this board.
Made you
LAUGH? :omg:
UNBELIEVEABLE...
Enough with the "bro" pretentions Pneuma...
You are so about yourself, ...that you cannot even graciously recieve a kind, humble and thankful word from me??? ... :thumbdown:
Quote from: pneuma on July 13, 2008, 05:42:38 PMSo when its all said and done Willie you can believe that Mary is veiled but you cannot state that what she believes is not based on scripture just because she did not use any.
God bless bro.
God bless WHO Pneuma? Keep your new age blessing to yourself...
If you wish that GOD bless ME, ...then say so...
As far as saying Mary is VEILED, I can and WILL say so...
I will also say that YOU are VEILED as well Scott!
And in HUMILITY, of which you are devoid, ...so too am I VEILED...
Wherever GOD has not REVEALED Himself to us, we are VEILED... for we
ALL only KNOW only IN PART...
Her stand remains UNSUPPORTED, despite your efforts here to deflect that fact! :heat: :sweat: :faint:
PeaCe...
...willieH :mwink:
willieH: Hello Scott... :sigh:
you quoted the following without elaborating...
Quote from: pneuma on July 13, 2008, 05:42:38 PMI disagree brother for I do see that recorded in scripture.
1 John 5:14-17
14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: 15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him. 16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
Do you know what the SIN
unto DEATH is Scott?
What
SIN would John be recommending we
NOT pray for?
It is a SIN which GOD shall not find forgiveness
for until RESURRECTION of Judgement, when ALL sin is dealt with...
Annanias and Sapphira LIED to the Holy Spirit... (Acts 5:1-10) and UNTO DEATH they both went...
To BLASPHEME the Holy Spirit is the SIN which should NOT be prayed for... Because
JESUS stated that this particular SIN would NOT be forgiven in the Age in which He spoke,
NOR... in the AGE to come...
To pray for one committing such a SIN would be blatantly disobedient to the WORDS of
CHRIST... which in essence such a prayer would be blatant DISBELIEF of His WORDS...
Asking
YHVH, that the blasphemer be forgiven... when
CHRIST plainly said this WOULD NOT HAPPEN...
Does this mean that the BLASPHEMY of the Holy Spirit is the "LARGEST SIN"? ...no, it does not... If it was so, the WORD would say so, but it does NOT...
It is a SIN for which forgiveness shall be witheld unto the
LAST...
For it is the one SIN which man can commit, ...that REVELATION of Who and What our GOD actually IS... would NEVER have been even considered by those with that REVELATION... and which those repenting of it, shall MOST GLORIFY God... as will ALL OTHERS, as they DO...
(Rev 21:4) and GOD shall WIPE AWAY ...all TEARS from
their eyes; and there shall be NO MORE SORROW, nor CRYING, neither shall there be any more PAIN, for the former things ARE PASSED AWAY!
Ever wonder who these (THEIR) are Scott?
GOD is saving the
BEST for last... because ALL of HEAVEN shall PRAISE
YHVH, as He forgives even those who DISSED Him, and considered Him worthless... LOVINGLY picking up each those despondent ones and PERSONALLY DRYING the tears from their eyes... to the cheer and praise of EVERY living being...
Wait & see Scott, if what I say is not so...
What do you think Pneuma? What's your take?
PeaCe...
...willieH :mwink:
willieH: Hi Scott... :hithere:
Your teaching below, is
FEAR Scott... and it is not founded in PEACE which in FACT, the GOSPEL
IS (Eph 6:15 / Rom 10:15)...
Nor does it represent the GOD of PEACE... (Heb 13:20 / Rom 15:33)...
Rather is steeped in VENGENCE that
CHRIST plainly taught was no longer the WAY... (Matt 5:44 / Luke 6:28)
and is seen denying,
Jude 24 now unto Him that IS ABLE to
KEEP YOU from FALLING, and to present you FAULTLESS before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy...
Why can He not keep
THESE in Heb 10:26 from falling Scott?
Does this verse or the CONTEXT, ...SAY that any FELL?
Or is it just a STRONG enforcment, which was given to the early PIONEERS of the GOSPEL of PEACE... which actually KNEW the (untainted)
TRUTH, before it became diluted with the garbage of the ages...
Quote from: pneuma on July 13, 2008, 05:42:38 PM
Hebrews 10:26
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SINS
What is the Knowledge of the
TRUTH Scott? Do you think that you have it? :Chinscratch:
The "truth" is, that the "KNOWLEDGE of the
TRUTH" is not
known by ANYONE in totality, ...so that PORTION of
TRUTH, of which we have no KNOWLEDGE of is easily COMPRIMISED by ALL of us miserably DUMB, and sinfully WEAK, ...sheep...
Shall GOD remove His "sacrifice" for SIN, from you, if you wilfully sin, while only having a PART of the knowledge of the TRUTH? :mshock: Treading upon that which you do not even KNOW, and then holding you responsible for those mis-steps?
Give me a break! If your view of Heb 10:26 is actually so... we are ALL in DEEP trouble... and GOD is NOT all that forgiving as He expects us to be... :rolleye:
Do you act IN FAITH at
ALL TIMES Scott? (remember, whatsoever is not
OF FAITH
is SIN - Rom 14:23)
If you are so brazen and arrogant as to make this claim, then what of 1 John 1:8, "brother"? ...
(1 John 1:8) If we SAY we have NO SIN we DECIEVE ourselves and the TRUTH is not IN US...
And if we look upon Heb 10:26 as applicable to ALL,
What of Eph 5:26, which is speaking of the "Sanctified"? ...
(Eph 5:26) That He might SANCTIFY and cleanse it with the washing of the water by the WORD, that He might present it
[the "sanctified" church] to Himself, a glorious church, not having SPOT or WRINKLE, or ANY such thing, but that it should be Holy and without BLEMISH.
The original Twelve Apostles...
KNEW the
TRUTH FIRSTHAND, Scott... we, sorrowfully, have no such access to it as did they...
If we did, MIRACLES of MAGICAL and HOLY proportions would be flowing from the followers of GOD, but instead, we argue, fight, and often times show more HATE than LOVE to one another...
Since their "day"... we NOW have the tainted
scrambled eggs of mistranslations, religious ambiguities, and purposed deceptions of Centuries, ...to search through... in hopes of even gaining even a tidbit of the TRUTH which was referred to and KNOWN, in Heb 10:26!
The Apostles I believe, had the KNOWLEDGE of the
TRUTH... and those FEW HEBREWS which actually had access to the KNOWLEDGE of the
TRUTH, are ...LONG GONE, ...and now we have BENNY HINN, JOEL OSTEEN and JERRY FALWELL and many, many others in their place! :rolleye:
Which mainly preach in order to lavish in the lap of MONETARY gain always begging for more money, that they might wallow in its pleasure... Instead of seeking the majesty of HUMILITY before the throne of HOLINESS and GRACE... by seeing to the needs of the Children instead of themselves...
You attempt to make "LEVELS of SIN" where there are none... and you here apply Scripture to those to which it was not written (gentiles)...
The GOSPEL is
GOOD NEWS ->>> PERIOD! Scott...
Why not present the LOVE of GOD, not the FEAR of Him? ...and I (do not require, but only) suggest you consider casting away the "levels of sin" (which Mary equates to "Littler & Bigger")... knowing that
JESUS died for ALL SIN, not just the "littler" ones...
Whose MIGHTY WORK, brings ALL home FOREVER, ...to the kind and LOVING Father of us ALL...
:bowing:
YHVH God... :LoveH1:
PeaCe...
...willieH :mwink: