An Honest Question For ATS Preachers

reply to post by autowrench


I don't speak for the other born again Christians here, but personally I don't post on these forums to win converts, rather my involvement on the religious forums is to expose the falsehoods and deceptions being spread. When someone accepts Christ as there saviour and is saved from eternal damnation it is the work of the Holy Spirit. As a Christian all I can do is plant seeds.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by autowrench

 

But wait! What if he "embodied" God? Play along, now. What if? He would have been Jesus physically, but his mind would have shared spaced with that of God. Basically, God possessed him. And God's mind was accompanied by the SPIRIT of holiness.

Jesus = body

God = mind

Holy Ghost = spirit

Do the wiccans not believe in body, mind, and soul? I know for a fact they have the maiden, the wife/mother/whatever, and the crone. They do believe in threes. Would this not make sense?

Nicodemus and Jesus - Reborn
go to 2:24 in the vid - segment runs to 5:35

Note catefully the subtle nuances (intentionally directed) in this exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus surrounding the issue of rebirth

In other words, Jesus need not have been born in the flesh as God in the flesh although the spirit is surely present at every conception no metter the circumstance. Point being that Jesus' own identification with God as the son of God occured from his own re-birth, from above. "So it is for ALL who are born of the spirit."

I think his original birth was both written in the stars (prophecied) and rather scandalous, both. Of course God works in very mysterious ways so anything's possible but a Jesus born half man, half-God takes the value and the meaning and importance OUT of it, out of his great work, and by alleviating him of his humanity, makes him inaccessible to us, imho, however painful and difficult the alternative may be to consider.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


You've completely misunderstood me once again. I was using my explanation as an interpretation that falls in line with what my own research has shown me.

Once again, you take every fact and bit of evidence and twist it to suit your own ideas. Something Sherlock Holmes despised, and dear old Sherlock is rather a role model of mine.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I was just adding another piece of the puzzle for consideration, and I too am a fan of the great detective!

If only you knew the lengths to which I've gone in pursuit of solving the great mystery surrounding this man Jesus you wouldn't be so hard on me.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I'm not sure you tried hard enough, to be honest. So was he a mortal teacher, after all? I always wondered where his gospel went...

reply to post by AfterInfinity

No, he was much much more than that, and if you want to see and explore some interesting detective work, check out these threads I've put forward.

Zoom+Scroll Leonardo da Vinci's Blasphemous Joke "The Last Supper" in High Res

The Woman @ The Well: How the Historical Jesus Performed a "Miracle" + Reflections

Follow them and all the leads/clues generated, through to their inexorable conclusions and you might just be astonished by the time you're half way through.

Down the Christian rabbit hole we go..

reply to post by adjensen

Geez, you're pretty touchy. You made a remark that implied that you believe non-Christians are Christians, simply because they profess to following some of what Christ had to say. By that logic, Muslims are Christians, as are Buddhists and anyone else who follows the Golden Rule.

"Christians", in my book, are people who follow what he is recorded as teaching.
Yes, the Golden Rule is ALL THERE IS!!

wow. I'm outta here. Your closed minds can carry on being closed, I won't bother you any more tonight.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen

 

Geez, you're pretty touchy. You made a remark that implied that you believe non-Christians are Christians, simply because they profess to following some of what Christ had to say. By that logic, Muslims are Christians, as are Buddhists and anyone else who follows the Golden Rule.

"Christians", in my book, are people who follow what he is recorded as teaching.
Yes, the Golden Rule is ALL THERE IS!!

If a) you were the one in charge of definitions and b) the Golden Rule was all he was "recorded as teaching", you might have a point, but neither a nor b are true, so I guess not.

It is somewhat akin to my declaring that "dog" shall now be defined as "that which has four legs", and we then have dogs that bark, meow and moo.

Dear jmdewey60,

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by AQuestion

 

Do you not know the words of Paul, he said he was the greatest sinner of all. Do you believe he lied or would you not have allowed him in your church because he was a sinner?

You are probably thinking of 1 Timothy 1:15, where literally it says "the first", which people only interpret to mean, worst. It could just as easily mean that he was the first to be saved. I think people take it to mean something being influenced by the fictional version in Acts of Paul being at the stoning of Stephan.
I seriously don't think it was meant to be understood to imply that Paul was continuously sinning. If that is what you think, then I would have to say that you have a very distorted view of Christianity where people are sinning in the nature of the lost but are somehow magically saved anyway without benefit of any sort of conversion.

. . . using cuss words is not sin . . .

Are you in the habit of pronouncing what was formerly considered sin to now be OK?

. . . and you drive people away from the hope they are to have.

Which is what hope, exactly? That they can go to heaven while in an unconverted sinful state? That would be a false hope that would be better cast aside, I think. Maybe you are concerned with numbers rather than actual results, which will be determined on the Day of Judgment, or is that something else you have cast to the wayside?

edit on 19-7-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Sin is anything that is short of perfection and Paul knew he was not perfect because none of us are or we would not need salvation. There is NONE good but God. We are saved by accepting God's forgiveness and not by becoming sinless. Cussing is not a sin and was never claimed to be one. Swearing (this refers to oaths sworn on things or on God's name) and Cursing (to place spells on others) is a sin.

As for the hope, the hope is that we mere sinners will be forgiven, not that we will become perfect on this earth. Apparently you believe you have reached a place where you are now sinless. Good luck with that.

reply to post by AQuestion

Sin is anything that is short of perfection . . .

According to what definition? Sin as defined by the New Testament is committing acts that would place you out of the boundary of the saved.

. . . and Paul knew he was not perfect because none of us are or we would not need salvation.

Paul said he was in all ways perfect according to the law.

There is NONE good but God.

This is probably a misuse of Mark 10:18,19 where Jesus was not saying he was bad, but was objecting to the use of a title which should be reserved for God.

We are saved by accepting God's forgiveness and not by becoming sinless.

When we stop sinning, God is good enough to forgive us our past sins.

Cussing is not a sin and was never claimed to be one. Swearing (this refers to oaths sworn on things or on God's name) and Cursing (to place spells on others) is a sin.

And what is the purpose exactly of this exercise? I would refrain from engaging in such rationalization of vain pursuits. I think you have lost touch with what it means to be good and are nore concerned with how to argue your way into heaven.

As for the hope, the hope is that we mere sinners will be forgiven, not that we will become perfect on this earth. Apparently you believe you have reached a place where you are now sinless. Good luck with that.

The hope of the New Testament is a nation of believers who through the power of God can become righteous. To work against that through excuse making is fighting against God.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

. . . my involvement on the religious forums is to expose the falsehoods and deceptions being spread.

If someone heeds your warning, then you just saved them from that deception.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Dear jmdewey60,

Are you a Catholic that believes salvation is through your good works? I guess Jesus wasted his time dying on the cross if we can do it on our own and apparently you believe you have. If he only died for some of the sin in our lives, I would like to know which sins he died for. Are we forgiven up to a certain age? I thought there was only one unforgivable sin, perhaps you know of more. Once saved I thought we were to live a changed life rather than a perfect life. That change is in our hearts and should lead us to improvement rather than perfection here on earth. You seem to think that we are capable of fulfilling the law on our own, every aspect of it, every moment. The Israelites couldn't, Moses couldn't and was stopped from going into Israel because of it and then died. Yet, Moses did not go to hell and in fact met with Jesus in a little garden that you may know about. If not, try reading Matthew 17:3.

reply to post by jmdewey60

According to what definition? Sin as defined by the New Testament is committing acts that would place you out of the boundary of the saved.

Don't trust the NT as a true history, or an authority on anything.
Let's take a look at real History and Archaeology:

Sîn: Moon god in 2100 BC

"Sin.—The moon-god occupied the chief place in the astral triad. Its other two members, Shamash the sun and Ishtar the planet Venus, were his children. Thus it was, in effect, from the night that light had emerged....In his physical aspect Sin—who was venerated at Ur under the name of Nannar—was an old man with along beard the color of lapis-lazuli. He normally wore a turban. Every evening he got into his barque—which to mortals appeared in the form of a brilliant crescent moon—and navigated the vast spaces of the nocturnal sky. Some people, however, believed that the luminous crescent was Sin's weapon. But one day the crescent gave way to a disk which stood out in the sky like a gleaming crown. There could be no doubt that this was the god's own crown; and then Sin was called "Lord of the Diadem". These successive and regular transformations lent Sin a certain mystery. For this reason he was considered to be 'He whose deep heart no god can penetrate'... Sin was also full of wisdom. At the end of every month the gods came to consult them and he made decisions for them...His wife was Ningal, 'the great Lady'. He was the father not only of Shamash and Ishtar but also of a son Nusku, the god fire." (Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, 1960, p 54-56)

Source

Sin-Iddinam ruled the ancient Near East city-state of Larsa from 1785 BC to 1778 BC.

Sin-Eribam ruled the ancient Near East Amorite city-state of Larsa for only two years, from ca. 1778 BC to 1776 BC.

Sin-Iqisham ruled the ancient Near East city-state of Larsa from 1776 BC to 1771 BC. He was the son of Sin-Eribam and a contemporary of Zambiya of Isin.

All Ancient Kings of Babylon, and we all know how the Abrahamic hated Babylon. The Bible reveals much about the Babylonians all the way back from the time of Hammurapi (2000 BC) to the fall of Babylon (about 500 BC). Throughout the Old Testament there are references to the Babylonians, their people, culture, religion, military power. So it is clear everyone concerned knew who Sin was, and what the true meaning of the word was. The was Sin is used in the Bible was, I believe, taken directly from Gods hate of the God and King Sin.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Are you a Catholic that believes salvation is through your good works?

jmdewey60 is most assuredly not a Catholic (sorry if I'm speaking for you, sir ) but you have an invalid statement there that needs correcting.

A Catholic does not believe that salvation is "through your good works". Rather, they believe that salvation is through faith, "but not faith alone." Your works don't save you, but your works matter.

Let's put it this way -- consider "Joe", who believes in Jesus Christ, says he's the son of God, third person in the trinity, etc, etc, etc. In other words, Joe is everything that a Protestant says a person needs to be to be saved. Heck, let's even throw in a conversion experience to satisfy the Reformed in the crowd.

Unfortunately, Joe is also a pedophile and frequently molests young children.

If Joe's works, as in his behaviour, don't matter, when Joe dies, is he saved?

I know what my response to that might be, but I'm interested in yours. It's not quite so cut and dry as you make it out to be.

reply to post by adjensen


Dear adjensen,

jmdewey60 is most assuredly not a Catholic (sorry if I'm speaking for you, sir ) but you have an invalid statement there that needs correcting.

I most humbly apologize and I did know better. I grew up Catholic. Your explanation is the one I was taught. I do believe jmdewey60 considers himself to be a Protestant and meant the statement to show that he was teaching non-Protestant dogma. I think we can agree that this particular issue separates most Catholics from most Protestants. I did not mean to criticize Catholics, that would be inappropriate in this thread. I would and do frequently debate theology with a Catholic relative and would be happy to do so with you on another thread someday; but, I was not attempting to take pot shots at your religion. That means I don't agree with the dogma; but, I do consider Catholics to be Christians and I will probably be attacked for that statement (and I don't mean by you). Peace.

reply to post by AQuestion

If he only died for some of the sin in our lives, I would like to know which sins he died for.

It seems to me that you missed the point of the New Testament and have focused in on a fantasy version of your own creation where the universe revolves around you.
The NT does not support the concept of a trade of sins for blood. Paul taught that as through one man, sin entered into the world, through one man, Jesus, righteousness entered. Salvation on a personal level comes after a life turned around to follow the promptings of the spirit that enters a person through Jesus from God to do acts of righteousness.
A world full of sinners who will get a personal salvation after they die leaves a wretched world and not the sort of world Jesus died to bring about.

reply to post by AQuestion

I do believe jmdewey60 considers himself to be a Protestant and meant the statement to show that he was teaching non-Protestant dogma.

My form of Protestantism believes in not following dogma and doctrines of men, and to stick with the teachings of the Bible.
You seem to be following a church teaching that bears several fatal flaws that the Reformers came up with centuries ago and have been perpetuated maybe because it makes for feel-good.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You didn't give your answer about Moses or the other things I asked. Yet, clearly those responses showed up in your "Replies" section before my response to this person.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Are you a Catholic that believes salvation is through your good works?

jmdewey60 is most assuredly not a Catholic (sorry if I'm speaking for you, sir

) but you have an invalid statement there that needs correcting.

A Catholic does not believe that salvation is "through your good works". Rather, they believe that salvation is through faith, "but not faith alone." Your works don't save you, but your works matter.

Let's put it this way -- consider "Joe", who believes in Jesus Christ, says he's the son of God, third person in the trinity, etc, etc, etc. In other words, Joe is everything that a Protestant says a person needs to be to be saved. Heck, let's even throw in a conversion experience to satisfy the Reformed in the crowd.

Unfortunately, Joe is also a pedophile and frequently molests young children.

If Joe's works, as in his behaviour, don't matter, when Joe dies, is he saved?

I know what my response to that might be, but I'm interested in yours. It's not quite so cut and dry as you make it out to be.

I believe James adequately addressed that type of faith as dead. A faith that doesn't produce fruit isn't a faith bestowed by grace from God. But the polar opposite is likewise just as false. Sinless perfection is not a Biblical doctrine. Peter was told to accept the Gentiles and not treat unclean those whom God had called clean then had to be rebuked to his face by Paul for not eating with the Gentiles when the Jews came up from Jerusalem.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Are you a Catholic that believes salvation is through your good works?

jmdewey60 is most assuredly not a Catholic (sorry if I'm speaking for you, sir

) but you have an invalid statement there that needs correcting.

A Catholic does not believe that salvation is "through your good works". Rather, they believe that salvation is through faith, "but not faith alone." Your works don't save you, but your works matter.

Let's put it this way -- consider "Joe", who believes in Jesus Christ, says he's the son of God, third person in the trinity, etc, etc, etc. In other words, Joe is everything that a Protestant says a person needs to be to be saved. Heck, let's even throw in a conversion experience to satisfy the Reformed in the crowd.

Unfortunately, Joe is also a pedophile and frequently molests young children.

If Joe's works, as in his behaviour, don't matter, when Joe dies, is he saved?

I know what my response to that might be, but I'm interested in yours. It's not quite so cut and dry as you make it out to be.

I believe James adequately addressed that type of faith as dead. A faith that doesn't produce fruit isn't a faith bestowed by grace from God. But the polar opposite is likewise just as false. Sinless perfection is not a Biblical doctrine. Peter was told to accept the Gentiles and not treat unclean those whom God had called clean then had to be rebuked to his face by Paul for not eating with the Gentiles when the Jews came up from Jerusalem.

lol, props to NOTurTYPICAL for correctly ascertaining my response to myself