Just Answer One Question. "Why"?

reply to post by colbe

Originally posted by Colbe
Nah, this is the Protestant take because they want to defend their new meaning for "born again" and can't
come up with "water" professing now "born again" means the altar call.

Well, I’m not a protestant…but it sounds to me like they have it right.

Originally posted by Colbe
Christ uses outward symbols to impart His grace, WATER is the outward sign in the Sacrament of Baptism.

The physical water baptism comes from the Esene traditions, and symbolisms purification…but in Christian terms, it now has a similar but slightly different meaning.

That’s just the thing though, physical water baptism is just the outward sign for those who have already become “born again” believers in Yeshua.

Originally posted by Colbe
Please read John 3:22, after Jesus explains "born again" means water baptism to Nicodemus.

Show me the verse where Jesus states that physical water baptism, means to be “born again”…

“Born again” means to be born from above, through the receiving of the Holy Spirit, not physical water baptism.

Originally posted by Colbe
All the first Christians agree, "born again" is Water Baptism. Protestantism came along centuries later
with their new meaning.

Yes and that’s why they wrongly invented christening, without realizing that it is only when one comes a believer in Yeshua, does one receive the “Holy Spirit” and become born again.

The Spirit of God is like water, and actually feels like water when you receive it, this is why physical water baptism became the outward sign for those who have already become “born again”

Use a concordance on the words “born again” and you will discover there real/true meaning, or you can check out my thread Seek ye first, the kingdom of Heaven


No hard feelings either…


Peace be with you…


- JC

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Roamans 5

We can now become justified through faith; we can find peace with God through the Spirit of Love, Christ Jesus. We can be granted access to God's unconditional love by faith in the Spirit of Love.

Those who have found God's unconditional love boast in the hope and glory of love/God. Not only do we find glory in our own sufferings, knowing that suffering produces perseverance, and perseverance produces character, which produces hope. We are not ashamed in our hope but rather God's love has been poured "into" our hearts, through "internal" gift of the "Spirit of Love", Christ Jesus.

While we were still powerless to overcome sin, Christ died to save us. Seldom would anyone die for a righteous person but for a good person someone might possibly be willing to die. While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Since our faith is justified by Christ's blood, the sacrifice of his life for ours, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath when led by the Spirit of Love!

If God choose to reconcile us to him through the death of his son, how much more, now that we are reconciled to "the spirit of love", "enlightened", how much more will we be saved through the Spirit of Love, within!

Not only is this true but we also boasted in God through our Lord, The Spirit of Love within, Christ Jesus, whom we have now received reconciliation "enlightened".

Therefore, just as negative emotions entered the world through one man, and death through acting on the negative emotions, death came to all people, because all acted against love.

To be sure, negative emotions were in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

God's gift to us through the life, death and resurrection of his son Christ Jesus, is unconditional love. The gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more will men be filled with the spirit of love "within" knowing that God sacrificed his son Christ Jesus for you. God allowed his son to taste death even though he was not deserving of death so through his resurrection all men may believe that God loves everyone unconditionally.

The gift of God cannot be compared with the result of "one" sin: Since the judgment that came to the world came through "one" sin and brought condemnation, the gift of unconditional love brings justification for the condemnation that came due to our "free will" disobedience to love.

If death reigned through the "one" sin how much more will those who are "enlightened" reign in righteousness in life. Those who have received the Spirit of Love, Christ Jesus, "within".

Consequently, just as "one" trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also "one" righteous act resulted in justification and life for "ALL" people.

For just as through the disobedience of the one man negative emotions came to many, so also through the obedience of Christ Jesus many will overcome negative emotions.

The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, unconditional love increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also unconditional love might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through The Spirit of Love, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Emotions themselves are what bring the knowledge of good and evil. Adam brought negative emotions, maybe all emotions, which lead to spiritual growth/death into the world. Christ taught the path to overcome the negative emotions was to turn away from them, so that one could pursue love.

Sin came through Adam, Righteousness comes through Christ. Those who have not yet overcome their negative emotions are condemned by the negative emotions/demons that live with them.

You have to choose the "Spirit of Love" to become one with the "Spirit of Love", "Enlightened".


Paul was "Highly enlightened", very "Gnostic", and his writings are very "Esoteric". If you read Paul at face value you will get lost, if you look for the Gnostic viewpoint you will see how truly gifted Paul was at speaking in tongues.

You know the truth now find it in Paul because he is the founder of the "Gnostic" church movement, not the anti-Christ.

reply to post by sacgamer25


So basically you believe in original sin... if we are condemned because of what Adam and Eve did, then you believe in original sin, no ifs ands or buts about it.

Cognitive dissonance. Sorry to keep bringing that term up, but I am positive that you are suffering from it. You say that the church made up original sin and that the concept is evil, yet you explain the same thing as one of your beliefs, yet do not make the connection of it being original sin. That's a classic case of cognitive dissonance, sorry to tell you.

Also, you changing words within the passage proves that your are creating your own context.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I said they brought emotions into the world. You choose to act on them, you do not have to sin, because of the "One" sin of Adam.

Original sin is the concept that we are fallen. What the bible says is emotions were brought into the world by Adam's sin. Listen to what God tells Cain.

Genesis4 6-8 6 Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you,

But you must rule over it.”

8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

You see God is telling Cain "Cain your feeling a lot of anger right now, sin is crouching at the door and it desires to have you. You must overcome anger so you can eliminate sin from your life. If the bible teaches "the fallen man and original sin", then God is lying to Cain here, it is impossible for him to rule over it. Since God is not a liar, there can be no original sin as described by the state of fallen man.

If you could overcome your personal bias against my religion I believe you would be able to understand what I am saying, but still you do not.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I am not creating context, I am taking what is written in esoteric language and translating it for you, so you can understand the hidden meaning. You don't give the Holy Spirit credit for being able to write in esoteric language whose code was hidden to those who did not believe in "Enlightenment"?

We have received an interpretation from the church that does not "believe in nor teach enlightenment" Jesus himself was obviously "enlightened" and you still want to accept their interpretation over mine.

I am only asking you to use logic. Even if you reject my testimony surely you can at least see that those who do not believe in "enlightenment", surely cannot understand a book written by the "enlightened".

The only problem you have with what I am saying is due to your misunderstanding of "MY" religion, which I have been trying to explain to you.

reply to post by sacgamer25


Wouldn't Adam bringing negative emotions into the world (a.k.a. what he did affects everyone thereafter) be the same as original sin though? You are labeling "original sin" as "negative emotions" and disconnecting the two as if they are two separate, unrelated things.

That is a process called "dissonance reduction".

According to Festinger, people engage in a process he termed "dissonance reduction", which can be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors.

You are changing one of the dissonance factors by changing its name. Negative emotions and original sin are the same thing, you are just giving it a different name.

reply to post by sacgamer25


All you are doing is replacing the word "sin" with "negative emotion".

If "negative emotion", a.k.a. "sin", came into the world through Adam, then how is that any different from sin coming into the world through Adam? That is original sin, you calling it negative emotion does not change the fact that it is still the same thing as original sin.

You believe in original sin, you just call it negative emotion. Cognitive dissonance and dissonance reduction.

Either way, Paul called it sin and said that it was brought into the world to affect everyone after Adam. He taught original sin, you changing it does not mean Paul changing it. He called it sin, meaning he taught "original sin", not "original negative emotion".

reply to post by sacgamer25


So now you have a religion? I thought you said everything apart from love is religion? Does that mean you are apart from love since you have a religion?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Everyone has a personal belief that comes from within. Even those whose belief is wrong.

You continue to be so consumed by the word "religion", it is just a word.

You should be proud of your religion, if your religion has lead you to the path of "enlightenment". When you share the things that you believe to be true, you are sharing your religion.

Either you think your truth is the absolute truth, and no one can know what you know without perfectly agreeing with you. Or you simply don't understand what I am saying because you are so consumed by the word "religion"
I cannot help you to get over your fear of the word "religion", "religion" is beautiful when you are in control of it.

Love is the only thing emotion you should express, religion should only add to the experience.

reply to post by sacgamer25


So why did you say that everything besides love is religion? You implied that religion reduces love, now you are saying it reinforces it.

Care to address my other posts? Not attacking you, just trying to help you see your errors.

You labeling original sin as negative emotion does not erase the fact that the two concepts are the exact same.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

All you are doing is replacing the word "sin" with "negative emotion".

If "negative emotion", a.k.a. "sin", came into the world through Adam, then how is that any different from sin coming into the world through Adam? That is original sin, you calling it negative emotion does not change the fact that it is still the same thing as original sin.

You believe in original sin, you just call it negative emotion. Cognitive dissonance and dissonance reduction.

Either way, Paul called it sin and said that it was brought into the world to affect everyone after Adam. He taught original sin, you changing it does not mean Paul changing it. He called it sin, meaning he taught "original sin", not "original negative emotion".

edit on 12-6-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

So you are saying you have never been affected by negative emotions. You have never used emotions that were against love? Sin = Negative emotions that are used against love. Because a negative emotion comes to you, you do not have to act on it, sin. No one ever had to sin, but the truth is we all have.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

So why did you say that everything besides love is religion? You implied that religion reduces love, now you are saying it reinforces it.

Care to address my other posts? Not attacking you, just trying to help you see your errors.

I never suggested religion reduces love. I said those who use religion to separate us reduce love. My religion does not separate me from you, unless you choose to be separate. I am not separating myself from you so my religion is to love. We don't need to agree with every aspect to know for certain that the one we are speaking to knows love. But we should know how to listen to what they are saying so their religion can indeed be beautiful.

reply to post by sacgamer25


Being sad is a negative emotion, does that mean it is a sin to be sad? Am I sinning when I mourn the death of a family member or pet?

Sin is not the same thing as negative emotion, you are using dissonance reduction to somehow change the meaning within your own head, even though in reality you aren't really changing anything at all.

As I keep saying, you agree with the church's concept of original sin because you believe Adam brought sin, or to you "negative emotion", into the world. Why do you believe that original sin is bad when you agree with it?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


You don't understand what I am saying, so I can't continue this debate. I have only been changing the words to help you understand. Each time I say it, it means the same thing even when the words have changed. I have not said anything wrong you simply can't understand.

I imagine that you believe yourself to be more "enlightened" than you are.

The "enlightened" do not try to prove they are "enlightened" we just are "enlightened". You cannot take away my "enlightenment", by arguing against it. This is why "enlightened" people don't argue.

"enlightened" individuals accept that all thing are possible and if one's religion has lead to "enlightenment", then by the very definition of the word my religion must be "enlightening".

To believe in Christ the way I do is "enlightening" but you are still arguing? Who is "enlightened", myself for accepting your "enlightenment" or you who has rejected mine?

reply to post by sacgamer25


Not sure I ever said you weren't enlightened, all I've said is that you believe two opposite things at once. You believe that original sin has to do with the antichrist, yet you still accept the concept as fact.

If what Adam did effects everyone after him that is the same thing as original sin. That's all I'm saying. You calling it negative emotion doesn't change the principal of the concept one bit.

There are people who can be enlightened and evil at the same time. They know the truth, but they decide to act against it for themselves. Paul is one of those people.

He claimed to teach about Jesus and explain what he meant, yet he only quotes him ONE time, and that ONE time had to do with the Eucharist, a Satanic ritual.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25

3NL1GHT3N3D1
Not sure I ever said you weren't enlightened, all I've said is that you believe two opposite things at once. You believe that original sin has to do with the antichrist, yet you still accept the concept as fact.
If what Adam did effects everyone after him that is the same thing as original sin. That's all I'm saying. You calling it negative emotion doesn't change the principal of the concept one bit.
There are people who can be enlightened and evil at the same time. They know the truth, but they decide to act against it for themselves. Paul is one of those people. He claimed to teach about Jesus and explain what he meant, yet he only quotes him ONE time, and that ONE time had to do with the Eucharist, a Satanic ritual.

Yes the YOU-ARE-CHRIST. Consuming your God figures flesh and blood is nothing less than Satanic (even if meant in brevity its still cannibalism). Original Sin the Human will never oversome apparently, so WHO is enslaving us to destiny we obviously will never overcome. SADISTIC Masochism against the human at its best. The Enlightenned can be evil because they choose not to share information. Paul was in it for himself, Jesus would not have bowed to this man had he existed in his time frame, probably would have drown him in mock babtism and told him he will live forever in someone elses Kingdom (of his own making) Greetings await by the Gorgon Sisters, Lady Macbeth, Madame Bovery, Lilith, the Sirens, Delilah and Salome.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I think I get the problem, you refuse to believe in the blood sacrafice of Christ and the Resurection as a necessary compent for salvation. Am I assuming? You don't believe a human sacrafice is necessary? Yes/no? I need to understand at what point I am loosing you?

reply to post by sacgamer25


No, human sacrifice is not needed. The concept of sacrifice is very Satanic in itself, and I think Satan (man) would LOVE to get people believing it is necessary. Since the god of this world is Satan (according to the bible), that would mean he has tricked people into believing that lie, hence Christianity.

The resurrection, as described in the bible, is not needed either. I think they put that part in there to hide the true meaning of resurrection, which is reincarnation. Jesus didn't need to resurrect in the same body in order to prove his point, his words had enough authority to prove it.

As I said before, you tell me to drop everything religion has taught me, yet you refuse to do the same. Human sacrifice to achieve salvation is a religious teaching, there is absolutely nothing natural about that teaching, it is man made religious dogma.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25

 

No, human sacrifice is not needed. The concept of sacrifice is very Satanic in itself, and I think Satan (man) would LOVE to get people believing it is necessary. Since the god of this world is Satan (according to the bible), that would mean he has tricked people into believing that lie, hence Christianity.

The resurrection, as described in the bible, is not needed either. I think they put that part in there to hide the true meaning of resurrection, which is reincarnation. Jesus didn't need to resurrect in the same body in order to prove his point, his words had enough authority to prove it.

Thank you, now I understand. I am not here for you, I am here for Christians who are lost. You are right you don't need a human sacrifice. Trust me on this one, they do, but it is nothing like you could imagine.

Not because you are not "enlightened", simply because you cannot "see" the need for something that you yourself have no need for.

Your religion is beautiful, probably better than theirs because your religion is without guilt, for them they will carry their guilt for what they believed and taught others to believe.

reply to post by sacgamer25


Their "need" is a false sense of need imposed by others though, and that false need blinds them to the truth. In reality, they do not need sacrifice at all, they just think/believe they do.