PDA

View Full Version : The 'Christian' doctrine of Original Sin refuted



Charisma
04-03-2013, 09:45 AM
Although the following contains quite a few scriptures, I think it belongs in this forum rather than 'Biblical Studies' or 'Hermeneutics and Theology'.

This is not a dissonance-free experience, but I think it exposes some fallacies held by Christians, including myself. Enjoy! :pop2:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVQ1t5i058Q

Timmy
08-17-2013, 08:05 AM
Why bad things happen
to people
who did not intention anything
To enact their calamity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0X5BiECP1U&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL5F8BC97A283755A7





Charis,

It is hoped you are not eating the whole meal served on your above forwarded video about original sin.

Though there has been an ever steady dissonance against extreme Traducianism, it does hold much merit.

Only watched 20 minutes and stopped knowing he has not fully explored this issue, as well as what he says goes against what original Bible manuscripts reveal...
..and Mr. Skinski has conveniently eluded such passages of scripture which detail the meaning of several of the verses he used, providing his own definition instead of keeping answers within scriptural confines.
He is well on his way to strarting yet another kultus within the Xian genre.
(Note particularily Rom. 5.12 in relation to some verses he avoids, such as:

Psalm 55.5 Behold, I was shaped in iniquity; and my mother conceived me in sin.
or
James 1.15 Then when lust has conceived, it brings sin:and sin, when it is finished, brings death.
(There's more, but these should clearly enough contradicting his eigesis.)

This fellow has not spent time studying either Greek or Hebrew.

For another example, the way he defines soul is complete nonsense. Soul is not something one possesses but is the outward life expression resulting from what comes straight from the
heart=
memory/imagination &
emotion/attitude&
perception-->thought-->reasoning-->intention.
Soul is the volition of the heart.

Though there are many things St. Augustine did not get right, this guy on this video has no room to speak. He needs to include that after revealing St. Augustine could not read Koiné, that he himself does not understand Latin, Greek, or Hebrew.

There are six different Greek words for sin, five of which represent differing aspects of an action (verb). The other word for sin in Greek is a noun, and is used in reference to the sensory human nature to satisfy our carcass.

In Genesis we find Elohim breathed into Adamah the breath of [note the plurality]-->liVES, and not only his own, and he BECAME a living experssion (aka: soul).

Though there is no transfer from one generation to the next of an individual's soul life, genetically, what is in ones heart is passed from one generation to the next, and through recombinance, only God, and perhaps a quite astute genetic engineer, would be able to tell whether these traits could result as dominant or recessive.

Hope these things are sufficient to show this guys message is convoluted to say the least.

He is wrong defining concupiscence though he is spot on about lust = from desire to passion, as in temptation is not sin; yet, there is a very fine line when temptation does become sin. Consider Jesus' words about commiting adultery in you heart and being guilty of the act itself in Mt. 5. (The issue is, if all the conditions were conviently ameniable, whould you do whatever the sin is.

Sin is nothing more than fulfilling good God created desires in ways God says are not good.


Shabbat Shalom,

Timmy

p.s. Might go back and watch the rest later tonight...but it is doubtful.

Charisma
08-17-2013, 11:23 AM
Hi Timmy,

Your thoughts are gratefully received, and I agree there would be much work to be done to straighten out the glitches in the thinking. Having conversed a little by text with the narrator, I know he is open to being challenged with a truer explanation. I'm sure he would hear you out most graciously. :)

The most simple explanation of his conclusions though, are that they are bounced of false doctrine rather than the word, as you astutely observed.


Charis,

It is hoped you are not eating the whole meal served on your above forwarded video about original sin.

No, but, I think there are scraps of truth which are worthy of attention, such as Augustine's previous religious affiliations.

It is a while since I watched it all, and I'd need to watch it again to pick out the parts I had a little fresh revelation about afterwards. All I can remember at the moment, is that one point is about Adam (which I disagree) and another is about Jesus. They are different, but related to whether any person (since the fall) can be born free from sin, and if they can what that means for the rest of the thesis. He follows Mike DeSario's thinking. (youtube)

On a positive note (if that may be permitted) I think he is on to a truth in regard to a proper understanding of repentance, as well as a proper repenting.

Timmy
08-17-2013, 11:51 AM
Hi Timmy...
...All I can remember at the moment, is that one point is about Adam (which I disagree) and another is about Jesus. They are different, but related to whether any person (since the fall) can be born free from sin, and if they can what that means for the rest of the thesis. He follows Mike DeSario's thinking. (youtube)

... I think he is on to a truth in regard to a proper understanding of repentance, as well as a proper repenting.

Hi Charis,

Ok, you got me curious.

I'll watch it through and check out DeSario, too.

Thanks,

Timmy

Charisma
08-17-2013, 12:52 PM
I'm going to post you some links in a PM that are related to this, and to a more recent discovery which I suspect will interest you not a little.


About the doctrine that we are born without sin, I've heard it sliced a couple of ways before, but the Augustine video above is the most convincing so far.


And then I'm going to sleep ....

Richard Amiel McGough
08-18-2013, 05:14 AM
Although the following contains quite a few scriptures, I think it belongs in this forum rather than 'Biblical Studies' or 'Hermeneutics and Theology'.

This is not a dissonance-free experience, but I think it exposes some fallacies held by Christians, including myself. Enjoy! :pop2:


youtube;KVQ1t5i058Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVQ1t5i058Q

Wow - that guy has set himself up as the ultimate judge over all Christian doctrine. Amazing. Thanks for the link Charisma. That website standthegap.org is a perfect example of how the convoluted, confused, and contradictory teachings of the Bible make it utterly useless as a guide. The most devout, serious, studious, faithful, believing interpreters come to diametrically opposed conclusions on nearly every topic! It would be hilarious if it were not so pathetic, given how the Bible has destroyed so many lives by leading believers into delusion. The guy you linked has a list of 24 "heretics" that he refutes because they came to different conclusions than his. And each of them would surely conclude that he's the heretic, and they would prove it with a mountain of Bible verses! What a sad joke! Here's his list:


John Piper (http://www.standingthegap.org/John%20Piper.htm)
Charles Spurgeon (http://www.standingthegap.org/Spurgeon.htm)

John MacArthur (http://www.standingthegap.org/McArthur.htm)

DL Moody (http://www.standingthegap.org/Moody.htm)
Ed Young
(http://www.standingthegap.org/Ed%20Young.htm)
John Calvin, Calvin 2 (http://www.standingthegap.org/Calvin2.htm)
John Ankerberg (http://www.standingthegap.org/Ankerberg.htm)

Martin Luther (http://www.standingthegap.org/Martin%20Luther%20quotes.htm)
Joel Osteen
(http://www.standingthegap.org/Joel%20Osteen.htm)
Dr Barnhouse (http://www.standingthegap.org/Barnhouse.htm)
Craig Laurie (http://www.standingthegap.org/Laurie1.htm)
Erwin Lutzer (http://www.standingthegap.org/Lutzer.htm)
Mark Driscoll (http://www.standingthegap.org/mark_driscoll1.htm)
Max Lucado (http://www.standingthegap.org/max_lucado.htm)
Josh McDowell (http://www.standingthegap.org/McDowell.htm)
Mike Fabarez (http://www.standingthegap.org/mike_fabarez.htm)
RC Sproul (http://www.standingthegap.org/RC%20Sproul.htm)
Pat Robertson (http://www.standingthegap.org/robertson.htm)
Charles Swindoll (http://www.standingthegap.org/Swindoll.htm)
Rick Warren (http://www.standingthegap.org/Warren1.htm) More on Warren (http://www.standingthegap.org/Warren3.htm)
Richard Warmack (http://www.standingthegap.org/Warmack.html)
Paul Washer (http://www.standingthegap.org/paul_washer.htm)
Ray Comfort (http://www.standingthegap.org/Comfort.htm)
Charles Stanley (http://www.standingthegap.org/Stanley.htm)
Billy Graham (http://www.standingthegap.org/Graham.htm)

The really interesting thing about his list is that it spans the whole Christian spectrum. It contains Calvinists and Arminians, Fundamentalists and Liberals. Current and past pop teachers with audiences in the millions and classic teachers accepted by the vast majority of Christians as the most reliable and trustworthy of all preachers, such as Charles Spurgeon. He sets himself and his idiosyncratic doctrines above all. Amazing. Truly amazing how religion corrupts the mind and deludes people into thinking they alone have the very "truth of God."

The true pathos of his position is seen in his site rank. His site ranks at about the 25 millionth on the web (http://www.alexa.com/search?q=standingthegap.org&r=home_home&p=bigtop). That's essentially equivalent to zero. And he appears to be a "lone wolf" and a "loose cannon" because he doesn't have any quotes from any other living authors who confirm his conclusions. This is so typical of the delude religious believer who has been taught to despise truth in favor of private "intuitions" that are interpreted as the "Holy Spirit" that confirm whatever fantasy happens to flutter through the undisciplined mind of believers.

Thanks again for sharing this insight into the nature of the Bible and the mind of the believers.

All the best,

Richard

Charisma
08-18-2013, 06:57 AM
Hi Richard, :yo:

At least my friend is diligently seeking the Lord through His word, as he works through all the false doctrine which has afflicted his soul over the years when he just accepted what he was being told by so-called spiritual superiors.

He's also made a personal decision to co-operate with God rather than drift along in a state of separation from Him, and he's prepared to live with the consequences of choosing to cease from sin (as the Bible defines it). In fact, he understands a good deal more than the average Christian, in regard to what being a Christian really means.

My experience, in general, of people who genuinely turn to God with their whole heart as he as done, is that God leads them out of their 'delusions' because they have a chosen to receive a love of the truth, and they take pleasure in righteousness as God defines it.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-18-2013, 08:22 AM
Hi Richard, :yo:

At least my friend is diligently seeking the Lord through His word, as he works through all the false doctrine which has afflicted his soul over the years when he just accepted what he was being told by so-called spiritual superiors.

He's also made a personal decision to co-operate with God rather than drift along in a state of separation from Him, and he's prepared to live with the consequences of choosing to cease from sin (as the Bible defines it). In fact, he understands a good deal more than the average Christian, in regard to what being a Christian really means.

My experience, in general, of people who genuinely turn to God with their whole heart as he as done, is that God leads them out of their 'delusions' because they have a chosen to receive a love of the truth, and they take pleasure in righteousness as God defines it.

Hey there Charisma,

When you refer to him as "my friend" are you saying that you know him personally?

I understand that you think it is good that he is "diligently seeking the Lord through His word." A Muslim would say the same thing if he were studying the Quran. But I think you missed my point. If the Bible is so bloody confused that every person must sift through mountains of "false doctrines" that are accepted as God's Own Truth by the vast majority of Christians, then how could you hope to find the truth yourself? You are just one person with limited time and mental resources like all the other people who came to false conclusions. So how could anyone have any confidence that they got it right if the vast majority of the most sincere believers all got it wrong? And they didn't just get it wrong in one way, they all got it wrong in a thousand different ways because the books is so bloody confused that you can interpret the same words in a dozen different ways! Don't you think this might indicate a problem with the Book and its Author?

How could anyone hope to ever discover the real truth? Even if you are as faithful as possible you could still make the same mistakes as the "false teachers" who by every indication are every bit as "sincere" as all the others.

Your idea that God leads them out of their delusions contains an implicit assertion that you believe you are qualified to JUDGE who has "God's truth" and who does not. That's exactly what all the "false teachers" think about themselves! Suppose for a moment that you were one of the false teachers in his list. You were a famous preacher hailed by millions as a faithful teacher like Charles Spurgeon ... how would you know if you were wrong? Don't you get it? All those "false teachers" are totally convinced that they are totally committed to God, just like you and your friend! So why should you think that you are more sincere than Billy Graham?

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
08-18-2013, 08:59 AM
I found this interesting article on the standingthegap.org site: The Mark of the Beast (http://www.standingthegap.org/Mark%20of%20the%20Beast%202.htm): which condemns every form of the "ENTIRE professing Christian establishment" -



What you need to understand clearly is that the Present day church System is already under the control of the Beast. But the Beast is NOT some Worldly dictator as everyone is suspecting. Actually the Beast John was shown in Rev13 is the Church System gone fully apostate. It’s not merely the Catholic System as many have identified over the years, but the ENTIRE professing Christian religious establishment, all preaching the Message of the Beast!

John was also shown an IMAGE created by the Beast that lives and breaths and causes everyone (in the System) to bow down to it in Worship and ‘Receive’ a Mark on the Right hand or Forehead. This IMAGE has the appearance of a Lamb but speaks the language of the Dragon through an Army of false teachers convinced that the IMAGE they have created is really Jesus Christ! This False Jesus is the focal point of Present day professing Christianity. What He represents to them is the Fallacy of Reformed theology.


Compare this with these words from the founder of the Mormon cult:


My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight .... He again forbade me to join with any of them (Joseph Smith 2:18-20).


This exemplifies the divisive nature of religion. Everyone makes up their own versions and says everyone else is a heretic. I don't understand how anyone could believe any of it, with so many believers condemning all other believers as heretics! Is this really the "work of God'? Is he really the author of such confusion?

Timmy
08-20-2013, 05:54 AM
Disclaimer: Some of the following is subject to change and forms a mere opinion.


Skinski appears to have refuted nothing.

Tell me what i am not understanding if you see something Charis.

What do you mean by "the most convincing" so far?
It is a one sided argument completely ignoring counterpoints.

He has taken the writing of one post Nicean sect of Catholicism, amplified it, claiming this is the way of the church. He is talking about one segment of Catholicism and has hardly focused in on Platonism or Manicheanism; and rather convolutes his own point in so doing.

He did use two scriptures previously posted by Timmy (Jas and Mt), however he wrests them from context, even as he has done with St. Augustine.

He needs to quit thinking he is teaching anything and should sit and listen first.

He needs to not talk about what he does not understand, giving Armenianism and Calvinism only glancing blows then moving on.

It is wondered how you might think he is coming to truth expositing pseudo-truths, or half-sided at best???

Platonism or Manicheanism is by no stretch of the imagination nearly as influential on current religious practices in organized Xendumb and reasonings therefrom so much as Aristotlean philosophy has permeated most everything.(as if Mithraic influences, the triple godess, or Isis/Apophis/Osirius were not enough already.

Suggested is that Skinski begin with a work by Francis Schaeffer called ”How Should We Then Live" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGjel8HwSUU&list=PLAD9A72A79A3DFD43).

Recalling one other point just now: from near the 20 min mark on his vid, it was noted he has also assumed sin is not (individuated) transgression<--(even though the Hebrew word and context of the passage used is singular in what he cites)--but collective, but how could he not, knowing he does not trust that in Adam all have sinned as clarified in Romans 5-or is intentionally mixing up things:that's doubtful. As well, his past-to-present-tense claim towards Paul's conversion is completely assumed concerning Romans 6-8 because this is not as it is written in the Greek.

He would do best focusing on James where it talks about the tongue setting on fire the course of nature, and this is from hell ...and that not many should be teachers (around ch. 3)...WHY?

He comes to some right conclusions, but they are lopsided.

Do you understand that not having a nature that is called sin by Paul, for starters, there is neither the need for salvation or Jesus coming either the first or second time? To put it another way, why would anyone need to be saved from sin is they were not in sin. If sin is only faulty actions, there is no need to be changed from what we are, but only from what we do...or is there some other reason Yesua says that to follow Him, you must deny yourself, take upon yourself your own execution, and then walk His way?


FROM PMs

These things about the Ark and Gogatha were already known from scripture and it is good to see conformation of that.

Is conduit whom?

There is not yet found disagreement with Scott's blog spot, but it has not been read that far into just yet (2 posts).

Ron is good advertising.


Waka waka eh eh<--well, trying to at least,

ޜ:sBo_reflection2:

P.s. It is quite doubtful there will be much time for any interaction on the web, aside from B.W.F.A.™...besides, i just began reading the first of over 900 pages of a book called, "The City of God" by Saint Augustine. Also, an intermittent one i chance arguing with (penpal: Johnny Mac) is pressing that we again cover pre -vs- post trib resurrection scenarios.

Charisma
08-20-2013, 09:52 AM
Hi Timmy,

Thank you for all the time you've taken to look into this. I agree that the arguments are both lopsided and incorrect, but because they are not based simply in a misreading of scripture, but also reflect certain responses to false doctrines, it is not easy to disentangle, all the less easy because of Mike DeSario's teaching, to which I must admit I have not listened extensively.

Do you believe 1 John 1:7?

Does the blood of Jesus Christ cleanse us from all sin?

You see, this is part of his complaint about what is taught in churches today - that we can never be cleansed from all sin - that we cannot have victory over sin - that our standing with God is only 'positional', not actual - that the very fact of having a body means we are always sinning and unable to stop.

Does the New Testamant teach any of those doctrines?


It is wondered how you might think he is coming to truth expositing pseudo-truths, or half-sided at best???

You're funny!

It's this: I have an idea of where he's been, and that he has a lot more light now, than at one time. Truth is absolute. Reckoning with it is a process.

He has done a lot of listening to a lot of garbage. That is why he has done a lot of studying - to try to find out what is really true. I don't think he is intentionally mixing things up. I think he needs more people to discuss with, who aren't just going to imply (or suggest) he is an unsaved heretic as their most compelling plank of argument against his. He really does want to look at the subject matter objectively, and I think he is well capable of doing that.

To me, one of the key mistakes in logic, is the reference to these lines (in bold, the verse preceding is for context - if it is related) -

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat,
that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good...'

The meaning of this needs more discussion, because Jesus was different. He took on Him the 'likeness of sinful flesh' but He Himself did not sin, He resisted every temptation, and kept His heart pure. Was that because He had had to learn how to discern the difference between 'the evil' and 'the good'?

Surely the reason that Adam's children need to learn how to discern between good and evil, is because they are born with that tree bearing that fruit through their lives spontaneously ... which is something that Jesus never had/did. He was the tree of Life, only bearing the fruit of that Tree.

I think it was around this point, and somehow extrapolating between Adam and Jesus incorrectly, that I had some thoughts. I seem to remember that Adam was given an attribute or attributes which justified an incorrect conclusion, despite the lack of scripture to back it/them up. This is what I mean about forming doctrine as a reaction to false doctrine, trying to get a solution which solves both what is in the Bible and corrects the false doctrine simultaneously. Frequently false doctrine is built on incorrect reasoning from scripture, so this is where the dissections get complicated.

The idea that all (people) will inevitably sin, but that the propensity to sin is not part of what we are as humans - that we aren't fallen until we fall - baffles me. If there was just one other person in history who had lived an entirely sinless life apart from Jesus Christ, the thesis would hold a spoonful more water, but for there to be no-one apart from Jesus who's never sinned... just blows that reasoning to pieces, imho. And there's more; but it must wait.


These things about the Ark and Gogatha were already known from scripture and it is good to see conformation of that.

Where, please?


May you find the grace of God in rich abundance as you read Augustine! :)

Timmy
08-20-2013, 01:47 PM
These things about the Ark and Gogatha were already known from scripture and it is good to see conformation of that.

Where, please?
:icon_hello: Charis,
If that means i have to go look that up, you can do it.

Read OT Temple ordinances of the priesthood, particularly concerning Pesach. Check out what Moshe did in initiating this Everlasting Covenant (some not knowing any better, refer to as the Old Covenant--but, it is only the Temple ordinances that are fading away...as Hebrews clearly states.) Next, read through Hebrews, paying special attention to chapter 2, and from the end of 4 gradually detailing in culmination right around 9.12. Next build a composite of all the gospel accounts concerning Jesus final sacrifice verifying the validity of the OC. (For this is the very reason His High Priestly sacrifice of Himself was offered and accepted: to fully establish forever the covenant once observed in type through continual proxy sacrifices. What was initiated at Sinai was finally fully established in Him by offering His own blood up Himself as testator, and arising from the dead to sit as mediator of this fulfilled will and testament.) Anyway, after you have that composite firmly fixed in your consciousness, read through the shorter books of the prophets and Isaiah...and i cannot recall to tell you exactly where, but there are fragments of this foretold throughout...and then there are the Psalms. ((If i can contact Bob (from our Burning Hearts gatherings,) he will have everything scribed...but several of us divided the task work up to piece it all together more swiftly.)

Should you complete this before Bob can be contacted, we're pretty sure from your own seeking things will then be recalled further.


More later,

ޜ:sBo_reflection2:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-20-2013, 03:21 PM
Do you believe 1 John 1:7?

Does the blood of Jesus Christ cleanse us from all sin?

You see, this is part of his complaint about what is taught in churches today - that we can never be cleansed from all sin - that we cannot have victory over sin - that our standing with God is only 'positional', not actual - that the very fact of having a body means we are always sinning and unable to stop.

Does the New Testamant teach any of those doctrines?


Hey there Charisma,

Do you believe 1 John 1:8?

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

If you say that Jesus has cleansed you of all sin (1 John 1:7), then are you not denying 1 John 1:8?

The key, of course, is to note that the 1 John 1:7 does not say that Jesus has cleansed (past tense) but "cleanseth" (present active) which indicates an ongoing action in response to ongoing sin.

This is why the most fervent and devoted Bible believers often come to diametrically opposed conclusions, and accuse each other of believing "false doctrines." The Bible is extremely ambiguous (especially since it is written in languages most believers can't understand) and its interpretation depends upon fallible humans. How is it you could feel confident to judge others as believing "false doctrines"? What qualifies you above any other believer?

Richard

Charisma
08-20-2013, 04:39 PM
Hi Timmy,

Thank you indeed, for your directions. This sounds like a glorious treasure hunt! I might do some help enlisting, myself! ;)



The key, of course, is to note that the 1 John 1:7 does not say that Jesus has cleansed (past tense) but "cleanseth" (present active) which indicates an ongoing action in response to ongoing sin.

This is at the heart of the discussion in this thread. Sin being an on-going issue is not the issue. Rather, the issue is whether one has laid hold on the help of the Holy Spirit made possible by the death and resurrection of Christ, in a new relationship with sin, in which sin no longer has dominion over one's life.

If the true Light is shining in our hearts (minds), we should expect to find faulty attitudes all over the place, from before we were buried with Christ prefiguring out own death through baptism into His death. Again, if we are honestly seeking to please God and walk in the Way, repentance, healing and faith will come easily on every minute point as we are being changed from glory to glory. His word is like a mirror, which shows us what needs to be put right.

If a person has determined to cease from sin, the help of the Holy Spirit and the revelations which come from the Lord Himself, can be welcomed; not feared.

Timmy
08-20-2013, 10:38 PM
:yo: Aloha Richard and Charisma,

Mr. Smarty pants says, "Do you believe I John. 1.9?"

No seriously, let's look at some verses together:
[my own translation from the TR...check and see how this is what the Greek actually says]

3 That which we have seen and heard declare we to you, that you also may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ;

4 and these things we write to you, that your joy may be full.

5 And this is the message that we have heard from Him, and announce to you, that God is light, and darkness in Him is not at all;

6 if we should say-- we have fellowship with Him, and in the darkness may walk-- we lie, and do not the truth;

7 and if in the light we should walk as He is in the light-- we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son does clean us from every sin;

8 if we may say-- we have not sin, ourselves we lead astray, and the truth is not in us;

9 if we should confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous that He might forgive us the sins, and might cleanse us from every unrighteousness;

10 if we may say-- we have not sinned, a liar we make Him, and His word is not in us.

The imperative concerning these verses and what we are talking about is:

--we lie if we walk in darkness and say we have fellowship with Him, we lead ourselves astray
--we commit sin(s)
--Jesus Christ is faithful and just.
--Cleansing from sin begins to become possible with admitting we sin to Him
--we make Him a liar if we say we do not sin
--Cleansing from sin is through walking as Jesus walks (in the light).


Now let's get what it literally says in a few verses from Romans 3:

22 ...the righteousness of God [is] through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all, and upon all those believing,-- for there is no difference,

23 for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God--
[in english v.23 could be better translated as: "for all continually sin and are falling short of"]

24 being declared righteous freely by His grace through the redemption that [is] in Christ Jesus,

25 whom God did set forth a mercy seat, through the faith in his blood, for the manifestation of His righteousness, because of the passing over of the bygone sins in the forbearance of God--

26 for the manifestation of His righteousness in the present time, for His being righteous, and declaring him righteous who [is] of the faithfulness of Jesus.

Anyone who does not walk as Jesus walked is not of His faithfulness.

The Holy Spirit is not active in our lives separate from keeping Jesus' commandments (John chapters 14 thru 16), or as Paul and John say it concisely, either walking in the light as He is (John), or of the faith(fulness) of Jesus (Paul).

Hope this helps,


ޜ:sBo_reflection2:

Charisma
08-25-2013, 05:41 PM
Mr. Smarty pants says, "Do you believe I John. 1.9?"

No seriously, let's look at some verses together:
[my own translation from the TR...check and see how this is what the Greek actually says]

3 That which we have seen and heard declare we to you, that you also may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ;

4 and these things we write to you, that your joy may be full.

5 And this is the message that we have heard from Him, and announce to you, that God is light, and darkness in Him is not at all;

6 if we should say-- we have fellowship with Him, and in the darkness may walk-- we lie, and do not the truth;

7 and if in the light we should walk as He is in the light-- we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son does clean us from every sin;

8 if we may say-- we have not sin, ourselves we lead astray, and the truth is not in us;

9 if we should confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous that He might forgive us the sins, and might cleanse us from every unrighteousness;

10 if we may say-- we have not sinned, a liar we make Him, and His word is not in us.

The imperative concerning these verses and what we are talking about is:

--we lie if we walk in darkness and say we have fellowship with Him, we lead ourselves astray
--we commit sin(s)
--Jesus Christ is faithful and just.
--Cleansing from sin begins to become possible with admitting we sin to Him
--we make Him a liar if we say we do not sin
--Cleansing from sin is through walking as Jesus walks (in the light).


Now let's get what it literally says in a few verses from Romans 3:

22 ...the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ to all, and upon all those believing,-- for there is no difference,

23 for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God--
[in english v.23 could be better translated as: "for all continually sin and are falling short of"]

24 being declared righteous freely by His grace through the redemption that [is] in Christ Jesus,

25 whom God did set forth a mercy seat, through the faith in his blood, for the manifestation of His righteousness, because of the passing over of the bygone sins in the forbearance of God--

26 for the manifestation of His righteousness in the present time, for His being righteous, and declaring him righteous who [is] of the faithfulness of Jesus.

Anyone who does not walk as Jesus walked is not of His faithfulness.


Hello again, Timmy, :highfive:

(I've quoted most of your reply because it is on the previous page.)


It deserves a bit more discussion, (I think), mainly on two points (at the moment):

1) did you consciously choose (sin) 'continually' instead of 'continuously'? ('continually' = intermittently, while 'continuously' = without a break)

and are you saying

2) we can be clean from sin continuously if we walk in the light so that the blood of Jesus Christ is continuously cleansing us or, do you perceive our state to be one in which we can be cleansed of specific 'sins' only after we have confessed them?

Or are you saying we simply never stop sinning, and that being buried with Him in His death as Paul states in Romans 6 is only figurative at this stage in our relationship with Him, rather than actual, in the sense that it does not free us from 'the sin' which causes us to keep sinning in our lifetime?


I ask because you seemed to be implying that we are never able to be free from sinning; although you didn't say that and I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, but rather, I'm trying to clarify what you think the Romans 3 passage is saying.

Reading your earlier reply, I'm getting that we cannot stop ourselves sinning (even after faith in Christ's death, blood, resurrection and life), and that nevertheless, because of the righteousness of God demonstrated through the faithfulness of Christ, [I]if we have faith in His blood we are 'declared righteous', (although still being effectively dead in trespasses and sins and unable to veer off the course of this world).

Is he really saying we are declared righteous while still IN our sin(s)? (Doesn't repentance have something to do with changing our relationship with sin?)

What about

Ephesians 2:1 '... who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world

Please could you place Romans 6 somewhere in your thesis?


Since I've rambled on a bit, perhaps you would also take in why John goes on to say,

1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin ... ?



Just for the record, I believe that being buried with Him in baptism is in the past tense, and Colossians 2:11 refers to having been circumcised in heart. (We are not continuously being circumcised in our hearts although the KJV renders it as if we are).

If we understand the gospel which Paul preached, and we are reckoning ourselves dead in Christ, then in Him we are dead to sin and dead to the world, and it's only if we step back out of the good of His death, that we sin by what happens next. This cutting ourselves free from the effect of His death in us, is the same as cutting ourselves off from Christ as the true Vine, thus ceasing to abide in Him. He stated clearly what happens to dead branches, in John 15.

Are you saying that the life of Christ flowing through us as the life of the true Vine does not enable us to cease from sin?

Timmy
08-25-2013, 07:28 PM
Yes concerning 1).

Regarding 2), sin and sins are two different things. What is being referred to concerning confession, is that without the walk, it is not faith that is vindicated.

As long as we remain in our bodies, we possess the nature to sin, and so whether or not we have come to the point of discerning how so, we are sinning at various times. Our own physical death is proof positive of this very fact. Sensitivity to prevent this sinning comes as we walk more and more in His light, and we are also changed "from glory to glory" pursuing this path of Jesus.

Repemtance only changes our own mind toward sin.

Only God can change us so that we do not sin.

Everyone who has ever existed is already saved in their sin:

Romans 5:
6 For while we were still helpless, at the appointed moment, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For rarely will someone die for a just person — though for a good person perhaps someone might even dare to die. 8 But God proves His own love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us! 9 Much more then, since we have now been declared righteous by His blood, we will be saved through Him from wrath. 10 For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, then how much more, having been reconciled, will we be saved by His life! 11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ. We have now received this reconciliation through Him.
The question is if they will for themselves appropriate this finished work through the faithfulness that is in Jesus, the Christ...just like those whom Paul notes above in verse 9. The declaration of righteousness comes as a free gift, but it is not cheap. We conform our minds and attitudes to the Christ's, which in turn leads to walking in the light as He is in the light<--that was just a detailed way of saying repentance and what results from it.

The Lamb of God shed His blood to remit all that was relative to sin and not just sin itself. Redemption is God purchasing back all things Adamah abdicated to the Adversary, that primeval serpent in the garden. It was not done for man. It was done to show HYLL how much of a fool he really is in making it so he would lose his ownership of everything Yaweh Eloheinu gave Adamah dominion of at the onset, for Paul, in I Corinthians reveals,"None of the rulers of this age knew this wisdom, for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."


Romans 6?

What about chapters 5-8? I could not explain it any better than that.

Baptism, immersing our lives being lived into Jesus is a progressive. We are continually being circumcised. Reckoning is perpetual.

Where there is the past tense at times concerning baptism, look at the context. It can either be referring to the physical symbolic act via water or an initiation into this walk with the Christ.

Walking according to the course of this world is not slipping off the narrow path to return thereon.

Many there be who have found the straight gate and few there be on the narrow path growing narrower.

Why do you call it my thesis.?

It's right there in the Bible, and anything i say will need to be explained further it seems.

If these things were not answered to your satisfaction, either tell me what i am missing or ask if there is another question.

Shalom to you and yours Charis,

Barefeeteded Timmy

Richard Amiel McGough
08-25-2013, 08:13 PM
Are you saying that the life of Christ flowing through us as the life of the true Vine does not enable us to cease from sin?
If you really ceased from sin, then you could say that there is no sin in you, and that would mean you are a liar.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Mystykal
08-25-2013, 10:58 PM
If you really ceased from sin, then you could say that there is no sin in you, and that would mean you are a liar.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.


Hi Richard: Charisma: Timmy....

Ok my two cents....

Richard I agree with YOU! I wonder tho - why does it matter to you if you think Jesus is fake/myth and IHVH is NOT really the SAVIOUR (eg: "I am the LORD and besides me there is NO Saviour!") and Paul and his Pauline doctrine is really NOT Christian per se.... I can go on. Now, old Testament theology v/s New Testament theology in my opinion does not exist since Jesus to be a vaild SAVIOUR must be the OT IHVH with NO new gospel whatsoever! So all this talk of Pauline New Covenant grace-based salvation by faith - is hoc os pocos est! The fact that Jesus is qouted as saying, "Search the Scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life, AND THESE ARE THEY which testify of ME!" - Clearly is a throw-back to the IHVH GOD Model which Jesus is claiming as His own! There can be no "salvation" from sin apart from the sanctuary service model of the Levitical service; eventhough Jesus calls Himself a priest after the order of Melchizedek - which some scholars argue for a scribble deviation on the part of the Masoretic text development. ( Abraham and Melchizedek: Scribal Activity of Second Temple Times ..., Volume 23// http://books.google.com/books?id=kBBrXzw3m2cC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=melchizedek+from+Canan&source=bl&ots=R7eg6pmBZv&sig=7tsZD1AkakM4U4TE2mJY3-DArEw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4eoaUreuJcj1igL_oYHYAg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false )

So the questions of sin or no sin based on Paul's writings solely is not good theology. However, this topic has been splitting Christians for generations and I doubt it will be resolved here.

I'm out!

Namaste,

Mystykal

David M
08-26-2013, 04:35 AM
I shall also add my two pennies (cents) to explain what I think it means for Christ to cleanse us of all sin.

It is obvious that in this life we have sinned. That sin remains a memory to us. Unless the memory is erased, the sin remains in our memory to be exposed at any time. Even if we have lost our memory, the sin is known by God to have happened .

The situation is this; it is through the sacrificial blood of Jesus whereby those sins can blotted out as if they never happened. Hence the washing of the garments of the saints in the blood of the lamb that makes the garments clean. (Rev 7:14)... have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
. Although we have the stain of sin present with us, Jesus by his covering presents us to his Heavenly Father as perfect and without spot. (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, 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen.


It is upon that presentation, we can only be judged to be perfect. Final perfection does not come about until immortality is bestowed and then the immortal body cannot sin, the same as Jesus cannot be tempted any longer to sin and will never sin. As it is written; "we shall be like him" (1 John 3:2).

We are not and cannot be completely like Jesus is now; that can only come after the resurrection. Until Jesus was resurrected he was not made perfect. Jesus would not have been made perfect unless Jesus had been completely obedient to God's instruction and carried out God's will. Even Jesus said; Why callest thou me good (perfect)? there is none good but one, that is, God: (Hebrews 5:9) And being made perfect, he (Jesus) became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

It is only by the sacrificial blood of Jesus can everyone who has ever sinned be presented before God as perfect and have their sins blotted out. (Acts 3:19) Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Jesus is our high priest now making intercession for us; (Romans 8:34)It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

In life we carry our sins with us in our memory. With the knowledge of the forgiveness of sin that is possible, we do not have to carry the burden of sin in our mind that can weigh heavily on our mind. It is with the confidence we can have in a saviour that through the shed blood of Jesus, we can carry on in life knowing that our sins have and will be forgiven, hence (Hebrews 12:1) let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

Without Jesus taking the load of us, or by us not sharing his yoke, we carry the heavy burden of sin to the grave. God be praised for the offer of eternal life that he has extended to us all, because of what Jesus did and whereby God's principle that (Hebrews 9:22); without shedding of blood is no remission.
. God has kept to his word and stuck to his principle. He judges according to the perfect standard which is Jesus. This means that without the covering of Jesus, our sins and imperfections are exposed before God and we never measure up to the standard of Jesus. We could never be judged acceptable in that case. That must mean, in order to be saved, we have to be in relationship with Jesus and we also have to obey the commands of Jesus even to the fulfilling of "all righteousness", hence (Mark 16:16);He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; ....)



David

Timmy
08-27-2013, 05:28 PM
w/o a proof reading this is sent.

:icon_hello: Howya Mystical?

Amused to see you write on this thread covering Augustine -vs- Palagianism.

FYI: This post is moreso explanatory, yet intent to stir up further searching is hardly lacking. Our manner of posting usually is to point one to look further, perhaps at times seeming offensive, yet should any choose to argue without seeking further, it is usually our way dealing with non-progressive inconsistency by ending conversation then and there.

Between Eloheinu, family stuff, work, friends, this new flood of learning about hypocrisy in relation to "Effective Prayer", and the aeronautical with also the electromagnetic experimentations, this plate is already full. Yet there is one less thing being pursued at least: Saint Augustine's book ("City of God") was ceased with FTTB, as his work convolutes clarity because he often mixes up the ethical with metaphysics.

It's wondered that since the emphasis ended with Paul you ran with commenting about this? Your comments were edited toward what concerns you with sentences rearranged to address thoughts congruent.

You ready?

Here goes...

Paul and his Pauline doctrine is really NOT Christian per se.... So all this talk of Pauline New Covenant grace-based salvation by faith - is hoc os pocos est! So the questions of sin or no sin based on Paul's writings solely is not good theology. However, this topic has been splitting Christians for generations and I doubt it will be resolved here.

By the Western mode of scriptural exegesis, a person can only see a part of the truth, and will accordingly deduce misconceptions about these Hebrew scriptures, then usually fill in the blank spaces which are actually a result of misinterpreting in the first place. Those who do this come up with a cut and paste creation. There results: patchy spots, things that make no sense, holes in various places, and stuff they call mysteries (but, really are self-created confusion) ...and of necessity, certain portions of the Bible are ignored or counted as no longer valid just so their own misconstrued interpretations appear to somehow make sense to them.

Prophecy does not primarily mean "to fortell" events to occur, and a true understanding of definition will cause one to understand that there is not one portion of the Bible that is not prophecy, especially Torah..and all prophecy of a foretelling nature is known to perpetually repeat itself. So any date setter, (whether about events that have already occurred, or those that have not yet occurred) is always wrong.
(The very first thread i ever posted to here was about Mt. 24, and the people writing at that point in time were so convinced they already knew what it meant, even though Richard inquired a bit about this different perspective, i just quit with entering into discussion about it anymore at all. Since they all (with various opinions) already knew, what could be shown that they would listen to?)

So, for example, we have many thinking the Bible completely historical...and it is, but not in the Western sense of the word, as if it always moves from point a to b, or even considers explaining things through the eyes of graeco-roman logic or Hellenistic thinking. It is neither a scientific treatise, nor a mathemagical compilation.

No no-no-no NO!!!

The whole Bible is Jewish in content.
Hebrew thought is Oriental.
Christianity is an Eastern religion, and Western Protestantism is a far cry from the first century Primitive Church. What existed before the Roman state stepped in disallowing and advancing only what the state approved is not what we see today.

If the Bible will be interpreted correctly, we must look at it like those in the Bible, and those who wrote about Tanakh in it's pages (the prophets and apostles), and the approach taken toward it by the people of those days. (Even current Rabbinic Judaism, no matter how Orthodox, is not following what the ancients or our progenitors understood to do as tradition after tradition replaced the ancient paths.)

Jesus while on Earth was a Jewish Rabbi, as was Saul (from the school of Hillel led by his grandson Gamaliel.)

Under the Western influences of gnosticism infiltrating the church, as far as i can tell, beginning with Philo of Alexandria, up to currently, so many perversions and misconceptions about what the Bible actually says and means are far too many to even list. (This is why you do not find me even bothering to deal with any thread that is not steering toward a cogent view of the Bible.)

I am not so sure you correctly understand what Rabbi Shaul of Tarsus, Paul, is actually saying. Case in point, compared with what you are assuming, reconcile his words in I Corinthians 7.19: ”Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping the mitzvot of God.”

There is a huge misconception about "by grace are you saved through faith" and many a false teacher has been spreading this deception.
(It is not here now a matter to argue whether these false teachers are heretics, apostate, or decieved.)

It's that word "faith". In Archaic Hebrew it's root word is "amunah". In Koiné Greek it is "pistis". What many ignore is it's dual meaning in every instance of use in both originating languages. That English word translated "FAITH" means "FAITH AND FAITHFULNESS" simultaneously. (This is why you can catch me usually using this word written as either faith(fulness) or faithfulness.) The fact remains, if in your heart you do believe (in this way), it is not merely a belief onto doing, but rather comprises every aspect of our existence: imagination, hope, communion, consciousness, perception, reflection, contemplation, feelings, reasoning, intuition, intention, etc, and when anyone is in faith, it become so very obviously physically apparent by whatever we do and whenever we speak--(which says much about many who merely think the Bible is true in their heads and claim they are Christians because of this).

Without the time currently, it is not really wished to rehash this issue again, even though it has not been grappled through here on B.W.F.A.™.

We are all blind until Adonai opens our eyes. We are all sick, until HaShem Rapha heals us. We are all lame until we walk in the spirit of Ha' Maschiach...

...but to apply Western logic and hermeneutics to any book written from an Eastern Oriental mindset is doing yourself and the text injustice. Doing this, anyone can come up with their own wrong conclusions without the help of anyone else.

If you will begin to gain a more appropriate perspective from the Timmy's POV, and if you are interested, it is wished you will read through (at least Timmy's comments) on a thread beginning right here (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?243-David-Friedman-s-quot-They-Loved-the-Torah-quot/page13&highlight=loved+torah). This is just a starting point to more clearly understanding Paul in relation to other writers in the B'rit Hadasha (NT).

Contrary to majority rule, or your idea of "hocus pocus", the midrash Paul offers in his epistles is not a contradiction to what any others Bible writers were inspired to write. In fact, if you look at Stephen's message and subsequent stoning, from Acts 7.1 to 8.1, you can see Paul was chosen to carry on where Stephen ended. The revelation Paul received is a continuation of what he was responsible for thinking he would put a full stop to then and there. If a person thinks faith is not something substantial and entitling hope (see: James and Heb. 11:1-3, 6), that person does not understand that faith without works is dead.

Understanding faith as defined above, there is no grace without faithfulness...and people don't really know what grace actually means, even though royalty is still deferred to as "Your Grace".


Now, old Testament theology v/s New Testament theology in my opinion does not exist since Jesus to be a vaild SAVIOUR must be the OT IHVH with NO new gospel whatsoever! The fact that Jesus is qouted as saying, "Search the Scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life, AND THESE ARE THEY which testify of ME!" - Clearly is a throw-back to the IHVH GOD Model which Jesus is claiming as His own! There can be no "salvation" from sin apart from the sanctuary service model of the Levitical service; eventhough Jesus calls Himself a priest after the order of Melchizedek - which some scholars argue for a scribble deviation on the part of the Masoretic text development. ( Abraham and Melchizedek: Scribal Activity of Second Temple Times ..., Volume 23// http://books.google.com/books?id=kBB...page&q&f=false )

It really is not a new covenant in the sense of something different. It is new in the sense of Levitical Ordinances being a backdrop, the type, the shadow of the real; Yeshua being the anti-type, the verification validating the final and complete enactment of all previous blood covenants God has made with men--(something the proxy sacrifice of animals could never do).

On this thread, we are talking about whether or not a person has the nature to sin, and whether or not of his own choosing anyone can do God ordained right(eous actions) if they do or do not have this nature to sin.

What you have brought up concerning Torah Temple Ordinances takes us one step further in the appropriate direction. David too, has given a peek further in that direction.

(i owe David a reply or three so he's next.)

It is agreed that anyone who relies solely on any certain time period text, such as Paul's writings, ignoring or considering invalid any other part of scripture does not understand what they think they know. On this wise, anyone who cannot find how Paul's teachings fit right in with and agree with everything else does not understand what they think they know.


On a final note, the pages of that book preview you offered were read a couple of times. From what was read, authorship in several ways admits to an intended skeptically negative approach as well as saying the texts premises and conclusions are assumptions. The simple fact that other various possibilities are not explored,--such as what is not known, or the Targum by one of Paul's classmates, (Anklios<--a second Temple Rabbi as well)--along with what the author admits, makes this book questionable at best. (It's wondered if that text will still be around after 3,500 more years.)

Shalom,

þœ:sBo_reflection2:

p.s. Y-eraz ago, with the pseudonym of "znujeeL~", the Timmy used to sign off sometimes with "Denasté: YOU WATCH YOUR BACK and i'll watch mine!"

Charisma
08-28-2013, 01:18 AM
Hi Timmy,

I note your reference to Pelagianism, and wonder how you define that? (I know what the dictionaries say.)


On this thread, we are talking about whether or not a person has the nature to sin, and whether or not of his own choosing anyone can do God ordained right(eous actions) if they do or do not have this nature to sin.

Perhaps Augustine v Pelagius is a fair way to define this discussion on the basis of the explanations given in the video, but just so you know, I do not agree that man is born without sin, as if he has a choice to 'not sin' before he is reconciled with God in his own experience.

In fact, I don't think the narrator believes that either, and is struggling to find a way to reconcile scripture and his own experience of being released from bondage to sin - which (I hope you agree) is what Paul, John and Peter all describe in various different ways.

Therefore... please do not fall into the trap that the narrator has done by trying to define doctrine (I'm sure there's a better word for this) reactively to (what is clearly false, extra-biblical) doctrine, but rather, use scripture to rid your thinking of all anti-scriptural ideas about 'sins' and 'the sin', and allow that perspective only, to inform your doctrine.

For instance, I can see how you arrived at the idea that we are 'being circumcised', but that is not what the Greek says - anywhere - in the text.

You seem to be mixing up the fact of our fallen flesh which has to die as appointed, and the renewing of the mind (which so many Christians seem to shy away from, ignore or assume doesn't apply to them), through which we become aware of the continuation of fallen thinking in areas of our lives God had not yet pointed out to us. As far as I can tell, this renewing of the mind (and therefore a change in the actions of our fallen flesh) is attributed by Paul to the gift of the grace of God which is effectual in transforming us in the same way Christ was raised from death to life. Ephesians 3:7. Paul at one time couldn't even love his own kinsmen, and now he is loving even Gentiles. We have received the incorruptible seed, and it springs forth in the appearance of a new creation.

There is a distinction between the inner man and the outer man, and injunctions to bring the actions of the outer man in line with the new inner man.

Timmy
08-28-2013, 04:25 PM
Hey, David...haven't finished a response to you, and most of what follows written to C was already written at least three days (not sure exactly how many) before post #22 appeared.





Hi Timmy,

I note your reference to Pelagianism, and wonder how you define that? (I know what the dictionaries say.)Hi Charis,

Summarily----> like you have encased as my quote:


On this thread, we are talking about whether or not a person has the nature to sin, and whether or not of his own choosing anyone can do God ordained right(eous actions) if they do or do not have this nature to sin. Palagianism: considers that we are born innocent and without a sin nature, capable of pleasing God in what works we do: WHY?


Perhaps Augustine v Pelagius is a fair way to define this discussion on the basis of the explanations given in the video, but just so you know, I do not agree that man is born without sin, as if he has a choice to 'not sin' before he is reconciled with God in his own experience.Looking at reconciliation and sin without covering regeneration seems ludicrous to me. There are many who think that if they do good they can be reconciled to God, and then some assuming they have experienced regeneration when it is an ongoing process and never will be complete this side of our graves.


In fact, I don't think the narrator believes that either, and is struggling to find a way to reconcile scripture and his own experience of being released from bondage to sin - which (I hope you agree) is what Paul, John and Peter all describe in various different ways.

Therefore... please do not fall into the trap that the narrator has done by trying to define doctrine (I'm sure there's a better word for this) reactively to (what is clearly false, extra-biblical) doctrine, but rather, use scripture to rid your thinking of all anti-scriptural ideas about 'sins' and 'the sin', and allow that perspective only, to inform your doctrine.yeah yeah; but why is he putting misinformation out there when the scriptures are True?


For instance, I can see how you arrived at the idea that we are 'being circumcised', but that is not what the Greek says - anywhere - in the text. No you can't see how i arrived with this fact.

You are somewhat right as to what the Greek says. Literally, without considering the whole epistle related to it, yes it does say what you say...but is this what is meant? Paul in Romans 8 says,

For those He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those He predestined, He also called; and those He called, He also justified; and those He justified, He also glorified.
So, since we are already justified, sanctified, and glorified (because this was predestined), we can go and just do whatever pleases our carcass, right? (This is the same type reasoning as you are advocating.)


You seem to be mixing up the fact of our fallen flesh which has to die as appointed, and the renewing of the mind (which so many Christians seem to shy away from, ignore or assume doesn't apply to them), through which we become aware of the continuation of fallen thinking in areas of our lives God had not yet pointed out to us. As far as I can tell, this renewing of the mind (and therefore a change in the actions of our fallen flesh) is attributed by Paul to the gift of the grace of God which is effectual in transforming us in the same way Christ was raised from death to life. Ephesians 3:7. Paul at one time couldn't even love his own kinsmen, and now he is loving even Gentiles. We have received the incorruptible seed, and it springs forth in the appearance of a new creation.You seem to be mixing up the fact that without our (fallen) flesh it is impossible for the mind to be renewed. The new man and old man are part of the same house. Allegorically, for those who have been imbued with God's zoe, existence is comparable to living in one house where one side it is shady (Rom. 7) and the other side it is pure Sonshine (Rom. 8).

The gift of grace does not come without faithfulness in what God expects and instructs us to do. It is not something we could ever earn, as all our right-deeds are as menstrual rags in His eyes. Our doing this is just a sign that we do actually desire to please Him by doing what He has revealed to do and are willing to forsake what we ourselves assume and rationalize to be good.

Paul's love was not in thought and only words. It was action. The attitude grew through this "love"="giving without expecting anything in return" which is diametrically opposed to what most today consider love to be.

The Bible does not tell us that the nature to sin died, but if we do not die to sin, we will remain adversaries to God's designated instructions of holiness for us. We will run about trying to.find excuses not to obey what God reveals as that holy, right, and good way for us. (Romans 7.12)


Romans 8:
5 For those who live according to the flesh think about the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, about the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mindset of the flesh is death, but the mindset of the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mindset of the flesh is hostile to God because it does not submit itself to God’s law, for it is unable to do so. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God...
Romans 12:1 Therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, I urge you to present your bodies as a sacrifice living holy and pleasing to God; this is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be patterned to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God.

When we do not live the good, pleasing and perfect (Romans 7.12) will of God for us, we do not satisfy God and we will not be able to discern what is right in God's eyes, compared with what He says and sees is wrong.


There is a distinction between the inner man and the outer man, and injunctions to bring the actions of the outer man in line with the new inner man....which is completely impossible for us to do.

We MUST deny ourselves, embracing our own execution:If any person will be my obedient-learner, you MUST deny yourself, take up your cross, and follow Me to the place of the skull, recognizing ourselves dead IN JESUS DEATH.

Completely identifying His death is our own, we are buried with Him [immersing ourselves in His name (= person, purpose and power) + (water baptism being the visible identification in Him in this)]

...or we never can have the life and nature of God: the violently dynamic power--"the Spirit of Christ"--to do "God's revealed will" = >Jesus' commands...which we can then embrace with confidence as it leads us closer and closer within Him. This is walking in His, the very same faithfulness that the spirit of Christ has done and is forever. Amen.

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law:for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ:nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever...18 I will not leave you comfortless:I will come to you...21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me:and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him...23 If a man love me, he will keep my words:and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings:and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

II John: 5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. 6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
...so much for The Great I Was and The Great I Will Be, hunh?

Shalom Aleichim,

ޜ:sBo_reflection2:

Charisma
08-30-2013, 05:35 AM
Hi Timmy,

I just want to acknowledge your post replying to some of my points, to say I feel as if I've been hit by a scattergun. Each of the areas where we appear to disagree is a large Bible study, and I just don't have time to do any of them justice. But, I do want to come back and tell you what and why I disagree with your 'thesis' in the places where we're at variance.

The easy things to mention are Romans 7 and 6, in that order. Romans 7 is about the effect of the law before faith in Jesus Christ, and Romans 6 links with the end of Romans 7 straight into Romans 8. Then there are random verses in some of the other epistles which you might say are not yet true, but I would say are true now, according to the eternal Spirit who indwells us by the grace of God, which grace enables us to be and demonstrate a life changed at its core.

David M
11-04-2013, 08:15 AM
Hello Timmy


Hey, David...haven't finished a response to you, and most of what follows written to C was already written at least three days (not sure exactly how many) before post #22 appeared.Take your time. I am in no hurry and also have less time coming up soon to keep up with all the threads. I had not come to this thread for a while.

How is it, we agree so much when I read your writing like this as you have replied to Charisma, but totally lost the plot when replying to me in the other posts that I would not leave on record and would delete. Anyway, I know we agree on more than we disagree and despite our frustrations, we have to show will-power to moderate ourselves.

I recently replied to Rose following her comment that Adam and Eve are responsible for the humans being born sinful. I do not know if you have read that thread. One of my conclusions could upset you again.


Palagianism: considers that we are born innocent and without a sin nature, capable of pleasing God in what works we do: WHY?I would not label myself as a Palagianist, though I think humans who were born to Adam and Eve had their nature. Adam and Eve were made and were sinless to begin with. It was within their nature to sin. This sin was; God said; "Do not .." and they decided to do that which God had forbidden them. That is sin in a nutshell.

Babies are not born sinful (full of sin). Babies are innocent until as a child they begin to know what the law is. A child once understanding of say The 10 Commandments, should then obey them as they should "honor their parents" and by honoring their parents they do as instructed by their parents. If the parents say; "do not steal", the child should not steal. If the child then goes on to steal, that is a sin against the parents; not directly against God. Once the child understands the commandment " do not steal" comes from God, then their sin would be against God, if they were to go on and steal. When King David sinned he said, (2 Sam 12:13) I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

We read this in the Psalm credited to David (Psalm 51:3) For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me 4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

Timmy. Could God ever be in a position to sin against himself; Yes or No ?


All the best
David

Timmy
11-04-2013, 03:21 PM
w/o edit so if something was missed, clarify please.
Hello Timmy


Hey, David...haven't finished a response to you, and most of what follows written to C was already written at least three days (not sure exactly how many) before post #22 appeared.

Take your time. I am in no hurry and also have less time coming up soon to keep up with all the threads. I had not come to this thread for a while.

How is it, we agree so much when I read your writing like this as you have replied to Charisma, but totally lost the plot when replying to me in the other posts that I would not leave on record and would delete. Anyway, I know we agree on more than we disagree and despite our frustrations, we have to show will-power to moderate ourselves.

I recently replied to Rose following her comment that Adam and Eve are responsible for the humans being born sinful. I do not know if you have read that thread. One of my conclusions could upset you again.Oivey David,

As for the posts you would not leave on record, they stay and persist even if never completed. Shame or fame matters none.

Something you and dux seem not to understand in regard to presentation, what may appear to be outlandish, just totally out of character, or wrong to you is not the way everyone sees things. I'm thinking of a poem right now, just a few lines of it, and I do not even recall the author but if you just consider these words, these few words will give enough food for thought to reconsider judging me for the way I go about things differently at different times and seasons:


Judge not the workings of his brain,
And of his heart thou cannot see.
What looks to thy dim eyes a stain,
In God’s pure light may only be
A scar brought from some well-won field
Where thou wouldst only hint and yield.

Whenever we assign people to our esteemed judgement without consideration of them, and then act on such assumptions, maybe because they do not do something the way we think it ought to be done or because we believe their motives are wrong, we are passing judgment that only God is qualified to make. The Savior does not call for men to cease to be examining and discerning, but to renounce the presumptuous temptation to try to be God.

If that presumptuous temptation to try and be God is noted as determining what scripture is supposed to mean by free wheeling reasoning without accounting for other scriptures that of necessity are more valid than whatever notions we come up with: if anyone claims it as their own--owns it, both they and the falsehood need to be exposed, examined, and refuted so there is no valid false conclusion that might stand save what scripture reveals. If it is just an idea and not something held onto by another as their truth, this is something to be first taken up with them, and then after these attempts others can come into the picture.

For the claims of following Jesus, you--(and dux being led by His spirit)--both have done a piss poor job with what he tells you to do in Matthew 18.

So which "David M." is writing for the post being responded to? The writing style seems suddenly to have changed when the responses to Rose and Richard were made...as is the case for this one.

Back to answering you who thinks you might have lost the plot? What if there isn't one?

It is becoming clearer to the Timmy all the time. Here is the basic issue: we come to similar conclusions in ways, yes; however, when it comes right down to the foundational issues, as long as you keep on believing what your head says and whatever the human reasons that compose the complex, we may appear to be on the same page though actually we are world's apart.

You may be frustrated, but I have resigned to await your reply how Jesus being worshiped in ways only God is allowed, neither tells anyone not to do this nor prevents it, but assists any with requests to Him when they worship Him as God. You have been shown many scriptures indicating Jesus is God and you have twisted the meaning of many of them. The ones you have not done this with, you have completely failed to answer, and often sidestep the issue in avoidance. My how brave! It is understood how you assume Y'shua is not the one who ultimately created you, and this is not fine. There is neither offense taken nor frustration here, though you might just perpetually experience dissonance by whatever means possible when possible by the Timmy.

One wearies of stupid little word wrenching games after awhile.

Time to cut to the chase, don't you think?

Oh, all of those, your compiled reasons promised you from your thread to be sent??? I have had to begin back at square one on that again because though it was thought impossible to crash a BlackBerry Tablet, Timmy managed, just like with every cybercontrapolation ever used...pushing everything to the limits and all. Anyway, this time, having just begun again, these texts are being put in a cloud FTTB.
(Organizing those things was such a bear the first time around, and I was only about one third through, too...but however long it takes, when done, you shall be sent all of it.)

When time is available, just about everything is read from where the Timmy left off from last. So yes, all that stuff you mentioned has been read., and more.

...and the moderating ourselves??? I hail coming out from a life of severe brain damage, heroin addiction, and extreme occult praxis, so there are still many things I have no qualms about whatsoever. It has been observed that these such things you think need moderation are not really issues of morality so much as cultured differences. If another cannot handle it, they need to talk to me about it and not judge and act as though I do not give a rip, because I do care, and yet somethings like that is more an issue of being oblivious to anothers paradigm than what has comparatively been lived through by me.

This is one thing so amusing to me about dux in his twisting what the Bible actually is speaking in terms of, like:
--the quote from Col. 3.8...i was thinking what could be more like those things mentioned to avoid than any corruption of Bible truth and then expounding that (supposedly authoritatively) to others as though it were absolute truth...and dux completely missed the context of the verse which is found in verse.9: not to have any part in lying.
--Saying that Elijah went to heaven when he did not. There is a difference between atmosphere and heaven even in ancient Hebrew, and the correlating history about Elijah in the Chronicles has him writing a letter to the king of the other kindom of divided Y'israel seven years after he is misconstrued as having gone to heaven.
--a double portion does not mean 2x
--Jesus the Christ is the spirit of prophecy as Peter and John reveal in the Book, so there is not one prophet who does not stand figuratively as not representing the Messiah.
--and if Y'shua was so only Elisha, why did he prophecy the destruction of Jerusalem with this generation shall not pass wishing instead to gather them all together as when would her chick's. There was a near extermination of the children of Y'israel, so many of them crucified from Ha'Aretz to roadways near Egypt, that wood became a precious commodity. Yeah, Jesus is like Elisha and nod Elijah my left foot! He gave them what they wanted, "Let his blood be upon us and our children."
--I could go on with things that were not cogent with what dux was saying, but will save it for upcoming posts as previously mentioned to he who read the Bible with the spectacles of Marcion.



Palagianism: considers that we are born innocent and without a sin nature, capable of pleasing God in what works we do: WHY?


I would not label myself as a Palagianist, though I think humans who were born to Adam and Eve had their nature. Adam and Eve were made and were sinless to begin with. It was within their nature to sin. This sin was; God said; "Do not .." and they decided to do that which God had forbidden them. That is sin in a nutshell.

Babies are not born sinful (full of sin). Babies are innocent until as a child they begin to know what the law is. A child once understanding of say The 10 Commandments, should then obey them as they should "honor their parents" and by honoring their parents they do as instructed by their parents. If the parents say; "do not steal", the child should not steal. If the child then goes on to steal, that is a sin against the parents; not directly against God. Once the child understands the commandment " do not steal" comes from God, then their sin would be against God, if they were to go on and steal. When King David sinned he said, (2 Sam 12:13) I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

We read this in the Psalm credited to David (Psalm 51:3) For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me 4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

Timmy. Could God ever be in a position to sin against himself; Yes or No ?


All the best
David

I would not label you as a Palagian per se either. You adhere to kult Christadelphia dogma both theologically and socially, with the lues of Jehovah Witness influence. Both of these cults are primarily rooted in the beliefs of the ancient Ebonite's. The difference with Christadelphians is that it introduces many Gnostic concepts into the formulation of their belief system, so that there is leniency in finding other sources which agree outside of their leaders and teachings of their own eclectic pseudo-Biblical conceptualization.

Sin is sin. It doesn’t matter what kind of wrong done is done how because it is all wrong.

The problem is not the deed but the natural condition of the human heart.

NOW, all sin is directly against God, and the way it is done by acting it out is secondary.

Contrary to what you say, considering the fifth word of Mosaic Law, it is never first a sin against the parents, because the parents did not make the rule. It is a sin against the Law Giver and Judge, Melki Y'shua.

As for your question, it seems a little screwy. God is always in a position where he could sin against Himself simply because He can do whatever He wants. The real question is "Will He?"
...and He does not.

Because He does not change, He will not..

We are discussing the difference between an act and the core nature of humans, and we are fools to somehow think we could ever compare with him or understand who, and how, and why He does as Jesus always does.

We do not understand because we were made to commune with Him, and Adam blew it for us all.
(..not that we would have, or even could have done it any different, because we are his progeny.)

Y'shua made it very clear that is is not the outward things that makes us unclean, impure, and sin outwardly; but what proceeds from the core of our being, the heart. In Jeremiah 17, it is revealed our own hearts, like a dollop of whipped cream are a composite of desperations twisted against God's way, and then the cherry on top deceives us, so that we can never truly know or really understand ourselves.

It's been said before and now repeated again, "Why do you have to teach a child to do what is right, but they exibit a cognizant experiential knowledge of how to do the wrong thing?"

Parcel in the human genome is the inborn tendency to sin. We are all born like this. It is our nature, the predominant human proclivity, the way of the human without God changing us is to always sin. It is not about whether we do something we might think is good or not, because everyone has different moors. Anyway, often can be seen how intended good does not go unpunished with evil, or what good is done corrupts itself because of the corrupted source from which it came: ALL OF US. The issue is that there is not a man on the face of the earth who does not sin.


You challenged Rose with this stuff, and I really wonder how much time you spend reading the Bible without whatever book to reinterpolate the meaning into something the Bible never said? But you challenged Shoshana concerning the Bible saying anything related to humans possessing the nature to sin.

Y'shua says we are from below and He is from above.

Paulos in Romans 5, beginning at verse 12, writes:


Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned. In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to a person’s account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned...

We were all in Adam when Adam sinned so all have sinned. It is a genetic fact established, not something that comes about by what one does or does not do.

In the Psalms we read that we humans come from Sh'ol, and not from above, as is where Y'shua is.

Could anything be any plainer?

...and will be amused if--, or should we say how--you twist and wrench this into something the Bible does not say.
Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:
Do it and we can add Palagianism to the Christadelphians, or are you still standing firm with your questionable claim that you are an eclectic kultist?

Timmy
11-04-2013, 10:22 PM
Hah, reading through what was just written, David, you first claim not to adhere to Palagianism, and just a few sentences later you deny what you claimed in saying that babies are born innocent. We think your confusing ignorance for innocence.

Where is that in the Bible...that babies are innocent?


How can any of all humans conceived in sin possess anything but the nature to sin?
SIN + SIN = MORE SIN



Romans 5:6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.…8...God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.



How you think that before Holy Perfection you, if with only one single sin tainted action will even dare be bold enough to stands before the righteous God and Judge, Y'shua Ha'Mashiach is ludicrous understanding the heavens and earth will flee from His presence in that day.

So, you actually believe something other than if he were not forcing you to appear before Him and making it possible for you to remain to face up and give account to Him, that you are greater than the forces of nature He made and holds together?

Give me a break.

The sad part is you are continually begging for God's mercy because your false religion has no power to deliver you from your humanness, which exhibits itself in your own natural inclination to transgress against both God and man. It's called a sin nature in English, and it is a noun in the Greek manuscripts, not merely an action verb.

II Timothy 3.5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

How you assume you might somehow justify your deeds as though you made yourself righteous by what you think is good that you have done is even more foolhardy. The simple fact that nobody but nobody is justified through the Law and to transgress just one (of 613 points) is guilty of breaking them all should cause you to reconsider.

In fact, reconsider the whole scenario you imagine, because there is a very good reason it is called the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord (Kurios).

You might also wish to rethink your interpretation of the word "Kurios" as well, because we know that God shall judge every person:

For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
John 5.21-23

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Revelation 20.12

Jesus is God who is Judge over the whole Earth.


While your at it, check and see what the Mosaic Law from God says happens to anyone who leads anyone away from Eloheinu through what they proclaim, such as false prophets/teachers. In short, it becomes destruction onto death.

If you do not see what the above sentence implies, explain how one trains others into the deception that by keeping the Law they will be right with God when God says nobody is made right with Him by their own works, as well as revealing that nobody born of Adam's seed is able to keep the Law.

As briefly as it can be stated, there is going to be hell to pay bubba; but we observe you fear men more than God so that you do what men say and teach instead of what God demands.

Prepare for the incineration pit or change your tune ...along with that whole song and dance charade.

Just doing my job,

Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

Richard Amiel McGough
11-04-2013, 10:52 PM
Hah, reading through what was just written, David, you first claim not to adhere to Palagianism, and just a few sentences later you deny what you claimed in saying that babies are born innocent. We think your confusing ignorance for innocence.

Where is that in the Bible...that babies are innocent?


How can any of all humans conceived in sin possess anything but the nature to sin?
SIN + SIN = MORE SIN



The sad part is you are continually begging for God's mercy because your false religion has no power to deliver you from your humanness, which exhibits itself in your own natural inclination to transgress against both God and man. It's called a sin nature in English, and it is a noun in the Greek manuscripts, not merely an action verb.

Hey there Timmy and folks!

One of the first articles I wrote after setting up this forum - long long ago when I was still a fervent Christian - was called Sin Nature - The Phlogiston of Christian Theology? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?13-Sin-Nature-the-phlogiston-of-Christian-Theology). In it, I explained that the concept of "sin nature" is found nowhere in Scripture and actually makes no sense at all. It is a theological construct superimposed upon the Biblical concept of the "flesh". Some modern translations, such as the NIV, go so far as to actually "translate" (ha!) the word "sarx" (flesh) as "sin nature". I think you might find the discussion in that thread relevant.

Carry on!

Richard


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X_2IdybTV0

Timmy
11-05-2013, 04:40 AM
Hey there Timmy and folks!

One of the first articles I wrote after setting up this forum - long long ago when I was still a fervent Christian - was called Sin Nature - The Phlogiston of Christian Theology? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?13-Sin-Nature-the-phlogiston-of-Christian-Theology). In it, I explained that the concept of "sin nature" is found nowhere in Scripture and actually makes no sense at all. It is a theological construct superimposed upon the Biblical concept of the "flesh". Some modern translations, such as the NIV, go so far as to actually "translate" (ha!) the word "sarx" (flesh) as "sin nature". I think you might find the discussion in that thread relevant.

Carry on!

Richard


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X_2IdybTV0
:icon_hello:
Howdy Big Kahuna:yo:

Oh boy, your article was now read for the second time, and I still am not prepared enough to get into it, though some thoughts already looked into could help you view this current perspective just a bit. I am going to buckle down and read through the thread and should the following not be discussed (along with other related things), I might could give it a go. What is hoped is that this does not become one of those long drawn out issues quibbling over the meaning of a word, AND YET neglecting to account for the various context within which the word in question is used (relative within the reason for which this word was determined for use:

בָּשָׂר.

If recalled correctly, there are about 20 variations of this one word, and a discovery of it's very etymology indicates it is seldom used only in the sense of only the physical component, but that related factors with the "animal man" also figure into the picture we have of this one word.

You gave the comparison of light traveling through a vacum, and the ideas of philogiston and æther being tossed away as nonsense.

Hint: You could say the same thing of darkness and throw away the imaginary as well.


FTMP, what you said makes sense to me, especially with the allusion concerning "the horse without a rider", AND YET if we were not accounting for what Paulos is explaining from Romans 5-8end, the definition based on what you say in your article seems (to me) to be just a bit short of definition. The etymology of the word says alot in and of itself, and ultimately means something like "What come off/from/of the bones".

If you do not recall being asked in a thread(that Timmy should have responded to you concerning, since the Timmy started it just to cover an equally related issue with this "nature to sin"="sarx")concerning what actually consitutes denial of Jesus Christ and all it entailed. I just figured that since you did not see sickness, disease, malformities, etc. as parcel with sin, the discussion would go nowhere.

A lamb without blemish entails both physical and the core/"heart" composites of nephesh and ruach as well as the outward appearances. This is signified in the observation time in processing whether any acceptable sacrifice is completely acceptable. What I am saying is that any physical or emotive/intellectual capacities of the human are covered in the sacrifice. The very first Pesach is recounted in this respect, where out of all the young, old, and previously physically maimed, upon the Exodus out from Egypt it is recounted that "...there was not one weak or sickly among them" in the Psalm.

The above reason is why I consider most who claim thinking they are saved to be nuts and are actually talking about phlogiston or ætherics which have little if anything to do with physical reality. Recall what Y'shua proclaimed, after the religious leaders considered Him to blaspheme God for saying, Son, your sins are forgiven...Which is easier, to say your sins are forgiven or...but that you might know that the son of man has power to forgive sins, take up your palate and walk." Yeah, you heard me right. On this wise, how come this is not the true experience of many who say they believe but the fruits just are not there. After all, which is easier, to make a baseless claim that "Jesus is Lord" or exhibit proof you actually are trusting in full reliance on the completed once for all time sacrifice of Him who it was promised in prophecy by Abraham Avinu,“Eloheinu will provide Himself a lamb.” It is quite questionable if any continue pleading with God to do for them what He has already completed through the sacrifice in His only begotten Son that they actually have any trust that God has already done it, much less being able to accept as theirs and receive these "free love gifts" (aka: GRACE) from the Faithful and True beginning and end of all things, His Eternal Majesty, Y'shua Ha'Mashiach.

I am nobody to determine what another can or cannot do, and even less know whether one is walking by and through the faithfulness of and in the Son of God. All I am saying is that the gate into the kingdom is tighter than a turnstiles, and the path becomes narrower as one walks in Him as the Way. Covering this, each needs to examine themselves and see if they are actually in His faith(fulness) or just assuming things in their head without any physical world proof and according results promised as already given.

Which is easier: To say I believe, or say I believe and then prove it?


Have you studied how closely Yochanan relates with what Paul is explaining concerning the difference between the "sarx" of acension in and of Yeshua compared with the "sarx" of Adamic decent: briefly, John 6.beg. approx. v.50 -vs- John 3.6, respectively.

Would it have made any difference to you had I phrased sarx defined in English as "the inborn tendency to sin" instead of "sin nature"?


Keep your mind fixed on Him and know
Shalom Shalom,
Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

David M
11-05-2013, 04:41 AM
Hello Richard
I have not read your post you have linked to, but from the little you have said, I think I agree with you. When discussing these things, much confusion is caused by misunderstanding in our communication in the words we use and the different meanings we attach to those words. This is why we have to be clear about some of the things we say before moving on.


Hey there Timmy and folks!

One of the first articles I wrote after setting up this forum - long long ago when I was still a fervent Christian - was called Sin Nature - The Phlogiston of Christian Theology? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?13-Sin-Nature-the-phlogiston-of-Christian-Theology). In it, I explained that the concept of "sin nature" is found nowhere in Scripture and actually makes no sense at all. It is a theological construct superimposed upon the Biblical concept of the "flesh". Some modern translations, such as the NIV, go so far as to actually "translate" (ha!) the word "sarx" (flesh) as "sin nature". I think you might find the discussion in that thread relevant.

Carry on!

Richard


I will carry on and just make a comment or two about what Timmy has written and possibly misunderstood. He agrees my thinking does not totally align with Palagianism and wants to label me as a Christadelphian or Jehovah's Witness etc and by doing judges everything I say to those and more cults. Why cannot it be accepted I have also reasoned these things our for myself. We all hear and read and we all have to make up our minds and reason for ourselves. I am not accepting another's reasoning blindly. Once this is accepted, then it is futile associating what I write with this or that cult (as you want to refer to different assemblies).

I can agree with Timmy and say; "Sin is Sin", but Timmy fails to see how this relates to a child. A child is told the law, by the parents. My example was using one of the 10 Commandments and we all know (though even this is disagreed) the commandments are (first) recorded in the Book of Exodus and given to the Children of Israel. Many parents do not know that? So a parent can tell a child not to steal, not knowing where that commandment came from and it could be thought to be morally correct not to steal. Ultimately, the law is of God, but if someone puts themselves outside the law claiming ignorance of the law, then can they be judged by the law? According to the law of the land; ignorance is no excuse. Until a child knows that "not to steal" is God's law, it can be argued that if a child steals, they sin not against God, but against their parents who gave that commandment (law) to their child. There appear to be different types of sin as recorded in 1 Sam 2:25 If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall entreat for him?


There is so much to Timmy's reply and each part has to be dealt with separately. I shall just pick up on this one comment of Timmy's to conclude this post. I wonder at Timmy's understanding of God word. He does not accept I can reason things out for myself ;
"I really wonder how much time you spend reading the Bible without whatever book to reinterpolate the meaning" I could ask Timmy how he has come by some of his conclusions. Timmy is relying on teaching I have not come across.


As for your question, it seems a little screwy. God is always in a position where he could sin against Himself simply because He can do whatever He wants. The real question is "Will He?"
...and He does not.

Because He does not change, He will not..
Timmy, how can you conclude ; "He (God) will not... (change, sin etc)". If God does not change and he is Spirit and he is the same "yesterday, today, and tomorrow", does that not say, he does not change and cannot change. You are saying; "if God's wants to", he can sin against himself. So then, if God were to sin, that would make God unrighteous (forever). Surely, if God is to remain forever the righteous judge, he must never sin. That is as good as saying "he cannot sin".

You are saying; God can break his promise (if he wants to). Does that make God trustworthy? Do we only trust God, because, up to now, we have no indication he has changed in the past? With the possibility God could change in the future and not keep his promise, makes for a very uncertain future. What certainty is there in eternal life, if God can change his mind at any time? If that were the case, I would not trust God, any more than I would trust God's Angels to do his will. You again accuse God of creating Angels like humans, with the capacity to sin. Angels would be at enmity with God. The only enmity with God is the carnal mind. Humans have a carnal mind and especially when that mind does not have the teaching of Jesus in it by which "the mind of Jesus" controls their actions.; hence the doing. It is the mind of Christ based on the teaching of God as found in the teaching of Moses and the prophets that makes Jesus "heavenly" (above) and not "earthy" below. Jesus is comparing mindsets.

All the best
David

Timmy
11-05-2013, 05:10 AM
David, I am not going to play any hypothetical games with you. This is not realistic when incomes to scripture. A majority of the time you focus on one little itsy bitsy point as though it were the end all in all, when you do not even have a clear knowledge of Barasheet to Apocolypsos.

You are asking questions that do not account for the whole of Scripture which invalidates those flawed questions from the git go.

Why don't you spend a whole lot more time meditating on scripture alone without puttingwhatever the persons spin on it you admire as superceedent to what scripture actually reveals. If you do this, you would not ask so many dumb questions and spire down the rabbit hole.

If you never saw "The Matrix" you will not understand what. Follows, yet it follows NTL:

I was done with you when you tried to self-justify every little thing with insufficient reason in nearlyball of it.

Answer why Jesus received worship as God and benefits all who worship Him without compromise.


You are just not facing the facts presented, much less answering me...so what do I think of the darling dolly diva of deceptive sociopathological renoun?

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsies roll tootsies pop?

I don't know, but down the rabbit hole you go because we are nearing bullet time.

Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

Timmy
11-05-2013, 05:27 AM
David, one of your megalithic obstacles is facing you every time you look in a mirror.

You rationalize (bereft of logic) thinking things out for yourself to satisfy yourself without accepting or accounting for all the facts available.

Bullet time draws closer,
Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

David M
11-05-2013, 08:04 AM
Hello Timmy


David, one of your megalithic obstacles is facing you every time you look in a mirror.

You rationalize (bereft of logic) thinking things out for yourself to satisfy yourself without accepting or accounting for all the facts available.

Bullet time draws closer,
Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:That is what I am trying to do and allowing you to present the facts you think I have overlooked. I can look at the facts you present and decide on their validity. We all should look in the mirror when writing especially when we are being judgemental as you so often are with me and what I think or how I reason.


David, I am not going to play any hypothetical games with you. This is not realistic when incomes to scripture. A majority of the time you focus on one little itsy bitsy point as though it were the end all in all, when you do not even have a clear knowledge of Barasheet to Apocolypsos. I do not have the same knowledge as you and that is all we can say. How do you know you have a clearer or better picture of the whole as I do? When you say that, you are saying that against thousands of other intelligent minds capable of rational thought. If you are able to debate rationally, then our conversation is no threat, but a study to enlighten each other and maybe find some mutual ground of understanding.


You are asking questions that do not account for the whole of Scripture which invalidates those flawed questions from the git go. You ask the questions, you think I should ask and be prepared to give your own answer.


Why don't you spend a whole lot more time meditating on scripture alone without puttingwhatever the persons spin on it you admire as superceedent to what scripture actually reveals. If you do this, you would not ask so many dumb questions and spire down the rabbit hole. There you go again being judgemental. I am sure some readers will find your comments more absurd than mine. How do you know I have not meditated and thought about these things. Why say I should do this and not accept I have not done so already? On many occassions your logical thought is lacking. If you were not so judgemental , I would not have to say so.


If you never saw "The Matrix" you will not understand what. Follows, yet it follows NTL: I have seen the Matrix about 3 or 4 years ago. It proves nothing.


I was done with you when you tried to self-justify every little thing with insufficient reason in nearlyball of it.I was nearly done with you when your turned insulting. It is not acceptable to excuse yourself by saying you can act that way. It was not Christ-like and those who are trying to be Christ-like would not see your verbal abuse as acceptable. I know Jesus got angry and called the Pharisees "hypocrites". That might have sounded offensive to them, I can live with that sort of comment. Jesus was right, however, your comments were completely out of place.


Answer why Jesus received worship as God and benefits all who worship Him without compromise.


You are just not facing the facts presented, much less answering me...so what do I think of the darling dolly diva of deceptive sociopathological renoun?

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsies roll tootsies pop?

I don't know, but down the rabbit hole you go because we are nearing bullet time.

Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:I have commented on this and I have made the same comments in other posts about this same thing. I will explain it again, so you can finally stop whining. I honor Christ and I worship God in accordance with what Jesus/Christ expected.
We have to look at all instances where the word worship has been used and see if there is an equally applicable word that can be used that does not mean worship in the same sense as it applies to God. When the wise men came to worship the child Jesus, that is what is reported. The author does not add comment as to whether that was politically correct. How do you know the translators could not have used another word so as to differentiate between reverencing Jesus and reverencing God?

The fact that it is written some people worshipped Jesus, does not mean Jesus was aware of that or took their form of reverencing him as worship in the same sense as God is to be worshipped (as the sole Creator). When Jesus says; (John 4:24) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. That is one aspect of our worshipping God, we must worship him in spirit. Maybe you can elaborate on that. Jesus was not Spirit when he said that.
Here is the full passage of Jesus words; Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we (including Jesus) worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. When I have said "God", in this context, I mean the Father; the same as Jesus prayed to the Father.

As you know, Satan ( I know you do not understand the term Satan as I do) said to Jesus to worship him and Jesus replied (Matt 4:9) Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.. The only extra commands Jesus gave us was to remember him in the way he appointed by the eating or bread and wine. And also in the requirement to submit to baptism. We serve God by obeying the teaching of Jesus. God said; "hear him" and this was said on at least two separate occasions. Jesus is the prophet of which Moses spake; (Deut 18:15) The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet (Jesus) from the midst of thee , of thy brethren (a descendent), like unto me (a man); unto him ye shall hearken;

That could not be any more clear and it is easy to understand. I listen to Jesus and following his teaching which is also found in the scriptures to which Jesus referred and knew and understood very well. I listen to what Moses had to say;doyou? Jesus did not say Moses was wrong.

All the best
David

Charisma
11-05-2013, 09:00 AM
Hi David,

I would like to put two of your statements together, in the hope you can see you are, possibly, being more 'judgemental' than Timmy.


I can look at the facts you present and decide on their validity

Bear in mind Timmy is presenting THE WORD OF GOD as facts, and you are going to 'decide on their validity'?

In other words, you are going to judge the word of God! (Many people would suggest that in so doing, you would be setting yourself above God.)


In the following, the emphases are mine:


Originally Posted by Timmy

Why don't you spend a whole lot more time meditating on scripture alone without puttingwhatever the persons spin on it you admire as superceedent to what scripture actually reveals. If you do this, you would not ask so many dumb questions and spire down the rabbit hole.

Reply by David M
There you go again being judgemental. I am sure some readers will find your comments more absurd than mine. How do you know I have not meditated and thought about these things. Why say I should do this and not accept I have not done so already? On many occassions your logical thought is lacking. If you were not so judgemental , I would not have to say so.

Because of your response, I am going to translate for you. Timmy said,

Why don't you lay aside all your preconceptions, and just think about what the Bible says all by itself?

He made this suggestion because he thinks you would discover that some of your received wisdom is plainly untrue. You should believe the Bible, instead.

This (discovering) is the same principle by which any counterfeit is detected and avoided, namely, that intimate acquaintance with the 'real thing' will save you from being cheated with a fake.

Charisma
11-05-2013, 01:11 PM
Hi Richard,

I won't have time to read the original discussion you posted, but I do want to comment on your post on the previous page.


I explained that the concept of "sin nature" is found nowhere in Scripture and actually makes no sense at all.

I am not going to attempt to draw all my thoughts into a recognisable 'theological' construct, because that, as you have pointed out, has led to erroneous thinking. What we do have, instead, are clear statements in scripture, each one of which is valid. I'll assume you can follow, without quoting too much.

One part of the thesis of the person who made the video at the start of this thread, is the same point you're making - that 'flesh' is not intrinsically evil. He would say sin's about rebellion against God; that we are born into rebellion; from this we should repent, mend our ways by turning from sinful practices - to yield our members to righteousness rather than to sin. This is completely clear in the NT from Jesus, Peter, Paul and John, and perhaps it assumes a typically Israeli understanding of the totally integrated person. Of itself, though, the statement lacks reference to the cross of Christ by which all relief from sin and its consequences is obtained. The cross - God's mechanism for our salvation - seems to defeat most people. (I don't mean it has defeated the author of the video; only that many Christians could not expound Romans 6 with any understanding or excitement.)

Looking back to the garden of Eden, Paul says (more than once) that we all 'died' 'in Adam'. This is where fleshly thinking receives its heaviest blow, since none of us can avoid the physical death which awaits us. Our lives are like the fuse to some damp dynamite which will implode when the light touches it. What can be done to 'save' our souls from perishing with our bodies, when the slow burn ends as the spirit departs?

Enter the word of God, which can divide - separate - one invisible part of our being from another. Amazing!

Hebrews 4
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

The word of God could (and did) show mankind its wretchedness, (and Moses didn't want to have to look at his wretchedness). Nevertheless, until Jesus Christ died on the cross - a death into which we can enter in spirit (reality) - every human heart was functioning just as Jesus describes it:

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

(The proof of the universality of this kind of heart is the emphasis on a clean conscience which is placed by the NT writers:

Hebrews 10:19 - 22, 1 Peter 1:2, Acts 13:38, 39, 1 John 1:7.)

So, yes, it is not the flesh itself, but the heart which produces the fruit/seed of the tree of death from which Adam ate and died.


A good way to understand the role of the flesh is as a partner in sin, because the desires of the heart are a critical factor.

Right at the beginning of Ephesians Paul says more than usual about the will of God - the expression of His heart.

Likewise, 'the will of' man is as dynamic in respect of what he achieves or does not achieve. We all get the desires of our heart, whatever they may be. This is one of the most terrifying truths to encounter with one's whole brain awake and in gear. Without the word of God piercing our hearts, as happened to the men in Acts 2, we might never begin to desire to cease from our deadness and all the corruption which naturally flows from it, day by day. We need God to become our new source - John 7:38.

The flesh is actually a servant to whatever we desire. It can shout for attention very loudly, but never so loudly that we cannot subdue it if we so desire. To an extent, that was one good outcome of 'the law' - as an inhibitor - but its application was entirely external. But the cross of Christ offers an internal solution, and eternal life to those who embrace its power, while apparently deterring those who choose to remain not 'in Christ'.

I believe God searches and tries our hearts, to inform us of our need for a change (of heart). In His mercy He pushes us for an answer to His overtures. The more we hear Him, the more faith is created by which the step to initial change can be made. Then it has to be applied day by day.

It is only as we genuinely receive a new heart and a new spirit, that we can say amen to Paul's bold statement in 2 Corinthians 5 - about old things having 'passed away' and 'all things' being new; (that) the one who believes has become 'a new creation'; the flesh profits nothing. From 2 Cor 4 to 2 Cor 7:1 is one of the longest descriptions Paul ever made, of the effect of the dynamic of the cross when it is being allowed to work in a believer's experience.

In Ephesians also, Paul shows how the same 'effectual working' of the death of Jesus Christ and His resurrection releases us from the death which began in the garden of Eden - if we will receive the grace of God, and allow Him to work His desires in us. It is only in Him, that 'all are made alive'. Psalm 37:4 - 6.

Paul says something more about the process he has experienced, in Ephesians 3:

16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; 17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; 19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, 21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

If one understands that when Jesus died on that cross, the whole man was crucified - the natural man as well as the man of sin - one can be expectant of being grafted into the death of Christ and walking only in 'newness of life', as Paul puts it in Romans 6:4, with the 'new creation' in the ascendancy, and the flesh serving only God's purposes - until 'that day' when some are raised to glory, and some are raised to shame. It goes without saying that one cannot be filled with 'all the fulness of God', if one is still full of sin; doesn't it?

David M
11-05-2013, 04:27 PM
Hello Charisma


Hi David,

I would like to put two of your statements together, in the hope you can see you are, possibly, being more 'judgemental' than Timmy.



Bear in mind Timmy is presenting THE WORD OF GOD as facts, and you are going to 'decide on their validity'?

In other words, you are going to judge the word of God! (Many people would suggest that in so doing, you would be setting yourself above God.)
I am not being judgemental of Timmy in the same way things have been said about me. like I am going to hell for believing Jesus is not God. I would not say anything like that to you. I think you are misapplying the word "judge" to my understanding of the Bible. As you know, we are to "rightly divide the word of scripture". That is what I am always trying to do. If I have got it wrong and your are right, then your side of the argument should win.

Of course, I have to make a decision about what someone else says about the scripture or says is from the scripture. We have to do what the Bereans were commended for. I expect you to do the same. Are you following and understanding my reasoning or have you closed your mind thinking and that what you believe is totally right? We should all keep an open mind to new ideas and thoughts, but I am not going to give up on everything that I have come to a reasoned conclusion after all the time I have spent considering it. I will listen to your argument, but it has to stand up to scrutiny and I expect you to scrutinize my reasoning. Why have you given up reasoning with me? I have not received replies from you (or have I missed some?).






In the following, the emphases are mine:

Because of your response, I am going to translate for you. Timmy said,

Why don't you lay aside all your preconceptions, and just think about what the Bible says all by itself? I can do that, but how do you then understand the parables? How do you understand the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, for example? Unless you reason some things out, you might never get to know what they mean. I am learning new things all the time. The Bible is so full of material, it is a life-time's work of learning. Would you ask Jesus to lay aside his preconceptions or did he not have any? Unless, you can persuade me with rational reasons, I cannot be expected to give up all my beliefs at your say-so. Would you start having an open mind and consider alternatives ideas to eternal life? You have to give me reasons to do so, and I have to consider them; that is all any of us can do.

Please answer these two questions:
Q1. What doctrine are you willing to change your opinion of or belief?
Q2. What prophecy, psalm, or parable do you not understand? Give one example.



He made this suggestion because he thinks you would discover that some of your received wisdom is plainly untrue. You should believe the Bible, instead.

This (discovering) is the same principle by which any counterfeit is detected and avoided, namely, that intimate acquaintance with the 'real thing' will save you from being cheated with a fake.Timmy has nothing to fear, if he can reason rationally. Jesus asked the scribes and Pharisees questions, and they could not answer him. That is the time to worry. If you have reasoned things out correctly, your side of the argument/debate should stand up against my side. Neither of us has anything to fear, if we are searching for a greater understanding of God's word to find the Truth.

What you said to Richard, I already do. I look for other parts of scripture to answer scripture. If you are doing the same, we should find agreement.

Here is another question;
Q3 What is your reasoning behind the angels in Jude 6; who are they and how do you come to that decision?

If you disagree with my reasoning, then reply in the thread on the subject. This is not of vital importance to understand, and if you admitted that you had not come to a decision, then that does not matter. I have come to a decision and it will take powerful reasoning to persuade me to change my mind. I am not closing my mind, all I am saying is; present powerful reasons that stand up to scrutiny.

All the best
David

Timmy
11-05-2013, 06:15 PM
Hello again "David M.", :icon_hello:

You might think considerations here concerning the ways and means you operate is unfounded and perchance wonder why there really is little rebuttal.

In response, you exhibit a most profound ignorance and rather than owning up to this fact. In your own foolish satanic pride displaying unquestionable logical fallacy, you prove to your selfs that you are a legend in your own mind. A majority of onlookers see your will and ways extremely different than you do.

Several here have attempted to explain to you your erroroneous ways. Only a few of these compatriots here--that immediately come to mind in this regard--are:
--Rose
--Charisma
--silence
--Mystical
--L67
--Psalm 27.1
--Heb. 13.13
--Bob May

Your assumption that Richard and myself are so much like one another has now been shown to you to not be the case at all...so drop it. In fact quit comparing people to other persons as though they could somehow be the same.

On the other hand, to identify an ideological fallacy you have chosen to own and promote, whether Rood or your favorite kultus is not unjustified in consideration as you have proven no differently. Besides, a label is only a label, and yet if the shoe fits, wear it.

Why in the face of truths and facts you spit on, why oh why do you instead delude yourself further?:doh:?:doh:?:doh:?

Instead of being grateful to all who have wasted alot of time trying to reason with your lack of reason, you instead seem to act as if everyone is just out to get you, which is hardly the case...but you continue to put yourself on display; and yet, one fact recognizable of this forum is that once we make our voice heard, it is open season: sometimes quaint, sometimes nice, sometimes blunt, sometimes sarcastically or with cynicism. YET, there will be investigative analysis picking through whatever ambiguity that appears to hold inconsistency to each of us from our own perspectives.

Nobody here has your demise in mind ...and several of us are praying for y'all.

Reading your post to Richard that he has given such prominence out from "Why I Quit Christianity" says alot about the undercurrents behind many of your considerations, as well as priorities. For me, it cuts to the heart of where you presently stand in approach, attitude, and demeanor.:signthankspin:
In fact, a bit more heart to heart would be appreciated (here at least) instead of all the promotion of what you say you consider to be absolute. It is not an issue of disparity noted in these things so much as if we will be learning to recognize these things as they exist and will find the way to move forward beyond what is recognized as blind faith and beliefs that hold no substance throughout our real world experiences.

You might think me mean and you are entitled to this; but, you do not see things from this perspective even as I do not clearly see your paradigm or world view through those glasses.

Granted, you could probably find several inconsistencies in my own reasoning...without having the full picture, and yet you have failed to show this though you could have. Remember, we are now talking about disambiguation...and alot of times things are intentionally left open-ended or made to seem without reason by the Timmy for the sake of further examination of my own inconsistencies.

Still...instead of gratefulness for the mercy and grace our Happy Host has ceaselessly showed us both, why are you so insistent that many of the things you promote make little if any sense at all when exposed to the light of cogent facts????? You are beginning to prove yourself a hopeless conflagration onto yourself. Have you ever just sat down and considered how much time Richard alone has burned on you, only for you to smack him back with logical fallacy ad infinitum?

Indeed “Wisdom is the principle thing”, and yet your own insistent negations of sensible logical reasoning belie the beliefs you think somehow people who are thoroughly prepared to give an answer from our own perspectives are somehow going to buy into that?

...so do not even wonder why you are seen to exhibit the characteristics of both troll and shill.


...What persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
II Timothy 3.11b-17

It is desired that you will consider the above words in bold without any self justifications, even though this is a strong tendency for all of us manimals to do. It is also asked you consider the comments Charis posted toward your own well being.

It is one thing to be renounced and defamed for Faith in Y'shua and another altogether to be denounced for unreasonability.

You have yet to show any sound cogent reasoning, deceived darling dolly diva deludedly thinking any can find your vain imaginings to be anything worthwhile.

For all the hubbub of your saying stupid stuff like "this discussion is over", no matter the whatnots and wherefores, you seem to appear to have somehow become hooked into reading what travels from inside of me and through these fingertips into our beloved B.W.F.A.™.

...and in a roundabout answer to that question once troubling you about the Timmy, it is best to forget it.
Richard's posting and placing the song by Kansas, "Carry On My Wayward Son" will tell you oh so much about me in far fewer words than any discursions of mental meanderings Timmy is prone to lose everyone in, including hir selfs.







David, I am not going to play any hypothetical games with you. This is not realistic when it comes to Biblical text. A majority of the time you focus on one little itsy bitsy point as though it were the end all in all, when you do not even have a clear knowledge of Barasheet to Apokalypsis. You are asking questions that do not account for the whole of Scripture which invalidates those flawed questions from the git go.

I do not have the same knowledge as you and that is all we can say. How do you know you have a clearer or better picture of the whole as I do? When you say that, you are saying that against thousands of other intelligent minds capable of rational thought. If you are able to debate rationally, then our conversation is no threat, but a study to enlighten each other and maybe find some mutual ground of understanding.You have once again focused on the issues surrounding the premise and not accounting yourself to what is proposed--(kind of like knowing you are going to burn in hell but fail to do anything to alter that. The burning in hell is the result and not the cause of completely defying His revelation of who He is so that you can Know Him as He is and not merely some imagined reasoning about Him).

So, first comes the answer to your query, and then what is actually meant and intended in that brief statement can be clarified for your own benefit.

Nobody on earth has the same knowledge, and receptivity to environmental stimuli foreshadows perception, perspective onto retention. So, your response in that first statement is saying very little and actually sounds like an excuse of resignation.

How do I consider myself to have a clearer picture? I really am not sure that I do, but I know the one who does; and in this Tanakh reveals I am becoming wiser than all my teachers through nothing I have done except continue to memorize and meditate in The Torah from Eloheinu: when I arise and when I go to sleep, when I sit down and when I stand up, when I am thinking about something in particular and when I am not, when I speak and when I remain silent, when I pray and when I take care of all other secondary responsibilities, when I am busy and when I relax, Etc. Etc. Etc...and the proof is in the pudding: real world results as promised in the Holy Scriptures, beginning with deepening relationship with Yaweh, and benefits to everyone about me who blesses and will not curse me.

Rationalization comes from rational thought, and in the scriptures this is understood as the first part of, and parceled within the factors composing wickedness. Without God's thoughts directing any reasoning, only leads to transgression against God and ultimately results in death. Let me tell you, I see this very thing very clearly from my own life experiences, and yet this has arrived only after years expended seeking God's face. So, let the worldly wise babble on with however any consider the supposed voice of intellectual, reason, or rationale; because to Elohim it is all foolishness: ashes to ashes and dust in the wind.

There is no mutual ground of understanding where another cannot even understand to receive, or is that receive to understand?

You will probably continue to reason (not from, but) about the scriptures, and yet I persist in learning how to better and better relate with Yah on His terms. Our motives and practices are entirely in opposition to one another. I am trying to get closer to Him and you remain distanced. I shall not back down and I shall not sit idly by when another fellow human being is observed to be destroying themselves on the highway to hell, for Jesus the Christ who shall raise up every human and judge them according to what they have done in regard to Him judges rightly...and His word reveals the fate of receivers who are deceived as you.

"David M.", in all truth, there are only two religions in the world, so it really does matter what anyone is identified with when God of Heaven and Earth is secondarily relative to whatever the label is of those teachings and reasonings.

Have you ever stopped to think that the Apostles have referred to Tanakh in different places of the Ha'B'rit Hadasha (NT) as “the word of Kurios/the Lord/God"?

This fact signifies the palpability of experiencing Y'shua in our lives in relating with Him on His terms in that the whole Bible is for the sole purpose of revealing Himself to us in every aspect of His beingness, so that whoever remains trusting Him (as He reveals Himself to be) shall never perish.

Even as His Spirit--this spirit of God--is the same yesterday, right now, and forever, even so Jesus, the very person behind this spirit is the same: Hebrews 13.8.

Those two religions can be summarized as follows:
1) What man attempts to do to appease and relate with whoever or whatever they consider God, be that themselves, their reasoning, or any type of sectarianism whether kultic or supposedly xian;

&
2) What God has done for us to be received through experiencing the life, death, and resurrection of Y'shua Ha'Mashiach by coming into identification with Him in thought, word, and deed.

It is either a matter of expecting God to operate on your terms which never becomes anything but an imaginary experience at best...or...coming into a familial relationship with God on His terms and this growing relationship within Him fulfills every facet of our existence.

The quoted statements from Timmy were epitomizing your own informal, formal and inductive fallacies you espouse, particularly "cherry picking" and "straw man" argumentation (inductive) and your tendency to skirt the issues (informal), yet you often begin with unrelated generalizations (formal) ignoring the premise for the discussion/debate in the first place.

As stated, those games are over, so examine what you say before writing whatever you claim, or it more than likely shall be met with complete silence as it deserves.

Little mention has been made of your most deceptive fallacies of exclusion though.

If a person cannot handle the Law of Non-Contradiction, it appears useless--as you have proven in the thread that denies Jesus is God--to attempt further understanding how x=y even though the outward appearance of these two factors seem not to be similar.


Later maybe,

Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

p.s. Have you considered posting in the "Street Epistemology" thread and see how you fare there?
...and BTW, the Bereans based all their understanding of Scripture on other Scripture, not anywhere near what you have done and do, basing what you assume the Bible should mean because of sources that are nowhere near Biblical text. (There will be hell to atone for your misdeeds because you fail to admit or receive what God says exists FOR YOU by His Word, Y'shua Ha'Mashiach.)

Timmy
11-05-2013, 08:53 PM
David?

Reading back on p.3, it appears you assume I do not accept you have reasoned things out for yourself.

It is accepted that you accept your own reasoning as the sole proof of what your mental assent has determined as truth.

It is not that this is not accepted for you, but that this is completely unacceptable as a means of actually understanding scripture.

I also laughed when you wrote that you have never heard the teachings I relate only a miniscule portion of what is already known through praxis.

If you feared what Elohim says more than what you take pride in determined from your own mental reasoning and whatever other source, perhaps you would see things differently, hinh?

You might be looking for a long time hoping to see what has been revealed to me. If you do not use it, you will lose it.This is not an acquisition, but rather experience your instruction and guidance from Yaweh. I waited for years continually pressing into the narrow turnstile before any sort of resolution came. It was not until everything else in my life was considered completely insignificant if I could not know Him...only after that attitude was fixed, remained as the sole purpose did anything began unfolding.

Have all the surface knowledge you care to garner.

It is not and will never be anything like relationship with the one in whom are hidden all treasures of knowledge and wisdom: Y'shua.




Who is the man who fears the Lord?
Him will He train into the path
that he should take.
His soul shall abide in ease of well-being,
and his offspring shall inherit the land.

The secret friendship of the Lord is for those who fear Him,
and He makes his covenant tangible to them.

My eyes are always facing the Lord,
Because he shall pluck my feet out of the net.
~Psalm 25.12-15Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

Charisma
11-06-2013, 02:31 AM
Hi David,

I have stopped reasoning with you because - as you have explained many times - you do not yet accept the revelation of scripture as the platform from which and by which your thinking should be adjusted.

Everything you think or believe has to be acceptable to your fallen mind - in other words, an impossible recipe for the growth of a soul.

Also, you are a self-proclaimed cecessionist. So, apart from God sneaking some truth under or around the colossal barriers you have placed in the way of your own potential for understanding, there is so little risk you will step out of your idolatry (that is, your worship of your own fallen mind's ability to determine what is truth from God) onto any sliver of the ground of faith, I have - for the moment - concluded that you are only interested in word games; and I am not playing.

That said, I recognise that you are in the grip of spiritual powers which affect your ability to reason with a clear mind, although it will appear to you that you are undeniably 'right' about your dterminations, no matter how far off God's truth you are pitching your tent.

And this is where what I explained to Richard about 'desires of the heart, has the potential to come to your rescue. Because, if like Timmy described, you are willing - like Peter and the disciples - to give up everything - even your long-cherished theology - to KNOW Him - like Paul, calling all previous 'gain', as good as dung - you should be able to start wriggling out of the grip of what the Bible calls 'devils' or 'foreign gods', with no loss of face before God - if you WANT to.

Of course there will be casualties. Your pride, your popularity, perhaps; a loss of self-image as it pertains to your desire to be pleasing to others whose respect you think you need, or hitherto, have craved; and you may well think you are going mad, whereas you will, in fact, be gaining God's definition of sanity; those pointers and more, will indicate you are heading in the right direction if you have begun to count the knowledge of God as the only prize worth having.

So, to conclude; I am not interested in your gift for side-stepping reality, your rhetoric , or your sense of umbrage; nor in discussion of superficial technicalities which act as avoidance tactics to keep you fom the agonies and the ecstacies of real relationship with God Himself.

If you are willing to desire for yourself what God desires for you, you will start reading the Bible differently; you will hunt God down because your life depends on being found by Him, and you will begin to stop treating scripture like box of ping-pong balls which exist merely for your religious entertainment. in fact, you will actually pray to God for deliverance from every ounce of reigiousness which keeps you cut off from the relationship He desires with you.

Now.... the foregoing is well and truly enough about you. It is time to focus on what God actually says, without fear or favour to men who hold any alternative filter (such as a different denominational bias, or 'science') for judging the word of GOD and His righteousness.

His righteousness flows from the tree of life, Jesus Christ. Man's righteousness flows from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the tree of death.



What I have written is the answer to your question which I addressed in the first paragraph. My reply is not up for discussion - at least, not with me. :)

May God bless you as you begin to kick over the traces of all the error by which you are bound to many false and worthless religious constructs.

If you are dead in Christ (Romans 6:3), then you are released from your past in its entirety. If you are still battling, then hasten to the cross and die in Him. That will include your mind, which may begin to be renewed as you read scripture free from your own ideas.

Let me say very clearly: your idea that a man (Jesus Christ) became God after he died, is no different than what many pagans believe about their gods.


Do you understand (any of what I've written)?

If you don't understand, you may answer with the word, 'No'. Feel free to ask a question - but only if you want an answer.

Otherwise you may answer 'Yes'.

David M
11-06-2013, 05:10 AM
Hello Charisma


Hi David,

I have stopped reasoning with you because - as you have explained many times - you do not yet accept the revelation of scripture as the platform from which and by which your thinking should be adjusted.I am accepting scripture; just not in the way you understand it. You make unfounded accusations about me, the same as Timmy does; that is your bad.


Everything you think or believe has to be acceptable to your fallen mind - in other words, an impossible recipe for the growth of a soul."Fallen mind"!! How judgemental you are and now you are sounding as if the Righteous Judge. I am not perfect, as you are not perfect, and in that sense, we have both been unrighteous.


Also, you are a self-proclaimed cecessionist. So, apart from God sneaking some truth under or around the colossal barriers you have placed in the way of your own potential for understanding, there is so little risk you will step out of your idolatry (that is, your worship of your own fallen mind's ability to determine what is truth from God) onto any sliver of the ground of faith, I have - for the moment - concluded that you are only interested in word games; and I am not playing.You are hiding behind your own blockades and will not continue to have dialogue. You can only accept your belief which does not come through reasoning, but some sort of revelation or gut feeling.



That said, I recognise that you are in the grip of spiritual powers which affect your ability to reason with a clear mind, although it will appear to you that you are undeniably 'right' about your dterminations, no matter how far off God's truth you are pitching your tent. What spiritual powers are you talking about? Explain what they are (if you can). You appear to have pitched your tent on the moon. You are not speaking in a down-to-earth manner.


And this is where what I explained to Richard about 'desires of the heart, has the potential to come to your rescue. Because, if like Timmy described, you are willing - like Peter and the disciples - to give up everything - even your long-cherished theology - to KNOW Him - like Paul, calling all previous 'gain', as good as dung - you should be able to start wriggling out of the grip of what the Bible calls 'devils' or 'foreign gods', with no loss of face before God - if you WANT to.I am "earnestly contending the faith that was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude). I shall not lose face to you or my maker for defending his word. What you are doing? All you can do is proclaim I have some demon or devil. That is not brotherly, or sisterly in Christ.


Of course there will be casualties. Your pride, your popularity, perhaps; a loss of self-image as it pertains to your desire to be pleasing to others whose respect you think you need, or hitherto, have craved; and you may well think you are going mad, whereas you will, in fact, be gaining God's definition of sanity; those pointers and more, will indicate you are heading in the right direction if you have begun to count the knowledge of God as the only prize worth having.Charisma, please take note of God's word about his people, who should have known better. (Hosea 4:6) My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:Do not accuse me of not having knowledge or having faith in God or Jesus. I am not perfect and never claim to be. How can you be so sure you have a perfect knowledge by which you are condemning me and many others?


So, to conclude; I am not interested in your gift for side-stepping reality, your rhetoric , or your sense of umbrage; nor in discussion of superficial technicalities which act as avoidance tactics to keep you fom the agonies and the ecstacies of real relationship with God Himself.Unfortunately, as much as I would like to communicate with you, your own rhetoric makes no sense to me. You will not reason with a brother-in-Christ; preferring to reject someone who holds God's word as precious and the only words that give us life in God's Kingdom to come. Your refusal to have dialogue, is only accepted by the fact that I have to accept you are incapable of reasoning and discussing these things. Your posts to Richard and anyone else, is not going to get you very far, except to gratify yourself. Maybe you might like to think how you might be doing Jesus and God a disservice by the attitude you are taking towards brethren and sisters in Christ.


If you are willing to desire for yourself what God desires for you, you will start reading the Bible differently; you will hunt God down because your life depends on being found by Him, and you will begin to stop treating scripture like box of ping-pong balls which exist merely for your religious entertainment. in fact, you will actually pray to God for deliverance from every ounce of reigiousness which keeps you cut off from the relationship He desires with you.How do you know, this is not want God wants me to do? We all have our work to do in the separate areas of God's vineyard. I have to (1 Peter 3:15); be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Are you not doing the same in your own way?


Now.... the foregoing is well and truly enough about you. It is time to focus on what God actually says, without fear or favour to men who hold any alternative filter (such as a different denominational bias, or 'science') for judging the word of GOD and His righteousness.

His righteousness flows from the tree of life, Jesus Christ. Man's righteousness flows from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the tree of death.You need to explain this to me. Unless you can explain it to me, you are not teaching me anything. You want me to accept your ideas, so you first have to explain your ideas and how you came to them .


What I have written is the answer to your question which I addressed in the first paragraph. My reply is not up for discussion - at least, not with me. :)And so you will not explain what you have written, which I do not understand. I did not see the first part of your reply was answering any of my questions, and you were making a statement/judgement.


May God bless you as you begin to kick over the traces of all the error by which you are bound to many false and worthless religious constructs.What about your own religious constructs? You do not recognize you have any. I can only understand where you are coming from, if you can explain things to me. You have not backed up anything you say. Quoting a verse without giving an explanation of the verse when asked, helps nobody.


If you are dead in Christ (Romans 6:3), then you are released from your past in its entirety. If you are still battling, then hasten to the cross and die in Him. That will include your mind, which may begin to be renewed as you read scripture free from your own ideas.Have you been baptized? I hope you have. You know Romans 6. I am reading God's word as you do and I get understanding. You take my understanding as my ideas. I am not trying our ideas. How do I know that your understanding is not your own ideas? Unless you explain how you reason things out, you cannot expect me to accept blindly what you say.


Let me say very clearly: your idea that a man (Jesus Christ) became God after he died, is no different than what many pagans believe about their gods.It is not "my idea". There are ten's of thousands of intelligent minds, which can reason as I do and have come to the same conclusion. Are you calling those brethren and sisters in Christ; pagans? How can you be so self-righteous and call your brothers and sisters pagans? I accept you have a simple understanding of God's word, even though you have spent many years reading the Bible or some peculiar version of the Bible. The teaching of Jesus is meant so that a person can accept what the Bible says, like a child. The basics of faith and belief are simple. All we have to do is agree the simple and plain teaching. What you have done is start a thread that is anything but simple. For starters, you are inviting replies on the subject of explaining what sin is. You have stirred up a can of worms by the title you have given to this thread. My question is; What is "Original Sin"? What is the difference between what is taught in the Old Testament and what is taught in the New Testament, which you have specifically labelled as "Christian". You might be refuting it, or are you? I have given my explanation of sin as I understand this from God's word. I can do no more.



Do you understand (any of what I've written)?

If you don't understand, you may answer with the word, 'No'. Feel free to ask a question - but only if you want an answer.

Otherwise you may answer 'Yes'.I understand a little. I have replied to let you know where you have to explain what you mean. I do not know what the point of asking a question is, unless you answer me. I have asked you three specific questions in my previous reply to you (and there were more questions which I did not ask you to answer, but are there nevertheless to be answered). You have lots to answer in this reply. It is up to you whether you want to continue in dialogue. I will do my best to explain to you why I have my hope and beliefs which are all centred on God's word, but are you rejecting my explanations without reason. You have to state your reasons, so I can agree with you or disagree and so the discussion continues until exhausted or we reach agreement. I only wish you would begin to reason and start to open your own mind as you tell me to do. God's word is more precious than rubies. Spiritual riches can be gleaned every time we read the Bible and think about it deeply.

All the best
David

David M
01-04-2014, 08:31 AM
Hello Timmy
In coming back to this thread, I see that I replied to Charisma before replying to you. I have not seen you posting of late and expect you are busy with your projects. You have given me a long post and I shall try to be brief. There will be adequate time to go over everything again as we correspond in future threads. I will comment of a few things.

Hello again "David M.", :icon_hello:

You might think considerations here concerning the ways and means you operate is unfounded and perchance wonder why there really is little rebuttal.

In response, you exhibit a most profound ignorance and rather than owning up to this fact. In your own foolish satanic pride displaying unquestionable logical fallacy, you prove to your selfs that you are a legend in your own mind. A majority of onlookers see your will and ways extremely different than you do.

Several here have attempted to explain to you your erroroneous ways. Only a few of these compatriots here--that immediately come to mind in this regard--are:
--Rose
--Charisma
--silence
--Mystical
--L67
--Psalm 27.1
--Heb. 13.13
--Bob May

Your assumption that Richard and myself are so much like one another has now been shown to you to not be the case at all...so drop it. In fact quit comparing people to other persons as though they could somehow be the same.Maybe I have had mixed signals from you. At one time, I thought you were closely in agreement with me about some things and I saw you as not agreeing with Richard. My opinion has changed recently. I will continue to accept that you have much with Richard to disagree about. As for the others, they belong more or less to the same camp. it is not surprising they have a similar message. I am in the minority on this forum. That is OK. Those who spoke for God were also in the minority. I do not claim to be better than anyone. I oppose what I think is false and what the Bible states as false. All we have to do is find agreement on what is false.


On the other hand, to identify an ideological fallacy you have chosen to own and promote, whether Rood or your favorite kultus is not unjustified in consideration as you have proven no differently. Besides, a label is only a label, and yet if the shoe fits, wear it.I am not going to wear your shoes from what you have said so far. Unless, I see a change of mind in you, I doubt you can change my mind. I am letting the word of God change my mind for the better.


Why in the face of truths and facts you spit on, why oh why do you instead delude yourself further?:doh:?:doh:?:doh:?You have not presented me with facts. I exposed the false logic in your statements. You hold on to that type of reasoning, and do not appear to be accepting any other possibility. Why expect from others, what you are not prepared to do?


Instead of being grateful to all who have wasted alot of time trying to reason with your lack of reason, you instead seem to act as if everyone is just out to get you, which is hardly the case...but you continue to put yourself on display; and yet, one fact recognizable of this forum is that once we make our voice heard, it is open season: sometimes quaint, sometimes nice, sometimes blunt, sometimes sarcastically or with cynicism. YET, there will be investigative analysis picking through whatever ambiguity that appears to hold inconsistency to each of us from our own perspectives.OK, I express my appreciation now. I do not think I have received much appreciation from those you list in return for the long explanations I have given.


Nobody here has your demise in mind ...and several of us are praying for y'all.Thank you. I wish the same for you. There is an irony. It is like the Chaplins for opposing armies thinking God is on their side when if fact, God is on neither of their sides. I hold everything you and everyone else says up against God's word.


Reading your post to Richard that he has given such prominence out from "Why I Quit Christianity" says alot about the undercurrents behind many of your considerations, as well as priorities. For me, it cuts to the heart of where you presently stand in approach, attitude, and demeanor.:signthankspin:
In fact, a bit more heart to heart would be appreciated (here at least) instead of all the promotion of what you say you consider to be absolute. It is not an issue of disparity noted in these things so much as if we will be learning to recognize these things as they exist and will find the way to move forward beyond what is recognized as blind faith and beliefs that hold no substance throughout our real world experiences.We can all be accused of being passionate about what we think/believe. My passion comes across as arrogance and I am sorry about that. At least, my passion has not resorted to verbal abuse that has come from you.


You might think me mean and you are entitled to this; but, you do not see things from this perspective even as I do not clearly see your paradigm or world view through those glasses.We have to carry on reasoning. We are not finished by a long way on any one subject. I await your tome to convince me that Jesus is God. That is the subject of another thread; 'Jesus is not God'.


Granted, you could probably find several inconsistencies in my own reasoning...without having the full picture, and yet you have failed to show this though you could have. Remember, we are now talking about disambiguation...and alot of times things are intentionally left open-ended or made to seem without reason by the Timmy for the sake of further examination of my own inconsistencies.I will wait for the full picture from you. You do not know that I have finished presenting the full picture. I have for example a list taken from another website listing 200 reasons why Jesus is not God. That is for the other thread.


Still...instead of gratefulness for the mercy and grace our Happy Host has ceaselessly showed us both, why are you so insistent that many of the things you promote make little if any sense at all when exposed to the light of cogent facts????? You are beginning to prove yourself a hopeless conflagration onto yourself. Have you ever just sat down and considered how much time Richard alone has burned on you, only for you to smack him back with logical fallacy ad infinitum?Not while I am still exposing the contradictions Richard makes and have reason not to agree with him. It could be a never-ending discussion with any of us, so long as we keep bringing new reasons to the table.


Indeed “Wisdom is the principle thing”, and yet your own insistent negations of sensible logical reasoning belie the beliefs you think somehow people who are thoroughly prepared to give an answer from our own perspectives are somehow going to buy into that?

...so do not even wonder why you are seen to exhibit the characteristics of both troll and shill.


...What persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
II Timothy 3.11b-17

It is desired that you will consider the above words in bold without any self justifications, even though this is a strong tendency for all of us manimals to do. It is also asked you consider the comments Charis posted toward your own well being.Charisma does not come over to begin with as appearing to have my well-being in consideration. It is in all of our interest to keep reasoning and for all to change as the truth is revealed. The truth does not change even though we cannot agree what it is.


It is one thing to be renounced and defamed for Faith in Y'shua and another altogether to be denounced for unreasonability.It is reasonable not to bow down to Satan, the Devil or the Serpent, unless you happen to be one of them. I am not unreasonable in the sight of God not to comply with the Devil.


You have yet to show any sound cogent reasoning, deceived darling dolly diva deludedly thinking any can find your vain imaginings to be anything worthwhile.I have done so, and you have not responded in the same way. You can prove yourself correct or otherwise when you give full explanation.


For all the hubbub of your saying stupid stuff like "this discussion is over", no matter the whatnots and wherefores, you seem to appear to have somehow become hooked into reading what travels from inside of me and through these fingertips into our beloved B.W.F.A.™.Why is is stupid when the stupidity or insaneness is to keep going around in circles expecting a different result?


...and in a roundabout answer to that question once troubling you about the Timmy, it is best to forget it.
Richard's posting and placing the song by Kansas, "Carry On My Wayward Son" will tell you oh so much about me in far fewer words than any discursions of mental meanderings Timmy is prone to lose everyone in, including hir selfs.OK. I cannot remember the question.


You have once again focused on the issues surrounding the premise and not accounting yourself to what is proposed--(kind of like knowing you are going to burn in hell but fail to do anything to alter that. The burning in hell is the result and not the cause of completely defying His revelation of who He is so that you can Know Him as He is and not merely some imagined reasoning about Him).

So, first comes the answer to your query, and then what is actually meant and intended in that brief statement can be clarified for your own benefit.

Nobody on earth has the same knowledge, and receptivity to environmental stimuli foreshadows perception, perspective onto retention. So, your response in that first statement is saying very little and actually sounds like an excuse of resignation.

How do I consider myself to have a clearer picture? I really am not sure that I do, but I know the one who does; and in this Tanakh reveals I am becoming wiser than all my teachers through nothing I have done except continue to memorize and meditate in The Torah from Eloheinu: when I arise and when I go to sleep, when I sit down and when I stand up, when I am thinking about something in particular and when I am not, when I speak and when I remain silent, when I pray and when I take care of all other secondary responsibilities, when I am busy and when I relax, Etc. Etc. Etc...and the proof is in the pudding: real world results as promised in the Holy Scriptures, beginning with deepening relationship with Yaweh, and benefits to everyone about me who blesses and will not curse me.

Rationalization comes from rational thought, and in the scriptures this is understood as the first part of, and parceled within the factors composing wickedness. Without God's thoughts directing any reasoning, only leads to transgression against God and ultimately results in death. Let me tell you, I see this very thing very clearly from my own life experiences, and yet this has arrived only after years expended seeking God's face. So, let the worldly wise babble on with however any consider the supposed voice of intellectual, reason, or rationale; because to Elohim it is all foolishness: ashes to ashes and dust in the wind.I am not saying that I have personal experience like you, I will let someone else who has, disagree with you about how they see things differently to you.


There is no mutual ground of understanding where another cannot even understand to receive, or is that receive to understand?Are you saying that you cannot get a person to understand if they do not want to understand? I am listening to your reasoning, but you cannot expect me to accept it blindly.


You will probably continue to reason (not from, but) about the scriptures, and yet I persist in learning how to better and better relate with Yah on His terms. Our motives and practices are entirely in opposition to one another. I am trying to get closer to Him and you remain distanced. I shall not back down and I shall not sit idly by when another fellow human being is observed to be destroying themselves on the highway to hell, for Jesus the Christ who shall raise up every human and judge them according to what they have done in regard to Him judges rightly...and His word reveals the fate of receivers who are deceived as you.God's terms are written in his word. It cannot be of any private interpretation. To say it is, is the reason for all the many different religions and confusion to those on the outside (and within).


"David M.", in all truth, there are only two religions in the world, so it really does matter what anyone is identified with when God of Heaven and Earth is secondarily relative to whatever the label is of those teachings and reasonings.I am not putting God second. I refuse to be labelled for then you judge me according to the label. The only cult figure we should follow is Jesus.


Have you ever stopped to think that the Apostles have referred to Tanakh in different places of the Ha'B'rit Hadasha (NT) as “the word of Kurios/the Lord/God"?

This fact signifies the palpability of experiencing Y'shua in our lives in relating with Him on His terms in that the whole Bible is for the sole purpose of revealing Himself to us in every aspect of His beingness, so that whoever remains trusting Him (as He reveals Himself to be) shall never perish.

Even as His Spirit--this spirit of God--is the same yesterday, right now, and forever, even so Jesus, the very person behind this spirit is the same: Hebrews 13.8.

Those two religions can be summarized as follows:
1) What man attempts to do to appease and relate with whoever or whatever they consider God, be that themselves, their reasoning, or any type of sectarianism whether kultic or supposedly xian;

&
2) What God has done for us to be received through experiencing the life, death, and resurrection of Y'shua Ha'Mashiach by coming into identification with Him in thought, word, and deed.

It is either a matter of expecting God to operate on your terms which never becomes anything but an imaginary experience at best...or...coming into a familial relationship with God on His terms and this growing relationship within Him fulfills every facet of our existence.[/color]

The quoted statements from Timmy were epitomizing your own informal, formal and inductive fallacies you espouse, particularly "cherry picking" and "straw man" argumentation (inductive) and your tendency to skirt the issues (informal), yet you often begin with unrelated generalizations (formal) ignoring the premise for the discussion/debate in the first place.

As stated, those games are over, so examine what you say before writing whatever you claim, or it more than likely shall be met with complete silence as it deserves.Silence from you might be the better option. I have read the verses many times which you have quoted and I think about them often. I let the word of God mould me into the character he would like. The progress might be slow, but God is long-suffering. What I am not able to acheive by the time of my death, I have confidence God will correct, when granting immortality.


Little mention has been made of your most deceptive fallacies of exclusion though.

If a person cannot handle the Law of Non-Contradiction, it appears useless--as you have proven in the thread that denies Jesus is God--to attempt further understanding how x=y even though the outward appearance of these two factors seem not to be similar.[/color]I am directed to the Law of non-Contradiction and what is the first thing I read; the difficult arises from the ambiguity in the suppositions. The ambiguity is the cause of the argument.



Later maybe,

Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

p.s. Have you considered posting in the "Street Epistemology" thread and see how you fare there?
...and BTW, the Bereans based all their understanding of Scripture on other Scripture, not anywhere near what you have done and do, basing what you assume the Bible should mean because of sources that are nowhere near Biblical text. (There will be hell to atone for your misdeeds because you fail to admit or receive what God says exists FOR YOU by His Word, Y'shua Ha'Mashiach.)So are you saying that the ancient Hebrew scriptures which make up the Old Testament are not sufficient? Has not God revealed to us all that is sufficient to know? We have the texts Jesus was referring to, when he said; "It is written.." Maybe we should start by agreeing what Jesus believed.

Shalom
David

dust
01-30-2014, 03:50 PM
Although the following contains quite a few scriptures, I think it belongs in this forum rather than 'Biblical Studies' or 'Hermeneutics and Theology'.

This is not a dissonance-free experience, but I think it exposes some fallacies held by Christians, including myself. Enjoy! :pop2:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVQ1t5i058Q

@Charisma - For heaven's sake, Man, it's in our DNA. That is the reason we ALL die. When Man was made, our Almighty Creator did not INTRODUCE DEATH, deatjh was an addendum, introduced by His arch enemy. Yeshua said it very clearly:

[Matthew 13:24-28] 24 "He set another parable before them, saying, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who sowed good SEED in his field, 25 but while people SLEPT, his ENEMY came and SOWED DARNELL also AMONG THE WHEAT, and went away. 26 But when the blade sprang up and brought forth fruit, then the DARNELL APPEARED ALSO. 27 The servants of the householder came and said to him, 'Sir, didn't you sow GOOD SEED in your field? Where did this darnel come from?' 28 "He said to them, 'AN ENEMY HAS DONE THIS.' "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and gather them up?'"

Did Augustine know about this Parable? Who knows, but that is irrelevant. We DIE, because of this "sin", which is error. Our DNA is full with it. It also created viruses? You think the Almighty is the Creator of Ebola? Insects like the fly; you think the Scriptures call satan "the Lord of the flies" for nothing?

Unless you have a light, you cannot see the way in the dark. That is the reason we all have: "I AM the Truth, the Light and the Life; no one comes to the Father BUT through me." Think about it...



dust

David M
01-31-2014, 08:39 AM
@Charisma - For heaven's sake, Man, it's in our DNA. That is the reason we ALL die. When Man was made, our Almighty Creator did not INTRODUCE DEATH, deatjh was an addendum, introduced by His arch enemy. Yeshua said it very clearly:

[Matthew 13:24-28] 24 "He set another parable before them, saying, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who sowed good SEED in his field, 25 but while people SLEPT, his ENEMY came and SOWED DARNELL also AMONG THE WHEAT, and went away. 26 But when the blade sprang up and brought forth fruit, then the DARNELL APPEARED ALSO. 27 The servants of the householder came and said to him, 'Sir, didn't you sow GOOD SEED in your field? Where did this darnel come from?' 28 "He said to them, 'AN ENEMY HAS DONE THIS.' "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and gather them up?'"

Did Augustine know about this Parable? Who knows, but that is irrelevant. We DIE, because of this "sin", which is error. Our DNA is full with it. It also created viruses? You think the Almighty is the Creator of Ebola? Insects like the fly; you think the Scriptures call satan "the Lord of the flies" for nothing?

Unless you have a light, you cannot see the way in the dark. That is the reason we all have: "I AM the Truth, the Light and the Life; no one comes to the Father BUT through me." Think about it...

dust
Hello dust

Maybe death was already programmed into all living things and Adam and Eve had to be faithful in order for God to sustain them for eternity. I do not know that eating of the Tree of Life would have resulted in any physical changes of the DNA. Scientist could regard the Tree of Life as the elixir of life, something science might never find. It could be a possibility that God changes the DNA at the resurrection. I see no reason for an immortal body not to be made of earth as it is now. We know that God works at the atomic level and that should be sufficient for us to know that God knows what he is doing. Eve should have eaten of the Tree of Life before eating of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Her first choice was not the right one. That is a scenario we cannot go back and try to see what the outcome would be.

It is a fact, that from the day we are conceived, we are dying creatures. The fact that cells in the body die and have a limited life is proof that we are dying creatures from when we are born. It was once thought that the body should be able to replicate cells and live for ever. With the knowledge gained of the DNA molecule, the limited life of the DNA is explained. Maybe that is the part of DNA God will change in future. I would not say that programmed DNA that dies, is sin. Sin is not innate in us from the beginning. Sin starts with is our first act of disobedience. That act is the product of our own thought process. Once we have sinned, we are subject to eternal death. Though Jesus experienced death, he was not subject to eternal death. That is why Jesus and all those who will be raised to eternal life, regard death as a sleep. Only in the sleep of death, is the spirit preserved in the hands of God. That is why Jesus said just before his death; "into thy hands I commit (commend) my spirit". And at the point his work was finished, he yielded up his spirit.

The fact is; Jesus was born human. The natural body of Jesus was dying from the day he was born. There is nothing to suggest that Jesus was not a man with exactly the same make up and nature as all other men and women. Had Jesus not been crucified and died young, it can be assumed that Jesus would have grown old and died a natural death. Even so, there is no reason to assume Jesus would not have remained sinless. Therefore, so long as Jesus remained sinless, God would have to raise Jesus from the dead; because God is true to his word and Jesus could not be allowed to remain eternally dead.

It is fact that Jesus is the only person to have lead a sinless life and so by the rules God has set, we shall all die as we have not earned the right to eternal life. The wages of sin is death; that is what we are told. By death, we understand that to mean eternal death, in which there is no conciousness and no memory. It is only by God's grace we can be saved. That grace is dependent upon us accepting God is Creator and Jesus is the son of God and that Jesus came in the flesh. It is only by being obedient to the instruction of Jesus, thereby conforming to the instruction of God, that through the victory won by Jesus, we can also win the victory through Christ. There is nothing we can do of ourselves, whereby we can save ourselves.

Incidentally, the knowledge we have gained about DNA is only in its infancy. With a human genome in the egg and sperm cells that have around 3 billion base pairs in which there are around 20,000 protein coding genes, there is a long way to go before identifying what they are all responsible for. If that were not enough, we now know we have ten times that number of micro-organisms living in us that makes up our human microbiome. In the human body, we have approximately 1013cells and we have 1014 micro-organisms. Hence, as he Psalmist writes (Psalm 139:14 );I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

All the best
David

duxrow
01-31-2014, 09:31 AM
Hi David, Takes us 33 years (King David's number) to reach our prime, and then it turns around! Why is that? Like the flowers that bloom and Sequoia's that last, our threescore and seven goes by in a flash.. amen?

David M
01-31-2014, 10:11 AM
Hi David, Takes us 33 years (King David's number) to reach our prime, and then it turns around! Why is that? Like the flowers that bloom and Sequoia's that last, our threescore and seven goes by in a flash.. amen?
Hello Dux. Therefore, we can say that Jesus was cut off in his prime. 33 is close to 35 (half of 70). If a person lives to 100, is their prime still set in the 30's? There is bound to be a spread of of ages at which people are at their prime and so we take the average. Even in their prime, people die unexpectedly from defects undetected at birth.

As to why; my only answer is; God has set it up this way.

I am reminded of a thought for the day I heard many years ago. It was said that old age is like struggling to the top of the hill and enjoying the ride down. I remember saying to a friend after hearing that thought; "it is better to have reached the top of the hill, than not reached it". It appears we have a 35 year struggle to ride up hill, and afterwards, we have a similar time to coast down hill.

All the best

David

duxrow
01-31-2014, 10:53 AM
:yo: As you say, David, its the Way we're programmed. The 'prime years' may be another 33, but even those who escape hospital stays will soon experience a slow-down, and the 6 footer may notice he's only 5:9... :eek:

David M
01-31-2014, 11:21 AM
:yo: As you say, David, its the Way we're programmed. The 'prime years' may be another 33, but even those who escape hospital stays will soon experience a slow-down, and the 6 footer may notice he's only 5:9... :eek:
Yes Dux. Funny how what we lose in height, as we get old, we gain more in girth.

David

Domenic
07-19-2014, 10:16 PM
HERETIC

her·e·tic
[n. her-i-tik; adj. her-i-tik, huh-ret-ik] Show IPA
noun
1.
a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.
2.
Roman Catholic Church . a baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.
3.
anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.


I'm not number 2 because I'm not a catholic. I am part way into number 1, because I believe differently on some doctrines.
Number 3 I have a hard time understanding. What established, doctrine, or principle? If this is speaking about what religions teach, I can only agree with some of their teachings. I follow the Bible, religions do not...thus I guess all religions would see me as a heretic.
My only concern is how God sees me.
Here are things I believe are against scripture:
1) Going to Heaven.
2) A Hell of fire.
3) Jesus died for all our sins.
4) Religions.
5) All people are saved.
6) Adam, and Eve ate a fruit.
7) Jesus is God the Father.
8) Jesus was not the first born of all creation.

I believe that those who believe the above 8 things are true, are Heretic. An no, I am not a Jehovah's Witnesses.

Matthjar
07-30-2014, 04:56 AM
Hiya Dust..... oh One of my Favorite teachings of Jesus..... I think it is I am the Way theTruth and the Life...... There are other places though that he describes himself as the Light though.... so maybe it is just a different Translation i am not familiar with...... The only reason I bring it up is because i always loved that special synergy of "I am the Way , the Truth, and the Life." Along with and No man comes to the farther except through me...... which doubly reinforces I am the Way,,,,,, I know Alot of people point to this as The Christian religion proclaiming exclusivity........ which it is .... but when you understand what Jesus represents then it is very easy to see why he is the Only Way to the Father..... Open to ALL makes it rather inclusive......;-)

Matthjar
07-30-2014, 04:58 AM
At least i am not aware of anyone that Jesus did not pay the debt for that they could not pay......