good works & good fruit
randy
you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God."
It's interesting that the Jews here did not deny the "good works" of Jesus,
but considered "good works" not enough to be acceptable to God.
This display of "good works" should have sufficed to prove that Jesus was a
"good tree," because a "good tree cannot produce bad fruit."
I do believe that men can produce both good works and bad works. And in fact
I believe all men produce both good and bad works. But it's interesting that
Jesus called on us to be a "good tree," which cannot bear "bad fruit." What
Jesus seemed concerned with is our conversion into a new nature that tends
towards the good. Jesus doesn't just want us to do "good works." He wants us
to *be* good people! He wants us to be a "good tree." Then we will produce
good fruit that are acceptable to God. And the bad works will be forgiven
and eclipsed by the good that we have become.
randy
don't spam me]@slater.net Joe Slater
>I do believe that men can produce both good works and bad works. And in fact
>I believe all men produce both good and bad works. But it's interesting that
>Jesus called on us to be a "good tree," which cannot bear "bad fruit."
If all men produce both good and bad works, then there is no such
thing as a "good tree" and there is no man who satisfies your deity's
wishes.
>What Jesus seemed concerned with is our conversion into a new nature that tends
>towards the good. Jesus doesn't just want us to do "good works." He wants us
>to *be* good people! He wants us to be a "good tree." Then we will produce
>good fruit that are acceptable to God. And the bad works will be forgiven
>and eclipsed by the good that we have become.
That's nice, but you seem to think that this has never happened.
Surely that indicates that it's impossible. Furthermore, a great deal
of Protestant Christianity denies that your deity wants people to do
good works per se; all works are worthless in his eyes. So how can he
want people to be "good trees" given that he isn't interested in the
fruit, the only means of distinguishing between "good trees" and bad
ones?
jds
Hieron
> John 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we
> stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God."
>
> It's interesting that the Jews here did not deny the "good works" of
> Jesus, but considered "good works" not enough to be acceptable to God.
Where do you get the idea from? Re-read the passage.
The Jews misunderstood Jesus. They thought he claimed deity, so they wanted
to stone him for blasphemy. Later on Jesus corrects their mistake.
> This display of "good works" should have sufficed to prove that Jesus was
> a "good tree," because a "good tree cannot produce bad fruit."
>
> I do believe that men can produce both good works and bad works. And in
> fact I believe all men produce both good and bad works. But it's
> interesting that Jesus called on us to be a "good tree," which cannot bear
> "bad fruit." What Jesus seemed concerned with is our conversion into a new
> nature that tends towards the good. Jesus doesn't just want us to do "good
> works." He wants us to *be* good people! He wants us to be a "good tree."
> Then we will produce good fruit that are acceptable to God. And the bad
> works will be forgiven and eclipsed by the good that we have become.
I doubt Jesus meant it the way you understand it.
Since the righteous falls seven times, but stands up seven times, repentance
should also be considered good fruit. Thus, the lives of the righteous is
characterised by good works and repentance from sins and from dead works.
That is what being a good tree and having good fruits mean.
The bad tree produces no good fruit: no good works, no repentance.
--
Hieron
Padraic Brown
>John 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we stone
>you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God."
>
>It's interesting that the Jews here did not deny the "good works" of Jesus,
>but considered "good works" not enough to be acceptable to God.
Perhaps they just wanted to be rid of the hornet's nest in an
otherwise good tree.
>This display of "good works" should have sufficed to prove that Jesus was a
>"good tree," because a "good tree cannot produce bad fruit."
>
>I do believe that men can produce both good works and bad works. And in fact
>I believe all men produce both good and bad works. But it's interesting that
>Jesus called on us to be a "good tree," which cannot bear "bad fruit." What
>Jesus seemed concerned with is our conversion into a new nature that tends
>towards the good. Jesus doesn't just want us to do "good works." He wants us
>to *be* good people! He wants us to be a "good tree." Then we will produce
>good fruit that are acceptable to God. And the bad works will be forgiven
>and eclipsed by the good that we have become.
No disagreement here, as it's more or less been my position all along.
Padraic.
la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu
ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.
cindys
"randy" <rklu...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2n3bpnF...@uni-berlin.de...
> John 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we
stone
> you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God."
>
> It's interesting that the Jews here did not deny the "good works" of
Jesus,
> but considered "good works" not enough to be acceptable to God.
What are you talking about? What "good works?" We have stated that he was a
heretic who transgressed the torah and encouraged others to do the same, and
that's assuming he existed at all.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
randy
"Joe Slater"
"randy"
> If all men produce both good and bad works, then there is no such
> thing as a "good tree" and there is no man who satisfies your deity's
> wishes.
The idea Jesus wishes to communicate is not that we must be sinless and
perfect. Rather, he would have us to develop a character, a righteous
nature. This tips the balance of good vs bad works in favor of good works.
> That's nice, but you seem to think that this has never happened....
On the contrary, I think this has always been God's plan, and the reality in
Israel. There have always been good and bad works in all people. So
obviously God is concerned with the development of a good nature.
> ...Surely that indicates that it's impossible. Furthermore, a great deal
> of Protestant Christianity denies that your deity wants people to do
> good works per se; all works are worthless in his eyes. So how can he
> want people to be "good trees" given that he isn't interested in the
> fruit, the only means of distinguishing between "good trees" and bad
> ones?
I would never go as far as Luther, who wrote The Bondage of the Will, an
almost complete denial of free will. His predestination allows almost no
choice on the part of man as to who will become good and who will become
bad. I don't believe this. Although I accept predestination, I don't accept
Luther's particular version, since it denies free will for the most part.
But even Luther accepted the reality of good works, or good fruit, in the
Christian.
You're right that Protestants tend to de-emphasize "good works" as the basis
of salvation. And I would agree. Salvation is based not on anything man can
do, but on what God can do. God's Spirit comes down to live near or in man,
and we become capable of both doing good and pleasing God. If we allow the
seed of God's word to be formed in us, we can develop a good nature, which
is much more than just producing good works.
Good works can serve well to show both those who do good and those whose
natures are transformed into the nature of God's good image. This is, I
believe, to be our goal, to let God form His own image in us, so that we
will be like God and do good works, not out of enslavement, but out of
sonship.
randy
randy
"Hieron"
> randy
> > John 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we
> > stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself
God."
> >
> > It's interesting that the Jews here did not deny the "good works" of
> > Jesus, but considered "good works" not enough to be acceptable to God.
>
> Where do you get the idea from? Re-read the passage.
??
> ...Since the righteous falls seven times, but stands up seven times,
repentance
> should also be considered good fruit. Thus, the lives of the righteous is
> characterised by good works and repentance from sins and from dead works.
> That is what being a good tree and having good fruits mean...
I wouldn't think that "repentance" itself is a fruit, but the "fruits of
repentance" are good works. "Fruit" to me are examples of human works that
please God, things like kindness and generosity, mercy and tolerance.
Anybody can do good acts as such, but that doesn't thereby make one a "good
tree." To be a "good tree" one must not only *do* good works--he must *be*
good!
randy
randy
"cindys"
> "randy"
> > ...It's interesting that the Jews here did not deny the "good works" of
> Jesus,
> > but considered "good works" not enough to be acceptable to God.
>
> What are you talking about? What "good works?" .....
Jesus healed the sick. He forgave sinners. He let Israel murder him and
still expressed his desire to see Israel restored.
randy
cindys
>
> "cindys"
> > "randy"
>
> > > ...It's interesting that the Jews here did not deny the "good works"
of
> > Jesus,
> > > but considered "good works" not enough to be acceptable to God.
> >
> > What are you talking about? What "good works?" .....
>
> Jesus healed the sick. He forgave sinners.
Only God has that authority.
>He let Israel murder him
The Romans murdered him.
>and
> still expressed his desire to see Israel restored.
How kind. And all of which is beside the point. You claimed that the Jews of
alt.messianic "did not deny the good works of Jesus," and my point was yes,
we did.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
> randy
>
>
Hieron
>
> "Hieron"
>> randy
>> > John 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we
>> > stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself
> God."
>> >
>> > It's interesting that the Jews here did not deny the "good works" of
>> > Jesus, but considered "good works" not enough to be acceptable to God.
>>
>> Where do you get the idea from? Re-read the passage.
The passage says nothing that the Jews "considered "good works" not enough
to be acceptable to God". That is your imagination.
>> ...Since the righteous falls seven times, but stands up seven times,
> repentance
>> should also be considered good fruit. Thus, the lives of the righteous is
>> characterised by good works and repentance from sins and from dead works.
>> That is what being a good tree and having good fruits mean...
>
> I wouldn't think that "repentance" itself is a fruit, but the "fruits of
> repentance" are good works. "Fruit" to me are examples of human works that
> please God, things like kindness and generosity, mercy and tolerance.
> Anybody can do good acts as such, but that doesn't thereby make one a
> "good tree." To be a "good tree" one must not only *do* good works--he
> must *be* good!
If this is your definition (which I don't see that it would be the
definition of the Bible), then none of the Christians are "good trees",
since you stated that they all continue to sin.
Continual repentance from sin and dead works is the very is the very
foundation, the proof that one is a good tree. You cannot do good works
without having this foundation. And since the righteous man is the one who
continually repents, those who don't (and I have met teachers who claimed
Christians didn't need to repent), cannot be considered good.
--
Hieron
cindys
"Hieron" <geo...@msn.de> wrote in message
news:2n5qsgF...@uni-berlin.de...
> randy wrote:
>
> >
> > "Hieron"
> >> randy
> >> > John 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we
> >> > stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself
> > God."
> >> >
> >> > It's interesting that the Jews here did not deny the "good works" of
> >> > Jesus, but considered "good works" not enough to be acceptable to
God.
> >>
> >> Where do you get the idea from? Re-read the passage.
>
>
> The passage says nothing that the Jews "considered "good works" not enough
> to be acceptable to God". That is your imagination.
For the record, the Jewish religion generally does consider "good works" (a
loose way of saying "keeping the mitzvos") enough to be acceptable to God.
However, we do agree that it is unacceptable for a man to appropriate the
role of God for himself.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Padraic Brown
>Hieron wrote:
>> ...Since the righteous falls seven times, but stands up seven times,
>>repentance
>> should also be considered good fruit. Thus, the lives of the righteous is
>> characterised by good works and repentance from sins and from dead works.
>> That is what being a good tree and having good fruits mean...
>
>I wouldn't think that "repentance" itself is a fruit,
Look at it like this: repentence is the realisation that evil has been
chosen and sorrow has been felt on account of that choice and the
decision has been made to make reparations. That is certainly a good
fruit.
The alternative is not realising or not caring that evil has been
done, no remorse has been felt and no intention to make good has been
made.
>but the "fruits of
>repentance" are good works.
Possibly. There are other sources of good deeds, though.
>"Fruit" to me are examples of human works that
>please God, things like kindness and generosity, mercy and tolerance.
Indeed. They don't necessarily come from repentence. You are still
allowed to do all the good deeds you like, when you haven't done
anything wrong to repent from, you know!
>Anybody can do good acts as such, but that doesn't thereby make one a "good
>tree."
Sure it does.
>To be a "good tree" one must not only *do* good works--he must *be*
>good!
Doing good follows more from being good than from being evil. If your
chosen nature is good, then doing good deeds will be in your nature.
Padraic Brown
>
>"Joe Slater"
>"randy"
>
>> If all men produce both good and bad works, then there is no such
>> thing as a "good tree" and there is no man who satisfies your deity's
>> wishes.
>
>The idea Jesus wishes to communicate is not that we must be sinless and
>perfect. Rather, he would have us to develop a character, a righteous
>nature. This tips the balance of good vs bad works in favor of good works.
Indeed!
>> ...Surely that indicates that it's impossible. Furthermore, a great deal
>> of Protestant Christianity denies that your deity wants people to do
>> good works per se; all works are worthless in his eyes. So how can he
>> want people to be "good trees" given that he isn't interested in the
>> fruit, the only means of distinguishing between "good trees" and bad
>> ones?
>
>I would never go as far as Luther, who wrote The Bondage of the Will, an
>almost complete denial of free will. His predestination allows almost no
>choice on the part of man as to who will become good and who will become
>bad. I don't believe this. Although I accept predestination, I don't accept
>Luther's particular version, since it denies free will for the most part.
>But even Luther accepted the reality of good works, or good fruit, in the
>Christian.
Describe your version of "predestination". How is it different from
Luther's "almost no choice"? How much latitude do you have?
What do "free will" and "predestination" mean to you and how do you
solve the contradiction that Luther and other predestinationists /
anti-free-willers have seen?
Personally, "free will" = "predestination is impossible". At each
point we have the ability to choose our course. Of course, if you wave
the old "omniscient god knows all and sees all" wand - then you have
no problem in solving the contradiction, cos all you have to do is say
"well, obviously, god knew how this would turn out and it was All Part
of the Plan".
>You're right that Protestants tend to de-emphasize "good works" as the basis
>of salvation.
That sola fides thing.
>And I would agree. Salvation is based not on anything man can
>do, but on what God can do.
Fair enough. That is a fairly normal Christian belief. I don't buy
that one. We choose our paths and we make our own way to the Kingdom.
>God's Spirit comes down to live near or in man,
>and we become capable of both doing good and pleasing God.
That is one way it can be accomplished. You can also make the leap on
your own.
You run hot and cold today!
Padraic Brown
>
>"cindys"
>> "randy"
>
>> > ...It's interesting that the Jews here did not deny the "good works" of
>> Jesus,
>> > but considered "good works" not enough to be acceptable to God.
>>
>> What are you talking about? What "good works?" .....
>
>Jesus healed the sick.
Agreed.
>He forgave sinners.
Agreed, but it's not his place to forgive people that didn't wrong him
personally. You certainly can't forgive me if I insult someone else
here!
>He let Israel murder him
Uh! Uh! Uh! Now you're going too far again. "Israel" did not "murder"
him. A _few_ Jews got miffed enough (or felt their power and prestige
threatened enough) to get the powers that were (the Romans) to top him
for them.
randy
"Padraic Brown"
"randy"
> >I would never go as far as Luther, who wrote The Bondage of the Will, an
> >almost complete denial of free will. His predestination allows almost no
> >choice on the part of man as to who will become good and who will become
> >bad. I don't believe this. Although I accept predestination, I don't
accept
> >Luther's particular version, since it denies free will for the most part.
> >But even Luther accepted the reality of good works, or good fruit, in the
> >Christian.
>
> Describe your version of "predestination". How is it different from
> Luther's "almost no choice"? How much latitude do you have?
Predestination is the determination of what we are attracted to. Some are
attracted to God. Others are not. Evil is a mystery to me. It's a great
tragedy as well. But despite what we are attracted to, all men can choose to
do good, and all can choose to put on the nature of God, ie godliness. The
difference between the "saved" and the "unsaved" for me is a matter of who
chooses to persevere in "wearing" the holy nature of God.
> What do "free will" and "predestination" mean to you and how do you
> solve the contradiction that Luther and other predestinationists /
> anti-free-willers have seen?
I think it was Melanchthon who differed from Luther in his Protestant
theology. He was both predestinarian and freewill, if I remember correctly.
> Personally, "free will" = "predestination is impossible". At each
> point we have the ability to choose our course. Of course, if you wave
> the old "omniscient god knows all and sees all" wand - then you have
> no problem in solving the contradiction, cos all you have to do is say
> "well, obviously, god knew how this would turn out and it was All Part
> of the Plan".
I never use this argument for the same reason. I believe that God has
foreordained a select number of children. If people choose to disrupt and
oppose the plan of God, and "engineer" the process of sexual reproduction, I
can't blame God for what results!
> >You're right that Protestants tend to de-emphasize "good works" as the
basis
> >of salvation.
>
> That sola fides thing.
This again has been debated. Luther emphased faith only in the context of
breaking from Catholic tradition. He found peace apart from the Catholics
only by trusting in what God could do for him. He couldn't find peace in his
own life's testimony.
So Protestants seem to have had an historic problem in reconciling faith
with good works. I don't have such a problem because I have no agenda
against either the Protestants or the Catholics. True faith not only
believes that Jesus is the Christ. But true faith also accepts the
commandments of Christ. Accepting the commandments of Christ means that we
believe we must obey them to be truly Christian. So it's impossible to have
faith and ignore good works.
> >And I would agree. Salvation is based not on anything man can
> >do, but on what God can do.
>
> Fair enough. That is a fairly normal Christian belief. I don't buy
> that one. We choose our paths and we make our own way to the Kingdom.
But this is the whole uniqueness of Christianity, that God has revealed
Himself to man by His Spirit. He verifies His existence in a subtle way
within us. But this verification has tremendous results because our life is
transformed. We suddenly have a compulsion to follow God, whereas before we
seemed repulsed by His ways and helpless to do His will.
> >God's Spirit comes down to live near or in man,
> >and we become capable of both doing good and pleasing God.
>
> That is one way it can be accomplished. You can also make the leap on
> your own.
I believe God's Spirit is the only way it can be accomplished.
Blame God for His narrow-minded dogmatism! ;)
randy
randy
"Hieron"
> randy
> If this is your definition (which I don't see that it would be the
> definition of the Bible), then none of the Christians are "good trees",
> since you stated that they all continue to sin.
> Continual repentance from sin and dead works is the very is the very
> foundation, the proof that one is a good tree. You cannot do good works
> without having this foundation. And since the righteous man is the one who
> continually repents, those who don't (and I have met teachers who claimed
> Christians didn't need to repent), cannot be considered good.
Well, I wouldn't disagree. But here's the difference between "good works"
and a "good nature."
"Good trees" represent having a good nature. But it's more. We've been given
by Christ to have a "new nature." This new nature consists of a kind of
spirituality that leads us to follow the Spirit of God, as we pursue the
good. We are not supposed to just go out and do acts of charity, out of our
own imagination, out of our own inspiration. We're supposed to look within
ourselves and discover what God made us to be. Then we're supposed to step
out and consider the steps God would have us to take as we pursue the good.
If at any step along the way our activity compromises the good, we're
supposed to stop and turn to the right. In other words, our new nature in
Christ is supposed to be "led by the Spirit." That is, we're not just
supposed to do "good works." We're supposed to be "spiritual people," in
constant fellowship with God.
randy
randy
"cindys"
> "randy"
> > > > ...It's interesting that the Jews here did not deny the "good works"
> of
> > > Jesus,
> > > > but considered "good works" not enough to be acceptable to God.
> > >
> > > What are you talking about? What "good works?" .....
> >
> > Jesus healed the sick. He forgave sinners.
>
> Only God has that authority.
Exactly. ;)
> >He let Israel murder him
>
> The Romans murdered him.
The Romans indulged the Jewish demand to have Christ crucified (according to
the gospel account).
> >and
> > still expressed his desire to see Israel restored.
>
> How kind. And all of which is beside the point. You claimed that the Jews
of
> alt.messianic "did not deny the good works of Jesus," and my point was
yes,
I think you misunderstood. I claimed that the Jews in the *gospel account*
did not deny the good works of Jesus.
randy
randy
"Padraic Brown"
"randy"
> >He forgave sinners.
>
> Agreed, but it's not his place to forgive people that didn't wrong him
> personally. You certainly can't forgive me if I insult someone else
> here!
The Christian religion is based on a deity's forgiveness and on how that
deity became a man in order to forgive men. The Christian religion is based
on how God's Word became flesh in order to forgive the world. God had to put
on human nature and experience death in history in order to forgive human
sin universally.
> >He let Israel murder him
>
> Uh! Uh! Uh! Now you're going too far again. "Israel" did not "murder"
> him. A _few_ Jews got miffed enough (or felt their power and prestige
> threatened enough) to get the powers that were (the Romans) to top him
> for them.
Granted. But the Jewish people in general rejected Jesus as Messiah. It was
the murder of Jesus by a Jewish mob that allowed him to forgive all Israel
of even the worst sin.
randy
cindys
>
> "Padraic Brown"
> "randy"
> > >He let Israel murder him
> >
> > Uh! Uh! Uh! Now you're going too far again. "Israel" did not "murder"
> > him. A _few_ Jews got miffed enough (or felt their power and prestige
> > threatened enough) to get the powers that were (the Romans) to top him
> > for them.
>
> Granted. But the Jewish people in general rejected Jesus as Messiah. It
was
> the murder of Jesus by a Jewish mob
And again, you contradict your own bible which clearly describes that Jesus
was crucified by the Romans.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Hieron
> "randy" <rklu...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> Jesus healed the sick. He forgave sinners.
>
> Only God has that authority.
Jesus never said "I forgive you", but rather, he declared that "your sins
are forgiven". When one repented from his sins, doesn't Judaism believe
that the person obtains forgiveness from God?
Jesus never forgave anyone. He simply declared the forgiveness of the
repentant sinners.
I don't think one needs to be God to do that.
>>He let Israel murder him
>
> The Romans murdered him.
There is no point denying that there were some Jewish involvement as well
(particularly on the part of the religious leadership appointed by Romans),
but it cannot be said that Israel murdered him.
Don't be too harsh, Cindy ;-)
--
Hieron
Hieron
>
> "Hieron" <geo...@msn.de> wrote in message
> news:2n5qsgF...@uni-berlin.de...
>> randy wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Hieron"
>> >> randy
>> >> > John 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that
>> >> > we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make
>> >> > yourself
>> > God."
>> >> >
>> >> > It's interesting that the Jews here did not deny the "good works" of
>> >> > Jesus, but considered "good works" not enough to be acceptable to
> God.
>> >>
>> >> Where do you get the idea from? Re-read the passage.
>>
>>
>> The passage says nothing that the Jews "considered "good works" not
>> enough to be acceptable to God". That is your imagination.
> ------------
> For the record, the Jewish religion generally does consider "good works"
> (a loose way of saying "keeping the mitzvos") enough to be acceptable to
> God.
I understand, but I only argued that the quoted passage didn't say what
randy claimed.
> However, we do agree that it is unacceptable for a man to appropriate
> the role of God for himself.
Nobody appropriated the role of God for himself. It is only a trinitarian
idea. Jesus was a Torah observant Jewish man who served the God of the
Jews. He wasn't a deity in any way.
--
Hieron
Hieron
>
> "Hieron"
>
>> randy
>
>> If this is your definition (which I don't see that it would be the
>> definition of the Bible), then none of the Christians are "good trees",
>> since you stated that they all continue to sin.
>
>> Continual repentance from sin and dead works is the very is the very
>> foundation, the proof that one is a good tree. You cannot do good works
>> without having this foundation. And since the righteous man is the one
>> who continually repents, those who don't (and I have met teachers who
>> claimed Christians didn't need to repent), cannot be considered good.
>
> Well, I wouldn't disagree.
Well, you are showing some improvements here.
> But here's the difference between "good works"
> and a "good nature."
Of course. "Good nature" is what the "good tree" is. "Good works" is what
the good nature produces.
> "Good trees" represent having a good nature. But it's more. We've been
> given by Christ to have a "new nature." This new nature consists of a kind
> of spirituality that leads us to follow the Spirit of God, as we pursue
> the good.
I know all this stuff. But then I wonder why it is not the reality.
> We are not supposed to just go out and do acts of charity, out
> of our own imagination, out of our own inspiration.
Why not? What holds you back?
> We're supposed to look
> within ourselves and discover what God made us to be.
Don't waste your time, randy. Just go and do it. Even trinitarians teach
that the believer is like a vessel. Unless it is on the move the wind
cannot direct it.
Go and do the good works, and God will let you know if you are in the right
place.
> Then we're supposed
> to step out and consider the steps God would have us to take as we pursue
> the good.
Sure. You will never do anything in your life this way. God opens and closes
the doors. Just go and do what is right. And don't look back.
> If at any step along the way our activity compromises the good,
Then it is called sin.
> we're supposed to stop and turn to the right.
And that is repentance.
> In other words, our new
> nature in Christ is supposed to be "led by the Spirit."
The wind only helps the ship when it is on the move.
> That is, we're not
> just supposed to do "good works." We're supposed to be "spiritual people,"
> in constant fellowship with God.
Then stop thinking whether you should do good or not. Go and do it! For "to
the one who know how to do good, but doesn't do it, it is sin."
--
Hieron
cindys
> cindys wrote:
>
> >
> > "Hieron" <geo...@msn.de> wrote in message
> > news:2n5qsgF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >> randy wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Hieron"
> >> >> randy
> >> >> > John 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that
> >> >> > we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make
> >> >> > yourself
> >> > God."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's interesting that the Jews here did not deny the "good works"
of
> >> >> > Jesus, but considered "good works" not enough to be acceptable to
> > God.
> >> >>
> >> >> Where do you get the idea from? Re-read the passage.
> >>
> >>
> >> The passage says nothing that the Jews "considered "good works" not
> >> enough to be acceptable to God". That is your imagination.
> > ------------
> > For the record, the Jewish religion generally does consider "good works"
> > (a loose way of saying "keeping the mitzvos") enough to be acceptable to
> > God.
>
> I understand, but I only argued that the quoted passage didn't say what
> randy claimed.
I wasn't disputing you. I was actually supporting your statement that
Randy's interpretation of the Jewish position was incorrect.
>
>
> > However, we do agree that it is unacceptable for a man to appropriate
> > the role of God for himself.
>
>
> Nobody appropriated the role of God for himself. It is only a trinitarian
> idea. Jesus was a Torah observant Jewish man who served the God of the
> Jews. He wasn't a deity in any way.
Well, if the gospels are accurate, he wasn't torah observant because he
violated the sabbath and encouraged others to do the same, but that is
beside the point. Here, too, I wasn't claiming that Jesus proclaimed himself
to be God (If you say he didn't, I believe you). I was only verifying (in my
tongue-in-cheek way) that if any person (no matter who) proclaimed himself
to be God, Jews would indeed take issue with the statement.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
> cindys wrote:
>
> > "randy" <rklu...@msn.com> wrote in message
> >> Jesus healed the sick. He forgave sinners.
> >
> > Only God has that authority.
>
> Jesus never said "I forgive you", but rather, he declared that "your sins
> are forgiven". When one repented from his sins, doesn't Judaism believe
> that the person obtains forgiveness from God?
Certainly. So, why does one need Jesus to state the obvious?
>
> Jesus never forgave anyone. He simply declared the forgiveness of the
> repentant sinners.
>
> I don't think one needs to be God to do that.
>
>
> >>He let Israel murder him
> >
> > The Romans murdered him.
>
> There is no point denying that there were some Jewish involvement as well
> (particularly on the part of the religious leadership appointed by
Romans),
> but it cannot be said that Israel murdered him.
>
> Don't be too harsh, Cindy ;-)
I wouldn't want to say anything politically incorrect about the Romans :-)
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
>
> --
>
> Hieron
>
Hieron
>
> "Hieron" <geo...@msn.de> wrote in message
> news:2n6b8mF...@uni-berlin.de...
>> cindys wrote:
>>
>> > "randy" <rklu...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> >> Jesus healed the sick. He forgave sinners.
>> >
>> > Only God has that authority.
>>
>> Jesus never said "I forgive you", but rather, he declared that "your sins
>> are forgiven". When one repented from his sins, doesn't Judaism believe
>> that the person obtains forgiveness from God?
>
> Certainly. So, why does one need Jesus to state the obvious?
The NT records the story. What's wrong with that?
Some time ago there was a report on the TV produced by the state television
about Jesus. The reporter suggested that only the high priest had the right
to forgive (or perhaps to declare the forgiveness of) sins, and by
forgiving sins Jesus directly challenged the Romans'-appointed religious
leadership.
>> Jesus never forgave anyone. He simply declared the forgiveness of the
>> repentant sinners.
>>
>> I don't think one needs to be God to do that.
>>
>>
>> >>He let Israel murder him
>> >
>> > The Romans murdered him.
>>
>> There is no point denying that there were some Jewish involvement as well
>> (particularly on the part of the religious leadership appointed by
> Romans),
>> but it cannot be said that Israel murdered him.
>>
>> Don't be too harsh, Cindy ;-)
>
> I wouldn't want to say anything politically incorrect about the Romans :-)
OK.
--
Hieron
cockroach
so once again randy you accuse jews of being christ killers
dont come back and say we all jesus
we can take only so much of this crap
--
____________________________
You begin with the Jewish question
Saul Bellow
Ravelstein
____________________________
Hieron
> "Hieron" <geo...@msn.de> wrote in message
>> >> The passage says nothing that the Jews "considered "good works" not
>> >> enough to be acceptable to God". That is your imagination.
>> > ------------
>> > For the record, the Jewish religion generally does consider "good
>> > works" (a loose way of saying "keeping the mitzvos") enough to be
>> > acceptable to God.
>>
>> I understand, but I only argued that the quoted passage didn't say what
>> randy claimed.
>
> I wasn't disputing you. I was actually supporting your statement that
> Randy's interpretation of the Jewish position was incorrect.
All of randy's positions are incorrect.
>> > However, we do agree that it is unacceptable for a man to appropriate
>> > the role of God for himself.
>>
>>
>> Nobody appropriated the role of God for himself. It is only a trinitarian
>> idea. Jesus was a Torah observant Jewish man who served the God of the
>> Jews. He wasn't a deity in any way.
>
> Well, if the gospels are accurate, he wasn't torah observant because he
> violated the sabbath and encouraged others to do the same, but that is
> beside the point.
I know you guys don't like the Jewish Encyclopedia, for it is old and out of
copyright, but it doesn't bother me. When it was produced it reflected the
best knowledge of the writers.
It doesn't appear to have any sectarian bias.
Now, just recently I was doing some reading on the Law and various beliefs
and practices related to it. And my conclusion is that not everything is as
black and white as it is presented on this newsgroup. Even within Israel
there were two Phariseic parties, Shammai and Hillel - the former was more
liberal (he represented the spirit of the Law), while the latter was strict
to the letter (he represented the letter of the Law). Besides, there were
the Essenes and those from Alexandria. So there were various streams of
beliefs in the first century.
Jesus most often supported Hillel except probably when it came to divorce.
Now, when you claim such a thing that Jesus broke the Sabbath (did he? and
how? by healing a man with incurable disease? or eating when hungry?) which
position are you supporting?
Just a question before we go any further.
> Here, too, I wasn't claiming that Jesus proclaimed
> himself to be God (If you say he didn't, I believe you). I was only
> verifying (in my tongue-in-cheek way) that if any person (no matter who)
> proclaimed himself to be God, Jews would indeed take issue with the
> statement.
Agree.
--
Hieron
cindys
> cindys wrote:
>
> >
> > "Hieron" <geo...@msn.de> wrote in message
> > news:2n6b8mF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >> cindys wrote:
> >>
> >> > "randy" <rklu...@msn.com> wrote in message
> >> >> Jesus healed the sick. He forgave sinners.
> >> >
> >> > Only God has that authority.
> >>
> >> Jesus never said "I forgive you", but rather, he declared that "your
sins
> >> are forgiven". When one repented from his sins, doesn't Judaism believe
> >> that the person obtains forgiveness from God?
> >
> > Certainly. So, why does one need Jesus to state the obvious?
>
> The NT records the story. What's wrong with that?
I wasn't trying to be offensive. It's the Jewish approach to learning. When
Jews learn, all the learning is based on the premise that the tanakh,
midrash, talmud, etc. doesn't waste words on interesting anecdotes. The
purpose
of all the words is always to teach us something, and nothing is redundant.
Therefore,
whenever we come across something which appears on the surface to be totally
obvious and therefore
redundant, we say "Pshita! [Obviously!] Why do we need Rabbi So-and-So to
tell us this?" or
"Didn't we just learn that in the previous chapter? What do we need this
for? Why state the obvious?" It's a rhetorical question. That's what I was
doing here. Since the authors
of the NT obviously thought it was important to include this
story, they must have had a good reason. Since we presumably already know
that God forgives sins, I'm assuming the NT's author wouldn't waste our time
telling us that Jesus announced the people were forgiven, unless there was
something special to be learned from the story. I was asking you what it
was. (Or maybe the NT does include anecdotes just for background or
historical context or something? )
>
> Some time ago there was a report on the TV produced by the state
television
> about Jesus. The reporter suggested that only the high priest had the
right
> to forgive (or perhaps to declare the forgiveness of) sins, and by
> forgiving sins Jesus directly challenged the Romans'-appointed religious
> leadership.
This is more like what I was driving at, but I would disagree with the
reporter's theory. You mentioned something about the high priest forgiving
sins in another post, and I had intended to comment on that but never got to
it. The high priest could not forgive sins. The high priest offered
sacrifices and prayed to God on behalf of the Jewish people but only God
forgave their sins. In fact, in the 40 years before the destruction of the
temple, God did not forgive the people's sins, as evidenced by the fact that
when the high priest sprinkled blood on the curtains which separated the
holy of holies from the heichel, the blood stains did not disappear. Also,
the red ribbon around the goat for Azazel's horns (Yom Kippur sacrifice) did
not turn white. I'm not sure who normally made the announcement that the
curtains had turned white or the ribbon had turned white. In the latter
situation, it couldn't have been the high priest because he was nowhere near
the cliff when the goat went over the edge. I doubt that the intention of
the NT story was to demonstrate that Jesus had appropriated the role of high
priest. This is because the priesthood was nothing more than an accident of
birth, (i.e., it wasn't something earned through merit), so if Jesus were
appropriating the role of high priest, it wouldn't demonstrate anything
about him or about the corruption of the priesthood (if that were the point
he was trying to make).
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
cindy s wrote:
> > Well, if the gospels are accurate, he wasn't torah observant because he
> > violated the sabbath and encouraged others to do the same, but that is
> > beside the point.
>
> I know you guys don't like the Jewish Encyclopedia, for it is old and out
of
> copyright, but it doesn't bother me. When it was produced it reflected the
> best knowledge of the writers.
Is that where you read that Jesus was torah observant? Even if the Jewish
Encyclopedia were written today, it could say the same thing, if the person
writing the story weren't very knowledgable. No one has discovered any new
knowledge on this subject in the last 100 years.
>
> It doesn't appear to have any sectarian bias.
The Encyclopedia Judiaca has a variety of authors, most of which are not
Orthodox, but with respect to Jesus, I agree that it's not a question of his
being perceived as torah observant by Reform or Conservative but not by
Orthodox authors. He was either torah observant or he wasn't. Torah
observance is not a subjective thing.
>
> Now, just recently I was doing some reading on the Law and various beliefs
> and practices related to it. And my conclusion is that not everything is
as
> black and white as it is presented on this newsgroup. Even within Israel
> there were two Phariseic parties, Shammai and Hillel - the former was more
> liberal (he represented the spirit of the Law), while the latter was
strict
> to the letter (he represented the letter of the Law).
It's not so simple. Beis Shammai was often stricter than Beis Hillel but I
don't think it's fair to say that one represented the letter of the law
versus the other represented the spirit of the law. No offense, but I think
you are superimposing a Christian-style slant on what this means. Beis
Hillel never would have argued that it was okay to transgress the letter of
the law. Here is an example of the difference between them: We have a prayer
called the "Shema Yisrael" which we are obligated to recite twice a day, in
the morning and at night. One of the lines in the prayer is "You shall speak
these words when you rise up and when you lie down." Beis Shammai's view was
that the words meant that one is obligated to recite the morning prayer
while literally standing up and the evening prayer literally while lying
down. Beis Hillel's view was that the words meant that one should recite the
prayer AT THE TIME when one customarily wakes up and AT THE TIME one
customarily lies down. However, both would agree that we are obligated to
recite the Shema Yisrael prayer twice a day. Beis Hillel (the "liberal")
would never have argued that it was okay to substitute another prayer or
that it was okay to reflect on spiritual matters in lieu of a prayer or
something like that. They disagreed only on minor details. They would have
been in perfect agreement 99% of the time. Neither would have sanctioned
violating the sabbath for anything less than a life or death situation.
>Besides, there were
> the Essenes and those from Alexandria. So there were various streams of
> beliefs in the first century.
>
> Jesus most often supported Hillel except probably when it came to divorce.
There are hundreds and hundreds of Jewish laws regarding divorce. There is
an entire tractate of the talmud written about divorce, so I'm not sure
specifically what you are referring to. But I will say that Hillel certainly
would have been horrified to see Jesus violating the sabbath.
>
> Now, when you claim such a thing that Jesus broke the Sabbath (did he? and
> how? by healing a man with incurable disease?
If death was not imminent, yes, he broke the sabbath when he healed the man.
He could have waited until after the sabbath.
>or eating when hungry?)
No, by harvesting grain or whatever it was.
>which
> position are you supporting?
Don't get me wrong. Personally, I don't care if Jesus violated the sabbath
or not, but if the above stories are accurate, then he did violate it, and
not by accident, and it is intellectually dishonest for anyone to claim that
he was torah observant. Both of the above activities are blatant violations
of the sabbath, according to both Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:OHuPc.95288$bp1....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "Hieron" <geo...@msn.de> wrote in message
> news:2n6sakF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> > Now, just recently I was doing some reading on the Law and various
beliefs
> > and practices related to it. And my conclusion is that not everything is
> as
> > black and white as it is presented on this newsgroup.
I don't think anyone was trying to misrepresent anything. It's just that we
have time constraints, and as it is, I think I personally spend too much
time posting on usenet, so I for one will generally try to keep things
short, in the interest of simplicity and saving time. However, if someone
(such as yourself) is interested in more specific details, such as those
which I provided in my post (the one I am currently following up), I am
happy to provide them.
>>Even within Israel
> > there were two Phariseic parties, Shammai and Hillel - the former was
more
> > liberal (he represented the spirit of the Law), while the latter was
> strict
> > to the letter (he represented the letter of the Law).
I don't think it's accurate to say they were two different parties. Rather,
Hillel and Shammai was each the head of his own yeshiva (school), just as
there were many other yeshivos throughout history, each with it's own rosh
yeshiva (head of the school). Even today, different yeshivos emphasize
different aspects of Judaism. Some of them may focus almost exclusively on
talmud learning whereas others may be more kabbalistic or focus on mussar
(ethics) or some other specific area. However, all are going to agree that
the oral law was given at Sinai, is valid and binding, and that keeping the
mitzvos (torah observance) is obligatory.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Padraic Brown
>
>"Padraic Brown"
>"randy"
>
>> >He forgave sinners.
>>
>> Agreed, but it's not his place to forgive people that didn't wrong him
>> personally. You certainly can't forgive me if I insult someone else
>> here!
>
>The Christian religion is based on a deity's forgiveness
That's beside the point. Of course, if you believe in the deity of a
man, then of course, you'd probably agree that he has this ability.
>> >He let Israel murder him
>>
>> Uh! Uh! Uh! Now you're going too far again. "Israel" did not "murder"
>> him. A _few_ Jews got miffed enough (or felt their power and prestige
>> threatened enough) to get the powers that were (the Romans) to top him
>> for them.
>
>Granted. But the Jewish people in general rejected Jesus as Messiah.
Of cousre. He wásn't the awaited messiah - so, your point would be?
>It was
>the murder of Jesus by a Jewish mob
He was nailed to a cross per Roman jurisprudence (well, more or less).
In any event, the "Jewish mob" was no longer involved.
Padraic Brown
>
>"Padraic Brown"
>"randy"
>> >I would never go as far as Luther, who wrote The Bondage of the Will, an
>> >almost complete denial of free will. His predestination allows almost no
>> >choice on the part of man as to who will become good and who will become
>> >bad. I don't believe this. Although I accept predestination, I don't
>accept
>> >Luther's particular version, since it denies free will for the most part.
>> >But even Luther accepted the reality of good works, or good fruit, in the
>> >Christian.
>>
>> Describe your version of "predestination". How is it different from
>> Luther's "almost no choice"? How much latitude do you have?
>
>Predestination is the determination of what we are attracted to.
_Pre_determination, I guess. As I understand the doctrine,
predestination involves these attractions already being sorted out,
perhaps even long before we're born.
>Some are
>attracted to God. Others are not. Evil is a mystery to me. It's a great
>tragedy as well. But despite what we are attracted to, all men can choose to
>do good, and all can choose to put on the nature of God, ie godliness. The
>difference between the "saved" and the "unsaved" for me is a matter of who
>chooses to persevere in "wearing" the holy nature of God.
So in other words, being saved has nothing to do with being Christian.
>> What do "free will" and "predestination" mean to you and how do you
>> solve the contradiction that Luther and other predestinationists /
>> anti-free-willers have seen?
>
>I think it was Melanchthon who differed from Luther in his Protestant
>theology. He was both predestinarian and freewill, if I remember correctly.
>
>> Personally, "free will" = "predestination is impossible". At each
>> point we have the ability to choose our course. Of course, if you wave
>> the old "omniscient god knows all and sees all" wand - then you have
>> no problem in solving the contradiction, cos all you have to do is say
>> "well, obviously, god knew how this would turn out and it was All Part
>> of the Plan".
>
>I never use this argument for the same reason. I believe that God has
>foreordained a select number of children. If people choose to disrupt and
>oppose the plan of God, and "engineer" the process of sexual reproduction, I
>can't blame God for what results!
???
>True faith not only
>believes that Jesus is the Christ.
True _Christian_ faith. Jews have faith but do not believe that Jesus
is the Christ.
>> >And I would agree. Salvation is based not on anything man can
>> >do, but on what God can do.
>>
>> Fair enough. That is a fairly normal Christian belief. I don't buy
>> that one. We choose our paths and we make our own way to the Kingdom.
>
>But this is the whole uniqueness of Christianity, that God has revealed
>Himself to man by His Spirit.
This is NOT unique to Christianity, though. Zoroastrianism and Judaism
and Mormonism are similarly revealed.
>> >God's Spirit comes down to live near or in man,
>> >and we become capable of both doing good and pleasing God.
>>
>> That is one way it can be accomplished. You can also make the leap on
>> your own.
>
>I believe God's Spirit is the only way it can be accomplished.
Fair enough. You're welcome to believe what you like!
>Blame God for His narrow-minded dogmatism! ;)
I don't. I "blame" you for narrow minded dogmatism. God is not so
limited.
randy
"Padraic Brown"
"randy"
> >> Describe your version of "predestination". How is it different from
> >> Luther's "almost no choice"? How much latitude do you have?
> >
> >Predestination is the determination of what we are attracted to.
>
> _Pre_determination, I guess. As I understand the doctrine,
> predestination involves these attractions already being sorted out,
> perhaps even long before we're born.
Yes, God's predestines our propensities, what we are drawn to, what we are
attracted to.
> >Some are
> >attracted to God. Others are not. Evil is a mystery to me. It's a great
> >tragedy as well. But despite what we are attracted to, all men can choose
to
> >do good, and all can choose to put on the nature of God, ie godliness.
The
> >difference between the "saved" and the "unsaved" for me is a matter of
who
> >chooses to persevere in "wearing" the holy nature of God.
>
> So in other words, being saved has nothing to do with being Christian.
I don't know why you draw this false conclusion. I meant no such thing.
Certainly, God's children were determined long before Christ came on the
scene. But Christ is the ultimate magnet drawing those who are truly God's
children and repelling those who are not. I agree that nonChristians can
certainly have some notion of God's "holy nature," and want to put this on
and wear it. But I define salvation not simply as those who are "predestined
to become" God's children, but more, as those who currently come to
experience all the benefits of being God's children. To fully display
yourself as a child of God, you must not only desire to put on God's holy
nature, but you must realize that today this can occur strictly by the gift
of Christ, who has given us His Holy Spirit.
> >True faith not only
> >believes that Jesus is the Christ.
>
> True _Christian_ faith. Jews have faith but do not believe that Jesus
> is the Christ.
Yes, I'm defining "faith" from the Christian perspective. I recognize that
faith existed prior to the coming of Christ. But I believe God sanctioned
one form of faith (based on the Torah) before Christ came. And now that
Christ has come, faith is fulfilled only as directed towards Christ and his
commandments.
> >But this is the whole uniqueness of Christianity, that God has revealed
> >Himself to man by His Spirit.
>
> This is NOT unique to Christianity, though. Zoroastrianism and Judaism
> and Mormonism are similarly revealed.
I wouldn't at all deny that other religions and cults are based on "divine
revelation." However, Christianity is unique in the sense that the Spirit is
given through Christ and indwells man. Mormonism may claim some kind of
"indwelling," but does either Judaism or Zoroastrianism? I'd really like to
know.
> >I believe God's Spirit is the only way it can be accomplished.
>
> Fair enough. You're welcome to believe what you like!
Yes, I've only wanted to express what I believe--not push my belief on to
someone else. I want to be consistent, and I've already asserted that proof
must come from God Himself--not from arguments alone!
> >Blame God for His narrow-minded dogmatism! ;)
>
> I don't. I "blame" you for narrow minded dogmatism. God is not so
> limited.
The point I was hoping to make is that I try to base my beliefs on the dogma
that Christianity itself rests on.
randy
randy
"Hieron"
> randy
> ..."Good nature" is what the "good tree" is. "Good works" is what
> the good nature produces...
> > "Good trees" represent having a good nature. But it's more. We've been
> > given by Christ to have a "new nature." This new nature consists of a
kind
> > of spirituality that leads us to follow the Spirit of God, as we pursue
> > the good.
>
> I know all this stuff. But then I wonder why it is not the reality.
It is a reality for the Christian. But God has made His spiritual guidance
something that you have to strive for on a daily basis, something that you
have to mature in. I don't think God ever meant spiritual guidance to be
some kind of quick fix in our lives. God apparently meant for our guidance
to be a means of living out a constant fellowship with God. Otherwise God
would be just some kind of consultant or counselor, or even a santa claus.
> > We are not supposed to just go out and do acts of charity, out
> > of our own imagination, out of our own inspiration.
>
> Why not? What holds you back?
God seems to want control of even our "good" inspirations. If we go out and
do good things, they may indeed be good things, but they also may not always
give God the glory. What gives God the glory is when He is the inspiration
behind a project or work. That's why I feel we must be so sensitive to God's
Spirit to see if He truly wants us to do something, whether it is good or
not.
> > We're supposed to look
> > within ourselves and discover what God made us to be.
>
> Don't waste your time, randy. Just go and do it. Even trinitarians teach
> that the believer is like a vessel. Unless it is on the move the wind
> cannot direct it.
Well, there's truth in that. You just can't wait for God to move you.
There's plenty of responsibilities already built into our consciousness that
we can't wait for some kind of divine guidance to move us out into the
world. We know God already wants us to "multiply and be fruitful." We know
already that God wants us to work and earn money, to share our talents and
knowledge with the world. But the point I'm trying to make is not that we
need God to inspire us in the beginning necessarily. We can make plans out
of the heart and mind God has already put into us and created us with. But
it's for God to take us through the steps, to hinder and stop us, or to
bless us and help us finish the plan.
> Go and do the good works, and God will let you know if you are in the
right
> place.
Exactly.
> > If at any step along the way our activity compromises the good,
>
> Then it is called sin.
Sin is not always so easy to see. We can pursue a noble goal and miss the
fact our ambitions could be hurting a spouse or the children, or other
people.
> > we're supposed to stop and turn to the right.
>
> And that is repentance.
Sometimes divine guidance is not always a rebuke, but a correction.
Sometimes our path needs changing--the plan need not be cancelled.
> > In other words, our new
> > nature in Christ is supposed to be "led by the Spirit."
>
> The wind only helps the ship when it is on the move.
Well, if we look at nature itself, it's the wind that moves the ship! ;)
But not to get picky, yes, unless we put up our sails, the wind will never
take us anywhere.
> > That is, we're not
> > just supposed to do "good works." We're supposed to be "spiritual
people,"
> > in constant fellowship with God.
>
> Then stop thinking whether you should do good or not. Go and do it! For
"to
> the one who know how to do good, but doesn't do it, it is sin."
I wouldn't disagree with Scripture. About the only problem I have with you
here is that you keep trying to tell me what to do. I'd rather just have you
state your opinion, and leave the attempts at "control" out of it?
randy
randy
"Padraic Brown"
"randy"
> >I wouldn't think that "repentance" itself is a fruit,
>
> Look at it like this: repentence is the realisation that evil has been
> chosen and sorrow has been felt on account of that choice and the
> decision has been made to make reparations. That is certainly a good
> fruit.
This is a different context from what I was referring to. But in the context
you use, you're clearly right.
> >but the "fruits of
> >repentance" are good works.
>
> Possibly. There are other sources of good deeds, though.
Not from the Christian pov. Every good work is in a sense a "fruit of
repentance." The Christian has gone from self-serving, whether in producing
good works or bad works. The Christian recognizes that in his self-serving
ambitions he has left God completely out of his plans. And for the Christian
this itself is "sin."
So when we turn from our self-serving ways and begin to consult God in
everything we do, we produce good works in conjunction with God. We produce
good works in keeping with the guidance of God's Spirit. In this way our
good works become the "fruits of repentance," because we have now left our
self-serving ways for service to Christ.
> >"Fruit" to me are examples of human works that
> >please God, things like kindness and generosity, mercy and tolerance.
>
> Indeed. They don't necessarily come from repentence. You are still
> allowed to do all the good deeds you like, when you haven't done
> anything wrong to repent from, you know!
Again, in the context you use you're definitely right. But I refer to
specifically Christian terminology. The "fruits of repentance" do not just
refer to repentance from sin. They speak of the good works that follow
Christian conversion. The "fruits of repentance" in this sense is a change
from the previously nonChristian life to the current Christian service.
> >Anybody can do good acts as such, but that doesn't thereby make one a
"good
> >tree."
>
> Sure it does.
From the Christian pov, all works in the formerly nonChristian life is in a
sense "sin." God certainly recognizes a person's disposition to the "good,"
and He undoubtedly recognizes good works in the nonChristian. But the
nonChristian is always viewed by God as guilty of sin, because both good and
bad works are tainted by a lack of inspiration from God. The fruits of
repentance for the Christian is the "new life in Christ," in which our good
works are now placed under the control and guidance of God's Holy Spirit.
> >To be a "good tree" one must not only *do* good works--he must *be*
> >good!
>
> Doing good follows more from being good than from being evil. If your
> chosen nature is good, then doing good deeds will be in your nature.
Of course. I think my concern is that people with a bad nature still do good
works and thereby deceive people. The emphasis in Christianity is on
becoming a reliable human being, who can be trusted as a person, and not
just because he does some good thing.
randy
randy
"Hieron"
> cindys
> Jesus never said "I forgive you", but rather, he declared that "your sins
> are forgiven". When one repented from his sins, doesn't Judaism believe
> that the person obtains forgiveness from God?
Yes, but "Judaism" understood in Jesus' day that Jesus was acting in unity
with God. The Jews understood Jesus to be making himself equal with God and
using God's authority to forgive sins. This is why they tried to throw him
off a cliff and accused him of blasphemy.
> There is no point denying that there were some Jewish involvement as well
> (particularly on the part of the religious leadership appointed by
Romans),
> but it cannot be said that Israel murdered him....
Yes, but the point I'd like to make is that most of Israel turned against
Jesus, even though most of Israel did not "murder" Jesus. Christians feel
that in a sense all Israel is guilty of rejecting Jesus as Messiah. Even
Jesus' own disciples scattered at one point, when Jesus was being arrested
and threatened with execution.
Nobody is saying that Jews are particularly evil for rejecting Christ, or
for having participated in any way in the murder of Christ. Christians
believe that *all mankind* are equally guilty of departing from Christ. But
the beauty of Christ is that we can always be restored to him!
randy
randy
"cindys"
> "randy"
> > Granted. But the Jewish people in general rejected Jesus as Messiah. It
> was
> > the murder of Jesus by a Jewish mob
> ----------
> And again, you contradict your own bible which clearly describes that
Jesus
> was crucified by the Romans.
> Best regards,
Technically yes, the Romans had the exclusive authority to have Jesus
crucified. Do you question that the Jewish mob was guilty of murder? It was
Jewish slander that made the Roman execution a "murder." But I believe the
Romans shared in that guilt. As Jesus himself said, the Jews had the
greatest guilt.
randy
randy
"cockroach"
> "randy"
> so once again randy you accuse jews of being christ killers
Jews are Christ-rejecters. It was only a Jewish mob that slandered Christ
and called for his execution.
randy
randy
"Padraic Brown"
"randy"
> >The Christian religion is based on a deity's forgiveness
>
> That's beside the point. Of course, if you believe in the deity of a
> man, then of course, you'd probably agree that he has this ability.
Exactly.
> > ...But the Jewish people in general rejected Jesus as Messiah.
>
> Of cousre. He wásn't the awaited messiah - so, your point would be?
My point is not that all Jews are guilty of murdering Christ, but that all
Jews are guilty of rejecting Christ (as all men are). We've all turned away
from Christ at some point in our life. And actually we turn away from his
pure revelation every day all throughout the day. We are constantly beset by
sin, and only a righteous new nature can successfully combat this tendency
towards sin.
> >It was
> >the murder of Jesus by a Jewish mob
>
> He was nailed to a cross per Roman jurisprudence (well, more or less).
> In any event, the "Jewish mob" was no longer involved.
The point is, they (the Jews) played the pivotal role. I emphasize this not
to be antiSemitic but to point out that if God's holy people had trouble
accepting Christ, the whole world must surely bow down at the feet of Christ
and seek God's mercy. That is the whole plan of God (according to
Christianity) that we should recognize our innate sinfulness and our need
for a replacement nature.
randy
Hieron
>
> "Hieron"
>> cindys
>
>> Jesus never said "I forgive you", but rather, he declared that "your sins
>> are forgiven". When one repented from his sins, doesn't Judaism believe
>> that the person obtains forgiveness from God?
>
> Yes, but "Judaism" understood in Jesus' day that Jesus was acting in unity
> with God. The Jews understood Jesus to be making himself equal with God
> and using God's authority to forgive sins.
Or maybe they misunderstood him. This was not the only time.
> This is why they tried to throw
> him off a cliff and accused him of blasphemy.
You get mixed up with the events. The cliff stuff was when he red Isaiah in
the synagogue and claimed that it was fulfiled before their very eyes.
(Luke 4:29)
>> There is no point denying that there were some Jewish involvement as well
>> (particularly on the part of the religious leadership appointed by
> Romans),
>> but it cannot be said that Israel murdered him....
>
> Yes, but the point I'd like to make is that most of Israel turned against
> Jesus, even though most of Israel did not "murder" Jesus.
You cannot prove this. Probably most of the Jews were decadent and couldn't
care less that Jesus was crucified. This is not the same as turning against
him.
> Christians feel
> that in a sense all Israel is guilty of rejecting Jesus as Messiah.
That is a wrong and dangerous view. That is why these "Christians" who feel
that "in a sense all Israel is guilty of rejecting Jesus as Messiah" became
guilty of persecuting Jews and killing innocents.
If I would not be a believer in Jesus, I would never become one through your
and moshe's repelling witness.
> Even
> Jesus' own disciples scattered at one point, when Jesus was being arrested
> and threatened with execution.
Natural reaction of weak men.
> Nobody is saying that Jews are particularly evil for rejecting Christ, or
> for having participated in any way in the murder of Christ.
But you just said they are guilty, and that Israel murdered him. What is
that if not evil?
> Christians
> believe that *all mankind* are equally guilty of departing from Christ.
How can they depart from him when they were never with him?
> But the beauty of Christ is that we can always be restored to him!
Except when it is not possible. Read Heb. 6.
--
Hieron
Hieron
Perhaps to show us how much the Jews misunderstood Jesus. Other times they
thought Jesus made himself equal with God by referring to himself as the
son of God. He had to correct them.
This is one way of looking at it. The other is that he challenged the
religious leadership.
Thanks for the info, so only one thing remained, that the Jews misunderstood
him as other times. I don't see anything wrong with the inclusion of the
story, for it simply displays events in Jesus' ministry.
--
Hieron
Hieron
>
> "Hieron"
>> randy
>
>> ..."Good nature" is what the "good tree" is. "Good works" is what
>> the good nature produces...
>
>> > "Good trees" represent having a good nature. But it's more. We've been
>> > given by Christ to have a "new nature." This new nature consists of a
> kind
>> > of spirituality that leads us to follow the Spirit of God, as we pursue
>> > the good.
>>
>> I know all this stuff. But then I wonder why it is not the reality.
>
> It is a reality for the Christian.
How can it be a reality when you claim that Christians keep on sinning?
> But God has made His spiritual guidance
> something that you have to strive for on a daily basis, something that you
> have to mature in.
How do you know that it is the Spirit that leads you and not "another"
spirit?
> I don't think God ever meant spiritual guidance to be
> some kind of quick fix in our lives.
Not a quick fix, but it certainly should have been a power to live
righteously. However, as you claim Christians keep on sinning...
> God apparently meant for our guidance
> to be a means of living out a constant fellowship with God.
With sinning continually?
> Otherwise God
> would be just some kind of consultant or counselor, or even a santa claus.
So how does the Spirit help Christians when they reject all kinds of laws
(they are lawless), continually sinning, fake speaking in tongues (foreign
languages), fake healing, rip off members and commit other kinds of
corruptions, fornicate and cheat of their viwes, etc.
It the Spirit is real in trinitarianism, we should have seen the trinitarian
Church become peacemaker and not murderer, the light of the world rather
than its darkness, and salt rather than bitterness. (I have great regard to
those few who are examples of righteousness among them!)
>
>> > We are not supposed to just go out and do acts of charity, out
>> > of our own imagination, out of our own inspiration.
>>
>> Why not? What holds you back?
>
> God seems to want control of even our "good" inspirations.
You reckon He doesn't want you do go and do righteous deeds.
> If we go out
> and do good things, they may indeed be good things, but they also may not
> always give God the glory. What gives God the glory is when He is the
> inspiration behind a project or work. That's why I feel we must be so
> sensitive to God's Spirit to see if He truly wants us to do something,
> whether it is good or not.
This is really silly, randy. What gives God the glory is when the people who
claim tobe called by His name do good in the world.
>> > We're supposed to look
>> > within ourselves and discover what God made us to be.
>>
>> Don't waste your time, randy. Just go and do it. Even trinitarians teach
>> that the believer is like a vessel. Unless it is on the move the wind
>> cannot direct it.
>
> Well, there's truth in that. You just can't wait for God to move you.
So why do you?
> There's plenty of responsibilities already built into our consciousness
> that we can't wait for some kind of divine guidance to move us out into
> the world. We know God already wants us to "multiply and be fruitful."
Yet, your theology holds you back, for you want to wait for some kind of
magical impression before you move.
> We
> know already that God wants us to work and earn money, to share our
> talents and knowledge with the world. But the point I'm trying to make is
> not that we need God to inspire us in the beginning necessarily. We can
> make plans out of the heart and mind God has already put into us and
> created us with. But it's for God to take us through the steps, to hinder
> and stop us, or to bless us and help us finish the plan.
But you must be on the move.
>> Go and do the good works, and God will let you know if you are in the
> right
>> place.
>
> Exactly.
>
>> > If at any step along the way our activity compromises the good,
>>
>> Then it is called sin.
>
> Sin is not always so easy to see.
Especially if you don't know what is right and what is wrong.
> We can pursue a noble goal and miss the
> fact our ambitions could be hurting a spouse or the children, or other
> people.
The noble goal doesn't terrorise others around you.
>> > we're supposed to stop and turn to the right.
>>
>> And that is repentance.
>
> Sometimes divine guidance is not always a rebuke, but a correction.
> Sometimes our path needs changing--the plan need not be cancelled.
The plan that needs to be cancelled didn't have divine origin.
>> > That is, we're not
>> > just supposed to do "good works." We're supposed to be "spiritual
> people,"
>> > in constant fellowship with God.
>>
>> Then stop thinking whether you should do good or not. Go and do it! For
> "to
>> the one who know how to do good, but doesn't do it, it is sin."
>
> I wouldn't disagree with Scripture. About the only problem I have with you
> here is that you keep trying to tell me what to do. I'd rather just have
> you state your opinion, and leave the attempts at "control" out of it?
I have no interest in controlling you at all. But you love philosophy rather
than action. I just want to encourage to *do* rahter that you just think
whether you should do or not do good deeds.
--
Hieron
cockroach
well you finally admit to the oldest anti semitic tridck in the book
we finally know your true colors
you can no longer hide claiming you are not an anti semite
you can no longer claim to being a jew lover
thank you
randy
"Hieron"
> randy
> > It is a reality for the Christian.
>
> How can it be a reality when you claim that Christians keep on sinning?
As I've said before, all men sin. Some sin when they fail. Others sin as a
lifestyle, not admitting that it's a failure.
> How do you know that it is the Spirit that leads you and not "another"
> spirit?
The Spirit of God conforms to Christian truth. It's a spirit that convicts
us of what our conscience already knows is right. A spirit that pressures us
in a direction that brings doubt and confusion is not of God.
> > God apparently meant for our guidance
> > to be a means of living out a constant fellowship with God.
>
> With sinning continually?
All men sin regularly. But the Christian who is truly "born again," and
lives by that new nature, does not *practise* sinning at all. The sins that
constantly beset him are constantly beat back. Imperfection does not have to
keep the Christian from living righteously.
> So how does the Spirit help Christians when they reject all kinds of laws
> (they are lawless), continually sinning, fake speaking in tongues (foreign
> languages), fake healing, rip off members and commit other kinds of
> corruptions, fornicate and cheat of their viwes, etc.
Alot of Christians suffer from a lack of knowledge. This is due to poor
leadership (and Christians are by no means perfect). Other Christians simply
ignore good Christian leadership and bow to external pressures, thinking the
consequences will be small. When Christians give up good stewardship over
their own minds, they drift off into all kinds of excesses. This happened in
ancient Israel, and it happens in today's church.
> It the Spirit is real in trinitarianism, we should have seen the
trinitarian
> Church become peacemaker and not murderer, the light of the world rather
> than its darkness, and salt rather than bitterness. (I have great regard
to
> those few who are examples of righteousness among them!)
Jesus always said that only a "few" enter through the "narrow gate" and
enter into "life."
> > If we go out
> > and do good things, they may indeed be good things, but they also may
not
> > always give God the glory. What gives God the glory is when He is the
> > inspiration behind a project or work. That's why I feel we must be so
> > sensitive to God's Spirit to see if He truly wants us to do something,
> > whether it is good or not.
>
> This is really silly, randy. What gives God the glory is when the people
who
> claim tobe called by His name do good in the world.
I don't agree. How many times has a man taken on a 2nd job to make more
money, when his free time would be better spent with his wife or children?
His desire is to better provide for his family financially, but the greater
need is to provide for the social needs of the family. This is how the
Spirit of God guides in the life of Christians, and I believe God speaks to
nonChristians in this way as well. "Good works" are not always "inspired
works." (I don't believe it's always wrong to have a 2nd job.)
> > Well, there's truth in that. You just can't wait for God to move you.
>
> So why do you?
Because the Bible says we can make plans, but we have to let God take us
through the steps. Don't you believe in this?
> > There's plenty of responsibilities already built into our consciousness
> > that we can't wait for some kind of divine guidance to move us out into
> > the world. We know God already wants us to "multiply and be fruitful."
>
> Yet, your theology holds you back, for you want to wait for some kind of
> magical impression before you move.
Getting to know God is a great privilege, and it's not "magic." God is
spirit, and those who get to know Him must engage in a spiritual fellowship.
The first lesson you will learn is that God never gives in to your demands,
nor does He do things your way. He will forever be Creator first and you the
creature second. After that spiritual guidance becomes the norm.
> > Sin is not always so easy to see.
>
> Especially if you don't know what is right and what is wrong.
That's right. You must know the Holy Spirit to see what activity conforms to
the holiness of God.
> I have no interest in controlling you at all. But you love philosophy
rather
> than action. I just want to encourage to *do* rahter that you just think
> whether you should do or not do good deeds.
We are constantly doing either good or evil. There's no choice in the
matter. Just getting up in the morning is "good." Just having a cup of
coffee is "good." What isn't good is starting your day without
acknowledgment of God.
randy
randy
"Hieron"
> randy
> > Yes, but "Judaism" understood in Jesus' day that Jesus was acting in
unity
> > with God. The Jews understood Jesus to be making himself equal with God
> > and using God's authority to forgive sins.
>
> Or maybe they misunderstood him. This was not the only time.
This is the plain teaching of Scriptures.
> > This is why they tried to throw
> > him off a cliff and accused him of blasphemy.
>
> You get mixed up with the events. The cliff stuff was when he red Isaiah
in
> the synagogue and claimed that it was fulfiled before their very eyes.
> (Luke 4:29)
I wasn't confused, but it perhaps wasn't the greatest reference to give.
Jesus' own hometown did not recognize his prophetic status. But their
hostility seems to have been directed at his prophetic judgment. I was
actually referring to two different events. I see them all as similar in
nature.
> > Yes, but the point I'd like to make is that most of Israel turned
against
> > Jesus, even though most of Israel did not "murder" Jesus.
>
> You cannot prove this. Probably most of the Jews were decadent and
couldn't
> care less that Jesus was crucified. This is not the same as turning
against
> him.
This is a matter of both biblical record and historical record. It's very
easy to prove.
> > Christians feel
> > that in a sense all Israel is guilty of rejecting Jesus as Messiah.
>
> That is a wrong and dangerous view. That is why these "Christians" who
feel
> that "in a sense all Israel is guilty of rejecting Jesus as Messiah"
became
> guilty of persecuting Jews and killing innocents.
Not true. Christians all believe that both Jew and Gentile are guilty of
turning against Christ. Do Christians always persecute Jews? Do Christians
persecute themselves?
> If I would not be a believer in Jesus, I would never become one through
your
> and moshe's repelling witness.
You need to follow Christ.
> > Nobody is saying that Jews are particularly evil for rejecting Christ,
or
> > for having participated in any way in the murder of Christ.
>
> But you just said they are guilty, and that Israel murdered him. What is
> that if not evil?
I think it was "evil" to murder Christ. It is "sinful" to turn against
Christ, and we all do this. To become truly "evil" one must become immersed
in it. We've all been moved by our own inner evil, or have given in to
external evils.
> > Christians
> > believe that *all mankind* are equally guilty of departing from Christ.
>
> How can they depart from him when they were never with him?
Because Christ was the incarnate Word of God. The same Word that became
flesh also continues to press upon the consciences of men. And we're all
guilty of turning against our conscience!
> > But the beauty of Christ is that we can always be restored to him!
>
> Except when it is not possible. Read Heb. 6.
This has to do when men deliberately and finally reject the Word of God.
randy
Padraic Brown
>
>"Padraic Brown"
>"randy"
>
>> >The Christian religion is based on a deity's forgiveness
>>
>> That's beside the point. Of course, if you believe in the deity of a
>> man, then of course, you'd probably agree that he has this ability.
>
>Exactly.
>
>> > ...But the Jewish people in general rejected Jesus as Messiah.
>>
>> Of cousre. He wásn't the awaited messiah - so, your point would be?
>
>My point is not that all Jews are guilty of murdering Christ, but that all
>Jews are guilty of rejecting Christ (as all men are).
Obviously. Why would they accept someone who was NOT the messiah?
>We've all turned away
>from Christ at some point in our life. And actually we turn away from his
>pure revelation every day all throughout the day. We are constantly beset by
>sin, and only a righteous new nature can successfully combat this tendency
>towards sin.
Irrelevant, in light of the current topic!
>> >It was
>> >the murder of Jesus by a Jewish mob
>>
>> He was nailed to a cross per Roman jurisprudence (well, more or less).
>> In any event, the "Jewish mob" was no longer involved.
>
>The point is, they (the Jews) played the pivotal role.
There were a lot of pivotal roles - without Judas, none of it could
have happened; without a Roman procuator scared of the Passover mob,
it couldn't have happened...
>I emphasize this not
>to be antiSemitic
But you are bing antijewish EVERY time you couch these arguments in
terms of "the Jews"! If you want to qualify "the Jews" with some sort
of modifier that makes clear your intention, then you won't run into
these problems every time you send a message around here!
>but to point out that if God's holy people had trouble
>accepting Christ,
This is not antijewish, but you MUST realise that Jesus was NOT the
one sent by God as far as any form of Judaism is concerned. I know you
like to hold the pretense of Christiainity being supreme and all that,
but you won't get far throwing that in the face of people you're
trying to convert!
>the whole world must surely bow down at the feet of Christ
>and seek God's mercy.
Not at all. If Christians want to, that's their business. Jews and
Buddhists have no business bowing down to your man. Why can't you
accept that this is YOUR way, and is not applicable to those who do
not ascribe to your beliefs???
>That is the whole plan of God (according to
>Christianity) that we should recognize our innate sinfulness and our need
>for a replacement nature.
It ain't "God's Plan" according to anyone else, so... you point would
be?
Padraic Brown
>> >Some are
>> >attracted to God. Others are not. Evil is a mystery to me. It's a great
>> >tragedy as well. But despite what we are attracted to, all men can choose
>> >to
>> >do good, and all can choose to put on the nature of God, ie godliness.
>> >The
>> >difference between the "saved" and the "unsaved" for me is a matter of
>> >who
>> >chooses to persevere in "wearing" the holy nature of God.
>>
>> So in other words, being saved has nothing to do with being Christian.
>
>I don't know why you draw this false conclusion.
"The difference between the "saved" and the "unsaved" for me is a
matter of who chooses to persevere in "wearing" the holy nature of
God." You don't have to be Christian to wear the holy nature of God.
>I meant no such thing.
Then you need to alter your statement!
>> >True faith not only
>> >believes that Jesus is the Christ.
>>
>> True _Christian_ faith. Jews have faith but do not believe that Jesus
>> is the Christ.
>
>Yes, I'm defining "faith" from the Christian perspective.
It's always a good idea to a) not assume that your interlocutor will
be of the same perspective, especially in a multi-religionned NG like
this and b) make clear which perspective you're using as your
definition.
>I recognize that
>faith existed prior to the coming of Christ.
An odd choice of words - does it no longer exist, in your opinion,
apart from Christianity?
>But I believe God sanctioned
>one form of faith (based on the Torah) before Christ came.
Fair enough. Though clearly, many were sanctioned - not just one!
>And now that
>Christ has come, faith is fulfilled only as directed towards Christ and his
>commandments.
Or not, depending!
>> >But this is the whole uniqueness of Christianity, that God has revealed
>> >Himself to man by His Spirit.
>>
>> This is NOT unique to Christianity, though. Zoroastrianism and Judaism
>> and Mormonism are similarly revealed.
>
>I wouldn't at all deny that other religions and cults are based on "divine
>revelation." However, Christianity is unique in the sense that the Spirit is
>given through Christ and indwells man.
OK - you're using the word in the word's definition. To make my point
more plain, all those religions are revealed by God.
>Mormonism may claim some kind of
>"indwelling," but does either Judaism or Zoroastrianism? I'd really like to
>know.
From what I gather, Z does have a similar concept of indwelling
spirit, though obviously it doesn't come via the agency of Jesus
Christ! ;)))
>> >Blame God for His narrow-minded dogmatism! ;)
>>
>> I don't. I "blame" you for narrow minded dogmatism. God is not so
>> limited.
>
>The point I was hoping to make is that I try to base my beliefs on the dogma
>that Christianity itself rests on.
Which in and of itself is a very narrow-minded dogma. Always has been,
ever since the supremacy of orthodoxy.
Padraic Brown
>
>"cindys"
>> "randy"
>> > Granted. But the Jewish people in general rejected Jesus as Messiah. It
>> was
>> > the murder of Jesus by a Jewish mob
>> ----------
>> And again, you contradict your own bible which clearly describes that
>Jesus
>> was crucified by the Romans.
>> Best regards,
>
>Technically yes, the Romans had the exclusive authority to have Jesus
>crucified. Do you question that the Jewish mob was guilty of murder?
The Roman procurator was 100% within his rights to either cave to the
mob and sweep the whole sordid affair under the proverbail rug or else
tell the mob to sod off and pound sand. He chose the former.
Padraic Brown
>
>"Padraic Brown"
>"randy"
>
>> >I wouldn't think that "repentance" itself is a fruit,
>> >but the "fruits of
>> >repentance" are good works.
>>
>> Possibly. There are other sources of good deeds, though.
>
>Not from the Christian pov.
Could be. I don't accept that Christianity is the end all or be all,
so I am free to see the other possiblities.
>> >"Fruit" to me are examples of human works that
>> >please God, things like kindness and generosity, mercy and tolerance.
>>
>> Indeed. They don't necessarily come from repentence. You are still
>> allowed to do all the good deeds you like, when you haven't done
>> anything wrong to repent from, you know!
>
>Again, in the context you use you're definitely right. But I refer to
>specifically Christian terminology.
All well and good - this discussion is not limited to Christian
terminology, however!
>> >Anybody can do good acts as such, but that doesn't thereby make one a
>> >"good tree."
>>
>> Sure it does.
>
>From the Christian pov, all works in the formerly nonChristian life is in a
>sense "sin."
Nonsense.
>God certainly recognizes a person's disposition to the "good,"
>and He undoubtedly recognizes good works in the nonChristian.
How generous!
>But the
>nonChristian is always viewed by God as guilty of sin,
Nonsense. Nonchristians are "viewed by God" in the context of whatever
path they are on or religion they ascribe to. That's the only way that
really makes any sense.
>> >To be a "good tree" one must not only *do* good works--he must *be*
>> >good!
>>
>> Doing good follows more from being good than from being evil. If your
>> chosen nature is good, then doing good deeds will be in your nature.
>
>Of course. I think my concern is that people with a bad nature still do good
>works and thereby deceive people.
That's certainly possible!! It is up to "people" to be on their guard.
>The emphasis in Christianity is on
>becoming a reliable human being, who can be trusted as a person, and not
>just because he does some good thing.
Sure. However, "doing good things" implies "person of a good nature
and therefore reliable and trustworthy".
You simply have to open to the possibility of deceit and know how to
deal with that when it happens to you.
Padraic Brown
>randy wrote:
>
>>
>> "Hieron"
>>> randy
>>
>>> ..."Good nature" is what the "good tree" is. "Good works" is what
>>> the good nature produces...
>>
>>> > "Good trees" represent having a good nature. But it's more. We've been
>>> > given by Christ to have a "new nature." This new nature consists of a
>> kind
>>> > of spirituality that leads us to follow the Spirit of God, as we pursue
>>> > the good.
>>>
>>> I know all this stuff. But then I wonder why it is not the reality.
>>
>> It is a reality for the Christian.
>
>How can it be a reality when you claim that Christians keep on sinning?
It is the IDEAL for Christians, the REALITY for a few Christians.
cindys
>
> "Hieron"
> > > Yes, but the point I'd like to make is that most of Israel turned
> against
> > > Jesus, even though most of Israel did not "murder" Jesus.
> >
> > You cannot prove this. Probably most of the Jews were decadent and
> couldn't
> > care less that Jesus was crucified. This is not the same as turning
> against
> > him.
>
> This is a matter of both biblical record and historical record. It's very
> easy to prove.
-----------
Biblical maybe, but not historical.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
>
> "cindys"
> > "randy"
> > > Granted. But the Jewish people in general rejected Jesus as Messiah.
It
> > was
> > > the murder of Jesus by a Jewish mob
> > ----------
> > And again, you contradict your own bible which clearly describes that
> Jesus
> > was crucified by the Romans.
> > Best regards,
>
> Technically yes, the Romans had the exclusive authority to have Jesus
> crucified. Do you question that the Jewish mob was guilty of murder?
Do I question it? I don't think Jesus even existed.
>It was
> Jewish slander that made the Roman execution a "murder." But I believe the
> Romans shared in that guilt.
Let's see...According to the story, the Romans sentenced the guy and nailed
him to the cross but they weren't the real guilty ones. They were really
only the accomplices. As usual, the real murderers were...those nasty
Joooozzz.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
randy
"Padraic Brown"
"randy"
> >> So in other words, being saved has nothing to do with being Christian.
> >
> >I don't know why you draw this false conclusion.
>
> "The difference between the "saved" and the "unsaved" for me is a
> matter of who chooses to persevere in "wearing" the holy nature of
> God." You don't have to be Christian to wear the holy nature of God.
What I should've said is that anybody can put on some aspect of God's holy
nature. To truly persevere in putting on God's holy nature one would have to
become "born again." In fact, that is how I define the "rebirth." One
becomes "reborn" when he chooses to fully put on of God's holy nature, and
not just some aspect. Anybody can understand the knowledge of God and
experience the Holy Spirit. Anybody can adopt some aspect of God in his
life. But only those who persevere in making God's holy nature their whole
life become truly Christian and "reborn."
> >I recognize that
> >faith existed prior to the coming of Christ.
>
> An odd choice of words - does it no longer exist, in your opinion,
> apart from Christianity?
From a Christian pov, there is only one kind of faith presently recognized
by God, and that is faith in Christ. Before Christ came God recognized
Jewish faith as it was directed under the Law of Moses. But today, the only
kind of faith that is valid before God is Christian faith, according to
Christians.
The reason for this is simple. Faith has to be directed towards some
religious system. Prior to Christ faith was directed towards obtaining God's
mercy through observance of the Law. But now God has rejected that system,
and true faith recognizes this. True faith also recognizes that a new system
must be in place in order to be received by God. This "system" is the man
Jesus and his commandments. By accepting him and his commandments we also
accept God's system of salvation.
> >But I believe God sanctioned
> >one form of faith (based on the Torah) before Christ came.
>
> Fair enough. Though clearly, many were sanctioned - not just one!
Yes.
> >And now that
> >Christ has come, faith is fulfilled only as directed towards Christ and
his
> >commandments.
>
> Or not, depending!
Depending on your pov.
> >I wouldn't at all deny that other religions and cults are based on
"divine
> >revelation." However, Christianity is unique in the sense that the Spirit
is
> >given through Christ and indwells man.
>
> OK - you're using the word in the word's definition. To make my point
> more plain, all those religions are revealed by God.
My belief is that the knowledge of God is universal. But all the
distinctives that can be known about God are not always apparent. Therefore,
religions often contain some of the knowledge of God, but lack the
cohesiveness necessary to effect a consistent system. The reason
Christianity contains the core structure whereas others do not is due to the
fact that God has chosen to make Christ a singular ideal for all humanity.
In this way we are not confused by a multitude of paths that lead to God.
Naturally, this is only my pov.
> >Mormonism may claim some kind of
> >"indwelling," but does either Judaism or Zoroastrianism? I'd really like
to
> >know.
>
> From what I gather, Z does have a similar concept of indwelling
> spirit, though obviously it doesn't come via the agency of Jesus
> Christ! ;)))
Can you prove this? Of course at least some occultic practises involve an
"infilling" as well, but it isn't the Holy Spirit that's doing the filling!
;)
> >The point I was hoping to make is that I try to base my beliefs on the
dogma
> >that Christianity itself rests on.
>
> Which in and of itself is a very narrow-minded dogma. Always has been,
> ever since the supremacy of orthodoxy.
Truth will always be dogmatic. It's something I'll never be afraid to adopt.
randy
Hieron
>
> "Hieron"
>> randy
>
>> > Yes, but "Judaism" understood in Jesus' day that Jesus was acting in
> unity
>> > with God. The Jews understood Jesus to be making himself equal with God
>> > and using God's authority to forgive sins.
>>
>> Or maybe they misunderstood him. This was not the only time.
>
> This is the plain teaching of Scriptures.
Only when you take it out of context. However, when you read it in context
you realise that Jesus corrects their misunderstandings:
Jn. 10:
33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we stone you but
for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God."
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, `I said, you are
gods'?
35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture
cannot be broken),
36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent to the world,
`You are blaspheming,' because I said, `I am the Son of God'?
If your interpretation is true, then Jesus actually implies that not only
himself, but the judges of Israel are also Gods.
>> > Yes, but the point I'd like to make is that most of Israel turned
> against
>> > Jesus, even though most of Israel did not "murder" Jesus.
>>
>> You cannot prove this. Probably most of the Jews were decadent and
> couldn't
>> care less that Jesus was crucified. This is not the same as turning
> against
>> him.
>
> This is a matter of both biblical record and historical record. It's very
> easy to prove.
Here you go, prove it.
>> > Christians feel
>> > that in a sense all Israel is guilty of rejecting Jesus as Messiah.
>>
>> That is a wrong and dangerous view. That is why these "Christians" who
> feel
>> that "in a sense all Israel is guilty of rejecting Jesus as Messiah"
> became
>> guilty of persecuting Jews and killing innocents.
>
> Not true. Christians all believe that both Jew and Gentile are guilty of
> turning against Christ.
Most Gentiles can't be bothered about the virgin-born god-man, who promises
heaven, presented to them.
> Do Christians always persecute Jews?
Only when they get away with it.
> Do Christians
> persecute themselves?
Only when they get away with it.
>> If I would not be a believer in Jesus, I would never become one through
> your
>> and moshe's repelling witness.
>
> You need to follow Christ.
Oh! Like you and moshe? Thank you, NO!
I *do* follow him in my life. And I am not going to be told by trinitarians,
the followers of a god-man, about how to follow the real man Jesus Christ.
>> > Nobody is saying that Jews are particularly evil for rejecting Christ,
> or
>> > for having participated in any way in the murder of Christ.
>>
>> But you just said they are guilty, and that Israel murdered him. What is
>> that if not evil?
>
> I think it was "evil" to murder Christ. It is "sinful" to turn against
> Christ, and we all do this. To become truly "evil" one must become
> immersed in it. We've all been moved by our own inner evil, or have given
> in to external evils.
Then there is a grave problem with your religion. It doesn't seems to
produce righteousness, but its members continually sin. According to John,
those Christians, who continually sin and have been moved by their inner
evil, or have given in to external evils, lie about knowing God, for one
can only know Him by keeping His commandments.
>> > Christians
>> > believe that *all mankind* are equally guilty of departing from Christ.
>>
>> How can they depart from him when they were never with him?
>
> Because Christ was the incarnate Word of God.
Which is the Torah of God became flesh. The "word" of God is the Torah of
God. Check your Bible!
> The same Word that became
> flesh also continues to press upon the consciences of men.
Evidently not upon the conscience of trinitarians, for they don't believe
they are under the "word" (or Torah) of God.
> And we're all
> guilty of turning against our conscience!
So what is the point of your religion then? To produce more and more guilty
people who turn against their own conscience?
I tell you, when I was an atheist I never turned against my own conscience.
I was a righteous guy according to my own standard that was supported by my
own conscience.
It appears one has to become a trinitarian in order to become guilty of
turning against his own conscience and continue to sin, to be moved by his
own inner evil, or to be given in to external evils.
>> > But the beauty of Christ is that we can always be restored to him!
>>
>> Except when it is not possible. Read Heb. 6.
>
> This has to do when men deliberately and finally reject the Word of God.
Since all trinitarians deliberately and finally rejected the Torah (the
word) of God, they are all beyond the point of no return.
--
Hieron
randy
"cindys"
> "randy"
> > This is a matter of both biblical record and historical record. It's
very
> > easy to prove.
> -----------
> Biblical maybe, but not historical.
Of all people, cindy, I thought you'd agree. In history most Jews rejected
Jesus as Messiah. You're denying this????
randy
randy
"cindys"
> "randy"
> > Technically yes, the Romans had the exclusive authority to have Jesus
> > crucified. Do you question that the Jewish mob was guilty of murder?
>
> Do I question it? I don't think Jesus even existed.
It remains an issue, though.
> >It was
> > Jewish slander that made the Roman execution a "murder." But I believe
the
> > Romans shared in that guilt.
>
> Let's see...According to the story, the Romans sentenced the guy and
nailed
> him to the cross but they weren't the real guilty ones. They were really
> only the accomplices. As usual, the real murderers were...those nasty
> Joooozzz.
That's not what I said. What I said was the Jews set Jesus up before the
Roman authorities and were largely responsible for Jesus' crucifixion. The
Romans were certainly guilty as accomplices, but the greatest guilt belonged
to this small group of Jews. I did not say *all* Jews were responsible for
this murder of Jesus. This was, however, a core part of Jewish religious
authority. It's the very reason that Christians believe God turned away from
the legal system of Moses forever. And it wasn't that we believe God has
completely turned away from the Jews. But we believe God has made return to
God for the Jews a very narrow door--acceptance of Jesus as Messiah, and
acceptance of his commandments.
randy
randy
"cockroach"
> "randy"
> > Jews are Christ-rejecters. It was only a Jewish mob that slandered
Christ
> > and called for his execution.
>
> well you finally admit to the oldest anti semitic tridck in the book
>
> we finally know your true colors
>
> you can no longer hide claiming you are not an anti semite
>
> you can no longer claim to being a jew lover
>
> thank you
Believe what you want. I think morris is a good example of a Jew who accepts
Christ. But you define "Jew" as one who can never accept Jesus as Messiah. I
call that a "Christ-rejecter." It doesn't mean, however, that I hate Jews or
disfellowship them as brother human beings. The fact that I dialogue at all
indicates that I have respect and love for the Jews. And whatever is
religiously true in the world, I hope good comes to the Jews.
randy
randy
"Fred"
"randy"
>
> >We've all turned away
> >from Christ at some point in our life. And actually we turn away from his
> >pure revelation every day all throughout the day. We are constantly beset
by
> >sin, and only a righteous new nature can successfully combat this
tendency
> >towards sin.
>
> sin, and yet every day all day we are beset by sin and turn away from
> Christ, then neither of us has a righteous new nature.
Good logic, Fred. But sometimes words fail, and only experience can explain.
randy
Hieron
>
> "Hieron"
>> randy
>
>> > It is a reality for the Christian.
>>
>> How can it be a reality when you claim that Christians keep on sinning?
>
> As I've said before, all men sin.
That is not an excuse for Christians to sin.
> Some sin when they fail.
Can anyone sin when they don't fail? Hmmmm...
> Others sin as a
> lifestyle, not admitting that it's a failure.
Are you talking about "Christians" who keep sinning?
>> How do you know that it is the Spirit that leads you and not "another"
>> spirit?
>
> The Spirit of God conforms to Christian truth.
How do you know that this "Christian truth" is correct? Oh, yes, the spirit
tells you.
So the spirit tells you that the "Christians truth" is correct, then it
leads you in conformity with this truth.
Circular reasoning.
> It's a spirit that convicts
> us of what our conscience already knows is right.
Why does the "Christian" need the spirit to convince him about what his
"conscience already knows is right"?
> A spirit that pressures
> us in a direction that brings doubt and confusion is not of God.
Ah, thanks! Since there is such a disarray of beliefs and practices within
the trinitarian movement, this is the recognition that the trinitarian
movement is led by a spirit of doubt and confusions, and is not of God.
>> > God apparently meant for our guidance
>> > to be a means of living out a constant fellowship with God.
>>
>> With sinning continually?
>
> All men sin regularly. But the Christian who is truly "born again," and
> lives by that new nature, does not *practise* sinning at all. The sins
> that constantly beset him are constantly beat back.
How is a sin "constantly beat back" when the "Christian" is "constantly
beset" by it?
> Imperfection does not
> have to keep the Christian from living righteously.
How is sinning continually an imperfection and not continual sinning?
>> So how does the Spirit help Christians when they reject all kinds of laws
>> (they are lawless), continually sinning, fake speaking in tongues
>> (foreign languages), fake healing, rip off members and commit other kinds
>> of corruptions, fornicate and cheat of their viwes, etc.
>
> Alot of Christians suffer from a lack of knowledge. This is due to poor
> leadership (and Christians are by no means perfect). Other Christians
> simply ignore good Christian leadership and bow to external pressures,
> thinking the consequences will be small. When Christians give up good
> stewardship over their own minds, they drift off into all kinds of
> excesses.
It appear you acknowledge that there is a disorder within the trinitarian
Church, which is the result of the work of the spirit of confusion, which
is not of God.
> This happened in ancient Israel, and it happens in today's
> church.
Let's just say that there were always obedient and disobedient people. Those
in the Church sinning continually cannot be called obedient.
>> It the Spirit is real in trinitarianism, we should have seen the
> trinitarian
>> Church become peacemaker and not murderer, the light of the world rather
>> than its darkness, and salt rather than bitterness. (I have great regard
> to
>> those few who are examples of righteousness among them!)
>
> Jesus always said that only a "few" enter through the "narrow gate" and
> enter into "life."
Is this a statement concerning your own church, about the members who
continually sin?
>> > If we go out
>> > and do good things, they may indeed be good things, but they also may
> not
>> > always give God the glory. What gives God the glory is when He is the
>> > inspiration behind a project or work. That's why I feel we must be so
>> > sensitive to God's Spirit to see if He truly wants us to do something,
>> > whether it is good or not.
>>
>> This is really silly, randy. What gives God the glory is when the people
> who
>> claim tobe called by His name do good in the world.
>
> I don't agree. How many times has a man taken on a 2nd job to make more
> money, when his free time would be better spent with his wife or children?
One needs to work to provide for his own household. It is the teaching of
the Bible.
Of course, there are people for whom no measure of wealth is enough.
> His desire is to better provide for his family financially, but the
> greater need is to provide for the social needs of the family.
Then he needs to re-evaluate what is more important to his family - more
money or love.
However, there are countries where people have two jobs just to survive
(like Hungary).
> This is how
> the Spirit of God guides in the life of Christians, and I believe God
> speaks to nonChristians in this way as well. "Good works" are not always
> "inspired works." (I don't believe it's always wrong to have a 2nd job.)
What is an "inspired work"? Shall we put it into the Bible?
>> > Well, there's truth in that. You just can't wait for God to move you.
>>
>> So why do you?
>
> Because the Bible says we can make plans, but we have to let God take us
> through the steps. Don't you believe in this?
The Bible says that God should be involved in our plans.
>> > There's plenty of responsibilities already built into our consciousness
>> > that we can't wait for some kind of divine guidance to move us out into
>> > the world. We know God already wants us to "multiply and be fruitful."
>>
>> Yet, your theology holds you back, for you want to wait for some kind of
>> magical impression before you move.
>
> Getting to know God is a great privilege, and it's not "magic." God is
> spirit, and those who get to know Him must engage in a spiritual
> fellowship.
And what way are you planning to get to know God?
John says, the way to know Him is by keeping His commandments.
> The first lesson you will learn is that God never gives in to
> your demands, nor does He do things your way.
This doesn't appear to be the official Pentecostal theology...
>> > Sin is not always so easy to see.
>>
>> Especially if you don't know what is right and what is wrong.
>
> That's right. You must know the Holy Spirit to see what activity conforms
> to the holiness of God.
And how do you define the holiness of God?
>> I have no interest in controlling you at all. But you love philosophy
> rather
>> than action. I just want to encourage to *do* rahter that you just think
>> whether you should do or not do good deeds.
>
> We are constantly doing either good or evil.
Randy, this is the problem! Cast out the evil deeds!
> There's no choice in the
> matter.
Of course, there is! God gave humans free will, they have a choice!
> Just getting up in the morning is "good." Just having a cup of
> coffee is "good." What isn't good is starting your day without
> acknowledgment of God.
Acknowledging God? That is not enough. Commitment to obey is needed.
--
Hieron
cockroach
nobody is dening that jesus was one in a series of false messiahs
what she is dening is that you can prove jesus existed historically
cockroach
lets see the death of jesus was the most important event in christian
theology. without it you would have no way to atone for your sins.
if jesus. like moses, had lived to the age of 120 --- preaching to the
multitues wining converts showing the way of god then dieing of natural
causes his life would have been a failure because he didnt die on the
cross to over atonement for sins
so those who arranged his death were evil
it seems to me those who arranged his death were the holiset people
alive doing gods will
cockroach
>
> "cockroach"
>> "randy"
>
>> > Jews are Christ-rejecters. It was only a Jewish mob that slandered
> Christ
>> > and called for his execution.
>>
>> well you finally admit to the oldest anti semitic tridck in the book
>>
>> we finally know your true colors
>>
>> you can no longer hide claiming you are not an anti semite
>>
>> you can no longer claim to being a jew lover
>>
>> thank you
>
> Believe what you want. I think morris is a good example of a Jew who
> accepts Christ.
for the umpteeth time what makes him a jew who accpets christ. you cant
answer that question. you have admitted you have no idea why he calls
himself a jew. yet you continue to repeat his unsubstansiated claim
> But you define "Jew" as one who can never accept Jesus
> as Messiah.
no i define jew as one who follows the jewish religion. in order to
follow that religion it is necessary to clasify jesus as one in a series
of false messiahs.
> I call that a "Christ-rejecter."
so in other words you reject judaism as a valid religion.
and you love the jews
give me a break
> It doesn't mean, however,
> that I hate Jews or disfellowship them as brother human beings.
sure it does.
it is like saying i love blacks but boy do the smell different
> The
> fact that I dialogue at all indicates that I have respect and love for
> the Jews.
which would make hitler a great jew lover by your defination
>And whatever is religiously true in the world, I hope good
> comes to the Jews.
>
bs
so why do approve of slade who there is no question is an anti semite
cindys
"Fred" <fr...@savrola.org> wrote in message
news:7om1h0t2hvrcqgd52...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 22:53:07 -0700, "randy" <rklu...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >I think morris is a good example of a Jew who accepts Christ.
>
>
-----------
Me too. They should all set such a shining example. Lol.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
snip
>But you define "Jew" as one who can never accept Jesus as Messiah.
A Jew is a person who was born to a Jewish mother or who converted in
accordance with Jewish law.
A Jew who accepts Jesus as messiah is a sinner and an apostate who loses all
rights and privileges of being a Jew, but still remains technically Jewish.
Such a person is still obligated to follow Jewish law in all other ways and
must repent of his sin of apostasy. This is spelled out by Jewish law and
does not vary according to personal opinion.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
randy
"Hieron"
> randy
> > As I've said before, all men sin.
>
> That is not an excuse for Christians to sin.
Nobody said it was.
> > Some sin when they fail.
>
> Can anyone sin when they don't fail? Hmmmm...
Yes, when someone isn't trying to avoid sin.
> >> How do you know that it is the Spirit that leads you and not "another"
> >> spirit?
> >
> > The Spirit of God conforms to Christian truth.
>
> How do you know that this "Christian truth" is correct? Oh, yes, the
spirit
> tells you.
The Spirit conforms to NT biblical truth. Not only should the Spirit conform
to moral standards, but the Spirit Himself must be identified as the
peaceable and righteous Spirit of God.
> So the spirit tells you that the "Christians truth" is correct, then it
> leads you in conformity with this truth.
>
> Circular reasoning.
There will always be limits to our finite knowledge. But we are capable of
making a correspondence between what we can know and what is likely.
> > It's a spirit that convicts
> > us of what our conscience already knows is right.
>
> Why does the "Christian" need the spirit to convince him about what his
> "conscience already knows is right"?
Because the Christian not only needs to know what is morally pure--he also
needs to know the will of God and experience divine guidance all through
life.
> > A spirit that pressures
> > us in a direction that brings doubt and confusion is not of God.
>
> Ah, thanks! Since there is such a disarray of beliefs and practices within
> the trinitarian movement, this is the recognition that the trinitarian
> movement is led by a spirit of doubt and confusions, and is not of God.
That's your experience, I suppose. And if this is true I wouldn't blame you.
> > All men sin regularly. But the Christian who is truly "born again," and
> > lives by that new nature, does not *practise* sinning at all. The sins
> > that constantly beset him are constantly beat back.
>
> How is a sin "constantly beat back" when the "Christian" is "constantly
> beset" by it?
Just like an umbrella "beats back" the rain. You might get a little wet, but
you can stay dry for the most part.
> > Imperfection does not
> > have to keep the Christian from living righteously.
>
> How is sinning continually an imperfection and not continual sinning?
Depends on the standard one chooses to live by. If a child molester decides
he is not a "sinner," he would not define his sin as a wrong. But if a
Christian lapses and commits some act of immorality, he admits that he falls
short of the standard of righteousness. He's not only a sinner, but he also
has not perfectly met the righteous standard set forth in Christianity.
> Let's just say that there were always obedient and disobedient people.
Those
> in the Church sinning continually cannot be called obedient.
Christians live in a Spirit of love, but fall away continually from a
standard of perfection. This is not a "continual sinning" of the kind the
world indulges in. The nonChristian world has people who freely sin and deny
that its sin. They not only fall short of the mark of righteousness, but
they don't even live in the spirit of righteousness at all!
> > Jesus always said that only a "few" enter through the "narrow gate" and
> > enter into "life."
>
> Is this a statement concerning your own church, about the members who
> continually sin?
The church consists largely of those who walk the "narrow path." As a church
ages or falls into external and internal pressures to compromise, there are
less and less pure disciples of Christ in the church.
> > This is how
> > the Spirit of God guides in the life of Christians, and I believe God
> > speaks to nonChristians in this way as well. "Good works" are not always
> > "inspired works." (I don't believe it's always wrong to have a 2nd job.)
>
> What is an "inspired work"? Shall we put it into the Bible?
Examples in the Bible of "inspired works" are replete in the Bible.
> > Getting to know God is a great privilege, and it's not "magic." God is
> > spirit, and those who get to know Him must engage in a spiritual
> > fellowship.
>
> And what way are you planning to get to know God?
>
> John says, the way to know Him is by keeping His commandments.
Yes, that's a great way.
> > The first lesson you will learn is that God never gives in to
> > your demands, nor does He do things your way.
>
> This doesn't appear to be the official Pentecostal theology...
Agreed. I'm not pentecostal in many of my beliefs. I'm pentecostal only
because of the emphasis on the Spirit's activity in the Christian life. But
clearly, the Spirit fails to guide many pentecostals into NT biblical truth.
;)
> > That's right. You must know the Holy Spirit to see what activity
conforms
> > to the holiness of God.
>
> And how do you define the holiness of God?
Love, peaceableness, unselfishness, prayer.
> > Just getting up in the morning is "good." Just having a cup of
> > coffee is "good." What isn't good is starting your day without
> > acknowledgment of God.
>
> Acknowledging God? That is not enough. Commitment to obey is needed.
Here we agree.
randy
randy
"cockroach"
> "randy"
> > Of all people, cindy, I thought you'd agree. In history most Jews
> > rejected Jesus as Messiah. You're denying this????
>
> nobody is dening that jesus was one in a series of false messiahs
>
> what she is dening is that you can prove jesus existed historically
Granted. But the point was that it's easy to prove Jews have historically
rejected Jesus as the Messiah.
randy
want no spam@nospam.com Karen
wrote:
Now that's a scary thought.
randy
"Hieron"
> randy
> >> > Yes, but "Judaism" understood in Jesus' day that Jesus was acting in
> > unity
> >> > with God. The Jews understood Jesus to be making himself equal with
God
> >> > and using God's authority to forgive sins.
> >>
> >> Or maybe they misunderstood him. This was not the only time.
> >
> > This is the plain teaching of Scriptures.
>
> Only when you take it out of context. However, when you read it in context
> you realise that Jesus corrects their misunderstandings:
I suppose that's your view of things. I think Jesus recognized that these
detractors were not inclined spiritually to accept a claim of deity and were
therefore incapable of understanding the link between an infinite spiritual
Being and His finite representative. These things can only be spiritually
discerned. So Jesus relied on the validity of biblical language, rather than
try to prove something by means that are unavailable to his enemies.
> >> > Yes, but the point I'd like to make is that most of Israel turned
> > against
> >> > Jesus, even though most of Israel did not "murder" Jesus.
> >>
> >> You cannot prove this. Probably most of the Jews were decadent and
> > couldn't
> >> care less that Jesus was crucified. This is not the same as turning
> > against
> >> him.
> >
> > This is a matter of both biblical record and historical record. It's
very
> > easy to prove.
>
> Here you go, prove it.
"He came unto his own, and his own received him not." Gospel of John.
> > Not true. Christians all believe that both Jew and Gentile are guilty of
> > turning against Christ.
>
> Most Gentiles can't be bothered about the virgin-born god-man, who
promises
> heaven, presented to them.
??
> I *do* follow him in my life. And I am not going to be told by
trinitarians,
> the followers of a god-man, about how to follow the real man Jesus Christ.
Allow yourself to be told by divine revelation, the Word of God.
> Then there is a grave problem with your religion. It doesn't seems to
> produce righteousness, but its members continually sin. According to John,
> those Christians, who continually sin and have been moved by their inner
> evil, or have given in to external evils, lie about knowing God, for one
> can only know Him by keeping His commandments.
Christians keep God's commandments. The kind of sin we are continually
guilty of is a matter of falling short of a perfect standard. It isn't a
matter of choosing a sinful lifestyle.
> > Because Christ was the incarnate Word of God.
>
> Which is the Torah of God became flesh. The "word" of God is the Torah of
> God. Check your Bible!
The Word of God takes many forms. Christ was only one form of God's Word,
but he comprised the ego of God, the divine personality in limited human
form.
> > The same Word that became
> > flesh also continues to press upon the consciences of men.
>
> Evidently not upon the conscience of trinitarians, for they don't believe
> they are under the "word" (or Torah) of God.
The Word of God has himself turned away from his own Torah, because of
Israel's inability to conform to his standards. More importantly, the
religious leaders compromised the essential spirituality contained within
the Law.
> > And we're all
> > guilty of turning against our conscience!
>
> So what is the point of your religion then? To produce more and more
guilty
> people who turn against their own conscience?
The idea of a conscience is to turn you around, to produce the fruits of
repentance. Many people ignore their conscience to one degree or another.
> I tell you, when I was an atheist I never turned against my own
conscience.
> I was a righteous guy according to my own standard that was supported by
my
> own conscience.
That may prove that you're a predestined child of God. So I think you should
fulfill your destiny and accept Christ as God's perfect standard for
salvation.
randy
Padraic Brown
>
>"Padraic Brown"
>"randy"
>
>> >> So in other words, being saved has nothing to do with being Christian.
>> >
>> >I don't know why you draw this false conclusion.
>>
>> "The difference between the "saved" and the "unsaved" for me is a
>> matter of who chooses to persevere in "wearing" the holy nature of
>> God." You don't have to be Christian to wear the holy nature of God.
>
>What I should've said is that anybody can put on some aspect of God's holy
>nature.
You said it right. Christians do NOT have the monopoly on "putting on
the holy nature of God". It is arrogant and incorrect of you to
presume so.
>To truly persevere in putting on God's holy nature one would have to
>become "born again."
Not at all. I am not saying that "born agains" have not put on the
holy nature, but neither is it a requirement, except in certain
Protestant Christian sects.
>> >I recognize that
>> >faith existed prior to the coming of Christ.
>>
>> An odd choice of words - does it no longer exist, in your opinion,
>> apart from Christianity?
>
>From a Christian pov, there is only one kind of faith presently recognized
>by God, and that is faith in Christ.
Actually, that's not been my experience. Of course, your sect may
vary!
>> >I wouldn't at all deny that other religions and cults are based on
>"divine
>> >revelation." However, Christianity is unique in the sense that the Spirit
>is
>> >given through Christ and indwells man.
>>
>> OK - you're using the word in the word's definition. To make my point
>> more plain, all those religions are revealed by God.
>
>My belief is that the knowledge of God is universal. But all the
>distinctives that can be known about God are not always apparent. Therefore,
>religions often contain some of the knowledge of God, but lack the
>cohesiveness necessary to effect a consistent system. The reason
>Christianity contains the core structure whereas others do not is due to the
>fact that God has chosen to make Christ a singular ideal for all humanity.
Similar to the other revealed religions, then.
>In this way we are not confused by a multitude of paths that lead to God.
>Naturally, this is only my pov.
Quite.
>> >Mormonism may claim some kind of
>> >"indwelling," but does either Judaism or Zoroastrianism? I'd really like
>to
>> >know.
>>
>> From what I gather, Z does have a similar concept of indwelling
>> spirit, though obviously it doesn't come via the agency of Jesus
>> Christ! ;)))
>
>Can you prove this?
Indeed, Sraosha is inward hearing - the indwelling voice of God. There
is also Spenishta Mainyu, the Holy Spirit, which we must work hand in
hand with in order to attain to the best. Mind you, I am not
intimately familiar with Z theology, so can't state categorically that
there is a 100% between Christianity and Zoroastrianism on that point.
This should suffice for the current purpose, though.
>Of course at least some occultic practises involve an
>"infilling" as well, but it isn't the Holy Spirit that's doing the filling!
>;)
It very well could be. Neither of us know for sure.
>> >The point I was hoping to make is that I try to base my beliefs on the
>dogma
>> >that Christianity itself rests on.
>>
>> Which in and of itself is a very narrow-minded dogma. Always has been,
>> ever since the supremacy of orthodoxy.
>
>Truth will always be dogmatic.
Not really... You're mistaking the dogmas taught by a religion and the
truths upon which those dogmas are based.
randy
"cockroach"
> "randy"
> if jesus. like moses, had lived to the age of 120 --- preaching to the
> multitues wining converts showing the way of god then dieing of natural
> causes his life would have been a failure because he didnt die on the
> cross to over atonement for sins
>
> so those who arranged his death were evil
>
> it seems to me those who arranged his death were the holiset people
> alive doing gods will
Alot of Jewish saints and prophets have died martyr's deaths. It was the
will of God, but no credit to the murderers.
randy
Shmuel Playfair
> > randy
> > > .....the Jewish people in general rejected Jesus as Messiah. It
> > > was the murder of Jesus by a Jewish mob
[Cindy S]
> > And again, you contradict your own bible which clearly describes that
> > Jesus was crucified by the Romans.
[randy k]
> Technically yes, the Romans had the exclusive authority to have Jesus
> crucified. Do you question that the Jewish mob was guilty of murder? It
> was Jewish slander that made the Roman execution a "murder." But I
> believe the Romans shared in that guilt. As Jesus himself said,
> the Jews had the greatest guilt.
[Shmuel] Jesus did *not* say "the Jews had the greatest guilt".
You made that up! Rather, he said, "he (singular) who delivered
me to you has a greater sin". IOW, as great as Pilate's sin is
for condemning this innocent man to death, the Roman puppet,
Kaiaphas, who delivered Yeshua to this Roman executioner
had an even greater sin. [cf. Jn. 19]
Technically, practically, legally, as matter of fact, and in every
other way, the Romans (not the Jews) executed Yeshua. He
was *not* murdered or executed "by a Jewish mob". Rather,
a very few "Jewish" leaders and their supporters were
threatened by Yeshua's popularity with the majority
of Jewish people. Therefore, they called on Rome for
his execution. They were collaborators with Rome who
were supporters of the Romans and their rule of law, while
standing against the Jewish people and HaShem's rule of Law.
randy
"Shmuel Playfair"
> > > randy
> > > > .....the Jewish people in general rejected Jesus as Messiah. It
> > > > was the murder of Jesus by a Jewish mob
> [Shmuel] Jesus did *not* say "the Jews had the greatest guilt".
> You made that up! Rather, he said, "he (singular) who delivered
> me to you has a greater sin". IOW, as great as Pilate's sin is
> for condemning this innocent man to death, the Roman puppet,
> Kaiaphas, who delivered Yeshua to this Roman executioner
> had an even greater sin. [cf. Jn. 19]
>
> Technically, practically, legally, as matter of fact, and in every
> other way, the Romans (not the Jews) executed Yeshua. He
> was *not* murdered or executed "by a Jewish mob". Rather,
> a very few "Jewish" leaders and their supporters were
> threatened by Yeshua's popularity with the majority
> of Jewish people. Therefore, they called on Rome for
> his execution. They were collaborators with Rome who
> were supporters of the Romans and their rule of law, while
> standing against the Jewish people and HaShem's rule of Law.
As far as I'm concerned you make a nondistinction here. I said it was a
Jewish mob that called for Jesus' execution, which makes them guilty of
murder and more guilty than the Romans. If the Jews had not called for
Jesus' execution, the Romans would never have done the dirty deed.
Matthew 26:47 ś While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve,
and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and
the elders of the people...59 Now the chief priests and the whole council
sought false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death,
60 but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward.
Matthew 27:17 So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you
want me to release for you, Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ?"
18 For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up.
19 Besides, while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word
to him, "Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered
much over him today in a dream."
20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the people to ask for
Barabbas and destroy Jesus.....4 So when Pilate saw that he was gaining
nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his
hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to
it yourselves."
25 And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!"
I'm only quoting Scriptures, so you're arguing with yourself.
randy
SHEPHDD
13- The G-D of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the G-D of our fathers,
hath glorified his Son Yeshua; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the
presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
14- But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be
granted unto you;
15- And killed the Prince of Life, whom G-D hath raised from the dead; whereof
we are witnesses. ( The words of
the Apostle Peter ) Brit Chadasha.
Sholom Yakov and Fayga
Shmuel Playfair
> > > > randy
> > > > > .....the Jewish people in general rejected Jesus as Messiah.
> > > > > It was the murder of Jesus by a Jewish mob
<why snip the rest of what you said here?>
> > [Shmuel] Jesus did *not* say "the Jews had the greatest guilt".
> > You made that up! Rather, he said, "he (singular) who delivered
> > me to you has a greater sin". IOW, as great as Pilate's sin is
> > for condemning this innocent man to death, the Roman puppet,
> > Kaiaphas, who delivered Yeshua to this Roman executioner
> > had an even greater sin. [cf. Jn. 19]
> >
> > Technically, practically, legally, as matter of fact, and in every
> > other way, the Romans (not the Jews) executed Yeshua. He
> > was *not* murdered or executed "by a Jewish mob". Rather,
> > a very few "Jewish" leaders and their supporters were
> > threatened by Yeshua's popularity with the majority
> > of Jewish people. Therefore, they called on Rome for
> > his execution. They were collaborators with Rome who
> > were supporters of the Romans and their rule of law, while
> > standing against the Jewish people and HaShem's rule of Law.
[randy k]
> As far as I'm concerned you make a nondistinction here. I said it was a
> Jewish mob that called for Jesus' execution, which makes them guilty of
> murder and more guilty than the Romans. If the Jews had not called for
> Jesus' execution, the Romans would never have done the dirty deed.
[Shmuel] Actually you said that Jesus was murdered by a Jewish mob:
"It was the murder of Jesus by a Jewish mob.... And you asked, "Do
you question that the Jewish mob was guilty of murder"? Now you
are clarifying falsely that "the Jews.....called for Jesus' execution". But,
"the Jews" as a whole did *not* call for his execution. Rather, it was
Yeshua's popularity with the majority of the Jewish people, which
made him a threat to the hated minority of Jewish collaborators
who supported the Romans.
___
[randy k continued]
> Matthew 26:47 ś While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of
> the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs,
> from the chief priests and the elders of the people...
> 59 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought
> false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death,
> 60 but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward.
>
> Matthew 27:17 So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them,
> "Whom do you want me to release for you, Barabbas or Jesus
> who is called Christ?"
> 18 For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up.
> 19 Besides, while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word
> to him, "Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered
> much over him today in a dream."
> 20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the people to ask for
> Barabbas and destroy Jesus.....4 So when Pilate saw that he was gaining
> nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed
> his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood;
> see to it yourselves."
> 25 And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and
> on our children!"
[randy k]
> I'm only quoting Scriptures, so you're arguing with yourself.
[Shmuel] No, you are *not* "only quoting Scriptures", you are also
misinterpreting them. You claim (not the scriptures) that "the Jews
had the greatest guilt" and "the Jews....called for Jesus' execution".
With these sweeping and generalizing indictments against "the Jews"
as a whole, you do fail to distinguish between the vast majority
of the Jewish people who lived in fear of the Roman army and
who hated the small minority of Jewish collaborators. During
W.W.II a very small minority of Jewish "leaders" supported
and collaborated with the Germans. When these traitors exposed
Jews in hiding and turned them over to the Germans to be murdered
in order to save or advance themselves, would you then claim that
"the Jews had the greatest guilt"?
Padraic Brown
>
>"Shmuel Playfair"
>> > > randy
>> > > > .....the Jewish people in general rejected Jesus as Messiah. It
>> > > > was the murder of Jesus by a Jewish mob
>
>> [Shmuel] Jesus did *not* say "the Jews had the greatest guilt".
>> You made that up! Rather, he said, "he (singular) who delivered
>> me to you has a greater sin". IOW, as great as Pilate's sin is
>> for condemning this innocent man to death, the Roman puppet,
>> Kaiaphas, who delivered Yeshua to this Roman executioner
>> had an even greater sin. [cf. Jn. 19]
>>
>> Technically, practically, legally, as matter of fact, and in every
>> other way, the Romans (not the Jews) executed Yeshua. He
>> was *not* murdered or executed "by a Jewish mob". Rather,
>> a very few "Jewish" leaders and their supporters were
>> threatened by Yeshua's popularity with the majority
>> of Jewish people. Therefore, they called on Rome for
>> his execution. They were collaborators with Rome who
>> were supporters of the Romans and their rule of law, while
>> standing against the Jewish people and HaShem's rule of Law.
>
>As far as I'm concerned you make a nondistinction here. I said it was a
>Jewish mob that called for Jesus' execution, which makes them guilty of
>murder and more guilty than the Romans.
How do you figure that people shouting down another person in that way
are guilty of the crime? Except by some kind of fuzzy logic? I mean,
if I use that kind of logic, I can accuse you of anything and make it
stick!
The facts are pretty clear [and I think this portion of the gospel
accounts may very well be based on a fairly accurate recollection of a
real event] that some Jews demand Jesus's death and the Roman
leadership caves to their demand.
>If the Jews had not called for
>Jesus' execution, the Romans would never have done the dirty deed.
Well of course - Jesus was nothing to the Romans and Pilate's
reluctance speakes somewhat to that. And let's keep in mind, Randy,
that it was not "the Jews" that did this thing. It was a few Jews of a
higher rank. If "the Jews" were that hell bent on killing him, they
could have done that at any time.
>Matthew 26:47 ś While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve,
>and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and
>the elders of the people...59 Now the chief priests and the whole council
>sought false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death,
>60 but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward.
>
>Matthew 27:17 So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you
>want me to release for you, Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ?"
>18 For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up.
>19 Besides, while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word
>to him, "Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered
>much over him today in a dream."
>20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the people to ask for
>Barabbas and destroy Jesus.....4 So when Pilate saw that he was gaining
>nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took water and washed his
>hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to
>it yourselves."
>25 And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!"
>
>I'm only quoting Scriptures, so you're arguing with yourself.
??? Actually, he seems to be quite in agreement with the passages you
quote. What's the issue?
The passages state that some of the Jewish leadership want to contrive
to kill Jesus; they get a mob together and bring him before Pilate;
Pilate tries to release him and eventually gets fed up with the whole
lot of them. Rather than see his tenure marred by unnecessary
violence, he caves in and orders Jesus's execution. How is this story
different from Shmuel's interpretation? Sure he reads a little into
it, but the facts all seem to be there.
cockroach
>
> "Shmuel Playfair"
>> > > randy
>> > > > .....the Jewish people in general rejected Jesus as Messiah. It
>> > > > was the murder of Jesus by a Jewish mob
>
>> [Shmuel] Jesus did *not* say "the Jews had the greatest guilt".
>> You made that up! Rather, he said, "he (singular) who delivered
>> me to you has a greater sin". IOW, as great as Pilate's sin is
>> for condemning this innocent man to death, the Roman puppet,
>> Kaiaphas, who delivered Yeshua to this Roman executioner
>> had an even greater sin. [cf. Jn. 19]
>>
>> Technically, practically, legally, as matter of fact, and in every
>> other way, the Romans (not the Jews) executed Yeshua. He
>> was *not* murdered or executed "by a Jewish mob". Rather,
>> a very few "Jewish" leaders and their supporters were
>> threatened by Yeshua's popularity with the majority
>> of Jewish people. Therefore, they called on Rome for
>> his execution. They were collaborators with Rome who
>> were supporters of the Romans and their rule of law, while
>> standing against the Jewish people and HaShem's rule of Law.
>
> As far as I'm concerned you make a nondistinction here. I said it was
> a Jewish mob that called for Jesus' execution, which makes them guilty
> of murder and more guilty than the Romans. If the Jews had not called
> for Jesus' execution, the Romans would never have done the dirty deed.
>
thats right the jews are christ killers
and every day you should be on your knees thanking them
for without that mob you would have no way to be forgiven for your sins.
moshe
...
> Technically, practically, legally, as matter of fact, and in every
> other way, the Romans (not the Jews) executed Yeshua. He
> was *not* murdered or executed "by a Jewish mob"...
********
"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by
God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him
in your midst, as you yourselves also know--
Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of
God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to
death;
- Acts 2:22-23
"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has
made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
- Acts 2:36
let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by
the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God
raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole.
- Acts 4:10
And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And
the high priest asked them,
saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name?
And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to
bring this Man's blood on us!"
But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey
God rather than men.
The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on
a tree.
- Acts 5:27-30
Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed
those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have
become the betrayers and murderers
- Acts 7:52
want no spam@nospam.com Karen
Let's put this in modern terms. A group of people decide to make an
accusation against some one and demand that he be executed. The court
system can't find any justification for his execution or that he is
necessarily even guilty of the charges being brought against him.
However, because this group of people are still demanding that this
person be executed, the court system decide to go ahead and execute
this man to appease this "mob". But the court system or government is
not guilty of "murdering" this innocent man; it's the "mob" who holds
the greatest guilt according to Randy's and the NT's logic, which you
are supporting. But let's not stop there folks. This group of people
just so happen to claim to be christians. It doesn't matter if all
the christians supported this group or even agreed with them. Let's
just blame all christians. They are all guilty of "murdering" this
poor innocent man, but not the court system. Even though the judge
convicted this man, ordered that he be handcuffed and taken to prison,
and set the date for his execution, he's not guilty because he said he
washed his hands of the man's death. So now, christians are being
killed, beaten and tortured. Their churches are being burned to the
ground and bombed; but no one come to the aid of these christians.
After all they deserved it; they killed an innocent man. They brought
it upon themselves. 2000 years from now, christians are still being
persecuted for the death of this innocent man that they had nothing to
do with, but that's ok. All christians are guilty of murdering this
man because they supposedly said that the blood of this man be upon
their heads and their descendants' heads. So even though you might
claim to be appalled by some of the treatments of these poor
unfortunate christians and may even claim to love these poor
christians and to support them, they still are guilty of "murdering"
that poor innocent man and they are being "divinely punished".
Your sense of logic and justice never cease to amaze me.
Shmuel Playfair
[Shmuel]
> > Technically, practically, legally, as matter of fact, and in every
> > other way, the Romans (not the Jews) executed Yeshua. He
> > was *not* murdered or executed "by a Jewish mob"...
[Morris O]
> "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested
> by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did
> through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know--
> Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge
> of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and
> put to death;
> - Acts 2:22-23
[Shmuel] Notice here that it was the "lawless hands" of
the Roman soldiers (not of "a Jewish mob") who actually
crucified and put this man to death.
"You [have taken...have crucified and put to death]" refers to
those particular "men of Israel" who would have encouraged
or supported Yeshua's execution. It does not refer to
the majority of those "people of Israel" who did not and
would not have encouraged or supported the murder of
any fellow Jew.
___
[Morris O continued]
> "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has
> made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
> - Acts 2:36
>
> let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by
> the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God
> raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole.
> - Acts 4:10
[Shmuel] "You [crucified]" here refers to those who collectively
supported the Roman invaders when *they* crucified this Jew.
"You" does *not* refer to all "Jews" living then or now.
___
[Morris O]
> And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And
> the high priest asked them,
> saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name?
> And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to
> bring this Man's blood on us!"
> But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey
> God rather than men.
> The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging
> on a tree. - Acts 5:27-30
[Shmuel] "You [murdered]" refers to "the high priest" and
his "council". They are the minority of Jewish leaders who
were appointed by the Roman ruler whom they supported
and on whose behalf they acted. There is *no* indication
that "you" refers to all "Jews" everywhere and always.
___
[Morris O]
> Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed
> those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have
> become the betrayers and murderers
> - Acts 7:52
[Shmuel] "You" indicates here "the high priest" and his minority
of Jewish supporters who actually became "betrayers" and
"murderers" of this righteous Jew. "You" does *not* apply to
the vast majority of the Jewish people who distrusted and
hated the Roman administration and its Jewish supporters.
randy
"Shmuel Playfair"
> [Shmuel] No, you are *not* "only quoting Scriptures", you are also
> misinterpreting them. You claim (not the scriptures) that "the Jews
> had the greatest guilt" and "the Jews....called for Jesus' execution".
> With these sweeping and generalizing indictments against "the Jews"
I have *never* made such sweeping and generalizing indictments against the
Jews. I referred in this particular instance to a single mob in a particular
location. I did not refer to the whole of Israel. That's a separate issue.
It is true that while many in Israel accepted Jesus as Messiah at first, in
the end most seemed to fall back from their initial faith. In general the
Jews have had trouble accepting either a divine Messiah or a suffering
Messiah. But those few but significant Jews who stuck by their faith in
Jesus went on to establish an international Church that has continued down
to the present day.
For what it's worth, I think the history of the Jews in the post-Jesus era
has been designed by God to bring a majority of Jews into a renewed faith in
Jesus as Messiah. The Jews know more than most what innocent suffering is,
and are more inclined to accept a suffering Messiah.
randy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Sam Taylor
if He Died for the Believers, then They are guilty of his death.
they must accept that guilt, for the sacrafice to have effect on
their Lives. and recieve the Grace of that gift.
So it is the believer that killed Him, any other
argument is mearly a distraction of the point
of his death.oo
Even the Xtian NT resolves that ALL are Guilty, and none
hold a deeper Guilt.
randy
"Sam Taylor"
"randy"
> if He Died for the Believers, then They are guilty of his death.
> they must accept that guilt, for the sacrafice to have effect on
> their Lives. and recieve the Grace of that gift...
Yes, but this is nothing new. All men have the same sinful Adamic
nature.
All men except for Christ, that is. So when Christ died, he endured the
sins
of all.
> So it is the believer that killed Him, any other
> argument is mearly a distraction of the point
> of his death.oo
> Even the Xtian NT resolves that ALL are Guilty, and none
> hold a deeper Guilt.
I wouldn't agree here. What basis do you have for saying that "none hold
a
deeper guilt." I cited the passage where Christ claimed the Jewish "mob"
had
greater guilt than Pilate. And the Apostle Paul claimed he had greater
guilt than the other apostles. There's no question that the sin of murder
is
worse than the sin of simply acting in an insulting manner. What I think
you
mean to say is that all sin keeps men from receiving their eternal
inheritance. Only faith in Christ resolves this problem.
randy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
randy
"Padraic Brown"
"randy"
> The facts are pretty clear [and I think this portion of the gospel
> accounts may very well be based on a fairly accurate recollection of a
> real event] that some Jews demand Jesus's death and the Roman
> leadership caves to their demand.
I have not been saying otherwise. What state of mind causes those here to
think I'm saying *all* Jews were guilty of Jesus' death?
> >If the Jews had not called for
> >Jesus' execution, the Romans would never have done the dirty deed.
>
> Well of course - Jesus was nothing to the Romans and Pilate's
> reluctance speakes somewhat to that. And let's keep in mind, Randy,
> that it was not "the Jews" that did this thing. It was a few Jews of a
> higher rank. If "the Jews" were that hell bent on killing him, they
> could have done that at any time.
You forget that a Jewish mob at Nazareth tried to throw Jesus off a cliff.
On a number of occasions Jesus sensed that the religious leadership wanted
him dead. At Jesus' trial, not only the religious leaders, but also a mob of
people called for Jesus' death. The Jewish leadership "could not" kill Jesus
at anytime. The NT said that they feared the people, who may have supported
Jesus. In fact, the masses did support Jesus for a time.
> >I'm only quoting Scriptures, so you're arguing with yourself.
>
> ??? Actually, he seems to be quite in agreement with the passages you
> quote. What's the issue?
It's a non-issue. The person mistakenly thinks I accuse all Jews of Jesus'
murder. I don't feel that way at all.
> The passages state that some of the Jewish leadership want to contrive
> to kill Jesus; they get a mob together and bring him before Pilate;
> Pilate tries to release him and eventually gets fed up with the whole
> lot of them. Rather than see his tenure marred by unnecessary
> violence, he caves in and orders Jesus's execution. How is this story
> different from Shmuel's interpretation? Sure he reads a little into
> it, but the facts all seem to be there.
Why don't you ask why Shmuel seems to think I attack *all* Jews?
randy
Sam Taylor
>
> "Sam Taylor"
> "randy"
>
> > if He Died for the Believers, then They are guilty of his death.
> > they must accept that guilt, for the sacrafice to have effect on
> > their Lives. and recieve the Grace of that gift...
>
> Yes, but this is nothing new. All men have the same sinful Adamic
>nature.
> All men except for Christ, that is. So when Christ died, he endured the
>sins
> of all.
>
> > So it is the believer that killed Him, any other
> > argument is mearly a distraction of the point
> > of his death.oo
> > Even the Xtian NT resolves that ALL are Guilty, and none
> > hold a deeper Guilt.
>
> I wouldn't agree here. What basis do you have for saying that "none hold
>a
> deeper guilt." I cited the passage where Christ claimed the Jewish "mob"
>had
Your Paul said
"don't say We didn't Crucify Him, Fool, don't You know you
are the same kind that did put Him to death"
Quoting your Xtian NT.
randy
"cockroach"
> "randy"
> thats right the jews are christ killers
If you believe that, you're antiSemitic.
> and every day you should be on your knees thanking them
I will never thank the Jewish mob and religious leadership for asking for
Christ's crucifixion.
> for without that mob you would have no way to be forgiven for your sins.
If that mob had not murdered Jesus, then there never would've been murder in
history at all. Then Christ would never have had to die for the sin of
murder. Of course, there are other sins that Christ would've had to endure
in order to forgive us our sins. There are alot more sins than just murder.
God doesn't like any of them...including misrepresenting somebody's
religious beliefs.
randy
Padraic Brown
>
>"Padraic Brown"
>"randy"
>
>> The facts are pretty clear [and I think this portion of the gospel
>> accounts may very well be based on a fairly accurate recollection of a
>> real event] that some Jews demand Jesus's death and the Roman
>> leadership caves to their demand.
>
>I have not been saying otherwise. What state of mind causes those here to
>think I'm saying *all* Jews were guilty of Jesus' death?
Probably halfcorrect statements like " .....the Jewish people in
general rejected Jesus as Messiah. It was the murder of Jesus by a
Jewish mob"
>> >If the Jews had not called for
>> >Jesus' execution, the Romans would never have done the dirty deed.
>>
>> Well of course - Jesus was nothing to the Romans and Pilate's
>> reluctance speakes somewhat to that. And let's keep in mind, Randy,
>> that it was not "the Jews" that did this thing. It was a few Jews of a
>> higher rank. If "the Jews" were that hell bent on killing him, they
>> could have done that at any time.
>
>You forget that a Jewish mob at Nazareth tried to throw Jesus off a cliff.
And? He got lucky there and lost the Lady's favour at Jerusalem...
>On a number of occasions Jesus sensed that the religious leadership wanted
>him dead. At Jesus' trial, not only the religious leaders, but also a mob of
>people called for Jesus' death. The Jewish leadership "could not" kill Jesus
>at anytime.
Sure they could. One little murder never did much harm to such a large
structure.
> The NT said that they feared the people, who may have supported
>Jesus. In fact, the masses did support Jesus for a time.
There you go.
>> >I'm only quoting Scriptures, so you're arguing with yourself.
>>
>> ??? Actually, he seems to be quite in agreement with the passages you
>> quote. What's the issue?
>
>It's a non-issue.
Because he agrees with the scripture you quoted?
>The person mistakenly thinks I accuse all Jews of Jesus'
>murder. I don't feel that way at all.
Good.
>> The passages state that some of the Jewish leadership want to contrive
>> to kill Jesus; they get a mob together and bring him before Pilate;
>> Pilate tries to release him and eventually gets fed up with the whole
>> lot of them. Rather than see his tenure marred by unnecessary
>> violence, he caves in and orders Jesus's execution. How is this story
>> different from Shmuel's interpretation? Sure he reads a little into
>> it, but the facts all seem to be there.
>
>Why don't you ask why Shmuel seems to think I attack *all* Jews?
I'm asking _thee_ why you make such charges. Yes - you did not state
"*all* Jews" - however, it is very easy to interpret what you did say
in that light. Not a surprise, as it is a typical Christian
interpretation to blame the Jews for Jesus's death.
randy
"Sam Taylor"
"randy"
> > I wouldn't agree here. What basis do you have for saying that "none
hold
> >a
> > deeper guilt." I cited the passage where Christ claimed the Jewish
"mob"
> >had
>
> Your Paul said
> "don't say We didn't Crucify Him, Fool, don't You know you
> are the same kind that did put Him to death"
> Quoting your Xtian NT.
What's your point? A riotous mob called for Jesus' crucifixion. The
religious leadership among the Jews led the mob to this decision. It
followed a marked division in Jesus' previous support, which had been
substantial. The Jews could either identify with Jesus' disciples, who
remained true after the cross. Or, the Jews could follow the rabbinical
tradition that had opposed Jesus as Messiah and which had called for Jesus'
execution. Yet even those who follow the "rabbinical tradition" do not
necessarily endorse the execution of Jesus.
randy
randy
"Padraic Brown"
"randy"
> >I have not been saying otherwise. What state of mind causes those here to
> >think I'm saying *all* Jews were guilty of Jesus' death?
>
> Probably halfcorrect statements like " .....the Jewish people in
> general rejected Jesus as Messiah. It was the murder of Jesus by a
> Jewish mob"
I'm surprised at you, Padriac! Normally you wouldn't jump to such
conclusions.
> >You forget that a Jewish mob at Nazareth tried to throw Jesus off a
cliff.
>
> And? He got lucky there and lost the Lady's favour at Jerusalem...
And what "Lady" would that be? Are you trying to be silly or make a point?
> >On a number of occasions Jesus sensed that the religious leadership
wanted
> >him dead. At Jesus' trial, not only the religious leaders, but also a mob
of
> >people called for Jesus' death. The Jewish leadership "could not" kill
Jesus
> >at anytime.
>
> Sure they could. One little murder never did much harm to such a large
> structure.
What are you talking about?
> > The NT said that they feared the people, who may have supported
> >Jesus. In fact, the masses did support Jesus for a time.
>
> There you go.
And you ignore my point?
> >It's a non-issue.
>
> Because he agrees with the scripture you quoted?
Because he jumps to conclusions and thinks I attack all Jews. I wasn't
saying what he thought I was saying!
> >The person mistakenly thinks I accuse all Jews of Jesus'
> >murder. I don't feel that way at all.
>
> Good.
It's about time somebody understood me (and I don't think it's all my
fault).
> >Why don't you ask why Shmuel seems to think I attack *all* Jews?
>
> I'm asking _thee_ why you make such charges. Yes - you did not state
> "*all* Jews" - however, it is very easy to interpret what you did say
> in that light. Not a surprise, as it is a typical Christian
> interpretation to blame the Jews for Jesus's death.
It's sad that you think all "Christians" are alike. In fact, Jesus said only
a narrow group within Christianity are true Christians. Those who falsely
and maliciously accuse all Jews are not true Christians, or perhaps in a
state of ignorance. True Christianity is concerned with bringing people into
the light of love for those who need God.
randy
moshe
**************
For 5 years I have been saying that both Israel and the Gentiles had
guilt in the death of Jesus.
And the New Testament says the same thing.
I did not say that Israel had sole guilt.
Israel shared in the guilt.
I offered New Testament verses to prove that the other poster was
wrong when he said that only Romans had guilt in the death of Jesus.
***************
>; it's the "mob" who holds
> the greatest guilt according to Randy's and the NT's logic, which you
> are supporting. But let's not stop there folks. This group of people
> just so happen to claim to be christians. It doesn't matter if all
> the christians supported this group or even agreed with them. Let's
> just blame all christians. They are all guilty of "murdering" this
> poor innocent man, but not the court system. Even though the judge
> convicted this man, ordered that he be handcuffed and taken to prison,
> and set the date for his execution, he's not guilty because he said he
> washed his hands of the man's death. So now, christians are being
> killed, beaten and tortured. Their churches are being burned to the
> ground and bombed; but no one come to the aid of these christians.
> After all they deserved it; they killed an innocent man. They brought
> it upon themselves. 2000 years from now, christians are still being
> persecuted for the death of this innocent man that they had nothing to
> do with, but that's ok. All christians are guilty of murdering this
> man because they supposedly said that the blood of this man be upon
> their heads and their descendants' heads. So even though you might
> claim to be appalled by some of the treatments of these poor
> unfortunate christians and may even claim to love these poor
> christians and to support them, they still are guilty of "murdering"
> that poor innocent man and they are being "divinely punished".
>
> Your sense of logic and justice never cease to amaze me.
************
You apparently are *ignorant* of what the Old Testament says about who
is held accountable when someone sins.
I will start a new thread on that subject so as to *educate* you.
If it is even possible to educate one who is so spiritually blind.
- moshe
randy
"Karen"
> Let's put this in modern terms. A group of people decide to make an
> accusation against some one and demand that he be executed. The court
> system can't find any justification for his execution or that he is
> necessarily even guilty of the charges being brought against him.
> However, because this group of people are still demanding that this
> person be executed, the court system decide to go ahead and execute
> this man to appease this "mob". But the court system or government is
> not guilty of "murdering" this innocent man; it's the "mob" who holds
> the greatest guilt according to Randy's and the NT's logic, which you
Karen, I don't know if you're willfully blind or what, but *nobody* said the
Roman court (Pilate) was innocent of Jesus' murder! The Christian creeds
themselves place Pilate in the position of great guilt. The NT Bible places
Pilate in the position of great guilt. But the NT Scriptures also claim that
this Jewish mob, led by the religious leaders, were guilty of even greater
guilt still! They were the ones who pressed Pilate into crucifying justice
by having an innocent man executed.
randy
Padraic Brown
>
>"Padraic Brown"
>"randy"
>
>> >I have not been saying otherwise. What state of mind causes those here to
>> >think I'm saying *all* Jews were guilty of Jesus' death?
>>
>> Probably halfcorrect statements like " .....the Jewish people in
>> general rejected Jesus as Messiah. It was the murder of Jesus by a
>> Jewish mob"
>
>I'm surprised at you, Padriac! Normally you wouldn't jump to such
>conclusions.
Such as? If I am wrong, then correct me. However, make sure what
you're saying is what you mean!
>> >You forget that a Jewish mob at Nazareth tried to throw Jesus off a
>cliff.
>>
>> And? He got lucky there and lost the Lady's favour at Jerusalem...
>
>And what "Lady" would that be? Are you trying to be silly or make a point?
Reference to Lady Luck. When you're in favour, you're golden; when
you're not, you're not!
It was a humorous way to make this point: Jesus's fate rested on the
whims of many mobs (not just "the Jews"). At any time the temple
authorities could have sent an assassin; a disgruntled follower could
have done him in; the Romans could have gotten suspicious about
hundreds of people wandering all of Palestine together (makings of an
uprising?); the temple authorities could have bought someone to bring
false charges and they could then push those false charges onto the
Romans, and...hm, that possibility sounds familiar in some way. His
luck ran out when, at last, the temple authorities decided to push for
false charges within the Roman justice system.
>> >On a number of occasions Jesus sensed that the religious leadership
>wanted
>> >him dead. At Jesus' trial, not only the religious leaders, but also a mob
>of
>> >people called for Jesus' death. The Jewish leadership "could not" kill
>Jesus
>> >at anytime.
>>
>> Sure they could. One little murder never did much harm to such a large
>> structure.
>
>What are you talking about?
It's spelled "assassination". You got a troublesome meddler - take him
out. Fairly simple and clean solution. What I'm talking about is that
they _could_ kill him at any time. Or at least try.
>> > The NT said that they feared the people, who may have supported
>> >Jesus. In fact, the masses did support Jesus for a time.
>>
>> There you go.
>
>And you ignore my point?
Because we're in agreement - i.e., "the Jews" supported him.
>> >The person mistakenly thinks I accuse all Jews of Jesus'
>> >murder. I don't feel that way at all.
>>
>> Good.
>
>It's about time somebody understood me (and I don't think it's all my
>fault).
Funny that. I have only your words written here to go on - if you
write something that someone else interprets wrong, it falls to you to
correct that impression. It's not just in this particular thread. I've
seen similar accusations in other threads.
>> >Why don't you ask why Shmuel seems to think I attack *all* Jews?
>>
>> I'm asking _thee_ why you make such charges. Yes - you did not state
>> "*all* Jews" - however, it is very easy to interpret what you did say
>> in that light. Not a surprise, as it is a typical Christian
>> interpretation to blame the Jews for Jesus's death.
>
>It's sad that you think all "Christians" are alike.
Yes. I agree 100% - it is very sad. I wonder how it has come to be
that "Christians" are seen as anti-Jewish? Could it be prominent
fellows like Luther? Or the fact that Christians used to pray for the
perfidious Jew? Or that the religion itself is based upon the
assumption that Judaism is wrong and that Jews are wrong?
============
>In fact, Jesus said only a narrow group within Christianity are true Christians.
Obviously, this is a totally different matter - and is fodder for
interpretation and difference of opinion. If you want, we can talk
about this as well.
>Those who falsely
>and maliciously accuse all Jews are not true Christians,
Sure they are. Have heard them any number of times.
> or perhaps in a
>state of ignorance. True Christianity is concerned with bringing people into
>the light of love for those who need God.
I'd call that "Ideal Christianity" - unhappily, I've never met with
this kind of Christianity. Mostly because of the internal baggage, I
think.
Padraic Brown
>
>"Karen"
>> Let's put this in modern terms. A group of people decide to make an
>> accusation against some one and demand that he be executed. The court
>> system can't find any justification for his execution or that he is
>> necessarily even guilty of the charges being brought against him.
>> However, because this group of people are still demanding that this
>> person be executed, the court system decide to go ahead and execute
>> this man to appease this "mob". But the court system or government is
>> not guilty of "murdering" this innocent man; it's the "mob" who holds
>> the greatest guilt according to Randy's and the NT's logic, which you
>> are supporting....
>
>Karen, I don't know if you're willfully blind or what, but *nobody* said the
>Roman court (Pilate) was innocent of Jesus' murder!
Part of the problem is your confluence of "murder" and "execution".
Murder, killing and execution are three vèry different activities. The
Romans were certainly "guilty" of executing Jesus - however, no one
murdered him.
>The Christian creeds
>themselves place Pilate in the position of great guilt.
You mean "suffered under Pontius Pilate"? Personally, I don't think
that conveys guilt as much as 'here is a historical point for you to
consider.' Both Greek and Latin had ways of expressing the concept of
"guilt". If the compilers of the early ecumenical creeds were thinking
of Pilate as guilty of something, why not say it?
>he NT Bible places
>Pilate in the position of great guilt. But the NT Scriptures also claim that
>this Jewish mob, led by the religious leaders, were guilty of even greater
>guilt still! They were the ones who pressed Pilate into crucifying justice
>by having an innocent man executed.
In what way does it specify "guilt"? I am not aware of that word
appearing in proximity to Pilate or the people.
want no spam@nospam.com Karen
And I still don't understand your logic. How can those in authority
positions have lesser guilt than those pushing those in authority?
moshe
********
Lesser guilt does not mean no guilt at all.
The Gentiles were guilty of killing an innocent man.
Israel was guilty of that *and* also guilty of rejecting her promised
Messiah, just as Nehemiah 9:26 says that Israel killed the prophets
that came before Jesus.
Whereas the Gentiles did not even know what a "Messiah" was, much less
suspect that they were killing one.
Unto whom much is given, much is required.
God gave Israel much knowledge through Tanach, knowledge that God did
not give to the Gentiles.
God said that Israel was to be a priestly nation before the rest of
the world, and thus to be held to a higher standard.
- moshe
randy
"Padraic Brown"
"randy"
> >The Christian creeds
> >themselves place Pilate in the position of great guilt.
>
> You mean "suffered under Pontius Pilate"? Personally, I don't think
> that conveys guilt as much as 'here is a historical point for you to
> consider.' Both Greek and Latin had ways of expressing the concept of
> "guilt". If the compilers of the early ecumenical creeds were thinking
> of Pilate as guilty of something, why not say it?....
> In what way does it specify "guilt"? I am not aware of that word
> appearing in proximity to Pilate or the people.
Good grief, Padraic! Do I have to spell it out for you? I have lived my
entire life in the Christian fold and have never seen what you claim to see.
The Apostles' Creed spells out Pilate not just to establish Jesus'
historical setting, but also to establish that Pilate used government force
to impose unjust suffering and death upon Jesus. If "guilt" was not
involved, then neither does Christianity believe that Jesus carried the
"guilt" of the world!
randy
randy
"Karen"
"randy"
> >Karen, I don't know if you're willfully blind or what, but *nobody* said
the
> >Roman court (Pilate) was innocent of Jesus' murder! The Christian creeds
> >themselves place Pilate in the position of great guilt. The NT Bible
places
> >Pilate in the position of great guilt. But the NT Scriptures also claim
that
> >this Jewish mob, led by the religious leaders, were guilty of even
greater
> >guilt still! They were the ones who pressed Pilate into crucifying
justice
> >by having an innocent man executed.
> And I still don't understand your logic. How can those in authority
> positions have lesser guilt than those pushing those in authority?
Ok, I don't really mean to insult you, because you can be such a nice
person. But how can one explain the obvious?
Jewish authorities could not kill Jesus without Roman permission. Jewish
mobs had tried regardless, but failed. So Jewish authorities found the
proper Roman authority and put pressure on him to do their will. Pilate had
less guilt because he really didn't want to have an innocent man executed.
randy
want no spam@nospam.com Karen
Of course, I still don't agree with you about Jesus/Yeshua being the
messiah. However, what you have posted here makes more sense.
Thanks.
Shalom,
Karen
Nancy
Gentile Romans nailed Him to the cross and killedHim.
He gave his life freely as an atonement for our sins.
We all sinned. Thus we all killed him, thus the blame-game is mote!
And since he died for the sins of the world, the world was redeemed by
Jewish blood!