Are you a liar?

[Redemptionsong]

The Apostles received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Fiftieth). Did the Apostles practice Feast of Weeks/Pentecost to get the Holy Spirit? Is Pentecost/Feast of Weeks.Works under the Law? These are critical questions, given a seeker yearns to revive the Church of Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ.

The apostles clearly celebrated the Feast of Weeks because all the apostles were Jews. However, the receiving of the Holy Spirit marks the transition from law to Spirit.

Now that the law has been fulfilled, this baptism in Holy Spirit can happen any day!

In Acts, it happened in order to demonstrate the fulfilment of the law. Under the law, Shavuot celebrated the giving of the law. In Christ, the Holy Spirit is given (the law is now written on the heart).

Is it necessary for members of the Church to celebrate festivals as they do under the law? I don't think it's necessary, as Paul said,
'One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.' [Romans 14:5,6 incomplete]

 

[Redemptionsong]

I do not believe that this test applies to all people - but rather those who first believed - and perhaps even knew the truth - but then turned away from it.

"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:18-22)

No one can be "antichrist" without first knowing Christ.

The distinction that you make here is not clear from the text.

John says, 'if they [the deniers] had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us'.

To my understanding, the believers who experienced a 'new birth' in Spirit were of one mind. These were the same believers who were 'of us' (in the words of John).

Those that denied Christ could not have known Christ in Spirit, because had they known Christ in Spirit they would have been 'of us'.

This suggests that the deniers are not people that know Christ in Spirit, but people who deny the evidence based on human reasoning.

 

[Elihoenai]

The apostles clearly celebrated the Feast of Weeks because all the apostles were Jews. However, the receiving of the Holy Spirit marks the transition from law to Spirit.

Now that the law has been fulfilled, this baptism in Holy Spirit can happen any day!

In Acts, it happened in order to demonstrate the fulfilment of the law. Under the law, Shavuot celebrated the giving of the law. In Christ, the Holy Spirit is given (the law is now written on the heart).

Is it necessary for the members of the Church to celebrate festivals as they do under the law? I don't think it's necessary, as Paul said,
'One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.' [Romans 14:5,6 incomplete]

How is it possible to transition from something that you have not practiced? How can the Law be Fulfilled given that it has not been practiced? Are you saying that Pentecost and such Laws are for Jews only and not for Gentiles?

 

[Redemptionsong]

From the Hindu POV, resurrection is part of the reincarnation cycle only. What you call resurrection we call it the case of reincarnation in a spiritual body in one of heavenly realm under one of the Gods. Yet the spiritual body is still a body, and even that body will undergo spiritual decay and will die (here we reject the claim that the heaven or the new earth, whatever that is, is eternal). This may take quadrillion of years, but it will happen. Thus a soul will again reincarnate (maybe back to earth or in some lower of higher realms under the stewardship of other Gods or anti-Gods). This process will continue till the soul finally realizes the true nature of things...that its self is the same Self as that of the Absolute Reality-Being (Brahman) and acts in accordance to this realization (so not theoretical knowledge about actual experienced and acted on knowledge). At this point the self of the Soul retracts itself from this creation flux and becomes one with the Self of the Brahman. The involuntary reincarnation cycle stops, but active aspects of Brahman can still enter the creation flux as incarnations who act in the world (or in the Heavens) while being completely aware of its true identity as the Self of the Ultimate Being.

What about this multiplicity of gods when attempting to discern the truth?

 

[Muffled]

I believe I do not practice deceit.

 

[Muffled]

Perhaps this would be as good time as any to remind ourselves that only God may pass spiritual judgement and, that when Man thinks himself entitled to judge his brother, he himself is most likely committing a sin.


Humbly
Hermit

I believe Jesus said that you will be judged by your words.

 

[Muffled]

My God is the true God since my God said so and everyone else is a liar.

Right...

I believe He also testifies that He is the Truth.

 

[Elihoenai]

This is a letter from Paul, yes? And he was trying to sell his religious belief to the Romans, just as you are trying to sell your religion to we heathens. But this doesn't work. You are citing Paul who is just making a claim. You are repeating the claim as if it is true. We are not convinced you or Paul are correct. So present the facts that any of this is true and relevant that DOES NOT assume the Bible has some sort of authority.


And you are a man, yes? All men are liars, yes? And we should believe you at our peril, yes?

And since you brought up Johnny Rotten and the song Liar by the Sex Pistols, here it is:

Jude 11

11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.


@F1fan You asked: "And you are a man, yes?"

This is a very profound question. What is the measure of a Man? Have you read Jude? It describes Men relating to Cain.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

The distinction that you make here is not clear from the text.

John says, 'if they [the deniers] had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us'.

To my understanding, the believers who experienced a 'new birth' in Spirit were of one mind. These were the same believers who were 'of us' (in the words of John).

Those that denied Christ could not have known Christ in Spirit, because had they known Christ in Spirit they would have been 'of us'.

This suggests that the deniers are not people that know Christ in Spirit, but people who deny the evidence based on human reasoning.

Yet he clearly said that "the deniers", "went out from us, but they were not of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (Bold and italics added)

These deniers would have had to have been among the "us" in order to "[go] out" or have the option to "[continue] with" the us.

And the only difference that John makes between the faithful and "the deniers" is that the faithful, "have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things."

Meaning - they did not know Christ "in Spirit" because they had not received of the Holy Spirit - yet they were still numbered among the faithful before they denied and fell away.

"The deniers" were those who had been shallowly converted - going through the motions and participating in the ordinances (such as baptism) - thus becoming one of "us".

They were "among us" but they were not "of us".

Just like a faithful person can live "in the world" but not be "of the world".

There are many who are - by definition - "Christian" but they do not live as Christ would have them.

They would be numbered among the "lukewarm" and once they are "spewed out" - they become antichrist.

I believe that it is clear that John is speaking about the faithful who had fallen away.

I believe what you said above hits the nail on the head - but it would not change the fact that these people were first believers before they were antichrist.

 

[sayak83]

What about this multiplicity of gods when attempting to discern the truth?

Some of the gods are merely highly advanced spiritual beings still within the rebirth cycle. A few are fully self aware incarnations of Absolute Being who have voluntarily manifested into the heavens and the worlds to guide creation.
The critical point in Hinduism is that the Self within all beings is the same Self as that of the Absolute. Those who have not realized who they really are act in unwise ways and hence get trapped by the consequences of their actions into rebirths. Those who are fully realized know they are of the same essence as the One and act freely, wisely and in enlightened ways in whichever realm they choose to exist for whatever purpose.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Others have made similar arguments about the meaning of 'liar' in this context. I have tried to demonstrate that the word is used in the same way as 'sinner'. The Bible is unequivocal in calling all men sinners, yet many people refuse to acknowledge that they are sinful. To my understanding the same is true of liars. All men are liars, just as all men are sinners. Until, that is, they come to a knowledge of the truth.

My explanation of the difference in understanding is to suggest that there is an objective view, and a subjective view. Man provides the subjective view, having limited understanding of truth, and God provides the objective view because only He is omniscient. Therefore, if God knows the Truth, He has every right to call a man a 'liar'. Any denial of God's truth is a 'lie'.

Sorry. You are simply mistaken, and I reject your right to redefine words. Liar doesn't mean sinner.

 

[Redemptionsong]

How is it possible to transition from something that you have not practiced? How can the Law be Fulfilled given that it has not been practiced? Are you saying that Pentecost and such Laws are for Jews only and not for Gentiles?

You are asking questions that were discussed at length in the Church in the first century.

Let's begin by saying that it was Jesus who fulfilled the law in righteousness. Believers seek baptism in the Spirit of the Father through faith in the Son, Jesus Christ.

Gentiles did not follow the law of Moses but they were aware of what righteousness meant.

On the issue of Church practices, Paul seems to be the authority, and we know from the book of Acts that the Jewish believers struggled to come to terms with the implications of his teaching.

Nevertheless, after long debates with Peter and other elders of the Church in Jerusalem, the oneness of doctrine was established.

In a nutshell, Paul makes clear that, in the sight of God, Jew and Gentile are one in the body of Christ. Cultural differences were not deemed to be important, so long as the worship of God was 'in Spirit and in truth'. All association with idolatry was also prohibited.

Paul felt that it didn't matter whether one followed holy days or not, so long as the spirit in which one made the decision was pure. This seems to suggest that individuals retain a degree of freedom of conscience in matters that do not affect ones ability to love others. This included attitudes to food, such as the the eating of meat, as well as the following of holy days and sabbaths.

I do understand that for Jewish believers certain festivals have a double significance, one established under the law, and yet another in Christ. It is understandable to me that Jewish Christians should wish to continue to celebrate these particular events in the light of Christ.

What is your understanding?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Sorry. You are simply mistaken, and I reject your right to redefine words. Liar doesn't mean sinner.

Do you think the psalmist was a bit hasty in saying, 'All men are liars'? [Psalm 116:11]

How can you not be a liar if you don't speak the truth?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Some of the gods are merely highly advanced spiritual beings still within the rebirth cycle. A few are fully self aware incarnations of Absolute Being who have voluntarily manifested into the heavens and the worlds to guide creation.
The critical point in Hinduism is that the Self within all beings is the same Self as that of the Absolute. Those who have not realized who they really are act in unwise ways and hence get trapped by the consequences of their actions into rebirths. Those who are fully realized know they are of the same essence as the One and act freely, wisely and in enlightened ways in whichever realm they choose to exist for whatever purpose.

I understand the idea that the Self in the individual is of the same essence as the Absolute. This is not dissimilar to the idea that Adam had the breath of life breathed into him by God.

What l do not see in Hinduism is any recognition that humans cannot attain the holiness of God by their works. The teaching seems to be that you can become holy by meditative practices and self denial.

Is this unfair?

 

[sayak83]

I understand the idea that the Self in the individual is of the same essence as the Absolute. This is not dissimilar to the idea that Adam had the breath of life breathed into him by God.

What l do not see in Hinduism is any recognition that humans cannot attain the holiness of God by their works. The teaching seems to be that you can become holy by meditative practices and self denial.

Is this unfair?

Scriptures of Hinduism categorically says that one can attain enlightenment through self effort. The idea that humans cannot attain the final state without the grace of God is considered false. However in some traditions the grace of God is considered to be the easier route towards attaining enlightenment. But never the only or the exclusive way.
Thus from Hindu religion and scripture POV such claims of 'grace only' will be considered as incorrect doctrines.

 

[F1fan]

Jude 11

11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.


@F1fan You asked: "And you are a man, yes?"

This is a very profound question. What is the measure of a Man?

My point is that if you admit to being a man you admit to being a liar, according to what you have posted.

Have you read Jude? It describes Men relating to Cain.

Not relevant to the question I asked you.

 

[F1fan]

Do you think the psalmist was a bit hasty in saying, 'All men are liars'? [Psalm 116:11]

How can you not be a liar if you don't speak the truth?

Then if you claim to have the truth, and what you say is asserted as if it IS true, then you had better have facts. This is why atheists reject the claims of theists like yourself. You offer no facts that the religious claims you make are true. So that makes you a _____.

Now if you mean "truth" in the sense of personal ideological truth, well then that is different, and all religious claims are true to whomever claims it. That means Muslims and Hindus tell the truth and aren't liars.

So perhaps you can clarify.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Do you think the psalmist was a bit hasty in saying, 'All men are liars'? [Psalm 116:11]

How can you not be a liar if you don't speak the truth?

"all men are liars" is an example of hyperbole. It is not meant to be taken literally.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"Are you a liar?"

I'm very bad at lying, actually. I can't even hide it in my facial expressions, which is something I inherited from my mom.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Then if you claim to have the truth, and what you say is asserted as if it IS true, then you had better have facts. This is why atheists reject the claims of theists like yourself. You offer no facts that the religious claims you make are true. So that makes you a _____.

Now if you mean "truth" in the sense of personal ideological truth, well then that is different, and all religious claims are true to whomever claims it. That means Muslims and Hindus tell the truth and aren't liars.

So perhaps you can clarify.

Truth is objective, is it not? In philosophy they always talk about 'inductive' and 'deductive' processes, or working from 'some' to 'all', and 'all' to 'some'. Induction works from 'some' to 'all' and can never produce 'proof'. This is what happens in the scientific process, because uncovering knowledge about the universe is a gradual process of improvement.

Philosophically, you can claim no 'truth' because to have omniscience is outside the paradigm of your thinking. This means that the process of deduction, or 'proof', does not really exist for humans.

To a believer in God, truth does exist, and the evidence comes from special revelation, ie prophecy, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit. But, you ask, How can you know the revelation is truly from God? The answer, and it may surprise you, is faith! For by believing, or trusting what God says is true, one continues to trust until one discovers a lie, or untruth. This, for me, is what has happened. I have found God, and his Word, to be wholly trustworthy and faithful. The message, and reality, is confirmed as l believe it.

The challenge for all unbelievers is to find error and contradiction in God's word, but nothing convincing has yet been shown to exist, lMO.

So, to me, there is only one truth, and that is the truth of God. All other 'truths' only help to demonstrate the 'whole truth' of God.