Are you a liar?

[Redemptionsong]

"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.

Did she also name you 'Saint Frankenstein'?

 

[Redemptionsong]

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.

True. But we might then ask ourselves what it means to be a 'believer'. There are stages on the road to 'justification' and 'sanctification' which might not be described as 'born again', yet they do involve a degree of faith. Apollos was a man who argued the case for Christ intellectually, 'knowing only the baptism of John', but it was not until he encountered Aquila and Priscilla that he was shown 'the way of God more perfectly'. This suggests that he had not believed 'through grace' [Acts 18:24-28].

 

[Elihoenai]

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?

John 3:5

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


Paul is a Servant of Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ.

Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ instructs that we must be born of Water and the Spirit. Do you agree that John the Baptist Baptism is the First Covenant/Old Covenant?

 

[Elihoenai]

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


Not relevant to the question I asked you.

Yes, if I'm a Man that makes me a Rotten Liar, as the Scripture/Bible teaches. Do you agree that a person can only determine whether or not they are a Man if they know what it means to be a Man? We may have different definitions of what constitutes a Man. My understanding is Scriptural.

Yes, it's all relevant:

Jude 4

Jude 4 Young's Literal Translation

4 for there did come in unobserved certain men, long ago having been written beforehand to this judgment, impious, the grace of our God perverting to lasciviousness, and our only Master, God, and Lord -- Jesus Christ -- denying,

 

[Fallen Prophet]

True. But we might then ask ourselves what it means to be a 'believer'. There are stages on the road to 'justification' and 'sanctification' which might not be described as 'born again', yet they do involve a degree of faith. Apollos was a man who argued the case for Christ intellectually, 'knowing only the baptism of John', but it was not until he encountered Aquila and Priscilla that he was shown 'the way of God more perfectly'. This suggests that he had not believed 'through grace' [Acts 18:24-28].

Those who claim to believe and do their best to live as such are believers - whether they have come to know Him in the Spirit or are still working through it.

We cannot wait until we know everything or have received the perfect witness of the Holy Spirit before we make the decision to live as a true believer.

Often - none of us even receive any sort of witness until after our faith has been tried to some degree. God's own litmus test.

 

[F1fan]

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.

Science shows its work, this is why it is credible. Religions can't show how their claims are true in the whole of their frameworks, so they are not objective, not rational, not reasoned, not credible as true.

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.

So you are sabotaging anything you claim is true as well. If this is your assertion, and you claim Jesus is our savior, then it can't be considered true or real, yes?

To a believer in God, truth does exist, and the evidence comes from special revelation, ie prophecy, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit.

Sure, people can believe anything they want. You can put underwear on your head and dance naked under a full moon because that gets you closer to God. Knock yourself out.

Many folks believe in ideas they adopted subconsciously from the social experience and have no idea why they believe it. And all belief is uncertain. We believe in ideas because we are unsure whether it is true or not. Knowledge is confirmed and justified. Belief always is subject to error and change.

But, you ask, How can you know the revelation is truly from God? The answer, and it may surprise you, is faith!

Then you are being misleading when you suggest it can be known. You are being deceptive. Faith is notoriously unreliable. It can justify anything the individual wants to believe, and it offers no argument or reason for others to agree from a reasoned approach. All faith can do is allow a non-rational person a justification to believe anything they want, even if contrary to fact and reason. That is a very poor and unreliable path. It should be avoided.

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.

This describes an indoctrinated mind that has allowed itself to be influenced and controlled by religious dogma. Are you not aware of this? Let's note the 9-11 hijackers were doing God's will because they adopted and believed an Islamic set of beliefs about the West. And they acted on this belief that cost their lives, so they must have known God really wanted them to do these acts. Are you this dedicated? Are you as certain about the truth as they were?

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.

Well unbelievers have the advantage of not adopting the assumption that the Bible is true at face value. Believers, like yourself, fail time and time again to explain how your interpretation of the Bible is accurate and true. We understand faith is worthless and unreliable, so we avoid that. We use reason. If you can't offer a reasoned argument and facts why your interpretation of the bible is true, then we defer to the default and reject your claims. You need to demonstrate your claims are true, and that means fact-based with a coherent explanation. If you can't do that, or keep trying to appeal to faith, then you've lost. Your beliefs might be in error.

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.

And you have the freedom to believe anything you want. If you decide to convince others your beliefs are true then you need to present an objective, factual, and coherent explanation. Otherwise we put you in the same category of human that adopted a set of beliefs from your social experience and are just mimicking the behavior you learned.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, if I'm a Man that makes me a Rotten Liar, as the Scripture/Bible teaches.

So you're not a liar, and you are.

That clears it up.

Do you agree that a person can only determine whether or not they are a Man if they know what it means to be a Man? We may have different definitions of what constitutes a Man. My understanding is Scriptural.

Well I suspect the word "man" means human. Of course you are probably using a King James version of the bible and the Middle English it is written is can be confusing to those who learned modern English.

Yes, it's all relevant:

Jude 4

Jude 4 Young's Literal Translation

4 for there did come in unobserved certain men, long ago having been written beforehand to this judgment, impious, the grace of our God perverting to lasciviousness, and our only Master, God, and Lord -- Jesus Christ -- denying,

This illustrates why religion is irrelevant and absurd to critical thinkers.

 

[F1fan]

Those who claim to believe and do their best to live as such are believers - whether they have come to know Him in the Spirit or are still working through it.

We cannot wait until we know everything or have received the perfect witness of the Holy Spirit before we make the decision to live as a true believer.

Often - none of us even receive any sort of witness until after our faith has been tried to some degree. God's own litmus test.

Like what happened to David Koresh?

 

[Redemptionsong]

John 3:5

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


Paul is a Servant of Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ.

Yeshua Messiah/Jesus Christ instructs that we must be born of Water and the Spirit. Do you agree that John the Baptist Baptism is the First Covenant/Old Covenant?

Yes, l do. I believe John was calling on sinners to repent, and prepare themselves for the coming of the Lord (in Spirit).

 

[Redemptionsong]

Science shows its work, this is why it is credible. Religions can't show how their claims are true in the whole of their frameworks, so they are not objective, not rational, not reasoned, not credible as true.


So you are sabotaging anything you claim is true as well. If this is your assertion, and you claim Jesus is our savior, then it can't be considered true or real, yes?


Sure, people can believe anything they want. You can put underwear on your head and dance naked under a full moon because that gets you closer to God. Knock yourself out.

Many folks believe in ideas they adopted subconsciously from the social experience and have no idea why they believe it. And all belief is uncertain. We believe in ideas because we are unsure whether it is true or not. Knowledge is confirmed and justified. Belief always is subject to error and change.


Then you are being misleading when you suggest it can be known. You are being deceptive. Faith is notoriously unreliable. It can justify anything the individual wants to believe, and it offers no argument or reason for others to agree from a reasoned approach. All faith can do is allow a non-rational person a justification to believe anything they want, even if contrary to fact and reason. That is a very poor and unreliable path. It should be avoided.


This describes an indoctrinated mind that has allowed itself to be influenced and controlled by religious dogma. Are you not aware of this? Let's note the 9-11 hijackers were doing God's will because they adopted and believed an Islamic set of beliefs about the West. And they acted on this belief that cost their lives, so they must have known God really wanted them to do these acts. Are you this dedicated? Are you as certain about the truth as they were?


Well unbelievers have the advantage of not adopting the assumption that the Bible is true at face value. Believers, like yourself, fail time and time again to explain how your interpretation of the Bible is accurate and true. We understand faith is worthless and unreliable, so we avoid that. We use reason. If you can't offer a reasoned argument and facts why your interpretation of the bible is true, then we defer to the default and reject your claims. You need to demonstrate your claims are true, and that means fact-based with a coherent explanation. If you can't do that, or keep trying to appeal to faith, then you've lost. Your beliefs might be in error.


And you have the freedom to believe anything you want. If you decide to convince others your beliefs are true then you need to present an objective, factual, and coherent explanation. Otherwise we put you in the same category of human that adopted a set of beliefs from your social experience and are just mimicking the behavior you learned.

Let's be clear, we can both use reason! What you don't have is trust in the greater reasoning power of God!

If one looks to Jesus as 'God with us', then you can see that Jesus was not without reason. In fact, he put his detractors to shame by the wisdom of his words!

 

[Redemptionsong]

Those who claim to believe and do their best to live as such are believers - whether they have come to know Him in the Spirit or are still working through it.

We cannot wait until we know everything or have received the perfect witness of the Holy Spirit before we make the decision to live as a true believer.

Often - none of us even receive any sort of witness until after our faith has been tried to some degree. God's own litmus test.

I disagree, and stand by the belief that true knowledge does not come until after baptism in the Holy Spirit. Until a believer receives the baptism of Jesus Christ (Holy Spirit), one is still effectively living under law.

Paul asked a group of Ephesians, 'Have you received the Holy Spirit since ye believed?' They responded that they knew only John's baptism (and since John was the last of the OT prophets, we know that John's baptism unto repentance was only a preparation for the 'new birth').

I believe that the apostle John, when speaking 'of us' was speaking about 'born again' believers. I think this is confirmed by his words in 1 John 4:13, where he says, 'Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit'.

 

[Redemptionsong]

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.

Here's a video I'd like you to see.

 

[sayak83]

Here's a video I'd like you to see.

Why would you want me to see an obviously manipulated video used for Christian propaganda? I have seen many such manipulated videos in evangelical missionary churches back in my time in USA. They are frankly laughable were it not for the fact that church members back in the West believe them and continue to give these conversion missions money.
But look I can do better. Watch this video.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Did she also name you 'Saint Frankenstein'?

Excuse me? I don't know if you're trying to insult or tell a joke.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Excuse me? I don't know if you're trying to insult or tell a joke.

No insults intended!

 

[Redemptionsong]

Why would you want me to see an obviously manipulated video used for Christian propaganda? I have seen many such manipulated videos in evangelical missionary churches back in my time in USA. They are frankly laughable were it not for the fact that church members back in the West believe them and continue to give these conversion missions money.
But look I can do better. Watch this video.

What makes you think this video is manipulated?

The interesting part is not the fact of the conversion, but the manner in which God reached the individual.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Science shows its work, this is why it is credible. Religions can't show how their claims are true in the whole of their frameworks, so they are not objective, not rational, not reasoned, not credible as true.


So you are sabotaging anything you claim is true as well. If this is your assertion, and you claim Jesus is our savior, then it can't be considered true or real, yes?


Sure, people can believe anything they want. You can put underwear on your head and dance naked under a full moon because that gets you closer to God. Knock yourself out.

Many folks believe in ideas they adopted subconsciously from the social experience and have no idea why they believe it. And all belief is uncertain. We believe in ideas because we are unsure whether it is true or not. Knowledge is confirmed and justified. Belief always is subject to error and change.


Then you are being misleading when you suggest it can be known. You are being deceptive. Faith is notoriously unreliable. It can justify anything the individual wants to believe, and it offers no argument or reason for others to agree from a reasoned approach. All faith can do is allow a non-rational person a justification to believe anything they want, even if contrary to fact and reason. That is a very poor and unreliable path. It should be avoided.


This describes an indoctrinated mind that has allowed itself to be influenced and controlled by religious dogma. Are you not aware of this? Let's note the 9-11 hijackers were doing God's will because they adopted and believed an Islamic set of beliefs about the West. And they acted on this belief that cost their lives, so they must have known God really wanted them to do these acts. Are you this dedicated? Are you as certain about the truth as they were?


Well unbelievers have the advantage of not adopting the assumption that the Bible is true at face value. Believers, like yourself, fail time and time again to explain how your interpretation of the Bible is accurate and true. We understand faith is worthless and unreliable, so we avoid that. We use reason. If you can't offer a reasoned argument and facts why your interpretation of the bible is true, then we defer to the default and reject your claims. You need to demonstrate your claims are true, and that means fact-based with a coherent explanation. If you can't do that, or keep trying to appeal to faith, then you've lost. Your beliefs might be in error.


And you have the freedom to believe anything you want. If you decide to convince others your beliefs are true then you need to present an objective, factual, and coherent explanation. Otherwise we put you in the same category of human that adopted a set of beliefs from your social experience and are just mimicking the behavior you learned.

Jesus preached to thousands in Israel. Do you think his faith was irrational? Do you think his teaching in parables was not rich in wisdom and meaning?

It amazes me when l hear people talk about faith as if its some type of superstition. Faith is trust, and to develop an unwavering trust one needs conviction that something is true. This is why human faith in God is defined by degrees, some having little and others having alot. But the greatest of all faith belongs to God, who offers it to man as a gift of the Spirit [1 Corinthians 12:9].

 

[F1fan]

Let's be clear, we can both use reason! What you don't have is trust in the greater reasoning power of God!

You aren’t using Reason. First you need to demonstrate your idea of God exists outside of your imagination. Then you need to demonstrate that this God has the ability to reason.

If one looks to Jesus as 'God with us', then you can see that Jesus was not without reason. In fact, he put his detractors to shame by the wisdom of his words!

Jesus isn’t known to exist. Demonstrate this version of Jesus exists in reality and then that the details of your fantastic claim are also factual.

if you can’t, then we throw out all your claims.

 

[F1fan]

Jesus preached to thousands in Israel.

Assuming a Jesus actually existed.

Do you think his faith was irrational? Do you think his teaching in parables was not rich in wisdom and meaning?

I think for the most part the character of Jesus in most Bible stories is correct in his moral view. I don’t buy into all the supernatural nonsense due to the lack of evidence and the stories being absurd.

It amazes me when l hear people talk about faith as if its some type of superstition.

Religious faith presumes a supernatural so is automatically questionable.

Faith is trust, and to develop an unwavering trust one needs conviction that something is true. This is why human faith is defined by degrees, some having little and others having alot. But the greatest of all faith belongs to God, who offers it to man as a gift of the Spirit [1 Corinthians 12:9].

What exactly is it a believer invests his faith into when its the religious type? How reliable are the expectations?

 

[Redemptionsong]

You aren’t using Reason. First you need to demonstrate your idea of God exists outside of your imagination. Then you need to demonstrate that this God has the ability to reason.


Jesus isn’t known to exist. Demonstrate this version of Jesus exists in reality and then that the details of your fantastic claim are also factual.

if you can’t, then we throw out all your claims.

You may be edging toward the lunatic fringe by claiming that Jesus never existed.

The NT is a compilation of numerous records that witness to Jesus' presence in lsrael. Furthermore we have non-Christians, such as the historians Tacitus and Seutonius, who add support to the belief he existed. We also have hundreds of thousands of Christians claiming to have received Holy Spirit baptism, promised by Jesus before his crucifixion. Where is this baptism coming from, if not from Jesus Christ?

Once we get over this little hurdle, we can begin a more rational discussion about the internal evidence of the scriptures.

As l have argued many times before, the NT is a natural continuation of the OT scriptures. The story centres on lsrael, both as a people and a land. To deny the existence of either also demonstrates a suspension of reason.