Christian Concepts

[ukok102nak]

as our lord and saviour christ jesus
the only begotten son of god
said before during that time he was in
human form
as it is written
:read:
Luke 20:34
And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Mark 12:25
For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

. ... that's why
:read: (as it is written)
Revelation of John 14:3
They sing a new song before the throne, and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the one hundred forty-four thousand, those who had been redeemed out of the earth.
3 They sing a new song before the throne, and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the one hundred forty-four thousand, those who had been redeemed out of the earth.
4 These are those who were not defiled with women, for they are virgins. These are those who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These were redeemedb from among men, the first fruits to God and to the Lamb.
5 In their mouth was found no lie, for they are blameless.c

every angel has their own
unique attributes such as this one
as it is written
:read:
Revelation of John 16:5
And I heard the angel of the waters say, You are righteous, O Lord, which are, and were, and shall be, because you have judged thus.


:ty:



godbless unto all always

 

[1robin]

So now let's get to heaven. If we can't sin in heaven then aren't we essentially automatons? If we do have freewill, then why can't we miss the mark somehow, even if it's just pride. "Wow, I made it to heaven. I get to live forever with Jesus. I'm so much better than that guy that always laughed at me for believing." Of course the point being is that I'm told the adversary's sin was pride. However, I'd have to believe that we would be in a purified state and our greatest joy and pleasure would be to serve God... without question... like automatons. So the dividing line to get to heaven becomes: Those that want to do their own thing and not serve God forever in heaven get sent to hell to burn. But, it's not enough to want to serve God forever and ever, a person must believe the right Biblical interpretation to get saved. Also, they can't serve God while they are here on Earth in the wrong religion or in a false Christian belief system. That don't count. They're going to hell. Some, or a lot, will be in the right belief system but be lukewarm. Spit out of Jesus' mouth? That can't be good. And then, finally, a few will be on the narrow path and go to heaven.

Again let me state that I cannot illuminate what has not been provided. I cannot extol upon that which I cannot know. The only light I can shed upon this is that we are given a perfect body, mind, soul, and spirit when we are resurrected if we have been born again. A perfect mind will not chose evil as it is logically impossible for the perfect to chose imperfection, however that does not infringe on our freewill as we will have options even if we can no longer chose evil. I remind you that biblical freewill entails the ability to chose among things we actually desire to chose. I for one do not wish to choose evil in almost all cases even though I am still imperfect. Beyond this I can not comment.

But then, we got another problem. What did they do to get saved? It was God that chose them. The Holy Spirit had to lead them. It's nothing they did. They couldn't ever be good enough on their own. They can't work for it. They can't earn it. It's a free gift from God. So in spite of their continued inability to be perfect, it's God loves them anyway and continues to forgive them. He's doing everything. So why couldn't He give the worst sinner in the world the grace and mercy of His salvation? He does. So if He can soften the most evil of person's heart, why not others? Why not a devout Hindu or Buddhist or Jew? He does, but very selectively. He created beings that flawed themselves and turned away from Him, but then He chooses a few and helps them to believe and sends the rest to hell. Anyway, I don't get it. He doesn't want automatons, but gives a few flawed humans the grace and knowledge needed to love and serve him, like an automaton. Or, maybe I do get it. That way the automaton, I mean the Christian, will forever be grateful for being saved from a life of sin and debauchery and want to serve God and do His will... out of love.

You lay out so many questions that require in depth responses that they quickly overwhelm my ability to do them justice. I will again tackle the first one which seems to set up the rest because if your initial statement turns out to be flawed then the rest that build on it became untenable.

Your first claim (which most of the rest depend upon) take for granted that one of the least agreeable interpretation of the bible is true. I cannot agree. I do not believe in predestination. I believe that we are all able to react to revelation. Keep in mind we are only responsible for our reaction to the revelation we are aware of. If you want to know more about the salvation of the unevangelised I recommend you research William Lane Craig's book on that issue as I am not well versed in it. For most of us we know of Christ and are responsible for our reaction to that knowledge. I believe we can choose to accept or reject the implications of that knowledge. I was both a person who rejected that knowledge and one who eventually chose to accept it and so your first claim is simply rejected by me and so what you built upon that initial claim falls along with it.

Hey 1Robin, Comment on anything you think will help clarify what your position is. Thanks.

Sorry I could only respond to a portion of what you claimed here CG. However I will address the rest once we conclude what I did respond to if reminded. You threw out so many questions I could not do them all justice (I in fact only gave the minimum in response to the few I did choose to tackle). Please choose only a few at a time but you can be more in-depth (and each demanded more in-depth examination by both of us) concerning each one and we can do each one more justice. You can see how even a response to a few claims as yours will make for a very long post indeed.

 

[CG Didymus]

...as for satan
there's a written scripture that tells
about his existence as a one of the
fallen angels . . .
as it is written
:read:
Isaiah 14:12
How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, who laid the nations low!
~;> NHEBME VERSION
OF THE HOLY BIBLE

How long was this verse been in the Hebrew Bible before Christians found it? As far as I know, Jews never made this verse about the adversary. And, I don't think they made the word for "morning star" the name of this angel either. And besides in Rev 22:16 Jesus calls himself the "morning star." So why do Christians make this about their Satan? I wonder, who was the first person that made this connection?

 

[CG Didymus]

Matthew and John were eyewitnesses. Mark and Luke got their accounts from the other Apostles. So what's the problem?

The accuracy of the accounts is a problem. The Bible, if the Word of God, can't have people giving different stories of the same event. For example, they all tell the story of the morning when some women went to the tomb. They all vary. The common eyewitness in all the gospels is Mary Magdalene, yet they all tell a different version of the events. Were other women with her? Was there one angel or two? Was there an earthquake? Did she go alone and then come back with Peter and John, and after they left, did Jesus appear to her?

So what is the RCC explanation for these different accounts? Thanks.

 

[CG Didymus]

...Sorry I could only respond to a portion of what you claimed here CG. However I will address the rest once we conclude what I did respond to if reminded. You threw out so many questions I could not do them all justice (I in fact only gave the minimum in response to the few I did choose to tackle). Please choose only a few at a time but you can be more in-depth (and each demanded more in-depth examination by both of us) concerning each one and we can do each one more justice. You can see how even a response to a few claims as yours will make for a very long post indeed.

The main question is: If we don't have freewill in heaven, then we end up automatons. So why all the tests and trials, pain and suffering if we become automatons anyway? If we do have freewill in heaven, then God can make us perfect enough not to stray from His will. So why the pain and suffering, tests and trials if He could have given us more of His Spirit so as to believe in Him and want to do His will and not rebel?

 

[CG Didymus]

Since Satan and Adam and Eve were the ' original sinners ' then how can ' original sin' reside outside of Genesis ?_______
Satan is the father (birth giver) of the lie (first sin) - John 8:44; Genesis 3:4

Christians find Satan and original sin and any of their other doctrines very easily in the OT. However, lots, or all, of those doctrines aren't from Judaism. I don't think Jews need a Satan/Devil like Christians have. And, they don't need us born with original sin, so that we would need to be saved from our sin inherited from Adam and Eve. So why do Christians need them and when did they come up with them?

 

[metis]

The accuracy of the accounts is a problem. The Bible, if the Word of God, can't have people giving different stories of the same event. For example, they all tell the story of the morning when some women went to the tomb. They all vary. The common eyewitness in all the gospels is Mary Magdalene, yet they all tell a different version of the events. Were other women with her? Was there one angel or two? Was there an earthquake? Did she go alone and then come back with Peter and John, and after they left, did Jesus appear to her?

So what is the RCC explanation for these different accounts? Thanks.

If I can respond to this, let me just say that the theology of the RCC is not literalistic in nature, so variations are understood to exist because of the humanness and differences of the authors. It's predominantly the main teachings that are considered to be inerrant.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Christians find Satan and original sin and any of their other doctrines very easily in the OT. However, lots, or all, of those doctrines aren't from Judaism. I don't think Jews need a Satan/Devil like Christians have. And, they don't need us born with original sin, so that we would need to be saved from our sin inherited from Adam and Eve. So why do Christians need them and when did they come up with them?

I believe that from Adam and Eve to Noah is actually one story with a single theme. It is a single story arc where God creates humans and has to learn to accept them for their faults. Note that at the end of the Flood, God is cool with us again (or at least resigned to our behaviors), yet the "sequels" have us having to have this conversation with God over and over and over and over and ...

 

[metis]

I believe that from Adam and Eve to Noah is actually one story with a single theme. It is a single story arc where God creates humans and has to learn to accept them for their faults. Note that at the end of the Flood, God is cool with us again (or at least resigned to our behaviors), yet the "sequels" have us having to have this conversation with God over and over and over and over and ...

Good chance for that, and it may well be a composition from several authors writing from various oral and/or written traditions.

 

[Muffled]

Nope, nothing mentioned about the Trinity there, either. Of course if you are using the Gospels as evidence for the Trinity you can stop right there. The Gospels were written decades after Jesus' death by 3rd party, anonymous authors who were not eyewitnesses to his events. That makes them hearsay.

I believe Jesus does not agree with you.

 

[jeager106]

I believe Jesus does not agree with you.

belief = acceptance of something based on faith not facts.
Who could claim to know what Jesus might have agreed with?
Just a thought.

 

[Muffled]

From the OP: 2. Jesus died for our sins.

"I disagree with this. Jesus died as a result of being a "rabble rouser." The Roman Governor Pilate ordered his execution, and made an example out of him. The story got distorted decades later, and the pagan concept of a blood sacrifice took root. Besides, the OT is full of verses that contradict dying for another's sins. However, early Christians wanted to make a martyr out of Jesus, so "dying for our sins" became a central theme."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe the Romans would have completely ignored Him if the Pharisees had not brought Him for judgement.

I believe that had more to do with politics and how the Romans viewed the Jews as a problem people.

I believe there is no evidence of this and is pure imagination on your part.

I believe sacrifice was also an OT practice instituted by God.

I don't believe the old formulates the new.

I believe there is no evidence to support this concept. It is supported by scripture: 1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

 

[Muffled]

belief = acceptance of something based on faith not facts.
Who could claim to know what Jesus might have agreed with?
Just a thought.

I believe Jesus speaks though me so I am one.

 

[jeager106]

I believe Jesus speaks though me so I am one.

I believe "god" speaks and works through people.

 

[Muffled]

I believe "god" speaks and works through people.

I believe that is equivalent to what I said.

 

[jeager106]

I believe that is equivalent to what I said.

It certain is.
Good to emphasize a point don'cha'know while giving credit to a fellow member.

 

[Neo Deist]

From the OP: 2. Jesus died for our sins.

"I disagree with this. Jesus died as a result of being a "rabble rouser." The Roman Governor Pilate ordered his execution, and made an example out of him. The story got distorted decades later, and the pagan concept of a blood sacrifice took root. Besides, the OT is full of verses that contradict dying for another's sins. However, early Christians wanted to make a martyr out of Jesus, so "dying for our sins" became a central theme."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe the Romans would have completely ignored Him if the Pharisees had not brought Him for judgement.

I believe that had more to do with politics and how the Romans viewed the Jews as a problem people.

I believe there is no evidence of this and is pure imagination on your part.

I believe sacrifice was also an OT practice instituted by God.

I don't believe the old formulates the new.

I believe there is no evidence to support this concept. It is supported by scripture: 1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

I believe logic escapes some people and they go with the most outrageous, supernatural, other worldly explanation the human mind can come up with.

 

[Muffled]

I believe logic escapes some people and they go with the most outrageous, supernatural, other worldly explanation the human mind can come up with.

I believe my logic is better than yours.

 

[1robin]

The main question is: If we don't have freewill in heaven, then we end up automatons. So why all the tests and trials, pain and suffering if we become automatons anyway? If we do have freewill in heaven, then God can make us perfect enough not to stray from His will. So why the pain and suffering, tests and trials if He could have given us more of His Spirit so as to believe in Him and want to do His will and not rebel?

This is not so even within the limited knowledge I have about that issue. I did not say that freewill is lost in heaven. I said that our freewill can be used freely to choose among things that are not logically impossible. I imagine I can turn right or left in Heaven but I can not imagine that my new perfect nature would ever chose to curse God or rebel. It is simply a rearrangement of choices that I would make given my new nature. It is the same but an expanded dynamic of what happens when we are born again. When we are born again we do not become sinless like when we are resurrected but our lives become significantly changed and each Christian has certain things we will not do because we would never chose to do them. It is simply less things that we can chose not the suspension of choice altogether and one which we chose to inherit. It is like those who choose to castrate themselves in order to limit their choices from that point on. A eunuch still has choices but voluntarily limits what he can chose to logically possible things given their chosen nature. That's all I can say about heaven but is certainly shows we have a massive range of choices we can make even in heaven.

Whether something is perfect or not entails whether it fits correctly it's purpose or not. The purpose of this life is to have freewill which includes the ability to deny God, that is not the purpose of heaven and our new resurrected natures in heaven and so evil would not suit our new natures. Our new perfect nature would make choosing evil unsuitable and so our former ability to do evil would not perfectly suit the purpose in heaven. So you are using "perfect freewill" in a way that defies the bible which always defines it's own terms.

You seem to defy the above in part of your response and agree with it in a later statement. You seem to switch gears from opposition to agreement so I don't know which tone to credit your response with. You then move on to asking why we suffer in this life. In this life we are estranged from God by our rebellion which all of us choose by our practicing evil. We are so wayward that only the outcome of negative actions will allow a ruminant of humanity to turn to God as the solution. I am a perfect example, in my teenage years and in my 20s, despite having being raised in the church I grew to both disbelieve in God and to hate him if he did exist which is irrational. I literally had to go threw things that were as bad as they get before I slowly turned back towards God and eventually accept the claims about him in the bible. It is a rare person indeed why accepted God without going through some amount of Hell on earth before they were willing. To carry your objection you must show that a world with less moral evil would produce more humans who freely choose to accept God. That cannot be done and so the accusation cannot be carried through. The only thing we can say is in our ignorance we do not like that necessity but it is our hardness of heart that makes the allowance of evil a necessity especially since we cause most of that evil
ourselves.

It is unbelievable how long my responses are even when you make very short points. I guess even when you make short claims they are good questions about deep issues that are hard to answer.

 

[Neo Deist]

I believe my logic is better than yours.

Me: Pilate, who was known to be cruel, simply had Jesus executed to make an example out of him. He had the Roman army at his disposal and took orders only from Caesar. Christians moved to make Jesus into a martyr.

You: Jesus is part of some holy trinity, became God in the flesh by way of a virgin birth after some ghost raped Mary, nothing about his life is described from the age of 12 to 30, he gets teleported around the world by the boogeyman Satan who throws temptations at him, he gets nailed to a crucifix and dies in a classic Roman style of execution, the Gospels disagree on who all went to the tomb, resurrects three days later even though no one recognizes him, and eventually ascends into heaven where millions of people believe they will rejoin him, even though the Bible never says we go to heaven, just paradise on new earth. His sacrifice paved the way for the forgiveness for our sins by an omnipotent creator of the universe (who could skip all the rep tape and just say "all sin is forgiven" and be done with it).

And yours is the greater logic?