Exacerbating Sin: Is it just? Is it faithful?

[dybmh]

In what way do you think that Wildswanderer and I disagree?

Well, it's like you said, the wording seems too harsh, and the redeemer as a concept existed before he law.

And @Wildswanderer said the transgression was known, but not caused.

 

[DNB]

Hi DNB,

I greatly appreciate your clear and plain speech on this. I treasure the honesty. I hope you don't mind that I pulled this quote out of the other thread so that it could be discussed.

Deut 30:8 asserts:

NWT: "You will then return and listen to the voice of Jehovah and observe all his commandments that I am commanding you today."​

Deut 30:11-14 asserts:

NWT: "Now this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it beyond your reach. It is not in the heavens, so that you have to say, ‘Who will ascend to the heavens and get it for us, so that we may hear it and observe it? Nor is it on the other side of the sea, so that you have to say, ‘Who will cross over to the other side of the sea and get it for us, so that we may hear it and observe it? For the word is very near you, in your own mouth and in your own heart, so that you may do it."​

Deut 32:3-4 asserts:

NWT: "For I will declare the name of Jehovah. Tell about the greatness of our God! For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness who is never unjust; Righteous and upright is he."​

Setting up the Jewish people for failure would be the opposite of justice, the opposite of faithfulness. God tells the Jewish people the commandments are not too difficult; God's word is very near, and they can do it. Intentionally exacerbating sin makes God a liar, unjust, and unfaithful. How can this be?

Thank you,

-------------------------------------------

Christians and fellow RF'ians: What do you think of this idea that God of the bible who claims to be just and faithful setup the Jewish people to fail for many generations for the sole purpose of bringing a redeemer?

Hi dybmh, yes, you are correct: in short, the Law is righteous and holy. But, by the very nature of prohibition, injunctions are instigators to rebellion - the 'forbidden fruit' syndrome is elicited in man. God does not entice one to commit iniquity, nor does He tempt or provoke with the intent to cause disobedience or failure. But, rather, the thought of illicit activity arouses in man depraved desires of adventure, self-governance, stolen 'food' taste better, pride, etc...

But, Law also elucidates the awareness of sin - would a man know that retaliation was a sin if it had not been written 'vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord'?
Or, who would've imagined that thoughts could be as incriminating as actions?

God's Law is pure and holy, but is enacted solely for law breakers - otherwise why state 'don't kill' if there were no murderers around?
Thus, Law also makes one aware of sin, consequently eliciting lewd desires, and also condemnation. Therefore, where there is Law, both man's propensity and willingness to sin becomes much more evident than had their been no Law instituted. i.e. 'law exacerbates sin'.

Ultimately, man perceives the inextricable dilemma that he's in - how does an unholy creature fellowship with the most holy of Beings?
The Law points to man's need for redemption - a saviour.

 

[Kenny]

Hi dybmh, yes, you are correct: in short, the Law is righteous and holy. But, by the very nature of prohibition, injunctions are instigators to rebellion - the 'forbidden fruit' syndrome is elicited in man. God does not entice one to commit iniquity, nor does He tempt or provoke with the intent to cause disobedience or failure. But, rather, the thought of illicit activity arouses in man depraved desires of adventure, self-governance, stolen 'food' taste better, pride, etc...

But, Law also elucidates the awareness of sin - would a man know that retaliation was a sin, if it had not been written 'vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord'?
Or, who would've imagined that thoughts could be as incriminating as actions?

God's Law is pure and holy, but is enacted solely for law breakers - otherwise why state 'don't kill' if there were no murderers around?
Thus, Law also makes one aware of sin, thus eliciting lewd desires, and also condemnation. Therefore, where there is Law, both man's propensity and willingness to sin becomes much more evident than had their been no Law instituted. i.e. 'law exacerbates sin'.

Ultimately, man perceives the inextricable dilemma that he's in - how does an unholy creature fellowship with the most holy of Beings?
The Law points to man's need for redemption - a saviour.

This is very good. IMV

And then there is the difference of how "we" interpret the law and how God meant the law to say.

In other words, as lawyers tend to do, they try to twist what was written to find a loophole in its wording to be declared innocent when they are guilty.

for an example.. "don't commit murder" - our interpretation is when we take a life when, in reality, God's perspective is different for Jesus said, Matt 6:21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

And again, when we think "don't commit adultery" and we see it as an act God sees it as: Matt 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Which makes God's holiness so holy as to understand that man, in his works, cannot achieve unity with God.

Thus, the Savior! (At least within the context of my signature)

Jesus Christ, his atoning work on the cross, his resurrection life worked in us that brings us into complete harmony with God for tho our sins be as red as scarlet, He makes us white as wool, and tho we be so sinful as to be crimson, He makes us white as snow.

For me, oh the love and mercy of God.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Law points to man's need for redemption - a saviour.

25 “There will be signs in the sun, the moon, and the stars and on the earth distress among nations confused by the roaring of the sea and the waves.
26 People will faint from fear and foreboding of what is coming upon the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
27 Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in a cloud’ with power and great glory.
28 Now when these things begin to take place, stand up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”
- Luke 21 -

Aye, our "saviour" will come in a cloud with power and great glory .. just like Jesus ascended to heaven, he will return in like manner.

 

[dybmh]

In other words, as lawyers tend to do, they try to twist what was written to find a loophole in its wording to be declared innocent when they are guilty.

A loophole kind of like "... his faith was accounted as righteousness ... " ?

Moses does a nice job of explaining that a Jewish person is required to demonstrate the contents of the heart ( aka Faith ) by following all the commandments that were given.

Deut 8:2

2 And you shall remember the entire way on which the Lord, your God, led you these forty years in the desert, in order to afflict you to test you, to know what is in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not.
​

So, this idea that faith replaces law is a loophole, is it not? It goes against what Moses taught, right?

 

[Kenny]

A loophole kind of like "... his faith was accounted as righteousness ... " ?

Moses does a nice job of explaining that a Jewish person is required to demonstrate the contents of the heart ( aka Faith ) by following all the commandments that were given.

Deut 8:2

2 And you shall remember the entire way on which the Lord, your God, led you these forty years in the desert, in order to afflict you to test you, to know what is in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not.
​

So, this idea that faith replaces law is a loophole, is it not? It goes against what Moses taught, right?

I suppose can look at it as a "loophole" depending on how one wants to approach the subject.

But it has always been "faith" which you noted with Moses - who also spoke of Jesus (IMV)

So, for us, it isn't a loophole but rather how God set it up from the beginning,.

Certainly faith will carry works but works doesn't equate that you have faith. So faith is the object and the instrument.

Habakkuk 2:4b but the just shall live by his faith.

IMV, God understood man's inability to follow commandments - even simple ones. (thus a litany of cleansing rites instituted) Remember, the first wave of Israelites did not enter for lack of faith - as you noted... not "in your heart".

So, IMV, not a loophole but a principle.

 

[Kenny]

A loophole kind of like "... his faith was accounted as righteousness ... " ?

Moses does a nice job of explaining that a Jewish person is required to demonstrate the contents of the heart ( aka Faith ) by following all the commandments that were given.

Deut 8:2

2 And you shall remember the entire way on which the Lord, your God, led you these forty years in the desert, in order to afflict you to test you, to know what is in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not.
​

So, this idea that faith replaces law is a loophole, is it not? It goes against what Moses taught, right?

I am reminded of the serpent on the rod. The works of unbelief caused death to take dominion on the people when fiery serpents began killing people.

It wasn't "works" that saved them when they beheld the serpent on the pole. It was being made right when the looked with faith on the pole of the serpent.

For us, it is a statement of Jesus on the pole of his crucifixion. When we behold him as the answer for our sins (results of following The Serpent) - it isn't our works that brings salvation even as it wasn't works that brought salvation to those who gazed with faith on the bronze serpent on the pole but rather faith that brought them right standing again.

For us, Jesus became our sin, faith in His work brings us into righteousness for which we live by for "the just shall live by faith".

 

[dybmh]

So, for us, it isn't a loophole but rather how God set it up from the beginning,.

"for us"? Agreed! It's not a loophole for non-Jews. That part is accurately represented in the story of Abraham.

Certainly faith will carry works but works doesn't equate that you have faith. So faith is the object and the instrument.

If a Jewish person abstains from the commandents do they have faith in God as described by Moses? Do they have faith in the blessings and the curses in Deut 28?

Habakkuk 2:4b but the just shall live by his faith.

It's a very short book. But sin and idol worship are also mentioned. So faith is a component, but not a replacement.

Let's talk about things we agree on.

• A religious person has faith in God and Jesus for salvation shoots up a school because they believe they will be saved. Just or unjust?
• A religious person has faith in God and Jesus for salvation and robs a bank because they believe there will be no repurcussions. Just or unjust?
• A religious person has faith in God and Jesus for salvation burns their bible and writes another one claiming it was written by Jesus own hands. Just or unjust?
• A religious person with faith in God and Jesus gets up in the morning and worships the sun. Just or unjust?

So faith can lead someone astray just as much as it can lead someone to righteousness. Habakkuk's version of "just" is incomplete. Ezekiel's is better.

Ezekiel 18:5-9

5 So a man who is righteous and practices justice and righteousness,

6 And does not eat [offerings of meals] on the mountains, and does not lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel; neither defiles his fellow man's wife nor approaches a woman in her period of separation,

7 And wrongs no man; what has been pledged for a debt he returns; [he] has committed no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry, and clothes the naked with garments,

8 Does not lend on interest, nor does he take any increase on a loan, keeps his hand back from wrong, executes true judgment between man and man,

9 Has walked in My statutes, and has kept My ordinances to deal truly-he is a righteous man; he shall surely live, says the Lord God.
​

IMV, God understood man's inability to follow commandments - even simple ones.

I refer you back to Deut 30:11. " ... it is not too difficult for you ... " Maybe Moses misspoke?

So, IMV, not a loophole but a principle.

Its a loophole if it's used to discourage Jewish people from following the law as given. Abraham followed God's directives even when they were EXTREMELY painful. Ignoring these physical actual real world accomplishments takes the verse out of context and leads people into a misapprehension of what it means for a Jewish person to have faith.

 

[dybmh]

I am reminded of the serpent on the rod. The works of unbelief caused death to take dominion on the people when fiery serpents began killing people.

It wasn't "works" that saved them when they beheld the serpent on the pole. It was being made right when the looked with faith on the pole of the serpent.

1) The healing was actualizd by a divine decree. Moses was given instructions, the instructions were followed, people were healed. So the sequence is: God directs >>> directions are followed >>> healing occured.

2) That is one story. Moses asks the people to remember all the stories, the entire time in the wilderness.

3) Nadav and Avihu get zapped in spite of their faith. How do you explain that if faith is primary. If you're right, God should have welcomed their offering. What happened? Smoking tunics and corpses.

4) Korach wanted to everyone to serve God equally. His faith in God resulted in being swallowed by the earth. If you're right, God should have welcomed his offering as well.

Faith is a component, but it doesn't replace compliance with the letter of the law. That's not my opinion, that's what the story says.

 

[dybmh]

it isn't our works that brings salvation

But we can agree, I think I hope, that improper actions cancel and void that salvation.

 

[Alien826]

The point of this thread is:

Is it just to give someone instructions, encourage them, tell them "it's not too difficult", then intentionally make it so difficult that the person is forced to ask for assistance?

It's a morality and ethics question.

Let's say you want to teach your grandchild to ask for help, you think they're too independent and stubborn and arrogant such that they never acknowledge when they need assistance with a task.

So, you make a rule and tell your grandchild:

"I want you to learn to clean your room, There's several good reasons for this. Every morning after breakfast before you go to school there's 30 minutes of time. That's plenty of time to clean your room. It won't be too difficult for you. You can do it. If your room isn't clean, you will be punished. You can't be late for school, you only have 30 minutes, but that's plenty of time, I have faith in you."​

Your grandchild loves you, wants you to be pleased, accepts the directive onto themself. To be sure that the rule is followed they write down the rule word for word. In order to be sure that the room is clean, they take extra care of their room the night before. They plan in advance, get everything ready the night before. They contemplate what it means to have a clean room, not wanting to miss any possible detail. And each morning after breakfast, they successfully tidy up their room, making it clean per the directions.

Each morning for a week, you check your grandchild's room, and even though they followed the directions, you are not happy. You wanted them to fail, so that they would learn the lesson that they need to ask for help sometimes. So, the following week, during breakfast, you go into the child's room, and trash it. What ever planning and preparations the child made are now meaningless. The room cannot be cleaned before going to school. Part of the directions given ( please see above ) are "You cannot be late for school". So the child tidies up as best they can, and goes to school, confused about who messed up their room.

The child comes home and their mother is waiting for them. She tells the child ( similar to the prophets in the bible stories )

"Your grandfather is very cross with you. Your room wasn't clean before going to school. You broke your grandfather's rule and now you will be punished."
​

And the child explains:

"There must be some mistake or misunderstanding, I did my best, I cleaned up my room the night before, but someone went in there and messed it up during breakfast. I went to school on time like he asked, and I tidied up for the entire time I had. Grandfather said it wouldn't be too difficult, if he knew someone sabatoged my room, he will surely understand. Grandfather is just and has faith in me. He told me it wouldn't be too difficult for me."
​

And the mother says:

"Your grandfather refuses to speak to you, he told me, that you know the rules, you broke the rules, and he won't speak to you again until you follow the rules."
​

So the grandchild consults the rule as it's written:

• Grandfather wants me to learn to clean my room
• In between breakfast and school I will clean my room for 30 minutes
• Don't be late to school
• If the room isn't clean I will be punished

The grandchild starts to cry. Surely if they cry loud enough and long enough their Grandfather will have pity on them, and they can discuss the situation. The grandchild cries all night, but the grandfather refuses to speak to them.

For years this goes on, the grandchild does their best, tidies their room the night before, makes all the preparations, but during breakfast, Grandfather goes in and trashes the room. The room isn't clean, the child goes to school. When they come home it might be their mother, their father, their brother, sister, aunt or uncle who comes to reprimand the child. And the child cries every night begging for mercy.

Eventually, Grandfather sends a neighbor to talk to the child. The nieghbor stops the child on their way home from school and asks them what's wrong. The child explains:

"My Grandfather refuses to speak to me, he wants me to clean my room before school. So I do my best to make it nice the night before so I can follow his rule in the morning. But every morning during breakfast someone is messing it up, and I can't clean it myself. He also wants me to go to school on time, and I've been doing that, but the room isn't perfectly clean. I've been crying out to my Grandfather every night, but he won't listen."
​

So the neighbor suggests:

"Maybe if you had some help cleaning your room in the morning. Then you could follow the rule?"
​

The child responds:

"I wrote down the rule when it was given, I am supposed to clean my room myself. He didn't tell me to ask for help. Grandfather wants me to learn to do it. He said it would not be too difficult."
​

The neighbor says:

"It sounds to me like it is too difficult. Try this, after breakfast ask your brother and sister to help you clean your room so it's perfect, then your Grandfather will forgive you and speak to you again."
​

The child responds:

"But that would be breaking the rules. I'm supposed to clean my room."
​

The neighbor says:

"You've already broken the rules, try it and see what happens."
​

The child agrees. The next morning, the room gets trashed during breakfast. But with assistance the room gets clean. When the child comes home from school, and Grandfather is waiting. The child explains:

"Grandfather, I'm sorry that my room hasn't been clean all these years. I tried to follow your rule as best i could, but someone kept sabatoging it."
​

Grandfather responds:

"Yes, that was me. I've been trashing your room all these years. I wanted you to learn an important lesson. Sometimes you need to ask for help."
​

The child responds:

"But you told *me* to do it. You wanted me to break the rule? How is that fair? You told me it wouldn't be too difficult. You lied to me? You refused to speak to me all this time. All you had to do was tell me your true intention, and I would have asked for help a long time ago."
​

Grandfather responds:

"Yes I lied to you, yes you were supposed to break the rule."
​

The child has nothing to say. Their Grandfather isn't who they thought; he is a cruel liar and a cheat. The rule is meaningless, they stop cleaning their room, they stop going to school on time, and they stop listening to their Grandfather.

While I agree in principle, I'd put it another way. The problem with your example is that it is quite possible for the child to clean his room. What God (supposedly) does though is not to interfere with the cleaning but to set the bar so high that nobody could ever attain the required standard. Take lust as an obvious example. As a healthy heterosexual male, I have sexual feelings about women, and by any sensible morality there's nothing wrong with that. So a reasonable rule might be to not act on that feeling in a way that harms others. Unfortunately, many people would be able to obey that, so the idea of a "thought crime" has to be introduced to make it effectively impossible to obey. The writers of the scriptures (not God!) then introduce a totally disproportionate punishment and fancy "way out", which by some strange coincidence involves giving them a lot of money.

To adapt your story (sorry!), the grandfather insists that the room be cleaned to where not a single speck of dust remains. The punishment is being tortured to death. The way out is for the grandfather to torture another child to death.

 

[dybmh]

While I agree in principle, I'd put it another way. The problem with your example is that it is quite possible for the child to clean his room. What God (supposedly) does though is not to interfere with the cleaning but to set the bar so high that nobody could ever attain the required standard.

The orignal claim, which I objected to, was that God has intentionally exacerbated sin in spite of telling the Jewish people that the commandments were not too difficult. In order to illustrate what "exacerbating" would look like, God in my story intentionally trashes the room.

As a healthy heterosexual male, I have sexual feelings about women, and by any sensible morality there's nothing wrong with that. So a reasonable rule might be to not act on that feeling in a way that harms others.

And, that is my understanding of Jewish law. Feeling lust is not prohibited. That, imo, would not be acheivable.

Unfortunately, many people would be able to obey that, so the idea of a "thought crime" has to be introduced to make it effectively impossible to obey. The writers of the scriptures (not God!) then introduce a totally disproportionate punishment and fancy "way out", which by some strange coincidence involves giving them a lot of money.

Ah. Now I see where you're going with this.

To adapt your story (sorry!), the grandfather insists that the room be cleaned to where not a single speck of dust remains. The punishment is being tortured to death. The way out is for the grandfather to torture another child to death.

And that is a valid criticism of Christian theology. Thank you,

 

[DNB]

This is very good. IMV

And then there is the difference of how "we" interpret the law and how God meant the law to say.

In other words, as lawyers tend to do, they try to twist what was written to find a loophole in its wording to be declared innocent when they are guilty.

for an example.. "don't commit murder" - our interpretation is when we take a life when, in reality, God's perspective is different for Jesus said, Matt 6:21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

And again, when we think "don't commit adultery" and we see it as an act God sees it as: Matt 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Which makes God's holiness so holy as to understand that man, in his works, cannot achieve unity with God.

Thus, the Savior! (At least within the context of my signature)

Jesus Christ, his atoning work on the cross, his resurrection life worked in us that brings us into complete harmony with God for tho our sins be as red as scarlet, He makes us white as wool, and tho we be so sinful as to be crimson, He makes us white as snow.

For me, oh the love and mercy of God.

Jesus did enlighten us as to the spirit of the Law - whereas secular interpretations tend to miss the depth entirely, often leading to exploitation. What a testimony when one of the most noblest of vocations have become synonymous with deceit and corruption.

Yes, I believe that that is the ultimate purpose of the realization, of how the Law reveals the utter depravity of sin - illuminating God's mercy. And, not how others may have misconstrued the notion that 'Law exacerbates sin'. It does, but for the purpose of both, establishing God's righteousness, and then, His ineffable mercy!

...I wish that I had added that final point (your last remark) to my previous post.
Thank you!

 

[DNB]

25 “There will be signs in the sun, the moon, and the stars and on the earth distress among nations confused by the roaring of the sea and the waves.
26 People will faint from fear and foreboding of what is coming upon the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
27 Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in a cloud’ with power and great glory.
28 Now when these things begin to take place, stand up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”
- Luke 21 -

Aye, our "saviour" will come in a cloud with power and great glory .. just like Jesus ascended to heaven, he will return in like manner.

Sorry, not sure what to make of your post - I thought that you were previously contesting everything that I said on this matter, ...not to mention that you're a Muslim also???

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And then there is the difference of how "we" interpret the law and how God meant the law to say.

Actually God placed the AUTHORITY to interpret the law into the hands of the Levites and Judges/Rabbis in Deuteronomy 17:8-13

8If a matter eludes you in judgment, between blood and blood, between judgment and judgment, or between lesion and lesion, words of dispute in your cities, then you shall rise and go up to the place the Lord, your God, chooses. חכִּ֣י יִפָּלֵא֩ מִמְּךָ֨ דָבָ֜ר לַמִּשְׁפָּ֗ט בֵּֽין־דָּ֨ם | לְדָ֜ם בֵּֽין־דִּ֣ין לְדִ֗ין וּבֵ֥ין נֶ֨גַע֙ לָנֶ֔גַע דִּבְרֵ֥י רִיבֹ֖ת בִּשְׁעָרֶ֑יךָ וְקַמְתָּ֣ וְעָלִ֔יתָ אֶל־הַ֨מָּק֔וֹם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִבְחַ֛ר יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ בּֽוֹ:
9And you shall come to the Levitic kohanim and to the judge who will be in those days, and you shall inquire, and they will tell you the words of judgment. טוּבָאתָ֗ אֶל־הַכֹּֽהֲנִים֙ הַֽלְוִיִּ֔ם וְאֶל־הַ֨שֹּׁפֵ֔ט אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִֽהְיֶ֖ה בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֑ם וְדָֽרַשְׁתָּ֙ וְהִגִּ֣ידוּ לְךָ֔ אֵ֖ת דְּבַ֥ר הַמִּשְׁפָּֽט:
10And you shall do according to the word they tell you, from the place the Lord will choose, and you shall observe to do according to all they instruct you. יוְעָשִׂ֗יתָ עַל־פִּ֤י הַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יַגִּ֣ידוּ לְךָ֔ מִן־הַמָּק֣וֹם הַה֔וּא אֲשֶׁ֖ר יִבְחַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֑ה וְשָֽׁמַרְתָּ֣ לַֽעֲשׂ֔וֹת כְּכֹ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר יוֹרֽוּךָ:
11According to the law they instruct you and according to the judgment they say to you, you shall do; you shall not divert from the word they tell you, either right or left. יאעַל־פִּ֨י הַתּוֹרָ֜ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר יוֹר֗וּךָ וְעַל־הַמִּשְׁפָּ֛ט אֲשֶׁר־יֹֽאמְר֥וּ לְךָ֖ תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֑ה לֹ֣א תָס֗וּר מִן־הַדָּבָ֛ר אֲשֶׁר־יַגִּ֥ידוּ לְךָ֖ יָמִ֥ין וּשְׂמֹֽאל:
12And the man who acts intentionally, not obeying the kohen who stands there to serve the Lord, your God, or to the judge that man shall die, and you shall abolish evil from Israel. יבוְהָאִ֞ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יַֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה בְזָד֗וֹן לְבִלְתִּ֨י שְׁמֹ֤עַ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן֙ הָֽעֹמֵ֞ד לְשָׁ֤רֶת שָׁם֙ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ א֖וֹ אֶל־הַשֹּׁפֵ֑ט וּמֵת֙ הָאִ֣ישׁ הַה֔וּא וּבִֽעַרְתָּ֥ הָרָ֖ע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵֽל:
13And all the people shall listen and fear, and they shall no longer act wantonly. יגוְכָל־הָעָ֖ם יִשְׁמְע֣וּ וְיִרָ֑אוּ וְלֹ֥א יְזִיד֖וּן עֽוֹד:

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sorry, not sure what to make of your post..

Yes
I'm sure your interpretation of those verses from Luke, is different from mine.
You see Jesus' second coming as a final happening?
You don't believe as the Book of Revelation reveals, presumably..
i.e. that the second coming will result in 1000 years of his reign on earth, with satan chained in a pit.

There are so many different beliefs .. Catholic/Orthodox .. Mormon .. Seventh day adventist etc. etc.

 

[DNB]

Yes
I'm sure your interpretation of those verses from Luke, is different from mine.
You see Jesus' second coming as a final happening?
You don't believe as the Book of Revelation reveals, presumably..
i.e. that the second coming will result in 1000 years of his reign on earth, with satan chained in a pit.

There are so many different beliefs .. Catholic/Orthodox .. Mormon .. Seventh day adventist etc. etc.

I actually do not have my eschatology worked out thoroughly, at this point. So, i don't necessarily disagree with your interpretation of the Scripture that you quoted.
But, again, I'm surprised to see you seemingly in agreement with me, especially as a Muslim?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I actually do not have my eschatology worked out thoroughly, at this point..

OK fair enough.

.. I'm surprised to see you seemingly in agreement with me, especially as a Muslim?

..I was raised as a Christian, but most Muslims believe that Jesus will return, to fight the ant-Christ / beast, and usher in a reign of global peace.

Most Jews believe something similar, but have their own idea about who the Messiah will be. [i.e. not Jesus]

 

[DNB]

OK fair enough.


..I was raised as a Christian, but most Muslims believe that Jesus will return, to fight the ant-Christ / beast, and usher in a reign of global peace.

Most Jews believe something similar, but have their own idea about who the Messiah will be. [i.e. not Jesus]

I didn't know that Jesus' ascension and return were Islamic tenets - maybe not mainstream?
Thanks!

 

[Kenny]

But we can agree, I think I hope, that improper actions cancel and void that salvation.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Christian faith and it is, imv, quite wrong to have mankind the determinant of when salvation is void.

What does one classify as "improper actions"? If actions cancel salvation, what hope did David have when he committed murder and adultery? Can one be saved twice?

Yes, there is a point that one can loose their salvation but to quantify that is more difficult