Jesus is all that really matters

[blü 2]

Holy Bible - Matthew 13:36-43
Jesus Christ has told us in the explanation of the parable of the wheat and tares (or weeds), that the evil one (Satan) has sons (tares or weeds) in the world.

The sons of the Devil will burn in Hell.

Only the righteous will have eternal life in the kingdom of God.

You think the world is black and white?

That your side knows what 'righteous' is and anyone who disagrees with you doesn't?

No need for shades of justice, no distinction between greater and lesser merits, greater and lesser wrongs?

That there can be no greater, more wonderful vindication of your view than seeing those of your fellow humans who disagree with you, tormented with fire, mutilation, deprivation while you play your harp in the airconditioned mansions of heaven; and better yet, if you forget to look for a million years or so, no worry, the disagreeable ones are still the subject of endless agonies and horrors?

By golly, I'd hate to have had your teachers, I'd hate to work for your boss.

 

[AlertChristians]

You think the world is black and white?

That your side knows what 'righteous' is and anyone who disagrees with you doesn't?

No need for shades of justice, no distinction between greater and lesser merits, greater and lesser wrongs?

That there can be no greater, more wonderful vindication of your view than seeing those of your fellow humans who disagree with you, tormented with fire, mutilation, deprivation while you play your harp in the airconditioned mansions of heaven; and better yet, if you forget to look for a million years or so, no worry, the disagreeable ones are still the subject of endless agonies and horrors?

By golly, I'd hate to have had your teachers, I'd hate to work for your boss.

Sons of the devil are not scientifically, medically human. Science and medicine are grand frauds, covering up the truth, along with much of the world, trying to make it look like "all men are created equal". The Holy Bible accounts for supernatural parentage, to include Satan fathering children for thousands of years.

 

[jonathan180iq]

So you assume this thread was made for atheists such as yourself? I believe what you're doing here is actually the real rhetoric.

No. I assume that this thread was made for anyone and everyone, as it's listed in the General Religious Debates section of the forum. If you would prefer to only engage with like-minded individuals, there are DIRs for that.

My point was that most people of faith assume that their messaging makes universal sense. But for people who haven't actually accepted the premise of any faith system, it really just sounds bizarre. You know, like asking someone ignorant of the Christian jargon if they've "bathed in the blood of the lamb"... On it's own, that phrase sounds psychotic.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The Holy Bible accounts for supernatural parentage, to include Satan fathering children for thousands of years.

Citations, please.

 

[sojourner]

Speak for yourself. YOU may not have any verifiable evidence that anyone loves YOU, but I have plenty of verifiable evidence that there are people in my life who love ME. The evidence is in their behavior and their actions. Can a person's feelings of love change? Absolutely! That's why half a marriages don't last. I have TRUST based on VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE. Can people lie about feeling love? Sure they can. But the fact that people can lie about being in love doesn't mean that love doesn't exist. A person could ALSO lie about seeing orange when they really see blue. But again, that doesn't mean that the color orange doesn't exist.

Not sure why this concept is so hard for you to grasp.

Because there’s no way to verify the evidence. Therefore, it’s not evidence. It’s trust.

 

[blü 2]

Sons of the devil are not scientifically, medically human. Science and medicine are grand frauds, covering up the truth

I define truth as 'conformity with / correspondence with / accurate reflection of reality'.

And I define reality as nature / the set of all things with objective existence / the realm of the physical sciences.

How do you define truth? What's the test for you as to whether a statement is true or not?

And how do you define 'reality'.

The Holy Bible accounts for supernatural parentage, to include Satan fathering children for thousands of years.

Where does the bible say Satan fathers any children at all?

And why would any impartial person think that was an accurate statement about reality?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Because there’s no way to verify the evidence. Therefore, it’s not evidence. It’s trust.

So sad that the people in your life who love you don't ever verify their love for you. But AGAIN... you can ONLY speak for yourself. YOU may simply blindly trust that some people love you. Personally I receive verification on a near daily basis from the people who love me. Thus MY trust is based on VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE, not the blind trust that YOU rely on.

 

[sojourner]

So sad that the people in your life who love you don't ever verify their love for you. But AGAIN... you can ONLY speak for yourself. YOU may simply blindly trust that some people love you. Personally I receive verification on a near daily basis from the people who love me. Thus MY trust is based on VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE, not the blind trust that YOU rely on.

Nope. The “verification” is in no way factual, because it is not testable objectively. You may trust that the love you are shown and told is real — and I’m sure you do! But trust and verification are two different things. You believe people love you because you trust that their words and actions are honest, not because those words and actions can be objectively, factually verified.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Nope. The “verification” is in no way factual, because it is not testable objectively. You may trust that the love you are shown and told is real — and I’m sure you do! But trust and verification are two different things. You believe people love you because you trust that their words and actions are honest, not because those words and actions can be objectively, factually verified.

What a bizarre definition you have for verifiable evidence. By your logic, NOTHING can ever be verified. I see some apples on a table. I count 3 of them. I ask half a dozen other people how many apples THEY see on the table. The fact that all 6 of them tell me that they also see 3 apples is NOT verifiable evidence that 3 apples are on the table, because all 6 of the other people could be LYING about how many they actually see. In fact, by your strained logic, counting them myself isn't verifiable evidence, because for all I know my eyes are LYING to me about what they see.

Oh, and what exactly is the difference between someone who genuinely loves you and someone who behaves in every was as IF they love you? If they treat me EXACTLY the same way as someone who genuinely loves me, the love is JUST AS genuine to me, regardless of whether or not the person demonstrating the love actually FEELS the love.

 

[sojourner]

What a bizarre definition you have for verifiable evidence. By your logic, NOTHING can ever be verified. I see some apples on a table. I count 3 of them. I ask half a dozen other people how many apples THEY see on the table. The fact that all 6 of them tell me that they also see 3 apples is NOT verifiable evidence that 3 apples are on the table, because all 6 of the other people could be LYING about how many they actually see. In fact, by your strained logic, counting them myself isn't verifiable evidence, because for all I know my eyes are LYING to me about what they see.

Oh, and what exactly is the difference between someone who genuinely loves you and someone who behaves in every was as IF they love you? If they treat me EXACTLY the same way as someone who genuinely loves me, the love is JUST AS genuine to me, regardless of whether or not the person demonstrating the love actually FEELS the love.

1) the apples can be quantified objectively. Love cannot.
2) Sure, that love is “just as genuine”... until you find out it never was ...

That’s why some belief is based on trust, and some is based on evidence. The evidence of love is, largely, heresay, and generally would not be admissible as evidence in court.
“But, Your Honor, I love him.”
“Oh? Prove it.”
“I rub his feet every night and tell him I love him.”
“Adulterers may do the same thing. That’s no evidence.”

Until some objective standards, wholly exclusive to the emotion, can be identified and applied, words and actions are not evidence. You may (again) trust that what you’re being told is true, but that is wholly different from being presented with evidence. Yet, you still believe it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

1) the apples can be quantified objectively. Love cannot.
2) Sure, that love is “just as genuine”... until you find out it never was ...

That’s why some belief is based on trust, and some is based on evidence. The evidence of love is, largely, heresay, and generally would not be admissible as evidence in court.
“But, Your Honor, I love him.”
“Oh? Prove it.”
“I rub his feet every night and tell him I love him.”
“Adulterers may do the same thing. That’s no evidence.”

Until some objective standards, wholly exclusive to the emotion, can be identified and applied, words and actions are not evidence. You may (again) trust that what you’re being told is true, but that is wholly different from being presented with evidence. Yet, you still believe it.

Wrong.

 

[sojourner]

Wrong.

Nope. Not wrong. If you ever decide to become an attorney on the side, I wouldn’t quit my day job, if I were you.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Nope. Not wrong. If you ever decide to become an attorney on the side, I wouldn’t quit my day job, if I were you.

If I go up against attorneys who use ridiculous logic like you do, I'll do just fine.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But, of course the question remains... If Jesus' sacrifice redeems all sin then what sin could you possibly do that's greater than the power of Jesus' sacrifice? Unless of course, he's not as powerful as they say. If Jesus' sacrifice was eternal then placing conditions such as worrying about your own sins hardly sells the fact that one believes that. If Jesus died for only sins up to the point of his death, then you limit him in power massively, imho.

I find the unforgivable sin of Matthew 12:32 is the sin one that one could possible do.
That is why Matthew 20:28 says that Jesus' ransom covers MANY and it does Not say all.
To me there is a Big difference between worrying about ones own sins and deliberately, willfully sinning.
Just as a loving child wants to please a loving parent and does Not worry about that but simply chooses to obey.
Because God resurrected Jesus from his death, then there is No limit to Jesus in resurrection power.
- Revelation 1:18.

 

[sojourner]

If I go up against attorneys who use ridiculous logic like you do, I'll do just fine.

Yeah... I remember my first beer, too.

 

[Mindmaster]

I find the unforgivable sin of Matthew 12:32 is the sin one that one could possible do.
That is why Matthew 20:28 says that Jesus' ransom covers MANY and it does Not say all.
To me there is a Big difference between worrying about ones own sins and deliberately, willfully sinning.
Just as a loving child wants to please a loving parent and does Not worry about that but simply chooses to obey.
Because God resurrected Jesus from his death, then there is No limit to Jesus in resurrection power.
- Revelation 1:18.

I find it strange that you equate the obey as the sign of love. Sin is a relative concept, you cannot sin if you don't believe in sin. Morality and ethics are only as useful as they aid the fundamental needs of survival and need modification the moment they start moving against that end. That's why no book is useful as a recipe list or has the solution... You may have to get your hands dirty and do some nasty things even in your own view a few times in your life, but for the ultimate good.

As far as the holy spook, neither the bible nor anyone else really has much of an idea of what that is other than some speculation. My speculation on the subject is simply the misogynistic culture of the church founders simply couldn't have a female deity in the station. The original Semitic trinity was El (aka Jehovah by the Hebrews), Ashtara (his goddess wife), and the Elohim (sons and daughters of them, which likely became angels later...). It's obvious to me that rather being a divinely inspired modification of religion it was more that the priest caste became more and more male and started editing the bits they didn't like. As these religions lost they're mystical groundings all they had was academic or political motivations left to them. In any case, I'll not worry about offending the Holy Spook that never existed.

 

[74x12]

I'm arguing from the perspective that documents have a meaning that can be determined by reasoned enquiry; and that, while this may not exclude some alternative possibilities, it may clearly exclude others.

If the texts attribute statements in direct speech to Jesus about some topic on not fewer than sixteen occasions, and all without contradiction, then we can determine something about what the authors of those texts were trying to communicate.

So, as I said, my argument is not with beliefs to the contrary ─ people are free to believe as pleases them. My argument is with calling those texts in aid of beliefs to the contrary.

I don't agree with your way of thinking about this because the scriptures are not so easy to understand from "reasoned enquiry" alone. It's my firm belief that you must be led by God to understand them. That being said you malign my position by claiming I can interpret things however I want. No, just no.

However, I'll give the book of John a crack for you; just to show you it's not so plain and simple as you suppose.

In the book of John it's pretty obvious that the author is saying that Jesus is God.

John 1:1 makes that much easily clear. The Word was with God and the Word was God.

Jewish authorship:
The arguments from Arianism that this is speaking of "a" god are flawed for a few reasons. First of all the author is a Jew and that's not a Jewish idea. The author is obviously familiar with the Torah and it's commandments. Including "Hear oh Israel Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah." And "Thou shalt have no other elohim before me."

So the concept of two gods is against Judaism and it's silly to think that the Jewish author of John would be promoting the worship of two gods.

Influence from Greek philosophy?
Jewish authorship also casts serious doubt on such ideas as that the author is speaking of the so called "divine logos" of Greek philosophy. If the author is a Jew then what does he have to do with Greek philosophy? So if the author's views on the "Word" can be explained without resorting to Greek philosophy and instead by resorting to Jewish literal; especially the Torah and Tanakh. Then that is what should be done rather than assuming the author is influenced by foreign(gentile, pagan) philosophy.

So in understanding the "Word" that was made flesh we should look to 1st century Jewish ideas of the Word of God.

Context:
Secondly, if the author is really promoting the worship of two gods then we should be able to actually see that in the context. Meaning why would the author just stop with a statement like "The Word was with God and the Word was "a" God"? Especially since this can more easily be translated as "The Word was with God and the Word was God".

Therefore Arianists need more proof to show John actually meant to be speaking of two gods rather than one.

This proof they do not have. In fact when we compare John 10:30 with John 1:1 we see an obvious link. Meaning that the author here is showing us exactly how he views the relationship of the Word with God. Jesus is essentially the Word made flesh, but somehow He is "one" with the Father.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
I and my Father are one. (John 10:30)

The truth:
The Jewish concept of "the truth" is that God(Jehovah) is the God of truth. Essentially the truth is God. So when Jesus claims to be " the way, the truth, and the life" It's a claim of divinity. And we further see this in the book of John when Jesus speaks of the "Spirit of truth" that "proceeds from the Father" who they(his disciples) know because He "dwells with them". See: John 14:17, John 15:26, John 16:13. So Jesus is basically claiming here that He is the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father (Obviously indwelling human flesh). According to Jesus (in the book of John) He (the Spirit of truth/Jesus) is with them but will be in them. So Jesus says "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." (John 14:18)

This is further collaborated in other Jewish writings such as 1st Esdras chapter 4:35-41. God is the "God of truth" and "Great is the Truth and mighty above all things".

The Father revealed in the flesh:
The author of John also makes it kind of obvious that Jesus is claiming to be God revealed in the flesh when Jesus says "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?" This was in reply to Philip asking Jesus to "show us the Father". (John 14:8-9)

So Jesus the Son of God is "The Word of God" and "the Truth". This is how the Son declares the God that no one can see. (John 1:18) He declares Him just by being. Because He is the "Truth" and the "Word made flesh". In other words, Jesus is all of God that can be seen.

Looking at other writings attributed to John we find that in 1 John 3:1-6 that John makes no distinction between the Father and the Son. But speaks of them as One.

1 John 3 King James Version (KJV)
3 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

 

[blü 2]

I don't agree with your way of thinking about this because the scriptures are not so easy to understand from "reasoned enquiry" alone. It's my firm belief that you must be led by God to understand them. That being said you malign my position by claiming I can interpret things however I want. No, just no.

However, I'll give the book of John a crack for you; just to show you it's not so plain and simple as you suppose.

In the book of John it's pretty obvious that the author is saying that Jesus is God.

John 1:1 makes that much easily clear. The Word was with God and the Word was God.

Jewish authorship:
The arguments from Arianism that this is speaking of "a" god are flawed for a few reasons. First of all the author is a Jew and that's not a Jewish idea. The author is obviously familiar with the Torah and it's commandments. Including "Hear oh Israel Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah." And "Thou shalt have no other elohim before me."

So the concept of two gods is against Judaism and it's silly to think that the Jewish author of John would be promoting the worship of two gods.

Influence from Greek philosophy?
Jewish authorship also casts serious doubt on such ideas as that the author is speaking of the so called "divine logos" of Greek philosophy. If the author is a Jew then what does he have to do with Greek philosophy? So if the author's views on the "Word" can be explained without resorting to Greek philosophy and instead by resorting to Jewish literal; especially the Torah and Tanakh. Then that is what should be done rather than assuming the author is influenced by foreign(gentile, pagan) philosophy.

So in understanding the "Word" that was made flesh we should look to 1st century Jewish ideas of the Word of God.

Context:
Secondly, if the author is really promoting the worship of two gods then we should be able to actually see that in the context. Meaning why would the author just stop with a statement like "The Word was with God and the Word was "a" God"? Especially since this can more easily be translated as "The Word was with God and the Word was God".

Therefore Arianists need more proof to show John actually meant to be speaking of two gods rather than one.

This proof they do not have. In fact when we compare John 10:30 with John 1:1 we see an obvious link. Meaning that the author here is showing us exactly how he views the relationship of the Word with God. Jesus is essentially the Word made flesh, but somehow He is "one" with the Father.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
I and my Father are one. (John 10:30)

The truth:
The Jewish concept of "the truth" is that God(Jehovah) is the God of truth. Essentially the truth is God. So when Jesus claims to be " the way, the truth, and the life" It's a claim of divinity. And we further see this in the book of John when Jesus speaks of the "Spirit of truth" that "proceeds from the Father" who they(his disciples) know because He "dwells with them". See: John 14:17, John 15:26, John 16:13. So Jesus is basically claiming here that He is the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father (Obviously indwelling human flesh). According to Jesus (in the book of John) He (the Spirit of truth/Jesus) is with them but will be in them. So Jesus says "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." (John 14:18)

This is further collaborated in other Jewish writings such as 1st Esdras chapter 4:35-41. God is the "God of truth" and "Great is the Truth and mighty above all things".

The Father revealed in the flesh:
The author of John also makes it kind of obvious that Jesus is claiming to be God revealed in the flesh when Jesus says "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?" This was in reply to Philip asking Jesus to "show us the Father". (John 14:8-9)

So Jesus the Son of God is "The Word of God" and "the Truth". This is how the Son declares the God that no one can see. (John 1:18) He declares Him just by being. Because He is the "Truth" and the "Word made flesh". In other words, Jesus is all of God that can be seen.

Looking at other writings attributed to John we find that in 1 John 3:1-6 that John makes no distinction between the Father and the Son. But speaks of them as One.

1 John 3 King James Version (KJV)
3 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

Just quote me the bit where Jesus says "I am God". That will save a lot of time.

 

[OtherSheep]

"Know ye not that you are the Temple of God?", 1 Cor. 3:16.

The Pauline Temple of God, in context:
"10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon... 14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

Paul's words will save you?

But Jesus says His words will save you:

Matthew 12:48-50 "He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of Myself; but the Father which sent Me, He gave Me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that His commandment is Life Everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto Me, so I speak."

And they're definitely not the same set of words.
Yet both sets of words are being called our salvation. So... who's right?

 

[Ellen Brown]

The Pauline Temple of God, in context:
"10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon... 14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

Paul's words will save you?

But Jesus says His words will save you:

Matthew 12:48-50 "He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of Myself; but the Father which sent Me, He gave Me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that His commandment is Life Everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto Me, so I speak."

And they're definitely not the same set of words.
Yet both sets of words are being called our judge. So... who's right?

Sorry, I don't know anything at all about the "Kingdom Gospel" group, and in my research I tend to take the KJV fairly literally. I've encountered very strange religious teaching in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, so I'll have to read more about your interpretations when I get the time. I'm very wary of folk that put their own spin on otherwise simple scripture. Have you done that?

I think that making scripture needlessly inscrutable is a tool of the shaitan.