the right religion

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I beleive John the Baptist whenhe said "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."

I believe everyone sins before recieving Jesus as Lord and Savior and those sins need to be forgiven. Why would God sin and have to forgive Himself? It just wouldn't happen. So as long as Jesus is Lord there is no sin that needs to be forgiven.

John the Baptist would later send messengers to ask "are you the one who is supposed to come?"

So long as Jesus is Lord there is no sin that needs to be forgiven? Then why tell us to pray in such a manner? Was it only for that time being?

And if no sin is to be forgiven...then that would include believing other Gods...only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit...whatever that means.

 

[Muffled]

have you not heard we are all sons of God?

I believe all people are sons of God by creation but only Christians are sons of God by inspiration.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I believe all people are sons of God by creation but only Christians are sons of God by inspiration.

By inspiration?

 

[Muffled]

John the Baptist would later send messengers to ask "are you the one who is supposed to come?"

So long as Jesus is Lord there is no sin that needs to be forgiven? Then why tell us to pray in such a manner? Was it only for that time being?

And if no sin is to be forgiven...then that would include believing other Gods...only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit...whatever that means.

I believe John the Baptist had ideas of what the Messiah should be like. He was correct in understanding that the Messiah would be a Savior but incorrect in thinking that Jesus would deliver the Jews from thier enemies at that time. And I will speculate that he was hoping to be delivered from prison as well.

I believe the problem lies in the fact that we don't always allow Jesus to be Lord but like to take back control of our own lives. That leads to sin. However in geneeral God is respomsible for us because in general we have made Him Lord.

I think a parable would help. There is an ad on TV about a bank that gives a man a valise filled with 100,000 dollars and told to hold it until the person returns. While the banker is there the person won't abscond with the money but when he leaves he could be tempted to do so but I gurantee someone is watching to make sure he doesn't.

I believe Jesus does not believe in other gods so His lordship does not include that. Jesus does not blaspheme so His lordship does not include that.

 

[Muffled]

By inspiration?

I believe The Holy Spirit resides in those who have received Jesus as Lord and Savior which makes us sons of God as Jesus was Son of God.

 

[metis]

I believe all people are sons of God by creation but only Christians are sons of God by inspiration.

So, apparently the prophets are not "sons of God by inspiration"?

 

[1robin]

So, apparently the prophets are not "sons of God by inspiration"?

He did not state it this way but I believe all people who are sons of God became such through faith. Christians look backwards to a messiah and OT Hebrews looked forward to a messiah. It is faith in a messiah that makes one the son of God and that is not a Christian exclusive possibility, though Christians do comprise the vast majority.

 

[metis]

It is faith in a messiah that makes one the son of God and that is not a Christian exclusive possibility, though Christians do comprise the vast majority.

The issue of a future messiah and that of being a "son of God" are two entirely different items. Traditionally, all male Jews are "sons of God".

Now, the "son of man" reference indeed may be viewed as possibly being a messianic reference, but that's hardly a slam-dunk as that reference is really not explained in the Tanakh. BTW, there have been many messiahs.

Added: oops, after reviewing your post, I noticed that you said "He did not state it this way but I believe all people who are sons of God became such through faith. Christians look backwards to a messiah and OT Hebrews looked forward to a messiah", so I accidentally just repeated part of what you already had posted. Apparently, I didn't have enough coffee today.

 

[1robin]

The issue of a future messiah and that of being a "son of God" are two entirely different items. Traditionally, all male Jews are "sons of God".

The traditions of man are causally impotent. Claiming something has no power to make it so. Since Israel has quite a long history in betraying and being severed from God by those betrayals I think the claim can be seen to be a contrivance. There is an additional possibility concerning what is meant by the term. I think it should be stated what a Child of God is up front since what it traditionally has meant is not agreed to by you.

Now, the "son of man" reference indeed may be viewed as possibly being a messianic reference, but that's hardly a slam-dunk as that reference is really not explained in the Tanakh. BTW, there have been many messiahs.

I think you misunderstood my claims at some point. I am not talking about what Christ is labeled as. Adams sin forced God to sever man kind from himself. We are all born (even Jews) under that curse and something must transpire to rectify this. I do not think what we label ourselves will make any difference. I can call myself a pelican but if I jump of abridge I won't fly.

Added: oops, after reviewing your post, I noticed that you said "He did not state it this way but I believe all people who are sons of God became such through faith. Christians look backwards to a messiah and OT Hebrews looked forward to a messiah", so I accidentally just repeated part of what you already had posted. Apparently, I didn't have enough coffee today.

No problem but I am currently lost here. Maybe you could restate.

 

[metis]

The traditions of man are causally impotent. Claiming something has no power to make it so.

I'm really not sure where this is coming from, unless it refers to interpretation, which we all do, btw. I do believe we understand what "sons of God" actually means, which is actually quite clear of one looks at references in the Tanakh.

Since Israel has quite a long history in betraying and being severed from God by those betrayals I think the claim can be seen to be a contrivance. There is an additional possibility concerning what is meant by the term.

That's very much a worm's-eye view since there are a great many references to the good we've done, which one can ascertain of they actually read the Tanakh. And have Christians been somehow perfect? Have you been perfect? I haven't, but Torah provides us with information about how God forgives, with or without the Temple sacrifices.

I think it should be stated what a Child of God is up front since what it traditionally has meant is not agreed to by you.

I made no reference one way or another to a "Child of God".

We are all born (even Jews) under that curse and something must transpire to rectify this.

Maybe you were. Actually, the idea of "original sin" is a Christian interpretation but never has been a Jewish one. The idea that one already has sinned just by being born makes so little sense to us. If this were to be true, then you and I should have been put on trial right after we were born. Do we put children in prison for an act that maybe a grandparent committed? Hardly.

An alternative interpretation that makes much more sense is that the sins of one generation affect future generations, much like if I sin, it can often affect some others near me.

No problem but I am currently lost here. Maybe you could restate.

Not important.

Finally, I have no desire whatsoever to get into some sort of debate on these matters, so chances are this will be my final post here. I'm very familiar with Christian theology, so I doubt if there's anything that you can hit me with that I haven't run across many times before. Therefore, I see nothing to be gained by any kind of argument or debate. If you want an explanation, I can generally provide you with that, but if you want to debate, I'm really not interested.

BTW, since I'm non-theistic, I really feel uncomfortable in such a debate anyway.

Shalom

 

[1robin]

I'm really not sure where this is coming from, unless it refers to interpretation, which we all do, btw. I do believe we understand what "sons of God" actually means, which is actually quite clear of one looks at references in the Tanakh.

Nothing becomes factual by virtue of it being a tradition. In fact reliance on tradition is one of Catholicism worst crimes in my opinion. Traditions are traditions because they are not facts. They may be true but they are not true because they are traditions. If you feel that what you stated is consistent with what Hebrew tradition defines God as that would not make it consistent with what Christians think a son of God is. In that case we would have to try and resolve which is the best definition, that is why I asked. I will offer a very suggestive issue that should serve to rule out the definition you provided but can get as deep as you wish.

Man was separated from God by virtue of Adams sin. A Hebrew would not circumvent that simply by being born to a Jewish family.

I regard claiming that a person is a son of God by virtue of being born to a certain set of parents or the existence of tradition to render the term "son of God" into meaninglessness. It would make little sense to discuss who was a son if we disagree what a son of God is.

That's very much a worm's-eye view since there are a great many references to the good we've done, which one can ascertain of they actually read the Tanakh. And have Christians been somehow perfect? Have you been perfect? I haven't, but Torah provides us with information about how God forgives, with or without the Temple sacrifices.

Of course Israel has done much good. I am one of Israel's biggest supporters. My comments were never meant to suggest they were bad people. Only to show that their being Hebrews did not prevent God from severing them from his presence when they messed up. They were still Jewish but no longer sons, the for what makes a son of God is not what makes a Jewish person Jewish. If you doubt my view on Israel in general just search my posts a bit. Are you really hoping to be adopted into God's family by the merits of genetics? I do not think clearer teaching against a view exists in the Bible.

I made no reference one way or another to a "Child of God".

I must be totally lost. I thought the debate was what makes a person a "son of God" or a "child of God". Even I find it hard to believe I misunderstood that.

Maybe you were. Actually, the idea of "original sin" is a Christian interpretation but never has been a Jewish one. The idea that one already has sinned just by being born makes so little sense to us. If this were to be true, then you and I should have been put on trial right after we were born. Do we put children in prison for an act that maybe a grandparent committed? Hardly.

It was not original sin that was the important issue. It was our being born severed from God. However even if that was debatable Israel was severed many times in history from God even though they were still Jewish.

An alternative interpretation that makes much more sense is that the sins of one generation affect future generations, much like if I sin, it can often affect some others near me.

Even in that case sin separates us from God. How is the race we belong to going to undue that? I disagree with what makes the most sense but I do not think in this context it matters. We are all separated from God by sin. The way to bridge this gap that makes the most sense is Christ not random genetics.

Finally, I have no desire whatsoever to get into some sort of debate on these matters, so chances are this will be my final post here. I'm very familiar with Christian theology, so I doubt if there's anything that you can hit me with that I haven't run across many times before. Therefore, I see nothing to be gained by any kind of argument or debate. If you want an explanation, I can generally provide you with that, but if you want to debate, I'm really not interested.

BTW, since I'm non-theistic, I really feel uncomfortable in such a debate anyway.

Shalom

Please put your statements about getting out of a debate up front in your posts. Selah,

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It is just wrong to use personal attacks and belittling words such as "stamp your foot," or other phrases implying immaturity, or claiming they have low levels of education, when you don't like someone's answer, etc.

Not only is it not "wrong", its even appropriate in some cases. And under the circumstances, that was probably the MOST polite thing I could have said.

 

[Ingledsva]

Not only is it not "wrong", its even appropriate in some cases. And under the circumstances, that was probably the MOST polite thing I could have said.

I am well aware of how he is, and what he says to people, as I mentioned.

However, we are smart and thoughtful, and should strive to not sink to that level.

Just keep pounding away with the facts.

*

 

[1robin]

As stated over and over, and TRUE; how you came to your religious choice, is no different then how he came to his, or any other religion that people conclude is right for them, correct, etc.

*

Then prove it. Type out specifically what I used to arrive at my faith and type exactly how he arrived at faith in enough detail in both cases to make the claim worth typing and so it can be meaningfully evaluated. Even if you were right (which you aren't, you also have no idea exactly what either of us used to arrive at faith in the first place) what is the point to all of this? I wanted to know what texts he used so I could evaluate them. Apparently you think Christianity the only faith that may be contended and resented my questioning any other, but what does that have to do with anything?

 

[1robin]

It is just wrong to use personal attacks and belittling words such as "stamp your foot," or other phrases implying immaturity, or claiming they have low levels of education, when you don't like someone's answer, etc.

I have told 1Robin the same thing when he tries this on me. Perhaps he will understand why with your post.

*

I have posted very minimal personal commentaries and only those that I can't find an alternative to. I have no idea what you or enaidealukal are attempting to show with these posts concerning personal attacks. I do not know who is saying what or who's posts are being complained about. The only thing I have said is that you appear to have emotional motivations because that is the only possible explanation I can see for what you post. That is hardly a personal attack but it is likely I am missing whatever it is you and they are driving at. I do not believe in making gratuitous personal comments, but I do believe in stating relevant things even if they are personal.

 

[1robin]

I am well aware of how he is, and what he says to people, as I mentioned.

However, we are smart and thoughtful, and should strive to not sink to that level.

Just keep pounding away with the facts.

*

Again the context and intent of this series of posts concerning personal comments is lost on me. What is the intent of them?

 

[Muffled]

So, apparently the prophets are not "sons of God by inspiration"?

I believe that prophets heard God speak spiritually but never had the Spirit dwell in them. I would call it comspirtion but there probably is no such word and English probably uses the same word to cover many things.

 

[Muffled]

He did not state it this way but I believe all people who are sons of God became such through faith. Christians look backwards to a messiah and OT Hebrews looked forward to a messiah. It is faith in a messiah that makes one the son of God and that is not a Christian exclusive possibility, though Christians do comprise the vast majority.

I don't see it that way. I believe one must receive Jesus as Lord and Savior and that is accomplished by faith. The fact that He is the Messiah doesn't really impact me as much since I am a Gentile.

Possibly it can happen in other religions but it is my belief that God will always point a person to Jesus. So if a person says he has God indwelling and does not acknowledge Jesus I would take the person's statement with skepticism.

 

[Muffled]

I'm really not sure where this is coming from, unless it refers to interpretation, which we all do, btw. I do believe we understand what "sons of God" actually means, which is actually quite clear of one looks at references in the Tanakh.

Christians view the definition in the Tanakh as having to do with God ie if a person acts somewhat godly he could be referred to as a son of God. However the Christian definition is that of the indwelling God as Jesus as defined by these verses in John: 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[metis]

I believe that prophets heard God speak spiritually but never had the Spirit dwell in them. I would call it comspirtion but there probably is no such word and English probably uses the same word to cover many things.

"God's Spirit" is mentioned in the Tanakh with the teaching that we should be open to it, and I think we can assume that the prophets were.