|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
'Salvation'
« Back to club forum
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 'Salvation'What is 'Salvation'? Salvation FROM what? Salvation TO what? What does it mean to different people at different times? How is it achieved? I'll drive my stake into the ground here, and let's see who comes hunting! I believe that 'Salvation' is best described in today's language as 'Salvation from meaninglessness'. This is particularly so in the post-modern era when the whole concept of 'purpose' has been tossed onto the scrapheap by some. We see it in politics, where much of the nationalist wave around the world is a symptom of people aching for 'something bigger than Me, the spouse and the kids'. And quite often this is reduced to simply 'something bigger than me and my failures'. Salvation to...? this is what religions of all sorts provide. And in 'religions' I include everything that people might consider 'the Greater Good'. That includes apparently non-religious movements like Communism, Nationalism, Trumpism, and even movements often considered anti-religious such as Environmentalism. Anything that posits a Great Satan that has to be overcome so we can all progress to some Future Paradise. All contributions will be welcome. My personal kick-off is to suggest that Salvation is from 'meaninglessness' as I said above. I also suggest that salvation is TO being a fully Authentic Human. Exactly what this means depends on whether you read St. John of the Cross or Friedrich Nietzche or anyone between. My personal answer is that an authentic human is one who mirrors the character of God, of whom the best revelation is Jesus of Nazareth. Unfortunately we have little information about Jesus, so much has to be mined from the Biblical tradition in which he set himself and which his closest followers built. But from that, I suggest that an authentic human is one who recognises that he/she is part of an inter-dependent community and responds by serving that community. But that service is to be provided in the context of an overall ethical paradigm that extends to the widest possible concept of community, to not just 'my family' or 'my tribe' or 'my nation' or even 'my species'. It has to extend in onion-skin layers to Earth as an ecosystem and even to the Cosmos as a whole. And I'm ready for people to read into that things that I HAVEN'T said. OK, guys! Give us your best shots! |
||||||
|
Salvation to an eternity with God (otherwise known as Heaven.) |
||||||
|
jonheck 31-Mar-25, 06:20 |
salvation |
||||||
|
bobspringett The Bible also says ask not who will ascend or descend. So I will only speak for myself here. Just as the Israelites put the blood of a spotless lamb over their door in Egypt. The Blood of Christ was put over those who accept it. God provided a way and in my mind Salvation is a deeply personal experience, therefore I don't speak to others salvation because that is between them and God. I would just encourage people to study the way of salvation according to the Bible. In fact followers of Jesus were originally called followers of the Way. We cannot know fully the mind heart or intentions of God. God has his reasons for saying what he said and doing what he did. Whom am I to interject my opinion and perceptions into the house he has already built? |
||||||
|
Correction |
||||||
|
@Bob |
||||||
|
Vic 04:54 & 10:53 But you have said WHERE it is, not WHAT it is. Others tend to concentrate on how to 'obtain' it, as you mentioned in your 10:53 post, as though salvation is an appliance, a piece of jewelry or a skill. John (ch. 15) reports Jesus as saying that salvation is something that could be compared to being 'grafted into' Christ, a metaphor that Paul also uses when writing to the Romans (ch. 11). So please be more expansive. Meanwhile, you asked "Where is God in your theology regarding salvation?" Didn't you read my 02:16 post? For example, I said "an authentic human is one who mirrors the character of God". Isn't God mentioned in that sentence? The same sentence goes on to say "of whom the best revelation is Jesus of Nazareth", so Jesus features in my theology of salvation as well. The next sentence says "Unfortunately we have little information about Jesus, so much has to be mined from the Biblical tradition in which he set himself and which his closest followers built." In other words, the required information is to be found in the Bible. So in two sentences I centre my Soteriology on God, Christ and the Bible. Was it THAT hard for you to see that? Were I to be as confrontational as you, I would ask where in your answer (04:54) you even mention Christ or the Bible. But I won't, because I expect that you were responding in haste and will have more to say as time becomes available. As for your 10:53 question 'How does one obtain salvation in your view?' My answer is that one doesn't 'obtain' it, as if it is a purchase or a reward. In one sense it is a gift, as is implied in several places in Paul's writings and becomes emphasised in Calvin's. In another sense it is a response to a call, a metaphor that Jesus uses. In another sense it is an intuitive reaction, as in the parable of the sheep and the goats. If you follow Barth, it is implicit in being human; except that those who 'reject' it will find that they've got it whether they want it or not and if they don't want it they will interpret the imposition of being close to God as 'the fires of hell'. (Hebrews 12:29). Like marriage, falling in love can happen in an instant, but building a deep, abiding relationship and becoming a 'soulmate' is the work of a lifetime. Salvation is much the same. So when you have the time, share your deeper thoughts with is. |
||||||
|
Patz 6:43 There is a deep intimacy there! So I speak here only of things in the public domain. |
||||||
|
But you have said WHERE it is, not WHAT it is. Others tend to concentrate on how to 'obtain' it, as you mentioned in your 10:53 post, as though salvation is an appliance, a piece of jewelry or a skill.>> I did say what it is. It’s being with God. Salvation is being with God for eternity. I was curious how salvation is obtained in your view because I think that’s a critical element of salvation. Your idea of salvation (to me) seems very man-centered – man attempting to mirror the character of God (impossible in my view because man is in the flesh and a fallen state.) My idea of salvation (and I believe the Biblical view of salvation) is man *being with God and enjoying God for eternity.* There doesn’t seem to be any fellowship, any connection with God, in your view of salvation. It’s just man trying to be like Him. I agree salvation is a gift from God, and I believe one obtains salvation by believing in Jesus Christ (specifically the Gospel as identified by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.) I’m still not sure how you think one obtains or accepts salvation or even if one has to. I think one of our key differences is you say religious themes are important to you, while God is important to me. I think you get too deep into the weeds of the process and neglect the Person. That’s just my opinion. So yes, salvation to me is being with God in Heaven for eternity. I don’t think that needs elaboration but I’m happy to answer questions about it. |
||||||
|
Enlightenment The evangelical “plan” is truly silly in contrast. I think there may be a legitimate Christian route that mimics the genuine Buddhist version, which requires identifying with a Buddhist-like Christ figure. Most evangelical perceptions of Jesus entail a blonde-haired, blue-eyed fellow with Victorian era standards of hypocritical morality. You know, the gun-toting, dinosaur riding Republican Jesus you can purchase indulgences from by sending Pastor Paula White $1000. A ten inch Waterford glass cross… baptistnews.com |
||||||
|
Vic 14:58 Thanks for that clarification. I now sense that you intend that to mean not only (if you like) "being in the same room as God", but continuing and personal interaction. (Please correct me if I'm reading too much into it.) That extension to active personal interaction is not a commonplace in classical theology; for a commoner to interact personally and continuously with an Emperor would have been considered the height of impudence! Even today that idea of God being remote even from people in heaven is still not a commonplace; most tend to think of seeing departed loved ones again, or drifting around on clouds, etc. Even current Jehovah's Witnesses literature seems to specialise on images of humans being happy on a New Earth while God is smiling on them from somewhere in the sky. That more 'democratised' idea of ongoing personal contact is a reasonably modern development. So we are getting closer, if my re-reading of your comment is accurate. <Your idea of salvation (to me) seems very man-centered – man attempting to mirror the character of God (impossible in my view because man is in the flesh and a fallen state.)> Not quite what I meant. Don't you remember chastising me a few days back for my tendency towards 'Calvinism'? I believe we need 'prevenient grace' to even desire salvation, so it is a work of God, not the individual. But that desire having been kindled, what is wrong with a man desiring to conform his mind and actions to God's will? Don't you seek to do that in your own life? <There doesn’t seem to be any fellowship, any connection with God, in your view of salvation.> My original outline was deliberately sketchy, a mere outline, because I wanted people to have a wide space to aim for. My 14:38 post expands this by saying "Like marriage, falling in love can happen in an instant, but building a deep, abiding relationship and becoming a 'soulmate' is the work of a lifetime. Salvation is much the same." Doesn't that sound like fellowship? I'll agree that my answers, no matter how long, will still not be complete answers to every detail, just as your 04:54 post didn't mention Jesus or the Bible. If you see a gap, then let's make it a talking point to be filled out, rather than an accusation. <I’m still not sure how you think one obtains or accepts salvation or even if one has to.> I recognise that different people have different ideas here. I don't insist on only one answer, because ALL of them are metaphors. attempting to explain the personal experience of different people who have different world-views. Each is a genuine description of that person's experience, and therefore subjectively 'true'. To an Armenian, a person chooses God. To a Calvinist, God chooses the person. In mainstream classical Systematic Theology, God first moves a person inwardly (and even unconsciously) to choose God, but it seems to that person to be his own choice. Augustine of Hippo had no doubt at all that but for God moving in him he would never have come to Christ. My persona view is that God is sovereign. So I suppose I start from Calvinist country. But I wasn't 'forced' to believe, with someone twisting my arm up my back to make me believe against my will. I freely (and joyously) agreed. This is what the Scholastics meant when they talk about conversion being 'co-operative'; they don't mean that conversion is 'conditional' upon a person accepting it completely out of his own will, but that the human will is prompted by the divine will to co-operate. Too many Protestants don't understand this point, and instead accept malicious anti-Catholic propaganda. So in short, one 'obtains' salvation by being offered it after God has 'preveniently' (a Latin term that means 'going before') prepared the person to accept. <I think one of our key differences is you say religious themes are important to you, while God is important to me.> I'm glad to hear it. BOTH are important to me, and so are my family, my country, my dogs and the air that I breathe. I expect you would say the same. <I think you get too deep into the weeds of the process and neglect the Person. That’s just my opinion.> Sorry if I've created that impression. I have said before that although I have a reasonable grasp of Systematic Theology, I see it as being of secondary importance. My main use of it is to serve as an instrument to consider more sharply how I should respond to what I read in the Bible, learn from my fellow-pilgrims and life in general, and act in my daily life. Having the opinions of the great minds of the past whispering their opinions helps me to refine mine. I expect this is another point where we differ. You seem to have a rather 'individualist' piety while I have a stronger doctrine of The Church because I'm very conscious that Jesus' promise to lead us into 'all truth' was said to the gathered disciples rather than to any one person. <So yes, salvation to me is being with God in Heaven for eternity. I don’t think that needs elaboration but I’m happy to answer questions about it.> I see salvation as starting here and now. It includes not only God's presence (which is certainly included in the package!), but also a call to love, work and to learn. And all of those start here and now, not after death. |
||||||
|
Shiva 18:35 I don't know anyone on this GK thread who would support such 'holy merchandising'. But speaking of snake-oil salesmen, here is a short skit I wrote as a lead-in to a sermon several years ago. I hope you like it! More than that, I hope you see some of the points I made from it. THE FIRST CONSULTANT IN HISTORY EVE (Speaking to herself in exasperation) This is all too hard! 'Be fruitful and multiply', whatever that means, and 'have dominion over all the flappy things and furry things and swimmy things... I suppose I'll have to get Adam to name all of them so we know what each other are talking about. (Shrugs expansively) Only two jobs to do, and I don’t have the training to do either! I just don’t know what to do! LUCIFER. (Appearing from behind an obstruction) Did I hear you say you don’t have the knowledge to do the job? EVE Oh, hello! I didn’t know snakes could talk! LUC. Another example of lack of knowledge! What else don’t you know? EVE (shrugs) How would I know? LUC. Yes, that’s a problem. You should have been put through a TAFE course, at least. That’s very poor management by the CEO, for sure. EVE He said we should just ask him if we don’t know… LUC. Ah! The old ‘on-the-job training’ excuse. A favourite for managers who don’t think far enough ahead! But I know how to help you! Your problem is inadequate diet! EVE Inadequate diet? LUC. Yes. Nine out of ten researchers in the field agree that inadequate diet is responsible for 95% of cases of blundering incompetence! For example, when was the last time you saw any of the senior management eat? EVE You mean Dad and the Son? They don’t need to eat! LUC. And that’s why the made such a mess of your instruction course! They don’t eat, so it never occurred to them that you might need to! Thankfully, recent research has shown that the fruit you need to understand your role is right here, on this tree. EVE But that’s the tree that… LUC. (interrupting) One standard piece of fruit every day will provide fifty milligrams of vitamin X, necessary for correct brain function. EVE But… LUC. Maintain that dietary supplement and you will be completely competent to run the Garden by yourselves, without ever having to ask the Son! EVE But… LUC. And what’s even better, this offer is absolutely free! EVE But… LUC. Take one now, and we will also give you a second one for your partner; again, absolutely free! EVE But… LUC. Plus we will give you a pair of matching toothpicks, a slicer and a preserving kit! EVE But… LUC. Toothpicks to avoid the embarrassment of bits caught between your teeth, so no-one will know you have just eaten; a slicer to ensure a most attractive presentation; and a preserving kit to ensure the effects last forever! EVE But… LUC. Reach up and take one now! EVE But… LUC. (Repeating, fade to black) Reach up and take one now! Reach up and take one now!... |
||||||
|
It’s certainly commonplace and encouraged in the Bible, and I think many Christians are engaged in it, through reading the Bible and prayer. <<That more 'democratised' idea of ongoing personal contact is a reasonably modern development.>> I really don’t think it’s modern at all. It’s seen in the beginning of Genesis and only changed after the fall of man. But I think we’ll certainly see it again. “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.” (Revelation 21:1-5) But God’s invitation for man to have a personal relationship with Him dates to shortly after the crucifixion and physical death of Jesus Christ and is symbolized by the tearing of the curtain in the Temple that separated man from God. This is a long excerpt from a commentary on that curtain being supernaturally torn but I think it’s relevant because believers have 24/7 access to God through Jesus Christ… <<The size and thickness of the veil make the events occurring at the moment of Jesus’ death on the cross so much more momentous. “And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom” (Matthew 27:50-51a). So, what do we make of this? What significance does this torn veil have for us today? Above all, the tearing of the veil at the moment of Jesus’ death dramatically symbolized that His sacrifice, the shedding of His own blood, was a sufficient atonement for sins. It signified that now the way into the Holy of Holies was open for all people, for all time, both Jew and Gentile. When Jesus died, the veil was torn, and God moved out of that place never again to dwell in a temple made with human hands (Acts 17:24). God was through with that temple and its religious system, and the temple and Jerusalem were left “desolate” (destroyed by the Romans) in A.D. 70, just as Jesus prophesied in Luke 13:35. As long as the temple stood, it signified the continuation of the Old Covenant. Hebrews 9:8-9 refers to the age that was passing away as the new covenant was being established (Hebrews 8:13). In a sense, the veil was symbolic of Christ Himself as the only way to the Father (John 14:6). This is indicated by the fact that the high priest had to enter the Holy of Holies through the veil. Now Christ is our superior High Priest, and as believers in His finished work, we partake of His better priesthood. We can now enter the Holy of Holies through Him. Hebrews 10:19-20 says, “We have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body.” Here we see the image of Jesus’ flesh being torn for us just as He was tearing the veil for us. The profound significance of the tearing of the veil is explained in glorious detail in Hebrews. The things of the temple were shadows of things to come, and they all ultimately point us to Jesus Christ. He was the veil to the Holy of Holies, and through His death the faithful now have free access to God. The veil in the temple was a constant reminder that sin renders humanity unfit for the presence of God. The fact that the sin offering was offered annually and countless other sacrifices repeated daily showed graphically that sin could not truly be atoned for or erased by mere animal sacrifices. Jesus Christ, through His death, has removed the barriers between God and man, and now we may approach Him with confidence and boldness (Hebrews 4:14-16).>> www.gotquestions.org <<…what is wrong with a man desiring to conform his mind and actions to God's will? Don't you seek to do that in your own life?>> I think conforming to God’s will is accomplished by believers spending time with God and strengthening the influence of His indwelt Holy Spirit in their lives. I generally spend time with God through handwriting His Word and prayer, though those are obviously not exclusively the way believers spend time with God. <<I'll agree that my answers, no matter how long, will still not be complete answers to every detail, just as your 04:54 post didn't mention Jesus or the Bible.>> I equate Jesus and God as I believe He is the second member of the Trinity. I don’t draw a distinction between Jesus and God unless I’m referring to His earthly ministry nearly 2,000 years ago when He was “in the flesh” and fully God and fully man. And while I do hope Bibles will be in Heaven, they will be of (obviously) secondary importance when we’re face to face with God. An old Bible study teacher of mine said “Bible” was an acronym meaning “Basic instructions before leaving earth.” I think the Bible is certainly relevant and important in learning about salvation and God while we’re on earth but am not sure how important it is after we’ve passed on. <<If you see a gap, then let's make it a talking point to be filled out, rather than an accusation.>> Yes, and I encourage you not to tell me I don’t understand my faith and characterize it as being at the level of “Sunday school.” You’ve been doing that for literally years and it’s highly offensive – and also completely false. Me: <<I’m still not sure how you think one obtains or accepts salvation or even if one has to.>> You: <<I recognise that different people have different ideas here. I don't insist on only one answer, because ALL of them are metaphors.>> I completely disagree. But forget about what you consider to be metaphors and instead say what they are metaphors for. Why not identify the substance that you think metaphors are attempting to explain. I don’t think it furthers discussion and understanding your point of view to label the way of salvation as a metaphor and not go deeper. <<So in short, one 'obtains' salvation by being offered it after God has 'preveniently' (a Latin term that means 'going before') prepared the person to accept.>> So are you saying God offers salvation and someone accepts? That’s it? Nothing about believing in Jesus Christ, which is what Jesus and His disciples repeatedly say in the Bible is the way of salvation? Is your view that God simply offers salvation (which I agree with) and all one has to do is say “Ok?” <<I expect this is another point where we differ. You seem to have a rather 'individualist' piety while I have a stronger doctrine of The Church because I'm very conscious that Jesus' promise to lead us into 'all truth' was said to the gathered disciples rather than to any one person.>> It’s the Holy Spirit who indwells a believer who leads him or her into all truth. “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” (John 16:13-14) I honestly don’t see how God’s Holy Spirit indwells a group without indwelling individuals. And what you term “individualist piety” is better and more accurately stated as my going to God to learn about God and the truth And I accomplish that through His Word and prayer. I think that’s a far superior method of knowing God and the truth than reading essays and books. That said, I think fellowshipping with believers is important and I did it through church and Bible study groups in the past. I enjoyed both and really ought to get back into them. <<I see salvation as starting here and now. It includes not only God's presence (which is certainly included in the package!), but also a call to love, work and to learn.>> Yes, a person is saved while on earth, and certainly living out his or her faith involves loving others, bearing the burdens of others and spreading the Gospel. <<And all of those start here and now, not after death.>> Of course. But seeing God directly and fully knowing and enjoying God takes place after a believer’s physical death. “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” (1 Corinthians 13:12) |
||||||
|
The world is at odds with God, and the ways of the world are not the ways of God. “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” (John 15:18-19) |
||||||
|
jonheck 01-Apr-25, 03:30 |
Death, the fear off it, the wonder of it, the sorrow of it, if finality of it! Unless space ships were coming to get us, it was just about the only solution to the problem. A pleasant idea that was sure to catch on! |
||||||
|
Vic 00:45 This is precisely the biggest single difference between us. I hold that the TRUTH simply CAN'T be put into words EXCEPT by metaphor. Your own words, which you apparently think are 'plain truth', are themselves metaphor, but you are so accustomed to them that you unconsciously translate them. So when you ask "These different metaphors; what are they metaphors for?" - the simple answer is 'metaphors for salvation'. What is the substance they are attempting to explain? Answer = 'Salvation'. You want me to go deeper? That would just be to use another metaphor! Even your own answer that "Salvation is being with God for eternity." is itself a metaphor. The idea of being 'with' God is a metaphor for closeness; But does Heaven have spatial dimensions like this created universe? and 'forever' is a metaphor for a time so long as to be infinite; but time itself is part of this Creation. So your own answers are metaphorical, but you're so accustomed to them that you just don't realise it! Don't you remember those four easy questions I put to you (but you didn't answer) which showed that you use metaphors yourself all the time? <I honestly don’t see how God’s Holy Spirit indwells a group without indwelling individuals.> Which is something I never said.(MISREPRESENTATION!!). But can you see how the Spirit can indwell individuals AND work through the Church, the Body of Christ, as well? God can multi-task, mate! <And what you term “individualist piety” is better and more accurately stated as my going to God to learn about God and the truth And I accomplish that through His Word and prayer. I think that’s a far superior method of knowing God and the truth than reading essays and books.> Ah, Vic! Why do you assume I don't do both? Why do you assume that one valid thing makes all alternatives invalid? This is what I mean by 'Sunday School' theology. You have one answer (and it's a good answer!), so you assume all other answers must be wrong. You do this frequently; anything except your preference is immediately made out to be a denial, not merely an alternative. And then you respond as though they are antitheses. Not EVERY time, thankfully, but too often. Even when you agree, you still tend to add some point of disagreement as a parting thought (e.g., <<And all of those start here and now, not after death.>> Of course. But seeing God directly and fully knowing and enjoying God takes place after a believer’s physical death.) And you accuse me of arguing for argument's sake! Goodnight, Vic. |
||||||
|
So when you ask "These different metaphors; what are they metaphors for?" - the simple answer is 'metaphors for salvation'. What is the substance they are attempting to explain? Answer = 'Salvation'. You want me to go deeper? That would just be to use another metaphor!>> Maybe you should define “salvation.” <<Even your own answer that "Salvation is being with God for eternity." is itself a metaphor. The idea of being 'with' God is a metaphor for closeness; But does Heaven have spatial dimensions like this created universe? and 'forever' is a metaphor for a time so long as to be infinite; but time itself is part of this Creation. So your own answers are metaphorical, but you're so accustomed to them that you just don't realise it!>> Bob, it really is pointless trying to have a conversation with you. You seem hell-bent on arguing for the sake of arguing. If you don’t know that being with God is being in God’s presence in the spiritual realm and that eternity is a state in which time has no application (i.e. timelessness) I don’t know what to tell you. <<Don't you remember those four easy questions I put to you (but you didn't answer) which showed that you use metaphors yourself all the time?>> I don’t remember the four questions but probably viewed answering them as a waste of time. And I asked you four pertinent questions in another thread (reprinted below with link) to which you replied, “Not part of my statement either way,” which is obviously not an answer but the avoidance of answering. So I’ll put those questions to you again, though I’m quite sure you’ll ignore them. (But ask yourself why you’re ignoring them.) • Are you saying the crucifixion of Jesus Christ happened but it was simply and only the execution of an innocent man, that it had nothing to do with paying the penalty of humanity’s sins? • When you say God meted out the punishment, are you denying that Jesus went through the crucifixion willingly and could have stopped it from happening? And are you denying that Jesus Himself was God incarnate? Did the Jewish religious authorities bear no responsibility for the crucifixion? • Do you think the crucifixion of Jesus was part of God’s plan to reconcile man and God from the fall of man (if not beforehand) and that prophets centuries earlier foretold the crucifixion (and its purpose) would take place? • Do you think the crucifixion is best described as God took the punishment for humanity’s sins or God made Jesus take the punishment for humanity’s sins? m.gameknot.com Me: <<I honestly don’t see how God’s Holy Spirit indwells a group without indwelling individuals.>> You: <<Which is something I never said.(MISREPRESENTATION!!). But can you see how the Spirit can indwell individuals AND work through the Church, the Body of Christ, as well? God can multi-task, mate!>> So you now believe God’s Holy Spirit indwells individual believers? I’m glad you’ve come around on that. Maybe now you’ll stop mocking that Biblical truth. <<Ah, Vic! Why do you assume I don't do both?>> I didn’t assume that at all. <<Why do you assume that one valid thing makes all alternatives invalid?>> Didn’t say that and occasionally I will read and quote from Biblical commentaries. <<This is what I mean by 'Sunday School' theology. You have one answer (and it's a good answer!), so you assume all other answers must be wrong.>> You’re either grossly misinformed about me or you’re lying. There are numerous ways people connect to God. The distinction I draw is connecting to God on a spiritual level through (as examples) the Bible and prayer vs. trying to connect to God on a carnal level through essays and books. And, once again, I’m not the one who said he doesn’t know what he believes and believes only that God is sovereign, omnipresent, incomprehensible and love. That’s what you said and it’s frankly where trying to know God through carnal means has gotten you. If you tried to get to know God on a spiritual level, I think He would reveal the Truth to you. <<You do this frequently; anything except your preference is immediately made out to be a denial, not merely an alternative.>> I think the way of salvation in the Bible is clear. I think the identity of Jesus Christ in the Bible is clear. If I believe what you label an “alternative” is false, I’m obviously not going to accept it. But you (and everyone else) is obviously free to believe whatever you want. But don’t tell me I must accept your alternatives as valid when you can’t explain or even identify what you believe. You seem to not know or understand bedrock truths; think they can only be understood through metaphors; and view different metaphors for explaining those truths as equally valid. <<And then you respond as though they are antitheses. Not EVERY time, thankfully, but too often.>> Why must I view something as truthful or legitimate when I don’t believe it? <<Even when you agree, you still tend to add some point of disagreement as a parting thought (e.g., <<And all of those start here and now, not after death.>> Of course. But seeing God directly and fully knowing and enjoying God takes place after a believer’s physical death.)>> Yes, because I was contrasting your view of salvation as an earthly experience with my view of salvation as a heavenly experience, though one is saved while on earth and can have a relationship with God and help others while on earth. I was adding to what you said, not disagreeing with it. <<And you accuse me of arguing for argument's sake!>> Yes, I do. And imo justifiably so. <<Goodnight, Vic.>> Have a restful sleep. |
||||||
|
Bob As usual, y'all made a thought provoking rant about your opinion of "salvation" before you aimlessly wandered on to include some of your other opinions, even though I largely agree with you on most of your points (see rants ). Alas: I prefer to follow Einstein's KISS principle (Keep it simple stupid), because we all have ample periods of idiocy --- case in point: Y'all's "purpose ... ... scrapheap" rant. I see Man's and all life's simple purpose to be a matter of living and dying in the physical --- going to eternity with God is an entirely different matter. I'll discuss the matter later, but I need to rush off to the doctor for now. |
||||||
|
<<What does "believing on The Lord Jesus Christ" entail? 1. Believing Jesus is God (The Promised Messiah/Savior) 2. Believing that He died on The Cross shedding His Blood as the perfect payment (atonement) for all your sins (and the sins of the world), was buried (proving He actually died), and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures for your justification. And The Bible explicitly states that when a person believes (trusts in/places their faith in) The Gospel (i.e., the substitutionary death, burial and resurrection of The Jesus Christ of The Bible) he/she is IMMEDIATELY and PERMANENTLY sealed by The Holy Spirit, baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ, guaranteed never to be plucked from God's Hand, perish (in hell) or be separated from the love that is in Christ Jesus for any reason (salvation can never be "lost."). Saved, sealed, sanctified, washed, justified, and righteous in God's Eyes FOREVER.(1st Corinthians 15-14, 12:13-14, 1:30, 6:11, Ephesians 1:13-14, 4:30, John 10:27-31, Romans 4:25, 8:38-39)>> |
||||||
|
Victoria From AI overview >>>While a precise number is impossible to determine, estimates suggest the Romans crucified tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of people across their vast empire, primarily slaves, rebels, and non-citizens, over centuries. <<< Jesus, of-course, was a non-citizen of Rome. Beyond that: I don't know because I wasn't there. |
||||||
|
“And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities. Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another? Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.” (Matthew 11:1-6) |
||||||
|
Vic OK, but the Muslims say that Jesus, just like all the other prophets who performed miracles, was a conduit for God and that neither Jesus or the prophets could have performed miracles on their own (unless they were God as the Christians say of Jesus). It's quite evident that Jesus (like all the prophets) prayed fervently, so who was he praying to --- Himself? |
||||||
|
“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” (Hebrews 2:9-10) During His earthly ministry, Jesus was *positionally* lower than God the Father because He was in human flesh and subject to death but He was still God in identity. The three members of the Godhead can manifest in their own ways but they are united in love and purpose. “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:16-17) |
||||||
|
Vic So when did Jesus discover that he was God? And/or when did God make Jesus God? And did Jesus already know that he was going to be God beforehand? Or did God keep it a secret from him? |
||||||
|
@mo “And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.” (Luke 2:40-50) • I don’t know but I would guess while He was in the womb of Mary. “And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.” (Luke 1:30-38) • Jesus was always God… “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:1-3) (John 1:14) Did you mean did Jesus know He was going to be fully God and fully human beforehand? I think He had to because the Old Testament scriptures said as much, and God’s redemptive plan to save mankind is seen as far back as Job and Genesis. • God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are all part of the Triune God and I don’t think they keep secrets from each other. I think Jesus voluntarily given up some of His powers as God during His earthly ministry, but it’s obvious from the Gospels that He kept a great deal of His power and exercised it. Another view is that He emptied Himself of His divinity and allowed God the Father to work through Him during His earthly ministry. “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:5-11) Verse 7 in other translations says “emptied Himself.” “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:6-7) (ESV) |
||||||
|
“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) |
||||||
|
Whipping Boy Flogging was very common, even for those condemned to crucifixion. Now, what was not so common would be the thorn crown. But I wouldn’t put it past the Romans to have done more than a handful of those too. Probably just reused someone else’s thorn crown, even. Second hand crown. |
||||||
|
What’s your source for this? |
||||||
|
@L_S <<Scourging Practices Flogging was a legal preliminary to every Roman execution, and only women and Roman senators or soldiers (except in cases of desertion) were exempt. The usual instrument was a short whip with several single or braided leather thongs of variable lengths, in which small iron balls or sharp pieces of sheep bones were tied at intervals. For scourging, the man was stripped of his clothing, and his hands were tied to an upright post. The back, buttocks, and legs were flogged either by two soldiers (lictors) or by one who alternated positions. The severity of the scourging depended on the disposition of the lictors and was intended to weaken the victim to a state just short of collapse or death. As the Roman soldiers repeatedly struck the victim’s back with full force, the iron balls would cause deep contusions, and the leather thongs and sheep bones would cut into the skin and subcutaneous tissues. Then, as the flogging continued, the lacerations would tear into the underlying skeletal muscles and produce quivering ribbons of bleeding flesh. Pain and blood loss generally set the stage for circulatory shock. The extent of blood loss may well have determined how long the victim would survive on the cross. After the scourging, the soldiers often taunted their victim.>> cbcg.org I remember Pontius Pilate wanted Jesus to be whipped in lieu of crucifixion in the hope the Pharisees would back off their demand Jesus be executed. That’s what made me think it was uncommon for someone to be whipped before crucifixion; I didn’t realize Pilate had caved to the Pharisees’ demand before Jesus was whipped. “Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him. Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. Therefore, I will punish him and then release him.” But the whole crowd shouted, “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us!” (Barabbas had been thrown into prison for an insurrection in the city, and for murder.) Wanting to release Jesus, Pilate appealed to them again. But they kept shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” For the third time he spoke to them: “Why? What crime has this man committed? I have found in him no grounds for the death penalty. Therefore I will have him punished and then release him.” But with loud shouts they insistently demanded that he be crucified, and their shouts prevailed.” Luke 23:13-23) (NIV) |
||||||
|
Vic 05:05 Maybe you should define “salvation.”} a) I did that up front. Isn't my 'definition' what you have been railing against all this time? b) Even as you quote my reasons for saying that definitions of such matters are inherently metaphorical, you ignore the very words you are quoting! <If you don’t know that being with God is being in God’s presence in the spiritual realm...> You rebuke me for using metaphor, but here in these words and the paragraph following them you throw metaphors around like confetti! For example:- a) the root meaning of 'with' is a spatial concept, but you are applying it to a context outside 'space'. Clearly a metaphorical use. b) 'presence' is closely linked to 'with' in concept, but here you have applied it to God who is omnipresent. Clearly a metaphorical use. c) 'spirit' ('Pneuma' in the New Testament) literally means 'breath or 'wind', depending on context. Clearly a metaphorical use. d) 'realm' literally means 'the extent of the area over which a king rules'. Clearly a metaphorical use. You are oblivious to your own use of metaphor! <I don’t remember the four questions but probably viewed answering them as a waste of time.> And you scold me for not reading what you post, and not answering your questions! Those four questions would have made it obvious how much you depend on metaphor yourself! So perhaps they might have been a 'waste of time', because answering them would not have achieved your aim. <So I’ll put those questions to you again, though I’m quite sure you’ll ignore them. (But ask yourself why you’re ignoring them.)> Yes, and I answered them in that other thread. Those answers also showed by the phrasing of your questions required the answerer to adopt your specify paradigm rather than allowing answers in alternative paradigms. 'Yes' or 'No' answers or a choice between only two answers when a third would also be valid, etc. <So you now believe God’s Holy Spirit indwells individual believers? I’m glad you’ve come around on that.> I have never denied that. I have only denied that it guarantees that whatever 'interpretation' some individual might imagine must be the only correct interpretation. Another of your misrepresentations. {<<Ah, Vic! Why do you assume I don't do both?>> I didn’t assume that at all.} No, you only asserted that your practice is the only correct one, and implied that I don't follow it AS WELL AS other practices. Weasel words, another misrepresentation. <The distinction I draw is connecting to God on a spiritual level through (as examples) the Bible and prayer vs. trying to connect to God on a carnal level through essays and books.> Interesting that you say that, because in your next post (11:54) you pasted "From the YouTube channel “SalvationIsEasy…” "! Why are you reading such 'carnal' input, and even passing it on? You are a mass of self-contradictions, Vic, because you know what you believe as separate, discrete doctrines and cliches but you have no idea of how to integrate them into a rational theology. In fact, you seem to think that a 'rational theology' is 'carnal'. You would much prefer to share ignorances. Vic, I have already referred you to the Club Rules 3 and 5. If you continue to misquote in what appears to be a malicious and misleading way, and to refuse to respond to reasonable questions, then I will ask two mods to assess your case. I will NOT drop you from the Club; my intention goes no further than to convince you that honest debate is required of you, and I look to the two mods to determine whether or not you have been honest. |
||||||
| |||||||
