The Name by which we are saved

[tileman]

There are many names for Jesus. Some proper and others descriptive.
Which is the one name by which we are saved? Can someone appeal to the Wonderful God or Rightious One that they know must exist, without reference to a particular religion or church? Can they appeal to His heart and not use the name Jesus?
Obviously they can call on the name Jesus and not know Him, according to scripture. Could not the opposite also be true?
Doesn't He listen to our hearts rather than our words anyway?
Was His name even pronounced Jesus in His life on earth?
Now, I do believe He is our salvation, I'm just not sure the church prescribed paths are the only ones available to mankind for knowing Him.

[jeny]

Maybe you should look into Buddism. ;)

[arod]

Which is the one name by which we are saved?

A name never saved anybody.

Besides that, those words were spoken by a man who knew Him personally, to people who knew quite a bit about Jesus' ministry: the Jewish elders, Annas and Caiaphas among them. Today, the name has been corrupted almost beyond recognition.

[Lazarus]

There are many names for Jesus. Some proper and others descriptive.
Which is the one name by which we are saved? Can someone appeal to the Wonderful God or Rightious One that they know must exist, without reference to a particular religion or church? Can they appeal to His heart and not use the name Jesus?
Obviously they can call on the name Jesus and not know Him, according to scripture. Could not the opposite also be true?
Doesn't He listen to our hearts rather than our words anyway?
Was His name even pronounced Jesus in His life on earth?
Now, I do believe He is our salvation, I'm just not sure the church prescribed paths are the only ones available to mankind for knowing Him.


Jesus is the English translation of the name of Him who saves.

It came to us via the Greek language where it was written as "Iesous". This, of course, was itself a translation from the Aramaic language (or possibly the Hebrew lanuage) equivalent.
In Hebrew, His name would have been "Joshua".

When one looks into the matter, it seems the "Joshua" was named for Yahweh--the name of God Most High )with vowels inserted). The first part "Yah" means "God" while the "shua" part means "saves".

So, "Jesus" (and Joshua) means "God saves" or "Yahweh saves". In Aramaic, His name would be "Yashua" or "Yeshua" or possibily contracted to "Y'shua".

It is written in the Bible, in the New Testament, that "No man comes to the Father, but by the Son." Jesus taught this. Many people take that to mean that everyone must believe in the Son in order to come to the Father. But actually, it teaches something else: those who know the Father have come to Him by the Son (whether they knew of "Jesus" or not). Think about it: if anyone has come to the Father (knows the Father, believes in the Father, trusts in the Father, etc.), then if Jesus words are true, then they could only have done so "through the Son".

It is not my place to say whether or not anyone has "come to the Father." God knows. All I can do is nod my head in agreement and say that if a person does come to the Father, then that perosn must have done so through Jesus. And whether a person knows Jesus or not--well, that does not seem to be the issue--particularly if God knows them to have come to Him.

There are doubtless many people who call Jesus "Lord, Lord" yet do not really know Him, and are strangers to Him. And, there are doubtless other people who would not know enough to call "Jesus" as their "Lord" yet walk with Him for all their days. None of that exludes both knowing Him as "Jesus" or any of its variants, and walking with Him. If one walks the path of righteousness, then one walks with the Lord Jesus--following Him to the Father. It is those who stray from that path of righteousness who need Jesus the most.

There are many names for Jesus. Some proper and others descriptive.
Which is the one name by which we are saved? Can someone appeal to the Wonderful God or Rightious One that they know must exist, without reference to a particular religion or church? Can they appeal to His heart and not use the name Jesus?
Obviously they can call on the name Jesus and not know Him, according to scripture. Could not the opposite also be true?
Doesn't He listen to our hearts rather than our words anyway?
Was His name even pronounced Jesus in His life on earth?
Now, I do believe He is our salvation, I'm just not sure the church prescribed paths are the only ones available to mankind for knowing Him.


What does the New Testament say about salvation? From my reading of it the NT clearly points out first faith, second repentance, third baptism and fourth laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. Salvation comes from having the spirit, the Holy Ghost and without that spirit a person is lost and will follow another path. All this is possible by the Atonement of Jesus Christ ... or Messiah. Calling on a name won't save you but following a prescribe course will, faith, repentance, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, that is the straight and narrow path and few will find it because they look for other ways to find salvation.

[LanceALott]

Lonestar: What does the New Testament say about salvation?

LAL: It says salvation is through Grace.

Grace is a gift, and a gift is not earned or it becomes wages.

So all those other things you and your religion require to EARN salavtion are as much BS as my Gospel of Thomas. They are self-serving, and do not come from God, Jesus, or any real Holy Spirit. Those "prices of salvation" are designed to put you and your gang of false "Christians" in control of those mindless fools to whom you can sell these fake requirements; and this is the work of the antichrist!

Lonestar: What does the New Testament say about salvation?

LAL: It says salvation is through Grace.

Grace is a gift, and a gift is not earned or it becomes wages.

So all those other things you and your religion require to EARN salavtion are as much BS as my Gospel of Thomas. They are self-serving, and do not come from God, Jesus, or any real Holy Spirit. Those "prices of salvation" are designed to put you and your gang of false "Christians" in control of those mindless fools to whom you can sell these fake requirements; and this is the work of the antichrist!


So you haven't read the New Testament. I thought you were some kind of atheist, don't tell me you have a brain.

I might add the road to hell includes all those people who thought they didn't have to do anything except swim in the blood of Jesus Christ.

Everything from God is grace including salvation so what's your point?

[tileman]

What does the New Testament say about salvation? From my reading of it the NT clearly points out first faith, second repentance, third baptism and fourth laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Faith in His existence is what I was talking about. Repentence, I think, would be an ongoing process that would come naturally to one that seeks Him.
I don't believe that baptism by man is any longer a necessity, but can be handled by the Holy Spirit who can dwell within who He will.

Salvation comes from having the spirit, the Holy Ghost and without that spirit a person is lost and will follow another path.

Did the thief on the cross next to Jesus go through ritual? Baptised, with the laying on of hands? Or did he just have an open heart that the Lord chose to love?

All this is possible by the Atonement of Jesus Christ ... or Messiah. Calling on a name won't save you but following a prescribe course will, faith, repentance, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, that is the straight and narrow path and few will find it because they look for other ways to find salvation.

I think it's the position of the heart, and all the magic words and gestures in the world amount to nothing.
The pharisees had the tradition and gestures down pat, but their hearts sucked. Those he chose were just plain people who opened their hearts to Him.........dumb as rocks as to proper proceedure.

First off the thief didn't go to heaven, he went to paradise. Christ said that day he would be in paradise with him and Christ did not return to heaven until after his resurrection.

Interesting thing about baptism, they baptized in the New Testatment but today it's not necessary but all I ever here about fundamentalists is going back to the fundamentals of the bible but someone down the line has said baptism isn't necessary but who said it and why was it done in Christ's time?

[tileman]

Because they didn't have the Holy Spirit?.........Beats me

Because they didn't have the Holy Spirit?.........Beats me


Well if you read the New Testament that was how it was done, this great book that Christian's love so much and say it's the word of God and blah, blah, blah but when it comes to being baptised and receiving the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands that's not neccessary but who the hell says it's not since it's right there in scripture?

[LanceALott]

Lonestar: So you haven't read the New Testament.

LanceALott: Son, I read the Bible when you were just a gleam in your dad's eye. I remember many years ago, back during the Great Depression. I memorized the Ten Commandments for a contest at church. I recited them perfectly, and won a new Bible, which I gave to my Mom for mother's day. When Mom died, I got that old well-worn bible back. It was all she had. Now, it rests on my top shelf, and is one of my greatest treasures.


Lone: I thought you were some kind of atheist, don't tell me you have a brain.

Lance: Well, you were wrong about me. I'm no athesist. Once again your Holy Spirit seems to have failed to tell you the Truth. I'd start worrying if that really is the Holy Spirit if I were you, because this is the second time it has failed you.

Lone: I might add the road to hell includes all those people who thought they didn't have to do anything except swim in the blood of Jesus Christ.

Lance: To Hell with that Blood Sacrifice BS. The road to Hell is paved with a lot of idiots who thought they alone had the right formula.

Lone: Everything from God is grace including salvation so what's your point?

Lance: My point is and was that on His Cross, Christ had His arms spread wide enough to embrace the whole damn world. His love and Grace extends to everyone, the good, the bad, and the ugly, even Lonestar; and none of them have to do one darn thing. Those "Christian" churches and gurus who sell the right formula are con men who really have nothing worthwhile to sell; and most of them bury His Teaching under a pile of BS started by Paul,who hijacked His religion.

Faith, rituals, Blood Sacrifice, accept Him as their Savior, all of that crap is the tool of His greatest enemy, the crooks who try to sell His gift, so they can replace the wisdom of The Lord with their own BS, and use that Belief System (BS) to control and enslave a band of followers, enslave them to some "fundamentalist" gang, not to God .

It's a Gift, and there are no strings attached. You do not have to fall down in church, confess your sins in public, and make a fool out of yourself; but eveyone could profit from learning and practicing His Teaching.

[tileman]

Wasn't it symbolic of Christ's washing away of our sins? If we understand and receive the real thing it seems the ritual would be redundant.............though a cool gesture and feels neat.

But then again I don't think all of the NT was written to be scripture or another book of law..........man made it that. Not that He hasn't used it and made it powerful and in some ways alive and able to speak to us. I just don't think it's His final word on anything.

Christ was baptised and he was without sin. Saul even after a vision from Jesus Christ was baptised before he ever set out on his mission.

Christ was baptised, Paul was baptised but we don't have to be baptised? That's not what the New Testament is saying. Is the New Testament just a book of bullshit and we can make up our own rules?

[tileman]

I don't see the NT as a book of rules. Nor do I see it as a necessity for reading to be saved.

Ritual and the law seems to me to be exactly what He WASN'T about.

Wasn't it symbolic of Christ's washing away of our sins? If we understand and receive the real thing it seems the ritual would be redundant.............though a cool gesture and feels neat.

But then again I don't think all of the NT was written to be scripture or another book of law..........man made it that. Not that He hasn't used it and made it powerful and in some ways alive and able to speak to us. I just don't think it's His final word on anything.


You or other's may put your own twist on this scripture, supposedly said by Christ himself. In verse five I say he is talking about baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost.


1 THERE was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

(New Testament | John 3:1 - 5)

[tileman]

Well first off, He hadn't paid the price yet. And secondly, aren't we all born of water in the flesh? The baptism of the Holy Spirit...........I take it you feel it takes the laying on of hands?

I don't see the NT as a book of rules. Nor do I see it as a necessity for reading to be saved.

Ritual and the law seems to me to be exactly what He WASN'T about.


What did Christ mean by what he said about living the commandments? Did he not say if you love him you will keep his commandments? But yet what I hear from you and LL and buzz and others that none of that means anything, all you gotta do is believe, that Christ spilt his blood and there is nothing you can do but I don't see that in the New Testament. Either the New Testament is scripture from God or it's a bullshit book and there is no Christ. In a way commandments are rules aren't they? James said it best, faith without works is dead.

It blows my mind that people think they don't have to do anything after accepting Christ. They will spend more time getting a degree in college than working on their salvation because they have biten into the greatest lie of all time that Christ covers all their sins with his blood and they make no attempt to really repent because most just go on in their life doing the same things they think Christ will cover.

[tileman]

I've gotta get to work bud.........

Well first off, He hadn't paid the price yet. And secondly, aren't we all born of water in the flesh? The baptism of the Holy Spirit...........I take it you feel it takes the laying on of hands?


I'm telling you what is in the New Testament, I'm not making this shit up as I go. Paul was baptised after Christ was dead and gone. Read that scripture again, you had the same reaction as Nicodemus had. Christ wasn't talking about our natural birth, he was talking about being baptised which is another birth, a birth into the Kingdom of God.

I've gotta get to work bud.........


Well that's too bad 'cause this is a good discussion. :)

[tileman]

I don't see the NT as a book of rules. Nor do I see it as a necessity for reading to be saved.

Ritual and the law seems to me to be exactly what He WASN'T about.


What did Christ mean by what he said about living the commandments? Did he not say if you love him you will keep his commandments? But yet what I hear from you and LL and buzz and others that none of that means anything, all you gotta do is believe, that Christ spilt his blood and there is nothing you can do but I don't see that in the New Testament. Either the New Testament is scripture from God or it's a bullshit book and there is no Christ. In a way commandments are rules aren't they? James said it best, faith without works is dead.

It blows my mind that people think they don't have to do anything after accepting Christ. They will spend more time getting a degree in college than working on their salvation because they have biten into the greatest lie of all time that Christ covers all their sins with his blood and they make no attempt to really repent because most just go on in their life doing the same things they think Christ will cover.


Oh like you're such a goody two shoes right? Exactly what level of purity do you deem necessary for entrance? Does your ol' lady cover her head when she leaves the house? You be avoidin' that bacon and pork chops?

My ass........... ;D

It's about knowing His heart, not dotting Is or crossing Ts. Otherwise..........I don't wanna go!

I don't see the NT as a book of rules. Nor do I see it as a necessity for reading to be saved.

Ritual and the law seems to me to be exactly what He WASN'T about.


What did Christ mean by what he said about living the commandments? Did he not say if you love him you will keep his commandments? But yet what I hear from you and LL and buzz and others that none of that means anything, all you gotta do is believe, that Christ spilt his blood and there is nothing you can do but I don't see that in the New Testament. Either the New Testament is scripture from God or it's a bullshit book and there is no Christ. In a way commandments are rules aren't they? James said it best, faith without works is dead.

It blows my mind that people think they don't have to do anything after accepting Christ. They will spend more time getting a degree in college than working on their salvation because they have biten into the greatest lie of all time that Christ covers all their sins with his blood and they make no attempt to really repent because most just go on in their life doing the same things they think Christ will cover.


Oh like you're such a goody two shoes right? Exactly what level of purity do you deem necessary for entrance? Does your ol' lady cover her head when she leaves the house? You be avoidin' that bacon and pork chops?

My ass........... ;D

It's about knowing His heart, not dotting Is or crossing Ts. Otherwise..........I don't wanna go!


Just telling you what the good book says, just what is a Christian anyway? From the book or made up? His way or your way? You have to have some sort of common ground to go by which is the New Testament or you make up as you go.

What is in your heart anyway? Who do you love more, Christ or that pecker hanging down between your legs? If you don't think what we think and what we do matters than you better think again.

[LanceALott]

Lonestar: Is the New Testament just a book of bullshit and we can make up our own rules?

LanceALott: Yes, much of the New Testament is BS. It is the Belief System (BS) of Paul, who buried the Belief System of Jesus to enhance Paul's own importance and Paul's own power.

Then, all the churches, priests, and preachers that came after Paul used Paul's BS to enhance their own importance and their own power AT THE EXPENSE AND THE POWER OF GOD AND JESUS.

Those churches, priests, and preachers needed the rituals, faith, baptism, etc. They invented many requirements to get the free Gift. God never needed any of that crap.

Can we make up our own rules? Certainly. Since all have the Gift, no matter what we do, or do not do, ALL THINGS ARE PERMISSIBLE;;

but not all things are beneficial.

If anyone breaks any of the Ten Commandments, they are going to feel the pain they cause. It is not a good idea to do some things, such as stick your finger in a light socket; but if the Spirit moves you, go for it! It will not get your Gift taken away.

13 ¶ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

(New Testament | Matthew 7:13 - 14)


I'm saying the strait gate is baptism and anything else is the 'broad path'.

Lonestar: Is the New Testament just a book of bullshit and we can make up our own rules?

LanceALott: Yes, much of the New Testament is BS. It is the Belief System (BS) of Paul, who buried the Belief System of Jesus to enhance Paul's own importance and Paul's own power.

Then, all the churches, priests, and preachers that came after Paul used Paul's BS to enhance their own importance and their own power AT THE EXPENSE AND THE POWER OF GOD AND JESUS.

Those churches, priests, and preachers needed the rituals, faith, baptism, etc. They invented many requirements to get the free Gift. God never needed any of that crap.

Can we make up our own rules? Certainly. Since all have the Gift, no matter what we do, or do not do, ALL THINGS ARE PERMISSIBLE;;

but not all things are beneficial.

If anyone breaks any of the Ten Commandments, they are going to feel the pain they cause. It is not a good idea to do some things, such as stick your finger in a light socket; but if the Spirit moves you, go for it! It will not get your Gift taken away.


What? You only accept the gospels and none of the epistles?

[tileman]

What exactly is it you think I do? I may have been a whoremonger at times in my youth, but now I'm just a lonely old man with nothing but my son and dogs to keep me company......... :'(

Would you feel better were I to beat my back raw each night for gawking at the lady down the streets butt when I drag my trash out on Thursdays? I'm such a heathen!!!! But I aspire to be pure like you..........does that count? What else can I do to earn my place in heaven?

The judgemental, unobtainable works based view of salvation is satan's best tool to keep people away from the truth of Jesus' simple love. Will you throw your kids out in the streets if they don't conform to your every expectation? Do you love them more than He loves us?

I really gotta go now..........talk to ya later bud.

What exactly is it you think I do? I may have been a whoremonger at times in my youth, but now I'm just a lonely old man with nothing but my son and dogs to keep me company......... :'(

Would you feel better were I to beat my back raw each night for gawking at the lady down the streets butt when I drag my trash out on Thursdays? I'm such a heathen!!!! But I aspire to be pure like you..........does that count? What else can I do to earn my place in heaven?

The judgemental, unobtainable works based view of salvation is satan's best tool to keep people away from the truth of Jesus' simple love. Will you throw your kids out in the streets if they don't conform to your every expectation? Do you love them more than He loves us?

I really gotta go now..........talk to ya later bud.


I'm not talking to you 'personally' do don't take it personal nor am I say "Hey look at me, I'm a saint" I'm just comparing what the bible says to what Christian's say about salvation.

[LanceALott]

Lonestar: What? You only accept the gospels and none of the epistles?


LL: Paul, and his epistles have their place; but Christ is King, not you, not Paul, not John the Baptist.

The Gospels must take priority, or you are not a Christian, you are still a Paulist.

Heck, without Paul and his BS, I doubt we would have ever heard of Christ. His religion was at least 2000 years ahead of His time, and Paul dumbed it down so guys like you and the priests could find something personally valuable enough to use and to sell and propagate, and in the process, those Gospels survived.

Now I don't know where you people get your 'spirt' which many of you claim to have but here is how it was done in New Testament times:

1 AND it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

(New Testament | Acts 19:1 - 6)

Notice, they were baptised but hadn't received the Holy Ghost yet and did not until Paul, an Apostle, laid his hands on them and gave them the Holy Ghost.

Makes me wonder what 'spirit' I'm hearing from you that claim Christ as your saviour and why should I follow you when this is what the bible says.

Lonestar: What? You only accept the gospels and none of the epistles?


LL: Paul, and his epistles have their place; but Christ is King, not you, not Paul, not John the Baptist.

The Gospels must take priority, or you are not a Christian, you are still a Paulist.

Heck, without Paul and his BS, I doubt we would have ever heard of Christ. His religion was at least 2000 years ahead of His time, and Paul dumbed it down so guys like you and the priests could find something personally valuable enough to use and to sell and propagate, and in the process, those Gospels survived.


Well you must not put too much stock in Acts since it clearly shows Paul was chosen by the Lord to be one of his Apostles and I would assume his writings would be inspired.

LanceL,

You surprised me. I thought you were much younger, I'm sorry I haven't been paying more attention to you, you're a interesting fellow.

[LanceALott]

Lonestar: why should I follow you when this is what the bible says.

Lance: The stuff you quoted is was self-serving and based on what Paul said. Paul authenticates himself, and he says his writing is inspired.
The church went along with it because it gave them great authority and power.

If Luke was taken in by Paul, the first of the antichrists, you should know it was because Paul was a great showman, or as pagans say shamen.

[LanceALott]

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

LAL: I could have written the same thing about Oral Roberts when I saw him, and he later proved he was a faker. And many others have produced the same kind of lunatics using mass hypnosis in other religions.

To say the Holy Spirit was behind this insanity is very questionable, but it sure impressed Luke. To say: "

"Well you must not put too much stock in Acts since it clearly shows Paul was chosen by the Lord to be one of his Apostles and I would assume his writings would be inspired. " -- Well that is certainly not clear at all. It is wishful thinking; and it looks like you were sucked into the hypnotic effect because if what you say were true, it makes you somebody important; INSTEAD OF GIVING ALL THE IMPORTANCE TO JESUS.

[LanceALott]

I have had a long-standing discussion going on with Kim, an Austrailian preacher. I asked him how in Hell the sacrifice of any animal (or man like Jesus) had anything to do with saving anyone from our sins. I wanted to know the mechanism of this barbaric belief where some other critter has to pay for our mistakes; and how is that justice. Below is his answer after thinking for a couple of weeks:


KIM : “ITS CALLED THE PERFECT PLAN”..........PLEASE PAY ATTENTION!!
GOD ,who created all things through Jesus Christ (John 1:1to5)knew in his
foreknowledge of all things, that mankind through Adam would sin, regardless of this
he continued to commence the creation of the world(this is his soveriegn will and
right)and put in place a perfect plan to redeem mankind prior to commencing his
creation.
At this point one would think that Adam, who was the first to sin, or even
Satan who was the cause of the situation, should have been the one who was nailed to
the cross to pay the penalty, but this was not the case . A righteous God who foreknew
these events chose to pay the price himself for the sins of those he created (1 Peter 1 :
18to21) thereby making a righteous decision to commence the creation and a just and
righteous act taking upon himself the responsibility of his actions, If God had not done
this then he himself would have sined by allowing mankind to be accountable for his
inaction,and as we all know..it is impossible for God to sin.

God, who came in the flesh as Jesus, came to be with his creation,so that they could
witness that he would indeed hold good to his word (fore told through his prophets)
that he would take the penalty for their sins, and in doing so redeem their lives.
(BY THE WAY THERE ARE SIXTY MAJOR MESSIANIC PROPHECIES IN THE
OLD TESTAMENT AND 270 RAMIFICATIONS THAT WERE FULFILLED BY
JESUS ,SO HE GAVE PLENTY OF SIGNALS TO LET US KNOW WHO HE
WAS AND HOW WE WOULD RECOGNISE HIM WHEN HE CAME)

So there you have it in accordance with scripture AN INNOCENT GOD (OR JESUS)
DYING FOR THE SINS OF MANKIND .(John 1:29) the perfect plan

LaL: Before I comment, I'd like to know if the Bible thumpers around here go along with Kim? Or if not, how would they answer my question.

[tileman]

Lonestar: What? You only accept the gospels and none of the epistles?


LL: Paul, and his epistles have their place; but Christ is King, not you, not Paul, not John the Baptist.

The Gospels must take priority, or you are not a Christian, you are still a Paulist.

Heck, without Paul and his BS, I doubt we would have ever heard of Christ. His religion was at least 2000 years ahead of His time, and Paul dumbed it down so guys like you and the priests could find something personally valuable enough to use and to sell and propagate, and in the process, those Gospels survived.


Well you must not put too much stock in Acts since it clearly shows Paul was chosen by the Lord to be one of his Apostles and I would assume his writings would be inspired.


Why would you assume that? In at least one place he states that it's him speaking and not the lord. Yet those words are scripture as well.

The apostles spent their whole time in the lords presence tripping over their own apendages, and as soon as he's gone they're all of a sudden HOLY? The one thing that's clear in the Gospels, is they're a bunch of buffoons, that rarely got anything right. (And I think Acts is total bull.) Not that I think the letters aren't instructive, or more realistically were instructive, ......... I just don't think it's all the word of God just because men say it is.........

There are contradictions.........the most glaring for me being told on the one hand, we're all filthy rags and ALL sin and fall short, yet on the other, be ye perfect.............Sorry, but I know the first to be true, and the second, impossible.
Hmmm, do I chuck the whole Bible, or do I keep what I feel to be true, and remember that the writers (whoever some of them might have really been) and those that chose which books would be scripture, were just men, hopefully usually inspired to at least some extent.

Each person's path should be his own, which would be the narrow compared to the hordes following this teacher or that telling themselves that those other guys are full of shit. No matter how you break it down we're all going our own ways anyway.... believing one way or another.

I think maybe a lot of it might be how you feel about those who feel differently than you do...............what's going to happen to all those that got it wrong.......?

Well judging from the number of views, chances are that none of us are so super special that we have all the answers, and how we judge, can very well be how we're judged.........I'd rather not.

Even if He is as layed back as I view Him.........if I get in it'll be by the skin of my teeth. (Yet I'm pretty sure He still loves me and it's no sweat for some reason.)

I think that man has a tendency to think he has all the truth as soon as he gets a little.........and maybe assumes that since that is the way he's to go, it's the way everyone else should too

:P

[tileman]

Lonestar: why should I follow you when this is what the bible says.

Lance: The stuff you quoted is was self-serving and based on what Paul said. Paul authenticates himself, and he says his writing is inspired.
The church went along with it because it gave them great authority and power.

If Luke was taken in by Paul, the first of the antichrists, you should know it was because Paul was a great showman, or as pagans say shamen.


I don't think Paul was the anti-christ or even bad (though who knows?) He has good things to say and then there are times when he seems pretty full of himself too.

You're really out there, aren't ya LanceALot...... ;D

[tileman]

I have had a long-standing discussion going on with Kim, an Austrailian preacher. I asked him how in Hell the sacrifice of any animal (or man like Jesus) had anything to do with saving anyone from our sins. I wanted to know the mechanism of this barbaric belief where some other critter has to pay for our mistakes; and how is that justice. Below is his answer after thinking for a couple of weeks:


KIM : “ITS CALLED THE PERFECT PLAN”..........PLEASE PAY ATTENTION!!
GOD ,who created all things through Jesus Christ (John 1:1to5)knew in his
foreknowledge of all things, that mankind through Adam would sin, regardless of this
he continued to commence the creation of the world(this is his soveriegn will and
right)and put in place a perfect plan to redeem mankind prior to commencing his
creation.
At this point one would think that Adam, who was the first to sin, or even
Satan who was the cause of the situation, should have been the one who was nailed to
the cross to pay the penalty, but this was not the case . A righteous God who foreknew
these events chose to pay the price himself for the sins of those he created (1 Peter 1 :
18to21) thereby making a righteous decision to commence the creation and a just and
righteous act taking upon himself the responsibility of his actions, If God had not done
this then he himself would have sined by allowing mankind to be accountable for his
inaction,and as we all know..it is impossible for God to sin.

God, who came in the flesh as Jesus, came to be with his creation,so that they could
witness that he would indeed hold good to his word (fore told through his prophets)
that he would take the penalty for their sins, and in doing so redeem their lives.
(BY THE WAY THERE ARE SIXTY MAJOR MESSIANIC PROPHECIES IN THE
OLD TESTAMENT AND 270 RAMIFICATIONS THAT WERE FULFILLED BY
JESUS ,SO HE GAVE PLENTY OF SIGNALS TO LET US KNOW WHO HE
WAS AND HOW WE WOULD RECOGNISE HIM WHEN HE CAME)

So there you have it in accordance with scripture AN INNOCENT GOD (OR JESUS)
DYING FOR THE SINS OF MANKIND .(John 1:29) the perfect plan

LaL: Before I comment, I'd like to know if the Bible thumpers around here go along with Kim? Or if not, how would they answer my question.


I wouldn't be you come judgement day for nothin'!!!!!!!.....

You might as well :-* your ass goodbye........... ;D

Lonestar: What? You only accept the gospels and none of the epistles?


LL: Paul, and his epistles have their place; but Christ is King, not you, not Paul, not John the Baptist.

The Gospels must take priority, or you are not a Christian, you are still a Paulist.

Heck, without Paul and his BS, I doubt we would have ever heard of Christ. His religion was at least 2000 years ahead of His time, and Paul dumbed it down so guys like you and the priests could find something personally valuable enough to use and to sell and propagate, and in the process, those Gospels survived.


Well you must not put too much stock in Acts since it clearly shows Paul was chosen by the Lord to be one of his Apostles and I would assume his writings would be inspired.


Why would you assume that? In at least one place he states that it's him speaking and not the lord. Yet those words are scripture as well.

The apostles spent their whole time in the lords presence tripping over their own apendages, and as soon as he's gone they're all of a sudden HOLY? The one thing that's clear in the Gospels, is they're a bunch of buffoons, that rarely got anything right. (And I think Acts is total bull.) Not that I think the letters aren't instructive, or more realistically were instructive, ......... I just don't think it's all the word of God just because men say it is.........

There are contradictions.........the most glaring for me being told on the one hand, we're all filthy rags and ALL sin and fall short, yet on the other, be ye perfect.............Sorry, but I know the first to be true, and the second, impossible.
Hmmm, do I chuck the whole Bible, or do I keep what I feel to be true, and remember that the writers (whoever some of them might have really been) and those that chose which books would be scripture, were just men, hopefully usually inspired to at least some extent.

Each person's path should be his own, which would be the narrow compared to the hordes following this teacher or that telling themselves that those other guys are full of shit. No matter how you break it down we're all going our own ways anyway.... believing one way or another.

I think maybe a lot of it might be how you feel about feel differently than you do...............what's going to happen to all those that got it wrong.......?

Well judging from the number of views, chances are that none of us are so super special that we have all the answers, and how we judge, can very well be how we're judged.........I'd rather not.

Even if He is as layed back as I view Him.........if I get in it'll be by the skin of my teeth. (Yet I'm pretty sure He still loves me and it's no sweat for some reason.)

I think that man has a tendency to think he has all the truth as soon as he gets a little.........and maybe assumes that since that is the way he's to go, it's the way everyone else should too

:P


Well you're making the case to throw the whole New Testament out the window since it's nothing but the writings of buffoons, I'll let you deal with buzzboy on that one. ;)

[buzaw]

Wow!! Outa town n come back to this challenge. It's half past midnight n gotta hit hay. I'll make a couple of statements and address some others when I can get back to it.

1. IMO, you throw out the book of Acts and Paul's epistles n you might as well throw out the whole NT, because you gonna wind up picking n choosing only what suits your personal thinking to suit your life/lifestyle and Jesus becomes your saviour but not your lord.

2. Salvation begins with the hearing or reading. Paul said one must hear before one can believe and one cannot hear without a preacher.

3. After the hearing, one must believe that he/she is a lost soul needing to be saved. Otherwise, forget it. If you're born ok n don't need savin, you needn't a saviour of any kind n the Bible's moot.

4. Why is man born a lost soul? Paul explained it, how Adam sinned and death was passed down to all men.

5. Why did Adam die in the first place? Because he sinned against the commandment of God. What was the punishment which God pronounced upon sin? Death. So in order for Adam to die, some changes were zapped into his being by God so as to make him eventually die physically. Not only that but he was booted from God's presence in the Garden so he was separated from God.

6. What was the first thing God did for Adam? Killed an animal and clothed him n Eve with animal skins. Thus signifying the sacrificial covering for sin. We learn from the account of Adam's sons from this time on, sacrificial atonement of an innocent living animal was required for the transgression of guilty man. It had to be a blood sacrifice. Cain's vegies were rejected -- no blood.

7. The animal sacrifices sufficed as a covering until an innocent human, i.e. the very Son of God himself was offered once and for all for the atonement.

8. So to be saved, one must believe in the need for sin atonement. One aspect of acknowledging ones need is repentance. Having believed, one must realize that the very son of God is the ONLY acceptable atonement. Having believed that, one must RECEIVE that atonement by CALLING UPON Jesus for salvation and RECEIVING Jesus as saviour. See John 1:12 (must receive) and Romans 10:16 (must call upon) How does one receive a person who dwells in Heaven? Via the Holy Spirit. (Baptism of Holy Spirit). The Holy Spirit is both the spirit of the Father and the spirit of the Son, one and the same spirit. When one calls upon Jesus for salvation, receiving him, it is that omnipresent dimension of God, the Holy Spirit which enters the individual. This is what Jesus was talking about with Nicodemus about being born again from above by the Holy Spirit.

9 About faith n works? I look at it this way. Faith is the Engine of the salvation train and works are the cargo. Having been saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8,9) where it says we're saved by faith n not works, one becomes a NEW CREATURE according to II Corinthians 5:17 and "old things are passed away; all things are become new.

10. Baptism? All converts in the New Testament were baptized. Why? A. It signifies the death burial and resurrection of Jesus. To baptize means to immerse. Otherwise it's lost it's meaning and significance. B. Jesus said if we refuse to acknowledge him before men, he'd not acknowledge us to the Father. Baptism begins this process as sort of an "initiation ceremony," if you will in the presence of men. It is that ONE PHYSICAL THING we are called to do in this matter of becoming a Christian. Does it save? No, but if Jesus is your lord, imo, you will do it willingly. Paul said, "I came not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." The gospel saves one to be baptized and live the Christian life. For a Christian to refuse, imo, is to disobey.

Having done all the above, imo, one is a bonafide Christian and has salvation. The thief on the cross was "saved" uniquely because that's the only way he could be and Jesus did not deny him that. He did acknowledge and called upon Jesus to save, fully realizing his lostness.

Having done the above, now being a new creature in Christ, imo, it is impossible to maintain that faith, that assurance, and that peace apart from the Bible, God's word and especially the New Testament. One must also regularly pray to God being now dependent upon him. We are admonished to assemble with one another as Christians as did ALL the Christians of the NT. Otherwise we tend to cool off as a coal isolated from the fireplace does.

What about James? Faith without works is dead. What he is saying here is that you encounter Christ and his Holy Spirit, it's gonna do something to your life. You say your saved? Ok, prove it. What change has the Holy Spirit wrought in your life since you were "converted?" Nobody can judge another in this. There's all degrees of progress in Christians. There's weak ones, so so ones and ones who go all out. In Heaven we will all be rewarded accordingly. Some will "suffer loss" for poor effort. Some who think their works are so pristine, are ones who have little love n so forth. God knows all our hearts in this. Any who see little or no change need to re-examine and re-commit, get into the word and "work out" the salvation they've commited to. Some have drifted so far after having received that they deny and denounce their saviour. That, imo, is very dangerous and as I see it, they lose it.

Sorry to be so windy here, but there's my take on this discussion. Take it for what it's worth to you n hopefully it'l be a help to someone. God bless. It's now about 2 AM. I got started n here we are. Gotta hit hay.

[LanceALott]

Buzz: 1. IMO, you throw out the book of Acts and Paul's epistles n you might as well throw out the whole NT, because you gonna wind up picking n choosing only what suits your personal thinking to suit your life/lifestyle

LaL: I am not throwing anythning out, but I am giving top priority to the Words of Jesus as found in the Gospels. "Picking and choosing" is exactly what Paul and the church fathers did many years after Christ's death; AND THEY DID IT TO ENHANCE THEIR OWN POWER.

Buzz: and Jesus becomes your saviour but not your lord.

LaL: That is precisly what Paul did as Paul appointed himself Lord while relegating Jesus to the role oif sacrificial goat. Later the church fathers and you have followed Paul as you try to Lord it over others.

Buzz: 2. Salvation begins with the hearing or reading.

LaL: Salvation does not begin, or end, It is, it was, and it will always be a Gift, whether asked for or not, whether the person even knows he has the Gift. There is no "reading or hearing" requirement to get this Gift.


Buzz: Paul said one must hear before one can believe and one cannot hear without a preacher.

LaL: Yes, Paul said that; and that is how Paul climed into the role of Lord, and how you now try to do the same thing with the load of BS, AND YOUR OPINIONS MIXED WITH PAUL'S in the sermon you preached above.

You cannot become a teacher until you understand the lesson, and it is plain to me you are not my superior in matters of the Holy Spirit. You are my student, and I am not sure you have what it takes to understand the lesson.

[LanceALott]

Tileman: I wouldn't be you come judgement day for nothin'!!!!!!!.....

LaL: Don't worry, you could not become me on that Day anymore than Paul could become Lord.

[buzaw]

Laz, the problem I see with your thinking on the name of Jesus being tied up in the Father as to salvation is that by acknowledging and calling upon the name of Jesus, you are acknowledging a. your need, b. your belief in his atoning death for your sins and c. that he's the only way to the Father. Jesus said, "no man comes to the Father but by me. As I understand your view, you are saying to acknowledge the Father is all that's necessary because he and the son are one. If that were so, there'd be no point in preaching the gospel of Jesus an no necessity for it. Salvation just isn't all that simple.

Acts 4:12 " Neither is there salvation in any other; For there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Check out the Bible concordance and note how many times the name of Jesus is emphasized in the matter of salvation in the NT.

[LanceALott]

Tileman: You're really out there, aren't ya LanceALot......

LaL: IAM what I AM.

[tileman]

I agree that "works" is a natural outcome of love in general. And if you love the Lord you'll naturally try to be what He would have you be.
I also don't have a problem with baptism, except when people start claiming it as a prerequisite for salvation, rather than an outward confirmation.
The apostles WERE depicted as being every day baffoons, like us all, concerning the knowing of His ways during His stay with us. But then when there is none to contrast them with, all of a sudden they're "flawless" and dipicted as more than just men. And though I take the gospels as being the word of God when He speaks, I see the epistles as being letters to various churches, by MEN with absolutely the best intentions. And I think Paul was aware of how much weight was placed upon his writtings when he basically said "Hey now, this is me speaking, not the Lord." I take that in general unless he implies otherwise. I don't think he was dishonest or anything, and believe his conversion experience.

Why would it be necessary to dump the whole NT if Acts proved to be a fake? (Which I think it probably is, as too much of it doesn't have His heart...........sorry) The gospels alone seem to be sufficient if need be.
Were those that chose the books and the churches that they represented tested and shown to be of the same heart as Him? If the annointing process and it's fruits are those that preceeded the inquisitions and reformation are indications, I'd say quite the contrary. How much later was this same institution butchering and raping? Again..........They were just men, and not particularly enlightened ones at that.
Denying Acts isn't the same as denying Christ.

[tileman]

I know you did this on purpose Bill...... ::)

[tileman]

Not that I didn't ask for it.... ;D

I agree that "works" is a natural outcome of love in general. And if you love the Lord you'll naturally try to be what He would have you be.
I also don't have a problem with baptism, except when people start claiming it as a prerequisite for salvation, rather than an outward confirmation.
The apostles WERE depicted as being every day baffoons, like us all, concerning the knowing of His ways during His stay with us. But then when there is none to contrast them with, all of a sudden they're "flawless" and dipicted as more than just men. And though I take the gospels as being the word of God when He speaks, I see the epistles as being letters to various churches, by MEN with absolutely the best intentions. And I think Paul was aware of how much weight was placed upon his writtings when he basically said "Hey now, this is me speaking, not the Lord." I take that in general unless he implies otherwise. I don't think he was dishonest or anything, and believe his conversion experience.

Why would it be necessary to dump the whole NT if Acts proved to be a fake? (Which I think it probably is, as too much of it doesn't have His heart...........sorry) The gospels alone seem to be sufficient if need be.
Were those that chose the books and the churches that they represented tested and shown to be of the same heart as Him? If the annointing process and it's fruits are those that preceeded the inquisitions and reformation are indications, I'd say quite the contrary. How much later was this same institution butchering and raping? Again..........They were just men, and not particularly enlightened ones at that.
Denying Acts isn't the same as denying Christ.


I wasn't trying to set you up tileman, honest ;D

Consider this, the Apostles were just ordinary men but they were hand picked by the Lord AFTER he prayed to his Father as to who to choose. They were eyewitnesses to his ministry and most important, his resurrection.

[buzaw]

I agree that "works" is a natural outcome of love in general. And if you love the Lord you'll naturally try to be what He would have you be.
I also don't have a problem with baptism, except when people start claiming it as a prerequisite for salvation, rather than an outward confirmation.
The apostles WERE depicted as being every day baffoons, like us all, concerning the knowing of His ways during His stay with us. But then when there is none to contrast them with, all of a sudden they're "flawless" and dipicted as more than just men. And though I take the gospels as being the word of God when He speaks, I see the epistles as being letters to various churches, by MEN with absolutely the best intentions. And I think Paul was aware of how much weight was placed upon his writtings when he basically said "Hey now, this is me speaking, not the Lord." I take that in general unless he implies otherwise. I don't think he was dishonest or anything, and believe his conversion experience.

1. I believe that though Paul indicated on an occasion he was using his own judgment, by an large he believed he was an apostle of God, speaking for God in establishing the doctrines of the church. From his spectacular conversion on and getting direct revelations from God indicates that his words, by and large were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

2. There's one and only one reason the apostles floundered before the cross and Penticost. Things changed at Penticost and not until then, for it was at Penticost that they were baptized by the Holy Spirit, i.e. "born again" of the Spirit of God as we are when we "receive Jesus as saviour. I believe it's Acts 1:8 where we read, "You shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost has come upon you, and you shall be witnesses to me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and to Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the world." {may not be exact quote, but close.)


Why would it be necessary to dump the whole NT if Acts proved to be a fake? (Which I think it probably is, as too much of it doesn't have His heart...........sorry) The gospels alone seem to be sufficient if need be.

1. Because the gospels were actually written while under the OT law and before Penticost. The animal sacrifices, temple worship, the passover were all still in place. It was to the apostles under the direction and inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the church was organized and set up. Jesus descipled his 12 for 3 years to prepare them for this task and over and again he assured them that after he was gone, their comforter, teacher and power supply would be the Holy Spirit. If it had all ended at the cross where the gospels end, there would be no church. The apostles were all church people and to them were the instructions given by Jesus. A very small fraction of all he said to them is recorded. What they said and did after Penticost was a reflection of this. Paul was not his direct desciple, but he worked with them and the miracle in his conversion, life and ministry back him up fully.


Were those that chose the books and the churches that they represented tested and shown to be of the same heart as Him? If the annointing process and it's fruits are those that preceeded the inquisitions and reformation are indications, I'd say quite the contrary. How much later was this same institution butchering and raping?

The cannon of scripture was established before this time by better folk than what participated in these atrocities. There was some decline, but the fundamentals were in place even in the early centuries of the church. The Vatican frauds were what they were because they did not follow the fundamentals of the established cannon which included the epistles and Acts. Had they followed those, there would have been none of this heresy and persecution. That's exactly why they forbad these to be read and interpreted by they laity.

By picking and choosing today what suits us is in a way as dangerous and as detrimental to the stability and quality of the church. What the apostles, including Paul taught were not in conflict with the teachings of Jesus.

[LanceALott]

Buzz: 1. Because the gospels were actually written while under the OT law and before Penticost.

LaL: Check your facts, Buzz, your Holy Spirit has failed you again:

Matthew written 60-70 AD

Mark 60-65 AD

Luke 60-65 AD

John 90-96 AD

LaL: All of those are long after the Pentacost. Your Spirit is feeding you crap.

Besides AD does not stand for After Death, it stands ofr the Latin that means After Birth, which is when the New Covenant began.

[tileman]

I think Buzz was referring to what was said and done as depicted in the Gospels being OT or prior to His culmination of it.

I don't think that all or even most of what Paul says is wrong (or even any)..........I like his writing....though I have doubts that all he said that ended up cannonized were God's words. Which really doesn't have anything to do with the book of Acts anyway.

But if it's that same filling of spirit, how is it that so many so called spirit filled Christians have it so differently and there was a thousand years of terror from both sides of the issue of what God was really about? That's half of the church's existance. But now we finally got it right? And it's so exclusive that we had a better chance under the mosaic law? Or are all of us screwed up and wrong,... seeking, trusting, and hoping for grace?

The more sure we are that we have all the answers, the more sure it is that we're wrong.

In Acts a dude was waxed because he was a bit stingy with his tithe, but today there are huksters ripping off little old ladies in His name on tv...........Something's different.....when did it change? Myself, I don't think the Acts account ever happened..........though I admit I could be wrong.

The narrow path is the one taken by just you and Him. We all end up going our own way whether it's by denomination, religion, or not. I trust my God, but no man that claims to speak for him........entirely anyway.

I still say, turning your heart to Him is enough..........even if you lack the words or specific name. And that may very well be why the Father didn't take one, and the son had so many.

[buzaw]

I think Buzz was referring to what was said and done as depicted in the Gospels being OT or prior to His culmination of it.

That's right. The events and what was said in the gospels were history by the time of Penticost.


But if it's that same filling of spirit, how is it that so many so called spirit filled Christians have it so differently and there was a thousand years of terror from both sides of the issue of what God was really about? That's half of the church's existance.

But what did Jesus say. "If they hated me they will hate you." And Paul said, "It is give you, not only to believe on him, but to suffer for his sake." We in the US don't really understand this. We Christians here take our very unique blessings for granted. By and large, the history of true, I say true Christianity has been that of the persecuted. During those thousand dark years the true Christians were the ones being burned at the stake and quartered n sawed, etc. The survivors were underground. Thus it was the [i]dark[i/]ages.


But now we finally got it right?

Well, yes n no. We in the West are free to preach it and live it, but we've become luke warm, soft and wimppy in this spiritual warfare in this hostile world. Revelation 3:20 describes us in the West. Christians in places like China and Sudan and places like that would be extactic to enjoy the freedom we have here to attend the house of worship without fear. In China the church is large an tough. They meet in places like the backwoods for fear of the police.

And it's so exclusive that we had a better chance under the mosaic law? Or are all of us screwed up and wrong,... seeking, trusting, and hoping for grace? .

Not really. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." I John 1:9


In Acts a dude was waxed because he was a bit stingy with his tithe, but today there are huksters ripping off little old ladies in His name on tv...........Something's different.....when did it change? Myself, I don't think the Acts account ever happened..........though I admit I could be wrong.

These didn't die because they were stingy. They died because they lied to the Holy Spirit, according to the text. This was a time of establishment of the church to be cannonized for all future Christians to read about. These were zapped as an example and a lesson for all to read, that you don't play games with and lie to God. It's not healthy. Yes worse has been done, but many have died premature deaths and in the end it all will come out. Then too, once this lesson was published, God's point was made.


I still say, turning your heart to Him is enough..........even if you lack the words or specific name. And that may very well be why the Father didn't take one, and the son had so many.

Definitely the main thing. But Jesus said, "I am the door. Anybody who tries to climb in another way is a thief and a robber." (not a direct quote) When it comes to something this important you want to get it right. Too much at stake to err.

[tileman]

But what did Jesus say. "If they hated me they will hate you." And Paul said, "It is give you, not only to believe on him, but to suffer for his sake." We in the US don't really understand this. We Christians here take our very unique blessings for granted. By and large, the history of true, I say true Christianity has been that of the persecuted. During those thousand dark years the true Christians were the ones being burned at the stake and quartered n sawed, etc. The survivors were underground. Thus it was the [i]dark[i/]ages.

Ok.........But the simple believers aren't the only ones that survived.......so did the bad guys who still push things they used to burn people over...(and I don't mean just the RCC)


But now we finally got it right?

Well, yes n no. We in the West are free to preach it and live it, but we've become luke warm, soft and wimppy in this spiritual warfare in this hostile world. Revelation 3:20 describes us in the West. Christians in places like China and Sudan and places like that would be extactic to enjoy the freedom we have here to attend the house of worship without fear. In China the church is large an tough. They meet in places like the backwoods for fear of the police.

I don't argue there aren't those that honestly serve Him, and there always has been. I don't think any one denomination or doctrine delineates them though.

And it's so exclusive that we had a better chance under the mosaic law? Or are all of us screwed up and wrong,... seeking, trusting, and hoping for grace?

Not really. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." I John 1:9.

And what if someone prays to the True and Just God, who's name he doesn't know, and asks for forgiveness? Doesn't the past and present injustice and larceny of the christian religion give them just cause to disregard them and their rituals? I don't necessarily equate rejection of what the church has seemed to represent, as rejection of Him.


In Acts a dude was waxed because he was a bit stingy with his tithe, but today there are huksters ripping off little old ladies in His name on tv...........Something's different.....when did it change? Myself, I don't think the Acts account ever happened..........though I admit I could be wrong

These didn't die because they were stingy. They died because they lied to the Holy Spirit, according to the text. This was a time of establishment of the church to be cannonized for all future Christians to read about. These were zapped as an example and a lesson for all to read, that you don't play games with and lie to God. It's not healthy. Yes worse has been done, but many have died premature deaths and in the end it all will come out. Then too, once this lesson was published, God's point was made.

Absolutely unlike anything Christ would have done imo.


I still say, turning your heart to Him is enough..........even if you lack the words or specific name. And that may very well be why the Father didn't take one, and the son had so many.

Definitely the main thing. But Jesus said, "I am the door. Anybody who tries to climb in another way is a thief and a robber." (not a direct quote) When it comes to something this important you want to get it right. Too much at stake to err.

If they seek His heart, He can't be found outside of the Church? I agree there's more room for error.........but the heart seems a better indicator than a man's words, and there's a bunch saying all the "right" words, and doing the "right " rituals, that He'll say He doesn't know.

What if the heart's right, but the words are wrong, or they have none at all?

[LanceALott]

Believing Things

Beliefs are not harmless things. Let me tell you the sad story of Laura Lee Rice:

In 1989, just over the hill from me, a loving and good looking blond mother, cut the heads off her two beautiful blond babies, Danielle and JoAnn, ages four months and fourteen months.

The drug-abusing mom, who was high on metamphetamine when the police questioned her, never denied doing it. When asked why, according to the headline on the article by Jay Dederick of the local newspaper, she said with a straight and serious face, “Medusa made me do it.”

According to what Rice BELIEVED a dark haired lady from the mine had told Laura that morning that the kids in her trailer house were not her real kids, but instead they were clones. Medusa told her, and made this lady who has an IQ of only 90 believe, that her real kids had been kidnapped, and the only way she could get them back was to cut off the heads of the clones and bury the heads and bodies in different graves.

I sat in on part of her trial about 9 months after the murders. I listened to Laura Lee tell her story from the witness stand, and she still believed they were clones, but was willing to bow to the beliefs of everybody else, that they were her own kids, as she broke down and cried.

And I’ve read the transcripts where the state psychiatrist testified. He said, “Believing things that are not true is the very definition of insanity.”

A detective also testified that according to blood and urine tests done on Rice, at the time she cut off the heads, she was completely drug free; and her supplier testified as to when Laura had injected herself after the babies were dead.

Today, Laura Lee is still in the Wyoming State Hospital; and little JoAnne and Danielle still lie headless in the same grave under a white heart-shaped stone in Mount Pisgah cemetery.

I think of those two helpless little babies every time some Bible Thumper tells me he has a right to believe any darn fool thing he wants to, or worse when he tells me he has a right to propagate any insanity he damn well chooses.

[buzaw]

Ok.........But the simple believers aren't the only ones that survived.......so did the bad guys who still push things they used to burn people over...(and I don't mean just the RCC).
Yah, there'll always be the bad guys so long as satan is at large. But these must be distinguised from the true believers.


I don't argue there aren't those that honestly serve Him, and there always has been. I don't think any one denomination or doctrine delineates them though.

I agree so far as denomination goes, but certain key doctrines like the exclusive doctrine of Jesus being the way, the truth and the life and the need to call upon him for salvation is necessary, imo. It's not acomplished somehow through osmosis as one has a vague knowlege and belief in God.


And what if someone prays to the True and Just God, who's name he doesn't know, and asks for forgiveness?

Paul says, "How shall they call upon him upon whom they have not heard, and how can they hear without a preacher? I know we'll likely have to agree to disagree here, but the buck to this all stops with parents who haven't taught the kids
way back when and eventually ignorance prevails. If they could call on any god/name, the pagan ones would suffice as well, and according to scripture, that simply isn't the case. Vegie farmer Cain tried the anything'll do thing with his vegies, n it didn't fly with God. There had to be a knowledge of and a belief in the required blood atonemnt then and so it is now, except now it's Jesus.


Absolutely unlike anything Christ would have done imo.
Paul didn't zap Annanias and Saphira, imo. He simply prophesied what God was doing. Jesus came as the saviour. To the apostles were entrusted the task of establishing the church, its setup and it's rules by the direction of the Holy Spirit.

[quote
If they seek His heart, He can't be found outside of the Church? [/quote]

I don't think I said that and certainly didn't mean to imply it. My point was that once saved, they became regular parrishoners of what the NT calls the church with deacons, overseers, n so forth called elders. It appears that most met in homes, likely the larger homes of the more affluent believers where they could be accomodated, but not necessarily so. It does say some place that in Antioch as many as were saved daily were added to the church. Imo, the church can be highly organized as some are or simply a few gathered to gather regularly with designated leaders having communion together, baptizing, praying and growing together in the Word. I do not, however believe 2 or 3 sitting in a room talking about the Bible constitutes a NT church. That doesn't quite hack it according to what we read.

[tileman]

Ok.........But the simple believers aren't the only ones that survived.......so did the bad guys who still push things they used to burn people over...(and I don't mean just the RCC)
.................................................. ......................
Yah, there'll always be the bad guys so long as satan is at large. But these must be distinguised from the true believers.

If these same bad guys set church doctrine for at least half it's existence, it would seem man would be justified in rejecting it's influence or dictates as to seeking Him.


I don't argue there aren't those that honestly serve Him, and there always has been. I don't think any one denomination or doctrine delineates them though
.................................................. ..............

I agree so far as denomination goes, but certain key doctrines like the exclusive doctrine of Jesus being the way, the truth and the life and the need to call upon him for salvation is necessary, imo. It's not acomplished somehow through osmosis as one has a vague knowlege and belief in God.

A vague knowledge and belief is probably all any of us have when you look at the various ways in which the institutions and leaders, who have claimed to speak for Him, varied, fought, and self promoted.
I doubt it would be thru osmosis..........revelation maybe? A still small voice that didn't identify Himself by name but by character?

And what if someone prays to the True and Just God, who's name he doesn't know, and asks for forgiveness?
.................................................. ...........................
Paul says, "How shall they call upon him upon whom they have not heard, and how can they hear without a preacher?

Perfect example. Was Paul convinced by the church or by a visit from Him? Could not, say the American indians, have also been visited without the Jewish history and know Him only as Loving Father?


I know we'll likely have to agree to disagree here, but the buck to this all stops with parents who haven't taught the kids
way back when and eventually ignorance prevails. If they could call on any god/name, the pagan ones would suffice as well, and according to scripture, that simply isn't the case. Vegie farmer Cain tried the anything'll do thing with his vegies, n it didn't fly with God. There had to be a knowledge of and a belief in the required blood atonemnt then and so it is now, except now it's Jesus.

If an understanding of the need for blood atonement is a requirement for salvation, a bunch of Christians will be left out. Though many believers understand the principle, the need escapes us.


Absolutely unlike anything Christ would have done imo.
.................................................. ..............................
Paul didn't zap Annanias and Saphira, imo. He simply prophesied what God was doing. Jesus came as the saviour. To the apostles were entrusted the task of establishing the church, its setup and it's rules by the direction of the Holy Spirit.

I don't buy it bud. It's not how Jesus would have handled it imo. They were supposed to be representing Him?

If you believe Acts.

[quote
If they seek His heart, He can't be found outside of the Church?
.................................................. .................................
I don't think I said that and certainly didn't mean to imply it. My point was that once saved, they became regular parrishoners of what the NT calls the church with deacons, overseers, n so forth called elders. It appears that most met in homes, likely the larger homes of the more affluent believers where they could be accomodated, but not necessarily so. It does say some place that in Antioch as many as were saved daily were added to the church. Imo, the church can be highly organized as some are or simply a few gathered to gather regularly with designated leaders having communion together, baptizing, praying and growing together in the Word. I do not, however believe 2 or 3 sitting in a room talking about the Bible constitutes a NT church. That doesn't quite hack it according to what we read.
[/quote]

I don't doubt that those that He loves and love Him are His church. I do doubt it's representation in Acts.

[buzaw]

If these same bad guys set church doctrine for at least half it's existence, it would seem man would be justified in rejecting it's influence or dictates as to seeking Him.


They didn't set it for the free thinking underground and the ones who chose death rather than the false. These were the true church. Nobody knows how vast this hidden body was.


I don't argue there aren't those that honestly serve Him, and there always has been. I don't think any one denomination or doctrine delineates them though

How about the exclusive doctrine of Jesus himself which says he's the only way to the Father and told fairly rightious Nicodemus and the rich young ruler who was so pristine and sincere in his belief that they needed something more?
.................................................. ..............


A vague knowledge and belief is probably all any of us have when you look at the various ways in which the institutions and leaders, who have claimed to speak for Him, varied, fought, and self promoted.
I doubt it would be thru osmosis..........revelation maybe? A still small voice that didn't identify Himself by name but by character?

1. We needn't have a vague knowledge with the 66 books of the Bible at our hands. As the astronomer and the physicist work at becoming knowledgeable, so the Biblicalist. The more you put into it, the more you learn. I guess that's one reason why we're here having this discussion. 8)

2. Personal "revelation" can be dangerous and missleading. It must, imo, to be safe, not contradict the written, given, proven revelation from God.


Perfect example. Was Paul convinced by the church or by a visit from Him? Could not, say the American indians, have also been visited without the Jewish history and know Him only as Loving Father?

What are they going to do about the sin problem? Some thought they needed to sacrifice their kids n wives, etc. Which brings us back to the words of Jesus, that it had to be through him. Nobody can die for their own sins. From Genesis to Revelation there had to be a sinless substitute.



If an understanding of the need for blood atonement is a requirement for salvation, a bunch of Christians will be left out. Though many believers understand the principle, the need escapes us.

One need not understand all there is to understand about the doctrine. If you have received and believe in Jesus, you have the atonement. Ones who've read much in the Bible cannot escape the atonement. Ones how have good mentors, i.e. pastors, teachers, friends, media, literature will get that message loud and clear. There's a lotta devilish false out there to lead astray though. Thus Paul told young Timothy, "prove all things."


I don't buy it bud. It's not how Jesus would have handled it imo. They were supposed to be representing Him?
If you believe Acts.

Luke, writer of his own gospel, also wrote Acts and was a good buddy of Paul, having been his frequent companion in his ministry. He was also one of the desciples of Jesus. Pretty hard, imo, to single out the writings and thinking of Paul as foreign to the gospels and Jesus and his apostles.