@David:

Been awhile O. Yes, Vescucci is right and that is what its about - you know how it is atimes when you can't find the right words to pass your thoughts across; thats what happened here and I too like you got to that point where I started to wonder if I was the only one remembering the sacrifices came before the Victory.

@Chi-baby:

read through again

Jesus is just a name. Whether or not God chose the name specially is of no consequence. I don't think there is anything to the name in itself for if there was we ought to using it as is i.e. Esau or something. It is just a name for the man.

Christ is not a name. It is a title. The Messiah. The anointed one. Whether or not he's the expected Messiah of the Jews (if there's or will be such a thing) is also irrelevant.

My point is that Jesus would still be as influential even if he was called John Smith. His name is just a name and there's no need to distinguish between Jesus and Christ. That was not Nuclearboy's intention either. It was just meant to be a clever way to highlight different parts of his time on earth.

vescucci:


Jesus is just a name. Whether or not God chose the name specially is of no consequence.

I don't think there is anything to the name in itself for if there was we ought to using it as is i.e. Esau or something.

It is just a name for the man.

Christ is not a name. It is a title. The Messiah. The anointed one.

Whether or not he's the expected Messiah of the Jews (if there's or will be such a thing) is also irrelevant.

My point is that Jesus would still be as influential even if he was called John Smith.

His name is just a name and there's no need to distinguish between Jesus and Christ. That was not Nuclearboy's intention either.

It was just meant to be a clever way to highlight different parts of his time on earth.

@vescucci

There is a lot to do with the name Jesus (i.e. Yeshua)

All Hebrew names have meanings

The Esau that you mentioned means hairy and it is a reference to his hairiness at birth

Another example. The name "Moses" comes from a root meaning  "take out" because Moses was taken out of the river

Now Jesus means Saviour and it is a reference to the fact He is the Saviour of mankind

It is a powerful name and here is what the scripture says of the name

Philippians 2:9-11:


"Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,

that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth,

and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

"Christ is not a name. It is a title. The Messiah. The anointed one." you said

That is true Christ is the greek for the Anointed One (i.e. set aside)

and as foretold by the prophets, Messiah is the hebrew for the Anointed One (i.e. set aside)

Have you ever wondered why did GOD need to or have to ask Adam questions, if GOD is omniscient:

"Where are thou" "Who told you that you were unclothed?" "Have you eaten from the tree whose fruit I commanded you not to eat?"

It seems ludicrous does it?

Anyway it was not because GOD doesnt know

but rather it was for Adam's benefit; self-awareness and self-discovery

". . . That was not Nuclearboy's intention either . . ." you stated.

True it isnt a tongue-in-cheek question but rather it is a lead-on to discovery and awareness (i.e. to spiritually discern or decipher)

Ok. I can see your point from the biblical point of view but what I'm saying is that whatever name he chose or was given, it would not detract one jot from his awesomeness or power, no? And all the beneded knees bit. I don't even get that. Contemporary pastors seem to have a field day on that. Surely you can see that it is supposed to be metaphorical or over-zealousness of whoever wrote that part of the bible. You can use a 2million watt speaker to scream Jesus' name and I assure you no human or animal or tree or anything will bow. Some might start bleeding through their ears but that will be it. Some won't even know what the sound means. So in reality, that part makes no sense. As an allegory, I'm sure you'll find a pat explanation but I can't really conceive of any. Self-awareness.

I dont get it.
It sounds more like.
Between Jonathan and Goodluck, who is Nigerian president?

vescucci:


Ok. I can see your point from the biblical point of view

but what I'm saying is that whatever name he chose or was given, it would not detract one jot from his awesomeness or power, no?

And all the beneded knees bit. I don't even get that. Contemporary pastors seem to have a field day on that.

Surely you can see that it is supposed to be metaphorical or over-zealousness of whoever wrote that part of the bible.

You can use a 2million watt speaker to scream Jesus' name and I assure you no human or animal or tree or anything will bow.

Some might start bleeding through their ears but that will be it.

Some won't even know what the sound means. So in reality, that part makes no sense.

As an allegory, I'm sure you'll find a pat explanation but I can't really conceive of any. Self-awareness.

@vescucci

I enjoyed the bended knees and bleeding ears humour

This is the point, names and naming matters (i.e. in Hebrew what you're called matters; it could be prophetic etc)

God renamed Sarai, He renamed Abram, Jacob was renamed, Benjamin was renamed, Saul was too, Peter as well etc

Not a self awareness as such but rather a discovery and awareness of the distinction & indispendable combo of Jesus and Christ

Crude parallel Jonathan Goodluck the President & Jonathan Goodluck the husband of Patience are the same person

but with different roles & capacities . . .

spiritually decipher indeed. Even the OP admits to wrong choice of words. Everyone seems skeptical about the true meaning of the OP, if not that he later began to clarify. There's nothing much to the post, just an attempt at being esoteric (which isn't equal to spirituality).

Hey e36991. I see your point but still I'm saying his name really holds no power on its own. Let me approach from another angle. You're a Christian apparently. You subscribe to the belief that Jesus has existed in some capacity since time immemorial, right? He was only named Jesus by God just over two millenia ago, right? Except you think God had always thought of Jesus as Jesus even before He created man, I'd say that name Jesus only sprung to existence then and only then. So all I'm saying is that whatever name he was called would change nothing about him. I won't choose to call my son Hitler, not because I fear, by some twisted turn of events, he might become like Hitler but because I don't want people to think of Hitler when they call his name. Likewise, most serial killers and rapists have good Christian or Muslim names. A name is just a name.
All the Jewish name permutations served different purposes but nothing like holding special powers. Simon to Peter did nothing conceivable in my opinion. He still faltered when he ought not to. Saul to Paul abi na vice versa didn't avert his overthrowing. Abram to Abraham, naught. Sarai to Sarah, naught. And a host of others. It seems to me like a hobby more than anything.

vescucci:


Hey e36991. I see your point but still I'm saying his name really holds no power on its own.

Let me approach from another angle. You're a Christian apparently.

You subscribe to the belief that Jesus has existed in some capacity since time immemorial, right? He was only named Jesus by God just over two millenia ago, right? Except you think God had always thought of Jesus as Jesus even before He created man, I'd say that name Jesus only sprung to existence then and only then. So all I'm saying is that whatever name he was called would change nothing about him. I won't choose to call my son Hitler, not because I fear, by some twisted turn of events, he might become like Hitler but because I don't want people to think of Hitler when they call his name.

Likewise, most serial killers and rapists have good Christian or Muslim names. A name is just a name.

All the Jewish name permutations served different purposes but nothing like holding special powers.

Simon to Peter did nothing conceivable in my opinion. He still faltered when he ought not to. Saul to Paul abi na vice versa didn't avert his overthrowing. Abram to Abraham, naught. Sarai to Sarah, naught. And a host of others.

It seems to me like a hobby more than anything.

@vescucci

" . . . still I'm saying his name really holds no power on its own" you say

True, true talk, I can live with that because the name on its own would be like a paper tiger

but with the blessing and anointing; it's potent!

". . . You're a Christian apparently" you enquired

Limiting! Take it that am more than a christian

and erm GOD is continually revealing . . . God hinted about the Saviour in Eden. The prophets foretold of the Saviour (i.e. Jesus) didnt they?

Do you know ALL about your partner. No, I dont think you would but as you continue in the relationship, more will be revealed. No?

Serial killers and rapists having good Christian or Muslim names without the blessing and anointing thereoff

Or even if they had the blessing etc, if the spirit has left them like as with Samson, then they're toasted

Its like a criminal adorning a good police uniform without the authority thereoff. The criminal will still commit the crime if minds put to it.

"Simon to Peter did nothing conceivable in my opinion. He still faltered when he ought not to" you stated

Yeah, a predicament of the carnal man and spirit man (i.e. Simon and Peter)

". . . Abram to Abraham, naught. Sarai to Sarah, naught . . ." you say

Naught? C'mon now, you know better than that, at least only from "exalted father" to "father of multitudes" should suffice for Abraham

The name and the blessing/anointing are mutually inclusive

Image123:


spiritually decipher indeed.

Even the OP admits to wrong choice of words. Everyone seems skeptical about the true meaning of the OP, if not that he later began to clarify.

There's nothing much to the post, just an attempt at being esoteric (which isn't equal to spirituality).

@Image123

Tag or label it what you want . . .

It ceases to be esoteric, the minute its here in the open as knowledge to share and discuss over

Give a brother a break . . .

I have a question.

Why was Jesus without sin?

Was it on account of -

- - his human nature or

- - his divine nature.

Since it is not possible for a human nature to be sinless then presumably he was without sin because of his divine nature.

Does this not presuppose that he should be perfect and beyond other human frailties - given that he was beyond the greatest human frailty- sin.

Does this not presuppose that such frailties such as the fear that seemed to besiege him in Gethsemane should equally be alien to him?

Thanks.

The Bible informs us that sin reigned to all men through Adam, the first man. God held Adam responsible for the offence seeing that he wasn't deceived. And so, every seed of man is born with sin (All have sinned). Anyone born of the flesh inherits that sinful nature. But Jesus had to be sinless for His sacrifice to be acceptable. He was not born of the seed of the man but of the woman. Genesis 3v15. What we call spermatozoa(the seed of the man) was not involved, so Christ wasn't born with a sinful nature.
But he was born of a woman, so had a divine-human nature. He could still sin, the fallen angels had no human nature but still sinned. But Jesus, in human form overcame temptationS and He is coming again for those who are overcoming. It's worthy of note that the promise of His coming in Genesis 3v15 was fulfilled about 4000 years later. One would have thought that Eve wil be alive to see her seed bruise the head of the serpent. In the same vein, as sure as you can read this post, jesus is coming soon. 2010 years is never late in His eyes, and yes, He is coming to take overcomers to His side and punish the others. The door of His mercy is open today for deepsight and for all others.

Deep Sight:


I have a question.

Why was Jesus without sin?

Was it on account of -

- - his human nature or

- - his divine nature.

Since it is not possible for a human nature to be sinless then presumably he was without sin because of his divine nature.

Does this not presuppose that he should be perfect and beyond other human frailties - given that he was beyond the greatest human frailty- sin.

Does this not presuppose that such frailties such as the fear that seemed to besiege him in Gethsemane should equally be alien to him?

Thanks.

Image123:


The Bible informs us that sin reigned to all men through Adam, the first man. God held Adam responsible for the offence seeing that he wasn't deceived. And so, every seed of man is born with sin (All have sinned). Anyone born of the flesh inherits that sinful nature. But Jesus had to be sinless for His sacrifice to be acceptable. He was not born of the seed of the man but of the woman. Genesis  3v15. What we call spermatozoa(the seed of the man) was not involved, so Christ wasn't born with a sinful nature.
But he was born of a woman, so had a divine-human nature. He could still sin, the fallen angels had no human nature but still sinned. But Jesus, in human form overcame temptationS and He is coming again for those who are overcoming. It's worthy of note that the promise of His coming in Genesis 3v15 was fulfilled about 4000 years later. One would have thought that Eve wil be alive to see her seed bruise the head of the serpent. In the same vein, as sure as you can read this post, jesus is coming soon. 2010 years is never late in His eyes, and yes, He is coming to take overcomers to His side and punish the others. The door of His mercy is open today for deepsight and for all others.

@^^^

Teach teacher! . . .

Yes e36991. We agree then. The name means nothing. The bearer makes it powerful, whatever that means. Though, why didn't God bless Abram directly? Must his name be changed for the blessing to work? And some blessing to the world Arabs and Jews turned out to be. But ah. Another can of worms. Image is making me itch with plenty questions o. The born of man bit is whoa! I'm not sure about the Eden story but for the sake of this discussion I'll run with it. Adam sinned, albeit vicariously, even though he was born of no man. Eve definitely sinned outright. Even by your estimation the 'born of man' theory won't work since it seems that women have more of this sinful nature than men. So you actually think sin is encoded in our dna? This brings me to another thing that puzzles me to no end. People like to say we're inherently evil. Asides from the things we do in self preservation, I think we also have a great capacity for doing good and being selfless. Why does it seem God is unconcerned about that aspect of us? A man that is 99percent good and 1percent evil is wholly evil in God's eyes? Why can't God just forgive what He wants outright especially as He's rarely sinned against directly. We hurt each other and we forgive each other.

From your Eden story, I assume you believe God can see the future perfectly. Answer me these

A bad man in his soul who has never had the opportunity to actually do bad, does that make him good then. Does he get to be with God as he has never done anything wrong? That might sound wrong or not quite right, right? Wait

If he doesn't get to be with God then what does God have against him? What's His grudge? If He knows him to be that was inherently, that means God made him that way and his free will is just a freedom to choose what evil he'll do. And doesn't that say something about God that will damn a man who's done nothing wrong or damn a man for staying true to the nature with which he was created?

vescucci:


Yes e36991. We agree then. The name means nothing. The bearer makes it powerful, whatever that means.

Though, why didn't God bless Abram directly? Must his name be changed for the blessing to work?

And some blessing to the world Arabs and Jews turned out to be. But ah. Another can of worms.

Image is making me itch with plenty questions o. The born of man bit is whoa!

I'm not sure about the Eden story but for the sake of this discussion I'll run with it.

Adam sinned, albeit vicariously, even though he was born of no man. Eve definitely sinned outright.

Even by your estimation the 'born of man' theory won't work since it seems that women have more of this sinful nature than men.

So you actually think sin is encoded in our dna? This brings me to another thing that puzzles me to no end.

People like to say we're inherently evil. Asides from the things we do in self preservation, I think we also have a great capacity for doing good and being selfless.

Why does it seem God is unconcerned about that aspect of us? A man that is 99percent good and 1percent evil is wholly evil in God's eyes?

Why can't God just forgive what He wants outright especially as He's rarely sinned against directly.

We hurt each other and we forgive each other.

From your Eden story, I assume you believe God can see the future perfectly. Answer me these

A bad man in his soul who has never had the opportunity to actually do bad, does that make him good then.

Does he get to be with God as he has never done anything wrong? That might sound wrong or not quite right, right? Wait

If he doesn't get to be with God then what does God have against him? What's His grudge?

If He knows him to be that was inherently, that means God made him that way and his free will is just a freedom to choose what evil he'll do.

And doesn't that say something about God that will damn a man who's done nothing wrong or damn a man for staying true to the nature with which he was created?

@vescucci

I hope I'll manage to cover/touch all the concerns raised. I'll try line by line

Agree? No, on the contrary. The name with the blessing (i.e. anointing) and not the bearer makes it powerful

Except legally, why aren't you arbitrarily picking a waif off the street and call it son or daughter

For the obvious reason that there is no relationship. The same applied to Abram and God. GOD couldnt bless Abram until a relationship was strucked

The name change from Abram to Abraham is a testimony to the fact

Sin is a trangression of the law. Adam, sure born of no man, sinned by disobeying the law of not eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good & evil

By the way, what you want, some powder or straightjacket for the itch

Jokes apart. Am serious now, pardon the excess. Now " . . . So you actually think sin is encoded in our dna . . ." you asked

For you to be a moderator, I am presuming you are IT software savvy

Consider this you have Microsoft Word software

If the global template file (i.e. normal.dot file) is corrupt, what happens to any new word document created with the Microsoft Word software?

Except the normal.dot file is sorted out/fixed, all word docs created will be dodgy

"I think we also have a great capacity for doing good and being selfless." you asserted

Capacity for doing good? Good? By whose standards?

Tell me. Your standards or whose?

No no no. No damnation the way you're twisting it

By His mercy, God offers forgiveness to all. Forgiveness is on the plate, meet His conditions and you'll receive it (i.e. forgiveness)

Actually I like a little humour. Some people think it means I'm not taking things seriously but surely not you. So, by all means, be my guest.

I think your software analogy is faulty because a bug is either there from the beginning or some external element introduced it. In the case of Eve and Adam, they just sinned, pure and simple. In any case, if I were to accept that analogy, what does Jesus' coming achieve? It doesn't change our nature an iota. I'm skeptical about the born again brouhaha but no one won't concede that even a born again person can sin. All they'll say is, 'he won't remain perpetually in sin' or some other back door explanation. So Jesus didn't come to fix us. He just came to sort of give us a secret passage to God, no? I'll leave my misgivings about this for later. So unlike fixing a bug in a software which will make all subsequent outputs perfect, the same cannot be said of man. A born again man and woman can birth a murderer.

I assume you're coming back later to address my itches (I only require scratching by the way, thank you) but you just raised something that bothers me. There's such a thing as being selfless. There's such a thing as a selfless gift. It is said that the best deed is one that the right hand does without the left hand's knowledge. Don't you think there's something wrong with the picture when God demands acknowledgment for his son giving his life away? How is it a selfless gift? Who would choose hell over heaven? It's not my fault that I don't believe Jesus died for me. How can God possibly hold it against me that I cannot comprehend and accept something with the limited brain He gave me? It's crazy! If He really died for my sins, I ought to be forgiven whether I ask for forgiveness or not, whether I acknowledge the sacrifice or not.

I forgot. Good is good. As evil is evil. I dunno about standards but if you want an answer, I'd say take your pick. God's or man's. It makes no difference to me. Atheists can be as good as any born again Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu.

vescucci:


Actually I like a little humour. Some people think it means I'm not taking things seriously but surely not you. So, by all means, be my guest.

I think your software analogy is faulty because a bug is either there from the beginning or some external element introduced it. In the case of Eve and Adam, they just sinned, pure and simple. In any case, if I were to accept that analogy, what does Jesus' coming achieve? It doesn't change our nature an iota. I'm skeptical about the born again brouhaha but no one won't concede that even a born again person can sin. All they'll say is, 'he won't remain perpetually in sin' or some other back door explanation. So Jesus didn't come to fix us. He just came to sort of give us a secret passage to God, no? I'll leave my misgivings about this for later. So unlike fixing a bug in a software which will make all subsequent outputs perfect, the same cannot be said of man. A born again man and woman can birth a murderer.

I assume you're coming back later to address my itches (I only require scratching by the way, thank you) but you just raised something that bothers me. There's such a thing as being selfless. There's such a thing as a selfless gift. It is said that the best deed is one that the right hand does without the left hand's knowledge. Don't you think there's something wrong with the picture when God demands acknowledgment for his son giving his life away? How is it a selfless gift? Who would choose hell over heaven? It's not my fault that I don't believe Jesus died for me. How can God possibly hold it against me that I cannot comprehend and accept something with the limited brain He gave me? It's crazy! If He really died for my sins, I ought to be forgiven whether I ask for forgiveness or not, whether I acknowledge the sacrifice or not.

vescucci:


I forgot. Good is good. As evil is evil. I dunno about standards but if you want an answer, I'd say take your pick. God's or man's.

It makes no difference to me. Atheists can be as good as any born again Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu.

@vescucci

A software bug (i.e. coding error resulting in a defect) is different from a corrupted file (i.e. the normal.dot file infected by a virus)

Anyway I'll let that roll

The way you're going it seems you're itching for the boat to be pushed out. Into deep waters?

Right. It started with choice in beginning, didnt it? In Eden? Life and death.

Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge of Good & Bad centrally placed in the garden

So whats wrong with presently needing/having to choose Life again (i.e. Jesus) or dareisay death

Hey no matter what, do you know what comforts me? Puts me at peace?

When the chips fall wherever they may, God is Just.

Whatever the verdict you can be rest assured and satisfied the judgment is right and just

. . . and hey almost forgot this bit

Good is good but better put only God is good

Goodness without right standing with God is a false representation to no purpose and is delusional.

The virus is the external element introduced. As I inferred, the trouble does not emanate from the software itself. You follow? So man cannot be blamed for being misled.

Na wa o. Only God is good? I think only God is absolutely good for other reasons though. If He kills everyone of us, I wouldn't consider it evil. He can do as He pleases, but that is for another time. Have you ever wondered why ever did God even put the doggone Tree of Knowledge in Eden? Perhaps to tempt us? A thing we often accuse the devil of doing? I'm not saying something or the other, I just like to keep an open mind and not run away with an idea of God as I wish it to be. I don't think evil emanated or was born by man. I think God knows what evil is or He created the concept. People like to say things like He is absolute love. How can you be such a thing without a subject? I mean you can't be a killer if there's absolutely nothing to kill. How can God be absolute love in our eyes when the creation of man is new by God's time? He knows and knew about evil or He created it. What is the use of freewill when there is nothing like evil. What I'm trying to say is Adam is responsible for Adam and I am responsible for me and you you. There is no original sin. We already have a concept of good and evil in out psyche. That's why we have a conscience. Everyone makes his own choices and is not influenced by any bug in the software or virus. Also, good is good. If God is allergic to evil, He ought to be drawn by good too. I'd die for my siblings. I'd kill anyone who would harm them. I am not all good. I am not all evil. I'm a mixture of both as is every human. In some, the good is winning and in some the good is losing. God is good. Do you suppose an eternity in hell is fair or just? Even Hitler doesn't deserve that. Whatever Heaven is too, no one merits it. Yes o. I am itching very well and I don't mind deeper waters. I dunno if you can answer all my questions though. But I'd appreciate if you can try

vescucci:


The virus is the external element introduced. As I inferred, the trouble does not emanate from the software itself. You follow? So man cannot be blamed for being misled.

Na wa o. Only God is good? I think only God is absolutely good for other reasons though. If He kills everyone of us, I wouldn't consider it evil. He can do as He pleases, but that is for another time. Have you ever wondered why ever did God even put the doggone Tree of Knowledge in Eden? Perhaps to tempt us? A thing we often accuse the devil of doing? I'm not saying something or the other, I just like to keep an open mind and not run away with an idea of God as I wish it to be. I don't think evil emanated or was born by man. I think God knows what evil is or He created the concept. People like to say things like He is absolute love. How can you be such a thing without a subject? I mean you can't be a killer if there's absolutely nothing to kill. How can God be absolute love in our eyes when the creation of man is new by God's time? He knows and knew about evil or He created it. What is the use of freewill when there is nothing like evil. What I'm trying to say is Adam is responsible for Adam and I am responsible for me and you you. There is no original sin. We already have a concept of good and evil in out psyche. That's why we have a conscience. Everyone makes his own choices and is not influenced by any bug in the software or virus. Also, good is good. If God is allergic to evil, He ought to be drawn by good too. I'd die for my siblings. I'd kill anyone who would harm them. I am not all good. I am not all evil. I'm a mixture of both as is every human. In some, the good is winning and in some the good is losing. God is good. Do you suppose an eternity in hell is fair or just? Even Hitler doesn't deserve that. Whatever Heaven is too, no one merits it. Yes o. I am itching very well and I don't mind deeper waters. I dunno if you can answer all my questions though. But I'd appreciate if you can try

@vescucci

"Do you suppose an eternity in hell is fair or just?" you queried. I suppose you know death and hell are cast into the lake of fire

Noticed it was a sentence reply. Sorry have to hit the sack, I usually turn in hours earlier than now

Twas a pleasure. Hope it was mutual. Muncho gracias for your time. What you say, tomorrow is another day?

We may tackle and trash out "What is the use of freewill when there is nothing like evil" etc

As e36991 has pointed out above "death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire" which ends both and also the concept of "eternity in hell". That however is not my purpose in this post.

I may be villified for this but concerning the issue of "Only God is Good", I have issues - The Scriptures were penned down by Men who all believed in God and saw His power asserted "positively" in their own lives. God was "good" to them and they were right saying God is good. The Amalekites on the other hand, or the inhabitants of Jericho would likely not say the same. We have parallels today with say, believers being equal to the writers of the scriptures and unbelievers being the amalekites. The latter group would likely scream "God is bad".

Rather than take any man from either side's word for it, why not ask God Himself - God described Himself eloquently enough in the Scriptures - "I AM THAT I AM", not "good", "bad", "handsome", "selfish" etc. Furthermore, in Isaiah "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord do all these things". In effect, from the perspective of God, the idea is performing His Will and achieving His purpose. I use the allegory of a Rabbit farmer who gives one as pet to his daughter, trains another for fighting, sells a third at market and kills the fourth for food at the table - I doubt if he considers how the individual rabbits feel. Being alive, I'm sure these also have preferences. The "pet" rabbit which will be bathed, groomed and likely even have a sleeping "cot" would feel the master very Good.

For us as humans, trained all our lives to see ourselves as the crown of existence (at our earthly level), it seems logical that anything we do not like is "bad" but I am of the belief we over-reach when we decide to judge "God".

Just some thoughts on the "God is Good" concept

De nada, e36991. It's another day already, lol.

Nuclearboy. Perfection! Though my thoughts can be said to go deeper but your take summarizes it perfectly. Good is not good or bad. He just is. What He wills is what is good. That's why John 3.16 gives me the creeps. The world consists of drug dealers and terrorists and child abusers etc and most of these people won't repent. Even about God being just. It might not be in the same way we think of it. I believe God will do what He says He'll do but what He'll might seem unfair to us. I like the farm animal example. Who says it's fair to kill them for food? The nicest human will gorge a steak like a beast without even the least bit remorse. Imagine how we must look compared to God. Especially as we deserve more than just gorging.

Are you guys saying that hell and death will be cast into the lake of fire and then cease to exist along with the inhabitants? I thought hell and the lake of fire are the same thing. And so what if it's not an eternity but merely a billion years? That doesn't make it fair?

vescucci
You said you're not sure of the Eden story? Man, don't just run with it o, you've got to live with it. This is necessary if you're going to get anything significant from the study of God's Word. Even Jesus Christ agrees with the Eden story and quoted it. It's when we take God's Word(the Bible) as one that we can get the right perspective.
Now you'll know from your sciences in school that we do inherit something from our ancestors. It could be a blood group, a trait, a disease, poverty, house etc. In the same way, all men/humans are counted to have been IN Adam and inherited his corruption. A similar analogy is used in Hebrews 7v9,10
9 And as I may so
say, Levi also, who receiveth
tithes, payed tithes in
Abraham. 10 For he was
yet in the loins of his
father, when Melchisedec
met him.
Levi, a great grandson of Abraham, is said to have payed tithes in Abraham, when in real time, Levi's grandfather wasn't even born! It's the way we see it o, coming to Romans 5v18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came
upon all men to
condemnation; even so by
the righteousness of one
the free gift came upon all
men unto justification of
life.
So in summary, Adam messed up on your behalf, but there's hope in Christ.

Now, God's standard is on a strong stand against presumptuous sin.
Hebrews 10v26 For if we sin wilfully
after that we have received
the knowledge of the
truth, there remaineth no
more sacrifice for sins.
Forgiveness for such requires more grace and mercy. Adam's sin can be considered presumptuous, not indirect. See Genesis 3v12,13
12
And the man said, The
woman whom thou gavest
to be with me, she gave me
of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the Lord God said
unto the woman, What is
this that thou hast done?
And the woman said, The
serpent beguiled me , and I
did eat.
Eve was deceived, but Adam knew very well what he was doing. The two were still punished anyway, but Adam is held responsible. And so, everyone born of Adam is 'infected' already. Adam was not created that way btw, he was created good. Genesis 1v31 And God saw every
thing that he had made,
and, behold, it was very
good. And the evening and
the morning were the sixth
day.
Then went adam and fell into the gutter of sin and blamed others for it, and judgement was passed. That's what made Adam 'corrupt', he failed Eden's test. Of his free-will, he choose the wrong tree, the only tree he was specifically told not to choose.

Then vescucci, you said something about humans having great capacity for doing good. Sure we do, it's just that many of us do not, or is it cannot implement that capacity or potential. The natural man would always tend toward evil. You can observe even little children, they need to be taught and re-taught and then taught, if not forced to do good (e.g say thank you, smile, give etc). But you don't even teach them evil, they have it. They're selfish, angry, can tell lies, and are stubborn, just naturally, contrary to parent's expectation and desire.
It's like spoilt food. It was once good but got spoilt. Nothing can bring it back to good. You may freeze it, warm it, add salt, put it in a fine plate, on a golden table, surround it with chicken and malt. It's still spoilt. It needs a miracle, a CONVERSION, or you discard it. It is spoilt before God. The 99% good done to it cannot make up for the fact that it is spoilt, poisonous. But there is hope, a remedy, a redemption, a CONVERSION.
Romans 5v18b even so
by
the righteousness of one
the free gift came upon
all
men unto justification of
life.
Jesus Christ was sent to remedy the situation. God is not 'seemingly unconcerned', seeing that He promised already in Genesis 3v15 that the Saviour would come.

^
Man is created with a will. That's great power, and it comes with great responsibility. His sin MUST be judged. The soul that sins shall die, the wages of sin is death (Romans 6v23). This is where Jesus the Messiah/Saviour comes in. He takes man's place. He died for our sins, bore our judgement/condemnation. His sacrifice is precious and acceptable because He's a clean sacrifice, No spot, no sin. That's why in the Old testament, a clean animal's blood was temporarily shed. The animal was killed in place of the man. But it wasn't efficient. Man had to be judged for man, and God so loved us that He gave the sacrifice Himself, no man was worthy btw. He helped our helplessness.
Revelations 5v3-5. And no man in heaven, nor
in earth, neither under the
earth, was able to open the
book, neither to look
thereon. 4 And I wept
much, because no man was
found worthy to open and
to read the book, neither
to look thereon. 5 And one
of the elders saith unto
me, Weep not: behold, the
Lion of the tribe of Juda,
the Root of David, hath
prevailed to open the
book, and to loose the
seven seals thereof.
Man's depravity is so pathetic that nobody even in heaven was prepared to help him. But thank God, Jesus came and was sacrificed on our behalf (Romans 5v18).
So costly a sacrifice, yet all that is required of men is to accept it (your will), whosoever believeth in Him would not perish but have life. Our part is so cheap, so easy that we miss it altogether.
Numbers 21v8,9

8 And the
Lord said unto Moses,
Make thee a fiery serpent,
and set it upon a pole: and
it shall come to pass, that
every one that is bitten,
when he looketh upon it,
shall live. 9 And Moses
made a serpent of brass,
and put it upon a pole,
and it came to pass, that if
a serpent had bitten any
man, when he beheld the
serpent of brass, he lived.
The above was beyond reason and logic, it was a matter of faith. No rationale, just believe, look up.
I'm guessing that there were some people who refused to simply look up, but died instead because they thought the idea was ridiculous.
John 3v14-16
14 And as Moses
lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, even so must
the Son of man be lifted
up: 15 That whosoever
believeth in him should not
perish, but have eternal
life.
16 For God so loved the
world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have
everlasting life.
Vescucci, pardon all my stories, the point is that you too can believe. There's little risk in believing. Jesus comes in and pays for your punishment, and gives you power to please God. Yes there's temptation but He gives you power. All you need to do is accept. I beseech you to repent and be CONVERTED.

Aww, Image. I'm touched. Really I am. There're many faiths beseeching also. With even less confusing doctrines. The fact the gospel writers reckon so much with the old testament sef makes me shiver. But that's digressing. Let me answer you one post at a time.

Let me clarify first that I'm not part Christian or something. I believe in say only ten percent of the bible. That even only means I agree with those parts and not some knee-weak conviction. I believe in the truths of some other holy books. The Eden story is more or less the same in Islam but Muslims say every man is born sinless. He can only be influenced by his parents and surroundings. He is responsible for his conduct only once he attains maturity and anything before then matters not. I'm comfortable with that. To me sin is nothing but going against God's will. Simple. If God ordained that we ought to slap our parents in the morning and sleep with our sisters, those would be good deeds. If He says we should never show affection, it would be sin to do so. It is that simple to me. Then if you say Adam was created perfect, it would be impossible for him to sin. Simply impossible. It is impossible for Jesus to sin, is it not? For Adam to sin at all shows free will is the only thing responsible for sin and nothing more. Nothing like original sin. Every man is responsible for himself. The blood sacrifice of the Jews is not exactly meant for atonement but I don't wanna digress. I believe God is not incapable of simply forgiving someone. He can do so if He wants. Ask for forgiveness and you get it. Which kinda creepy justice is only moved to punish sin and never reward righteousness. You gave examples of children naturally behaving naughty. Well, you the parent bother to teach them morals. Why do you bother? Is it not cuz you want what's best for them. I'm sure you'd give your life to save your family from certain death. Even atheists with no hope of a hereafter would do so. Even animals will do so. If we were not also inherently good, every society would be anarchist. We tend to do evil, yes. But we also tend to do good. You have a conscience whether you're a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever. So Adam messed up on his behalf. I'm responsible for my behalf. The only thing he might have denied me is Eden. On to the next one.

Why do this people feel christians have to justify themselves to them everytime
Follow whatever you like, it is your life

Image. Believing is not something one can force himself to do. You either do or you don't. I find it hard to believe God will balance my hereafter on the vagaries of my mind. If Jesus has paid for every one's sins there'd be no need for judgement at all. I don't think God ought to be in need of anyone's acknowledgement.

vanitty
Posts: 686

Online

Re: "Jesus" Or "Christ"? Which are you following?
« #59 on: Today at 05:57:33 PM »

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

Why do this people feel christians have to justify themselves to them everytime
Follow whatever you like, it is your life








It is because it is the christians who make it their business to tell everybody that if they dont believe what they believe, they are doomed!!   It is an inherent part of the religion!  It is called "spreading the good news"  I call it minding other people businesses.  A good christian is suppossed to take it as a commission to tell everybody who disagrees with them that they are going to hell!! Even if you mind your own business, they shove tracts thruogh your door, stop you in the road to "give you the good news", threaten you on tv, radio or any other way they can find!   And when you tell them their beliefs and doctrines are junk, they get angry and tell you to mind your own business   By the very nature of this funny religion, a good christian is not supposed to mind his own business.  The more people he disturbs, the more credit he gets in his celestial bank account!!  They call it "winning souls"!!

You tell someone who is quite passionate about their course that what they believe in is "junk" just to get a rise off them, end off. Don't pretend otherwise. There are better ways of communication my dear.
If you do not understand something, the least you can do is ignore completely, it takes less than a minute to recycle all the tract or brush off any unwanted person on the street or keep an open mind and listen

You guys are saying the same things. It's hilarious.