I don’t believe my position is inconsistent. I have tried to make it clear and evidently haven’t done so. What I do see is that while you accuse me of cherry picking pasasages while doing exactly that. I am happy to discuss the Bible from the standpoint of it being the word of God. If we accept that as true then we must try and reconcile the passages I mentioned as well as others to try and understand the complete message of the Bible. You’ll note that I have backed up my beliefs with Biblical passages and can continue to do so in a logical reasonable manner. You will not agree and tell me your interpretation is correct and mine is wrong. In the end all that is is your opinion. You might point out years of Christian tradition and how many people agree with you. Sorry, …that doesn’t matter to me. My responsibility is to decide honestly for myself what I believe and where the spirit is leading me, since that’s what Christ taught me to do.
History tells us that reincarnation was taught by Christian theologians for a few hundred years after Jesus. Should we not question why that was and what happened to those beliefs? A church corrupted by it’s merger with the state declared them heresy and then proceeded to not worship Christ as they persecuted and murdered those who disagreed with them. You can choose to value the traditions of that corrupt church if you like. I have good reason to doubt them.
IMHO I follow the teachings of Jesus by seeking to commine with and follow the Holy Spirit over the traditions and teachings of men. I clearly see that in the Bible and in his words. OTOH can you show me any passages that tell me to follow a book and that it’s God’s plan that I do so. How about other mens interpretation of said book. Where does it tell me to follow that rather than the Holy Spirit?
That was really long and unessecary but onward. The question is what is actual worship of God and Jesus? What constitutes following the teaching of Christ? Not by our standards but by his. As I’ve already pointed out, it’s following the Holy Spirit that will lead us to acts of love, compassion, and courageous honesty.
Not every one that says Lord Lord but he who DOES THE WILL …right?
Here’s another example.
The parable of the sheep and goats in Matt 25:31-46
The goats who thought they had done much in the name of the Lord {meaning they were obviously religious but missing the point} were sent away. The sheep didn’t know why they were being rewarded. Wouldn’t someone who followed Christ know why they were being rewarded? Here Jesus obviously points out that real worship is reflected by your acts of love and compassion, not lip service.
WOW…assumption is indeed the correct term. That seems to be a convoluted way of forceing the scripture to fit presupposed beliefs. There are numerouos passages that clearly state we {mankind not just Chistians} will be judged according to our works and rewarded according to our deeds. Not 1 not 2 numerous. If you truly believe the Bible is the word of God then you must believe those verses are also true and the challenge is to then reconcile them with the passages refering to faith in Christ being enough to save us. If A is true and B is also true, then what is the truth that equals the sum of A and B?
Try to get this, That’s not what I said. Of course love God with all your being. What I’m saying is that loving God is deeper than the superficial language of organized religion. It occurs within the individual on a level that we cannot see but God sees. If someone rejects the wrathful God of fundamentalists they are not rejecting God, but simply some human teaching.
Then someone better tell the hundreds of different Christian denominations.
I agree there is one true path and it exists within us when we follow the Holy Spirit. It’s not the name of our religion or the name we give lip service to. By one spirit do we become members of the same body.
Again, this is only your opinion. If that passage existed in a void I might agree with you but it does not. In this thread I’ve pointed out several passages that indicate reincarnation. The other factor that strengthens my belief is the very obvious references to a process of spiritual growth and things like “continue on to perfection” or “Be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect” or “work out your salvation.” In the face of eternity and a timless God and this process of spiritual growth that is so clear in the Bible, does it make sense that we only have a few years to get our act together. Not to me. Is it reasonable to consider that a corrupt church might suppress a legitimate doctrine for it’s own purposes? Again, yes.
Karma in the way you are viewing it does not teach to not help people. Yes. The problem I am seeing is that you are attempting to understand other people based on your own values. Take for instance a racist person. Someone who completely pre-judges black people. Under your set of values, this almost does not even make sense. What you have to realize is that different people have different values. Do you not know the negative consequences karma has had in some eastern countries? People don’t give two shits about the lower people and their excuse is that they deserve it based on their past lives experiences. It provides a reason for people to justify negative actions. Would you be okay with giving people a logical reason for being racist? The only facts we know are that we have no idea whether we get what we deserve. And Christ taught just the opposite. That we cannot simply know what people deserve and do not deserve. Tragedies strike sinner and saint alike.
What intellectual leap do you have to do to get past
Timothy 2:3-6-3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.
A ransom for all men. What does this mean to you?
I must ask you what your reasons are for finding a biblical basis for reincarnation. The one thing I find troubling about a forum such as this is that we never find out peoples reasons for what they say. Your reasons are the most important thing when discussing a non proveable discussion. Everyone knows that when it comes to scientific discussions, you have to be truthful because what you say can be verified. This is obviously not quite the same in discussions about life. So what are your reasons? From what I have gathered (and please correct me at the slightest misunderstanding) is that you are looking for a reason for people to have more time to find God/Christ, to understand punishment/reward, and to have a better understanding of how you reach salvation. In regards to the last question about how you reach salvation, it seems as if you have a problem with Christs’ and Gods’ explanation that you need to know Christ to go to heaven. You appear to be making a way for other people who do not know Christ to know him in other lives. But why would you have a problem with people who have an honest chance to know Christ, who simply do not accept Him? Is that not a good enough reason to turn down someone? It seems as if you know exactly what Christ is teaching, you just are not willing to accept it.
Well, while this is all true, many scholars have debated whether Jesus appeared in a different physical body (at least in terms of appearance) after the resurrection, as he was not recognized by those that knew him well.
In that context, if one wanted to, one could imply or count this as a form of reincarnation, while it isn’t the way that we usually consider it in the strictest sense.
Cosmosdan
Let me see if I can make this clearer. With the whole faith/works issue.
As far as I can see you are envisioning essentially 3 or four sets of people.
Those that have faith in Jesus and have “good works”
Those that have faith in Jesus and do not have “good works”
Those that do not have faith in Jesus and have “good works”
Those that do not have faith and do not have “good works”
It seems that you are arguing that of these four groups, groups 1 and 3 are populated by “good” people who go to heaven, not sure what you think about 2, and 4 is full of bad people that do not go to heaven.
This view is NOT how the bible presents it. In the biblical view groups 1-4 are all full of bad people, and it is only the grace of God that saves any, in this case those in group 1.
Now you retort “what about the saved by your deeds passages”. These fit into this view because in the eyes of God the “good deeds” that these passages talk about demonstrate your membership of group 1.
So you may ask, what about group 2, they have faith in God, why aren’t they saved? The answer is in passages like James
What James is saying here is NOT that you can be saved by works alone, what he is saying is that faith without works is no faith at all. That one of the necessary characteristics of faith is that it leads people into good works. And this is the understanding that evangelicals have about the “saved by works” type passages. That they are not saying that it is possible to be saved by works alone, but that the works that are talked about are demonstrative of a saving faith.
Now, what about the people in group 3 you ask? Aren’t they “good” people. Don’t their good works show evidence that they have the Holy Spirit? Aren’t they saved as well. The answer is no., they are not saved, because we are saved by faith, and they have none.
First of all it is worth pointing out that in God’s eyes the set of “good people” that do not worship him is an empty set. To God failing to love God is a grevious sin. To see how God looks at people worshipping other Gods (or none at all) look at Ezekiel 16. This passage talks about Israel as a young child that was rescued and nurtured by God, but when it came time for her marriage instead of being betrothed to God who loved her and cared for her she became a skanky whore, going after other gods that did nothing for her. That is how God sees people worshipping other gods, and it is not the actions of a “good” person.
Fundamentally Christianity is not a legalistic religion. It is not about obeying all the rules that God lays down. It is about relationship, most importantly relationship with God, and secondly relationship with each other. Saying that Christianity is just about loving others misses the fact that Jesus saw loving God as being even more important than loving others (since loving God was the first commandment, and loving others was the second). And Jesus and the bible writers make this point in a variety of ways. Even as you pointed out, that Christians are to be one body, yes, but with Christ as the head. Those that do not accept Jesus cannot be part of the body for they are not united with its head. Secondly, think about how the bible presents heaven. The fundamental point about heaven is that heaven is where God is with his people. Why would someone who is not in relationship with God want to spend eternity with Him?
Secondly on the group three people the bible would also say that those in group three do NOT have the Holy Spirit either. The point if the Holy Spirit is not to just make people do good things. The point if the Holy Spirit is as the bible says to testify to the truth of Christ.
So people who do not accept Jesus do not have the Holy Spirit, because that is what the Spirit does, testify to Christ. Even in terms of its transforming work, the Spirit transforms people into the likeness of Christ. Jesus worshipped God the Father. Of you don’t worship God the Father then you are not in the likeness of Christ, and therefore are not being transformed by his Spirit.
Now, some questions for you
You keep accusing me of being inconsistent in my view of what the bible says. Well then how do you treat the legion of passages that make it quite clear that Jesus is the sacrifce for sin, and that we are saved by faith alone. A sample of which
Anyway, what do you see these passages as saying? Are we saved by faith alone or not?
How do you know that you have the Holy Spirit? The bible is pretty clear that that people get the Spirit by confessing Christ as the Messiah (as in Galatians 3:2). If you don’t do that, then why would you think that you have the Spirit? Or do you think that everyone just has the Spirit by default?
How do you know what is the leading of the Spirit and what is you just doing whatever you want? Or is whatwver you want necessarily the leading of the Spirit? Related to this, can you sin, or does the Spirit always lead you from sin into truth?
Do I have God’s Spirit working in me? If so, then if the Spirit is to lead us to truth, why then do I say that you are fundamentally wrong in your reading of the bible. In fact why would just about every Christian community say that you are reading the bible wrong? Are you the only one with the Spirit who understands the truth? Does it matter that if we are being lead mainly by the Spirit that the Spirit seems to be leading different people in vastly different and mutually exclusive directions?
Trying to pour a little oil on troubled waters here, although I fear that my efforts may not be particularly successful.
cosmodan, although I have the greatest respect for your position, and recognize that it’s a very noble and uplifting attitude to take, I’m afraid I have to agree with Trust that it’s not compatible with Christianity - that is to say, the core doctrines of the majority of modern Christian churches.
If your argument is that the Christian church of today has departed from the teachings of Jesus, then I accept that you do have some valid points. But I would also say that, for better or for worse, the Christian doctrine of personal salvation through Jesus’ sacrifice - “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28) - can’t be reconciled with your view that our salvation, or whatever word you prefer, comes through our own spiritual development over the course of many lives. On the mainstream Christian viewpoint, our salvation comes only through Jesus’ sacrifice and God’s mercy, not through our own efforts.
Again, I’m not saying that your position is wrong, or that the way you’ve chosen doesn’t lead towards God. But - it’s not the Christian path, if we use “Christian” to mean “what the Christian church of today believes”.
I don’t understand this. Of course different people have different values. PLease explain.
Um…yeah…and nobody has **ever **used Christianity to justify negative actions. Comon you know better than that. Buddhism which contains reincarnation teaches that we revere all life as a sacred part of the greater whole. That means we revere the poor, and all races. It’s no different than what Jesus taught “Love thy neighbor as thyself” Where’s the prejudice in that?
Honestly, I’m not sure. What keeps coming back to me is that God is a spirit and we’re talking about a spiritual realm, so the atonement and Christ’s ransom for us is on some spiritual level, not the physical one that is usually stressed. One thought that occurs to me. We do know that there was much controversy about Christ being just an exstention of Judism. The concept of Jesus being a physical sacrifice for our sins springs from Jewish religious practice and tradition doesn’t it? Perhaps this author leaned heavily in that direction. Also keep in mind that Jesus told his disciples that their was much they were not ready to learn. Is it possible and maybe reasonable, to think that the authors of the Bible {we’re not sure who they are} didn’t fully grasp the significance and true meaning of Christ on earth?
I mean it’s 2000 years later. Do we grasp it yet?
As I mentioned, I asked myself if reincarnation was in any way compatible with what Christ taught. From my studies I believe it is.
My reason saying so is because it’s what I believe, as simple as that. I want to seperate truth from tradition. Moreover I find certain Christian doctrine and practices to be contrary to the truth that Christ taught, and terribly distorted, promoting a real lack of unity as people. Believeing as I do, why wouldn’t I say so? Basically I would like people to at least consider alternatives to tradition.
Let me add that at the end of the day, what choices we are making moment to moment, whether acts of kindness and compassion or selfishness, are what matters most. All this speculation about the next life doesn’t matter a whole lot.
Of course, if we choose spiritual growth as a priority we do have to make choices about how that happens.
This seems to be a common misunderstanding of what I am saying. No No No I don’t have a problem with needing to know Christ to go to heaven. What I have a problem with is the widespread misunderstanding of what that actually means.
Jesus said look for the kingdom of heaven within yourself. I repeat, everyone who sincerely seeks love and truth will have to come to the truth about Christ. So if a Buddhist, Muslim, or Atheist sincerely strives to be loving and truthful will they be punished for not accepting Jesus by name, while a slightly dishonest and impatient Christian is forgiven and recieves eternal reward? PLease tell me that doesn’t make any sense to you either.
You are quite right, I had forgotten that. Interesting point.
I suppose you could. I prefer the concept that once we reach a certain spiritual height we can choose how we want to appear to mortals if we intereact with them.
Remeber also that Christ told MAry not to touch him after he ressurected because " I have not yet ascended to the father" WHat’s that all about?
I see your point and I tend to agree if we’re talking about what most Christian churches teach. Yet, it is there in the very Bible Christans call the word of God. I readily admit the allusions to reincarnation itself are few. You might call that a conspicuous absence until you study the history of the church and the belief in the church. Then rational explanations present themselves. For me the strongest point is not the brief references to what seems like reincarnation but might be something else. It’s the numerous references to the process of spiritual growth through the spirit living within us. It’s passages like “continue on to prefection” and “be ye perfect” that indicate what the goal is. Jesus taught not just to follow religious ceremony and try to be nice, but don’t worry if you occasionaly fail because you’re forgiven. He taught that we are to be one with God through the Spirit as he was. Seeing that clearly stated makes spiritual growth through reincarnation seem a more reasonable answer.
Years ago a minister said “You can save a man from drowning but he still has a life to lead after that” The decision to accept Christ is only one step of the journey.
In an old tract that we here on SDMB love to ridicule I saw a cartoon of man and God and a bridge spanning the gulf between the two labeled Christ. Believing the bridge is there for you is one thing. To cross it you have to take steps, one after the other. You may at times be tempted and take backward steps but it’s not instantaneous. The bridge is there by the grace and love of God so we don’t earn anything, but we do have to take the steps that lead accross the bridge. I/4 way across isn’t it, neither is 1/3 , 1/2, or 3/4, although they are progress.
Well enough of that… I thank you for your input and I hope I’ve expressed myself without malice. None is intended.
I appreciate your willingness to continue. I’ve had these conversations before and I know they can be frustrating. Personally I find that explaining and defending my beliefs helps me to claify them for myself. You get asked harder questions by those who don’t agree with you rather than discussing with those who do. It reminds me of the passage they reasoned together for days concerning the scriptures. Sincere thanks. I would request out of consideration for other posters that you give me scriptural chapter and verse ie James 2:10-26, which I promise to read rather than create such huge posts. This one, however is pretty interesting.
Okay lets start with this.
Group 2 are the goats Jesus mentioned and he already told us what happens to them.
<snip>
I agree. Please read my explaination about Christ being the bridge in my post before this one. I’m not saying we are saved by our works. As you say, the works are evidence of our faith or evidnce of the spirit living within us. If you say you have faith but can’t find tthe courage to act on it, you haven’t progressed much.
Here’s where we disagree. Their good works are evidence of the spirit within them. Like the sheep of the parable, they do good because they have faith in love, compassion, honesty and that faith is reflected in their actions. They may have rejected organized religion and how popular religion presents Christ but on a deeper spiritual level they are on the path. Since God is the well from which all love is drawn, I can’t think of any other rational explanation.
I think empty set is an exageration. The Bible says God wants all people to be saved. I understand what you’re saying here. I think the problem is people and religious groups decide their version of God must be the right one and judge how others worship according to that view. They let semantics and unfamiliar terms and rituals seperate them. Look at the frivilous reasons churches have been divided. The body that Jesus spoke of that we one in, is not defined by titles, but by God as he discerns our inner spirit.
Remember that passage I mentioned where Jesus said "say what you want about me but don’t deny the Holy Spirit."God sees someone’s desire to serve his fellow man in sincere love and to seek the truth. The details of his formal religion aren’t crucial. All that will work itself out as the individual “works out their own salvation”
Well, I think in other passages you see that what Jesus said was loving your fellow man is loving God and loving God is loving your fellow man. They aren’t 1 and 2 except in the list. They are the same thing.
Yes but again my friend, it is the living spirit of Christ that is the head not merely the verbage. That is also made clear.
Let me try this example. A christian can learn the details of Christ from their youth and appear outwardly to love God, but in reality they are serving tradition and pleasing the people around them. They may not have the personal relationship with God you describe although they say all the right words and sing praises every Sunday. Someone else may be following the spirit but useing different verbage than traditional Christianity. God sees the inner man, the spirit not the outward labels. We must worship God in spirit and truth remember?
To guide us into all truth. To transform us as we surrender to it’s guidence. It is the thread that connects us to God and each other. The spirit testifies about Christ by guideing us to love and truth. Not just Jesus the physical individual but the truth of what he taught.
I don’t agree. I’ll look for some passages to show that the same spirit that sustains us as living beings is the one that guides us. I will answer your questions in the morning. Work calls again. In the meantime, if non Christians can’t be transformed by the spirit and are not being guided by the spirit then how do you explain great acts of love and service by non christians? The scriptures say “all who love are born of God” don’t they?
I am failing to see why you don’t understand this. This world, overall, does not follow love and truth. It follows selfishness. It follows survival at all costs. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that this is not our world. All I am trying to say is that karma is an incredibly easy way for people to justify being terrible people. If you studied other countries that believe in karma you will see the negative consequences of it.
You are not making a distinction between the teaching, and the actions of the followers. The teaching of Christianity has nothing but love and compassion for one another. However, some people cheery pick verses from the bible for their own selfishness. The same applies to Buddhism. As far as I know, it teaches all good things and nothing anywhere close to judging others for their lives experience. But it doesnt take much time to see that people will find ways to judge others.
No offense, but I am afraid you just pulled what the KKK Christians do. You use verses that further your argument, and explain away at the ones that do not. There is no getting around that Christ is the ransom for men. If there ever was a time I could urge you to look at who Christ was instead of looking inside yourself for who Christ was, it would be now.
If you are talking about people who have a chance to know Christ who simply reject him, then that makes sense to me. I do not judge others based on it and allow Christ/God to make decisions based on their wisdom, but it does make sense. Now in regards to people who do not have a chance to come to know Christ, then yes, I admit it does not make much sense to me. If the reason you are wanting reincarnation to be true is because you have compassion for others, then that is great. But look at the cost. You just denied the very essence of Christ for some theory that doesn’t matter much if it’s true or not. Your theory would just be a benefit, not something that we have to believe in to change much of anything in our current lives. Don’t you get that?
Cosmosdan
I don’t mean to be mean or nasty, but the more you explain of your view the more amazed I am at its wilful ignorance and sheer arrogance. The problem is that you keep claiming to be following Jesus and the bible, yet even a cursory glance would show you that most of your fundamental assumptions are not biblical ones. Yet you offer no real biblical arguments to support your position, you just keep repeating, essentially, that because you are guided by the Spirit you must be right. What I would like as the outcome of this debate would be for you to realise that the bible is fundamentally opposed to your beliefs and for you to start following the real Jesus, and not one of your own imagination.
You assert that those that do good works, yet don’t acknowledge Jesus are actually following him in some sort of deeper sense. This makes no sense. First off, who are these saintly people that you are talking about who know Jesus on some “deeper” level. Our world is full not of people who live perfectly loving lives, but selfish, lying greedy people, ourselves included. Why don’t you turn on the news and have a look at the reality of the world around you? I don’t know how anyone in the west can claim to be perfectly loving when there are people literally starving to death and dying of diseases that are almost unheard of in the west, yet we sit back and do nothing and let them die.
Secondly, how are you defining “love, compassion and truth”? Certainly not in a biblical way. As I keep saying (and you keep ignoring) the bible views those that do not accept Jesus as fundamentally unloving people because they do not love God. And what of truth? How can you follow truth, yet deny God? How can people who believe irreconcilably different things all be following truth?
This shows a fundamental ignorance of what Christians and other religions believe. Different religions are not just separated by “let semantics and unfamiliar terms and rituals separate them”. There are deep theological issues that separate most religions. This is especially true when you include ancient religions that included things like human sacrifice and the like. Some of these religions are even described in the OT, such as Molech, who required the sacrifice of children through fire. You can’t just wave your hands and ignore that these differences don’t exist. If one religion is true, then the others that all disagree with it must be wrong.
Secondly this section shows some of the worst bible proof-texting yet. In their proper contexts the passages that you allude to are
Paul says in verse 4 that God wants everyone to come to the knowledge of the truth. However Paul then goes on in verses 5 and 6 to explain that the truth is the substitutionary atonement of Jesus. Truth here is NOT some nebulous thing that is left to the reader to define. The truth of Jesus as the sacrifice for sin is the truth that God wants all people to come to the knowledge of.
In alluding to this one you didn’t even get the sense of the word right, let alone the meaning. Here Jesus is clearly saying that if you don’t follow him, then you are against him. This actually speaks directly against your idea that people can follow Jesus on some “deeper level”
Secondly Jesus does not say that you can say whatever you like about him. What he says is that you can be forgiven for what you say about him. This therefore implies that denying Jesus is actually a sin that you need forgiveness for.
This verse IMHO is one that you have completely twisted. What Paul is saying here is not that we earn our own salvation through our works. Paul in verses 5-11 talks about the nature of Jesus and how Jesus has already given us salvation. Then having obtained that salvation Paul exhorts the Philippians to work out that salvation that they have already in the way the live their lives. Note too that Paul in verse 16 urges them to hold fast to the word of life, upon which it seems that their salvation depends. Again this speaks against your view that good works alone are evidence of our salvation.
Cite?
Cite?
First off, it is a false dilemma. Someone mouthing stuff that they don’t believe has no faith and so they would not be saved anyway. Secondly as I said before different religions have fundamentally different views of God.
As an example imagine you married an Olympic gold medallist from Sweden named Inga. Only you didn’t call her Inga, you called her Stan. And you insist that she is from Thailand, not Sweden. And you insist that she never won an Olympic gold medal. In fact you are pretty sure that she has a drinking problem, and treat her as such, even though she doesn’t. How well do you think that relationship would go? I would doubt it would last more than 10 minutes before she quite rightly got sick of you pretending that she was something that she wasn’t. Yet this is precisely what you expect God to put up with.
Any sort of relationship at all must be based in truth of who the person you are relating to is. Anything else is just offensive and annoying. You expect God to welcome “good” people who refuse to acknowledge God for who he is. The difference is not just “verbiage” as you say. As you point out we are to worship God in spirit and truth. Worshipping God in truth means praising him for what he actually is, not how you would like to think of him. Praising God for something he is not (or anyone else for that matter) is just stupid and offensive.
Fair enough, Jesus taught that he was on the one true sacrifice for sin. Jesus did not teach that we should just “love one another” (whatever that means since different religions mean different things by this) and that whatever else we believed was irrelevant.
The passage that you are alluding to is 1 John 4
[QUOTE]
1Jo 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1Jo 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
1Jo 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.
1Jo 4:4 Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.
1Jo 4:5 They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them.
1Jo 4:6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
1Jo 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.
1Jo 4:8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
1Jo 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.
1Jo 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
1Jo 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
1Jo 4:12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
1Jo 4:13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.
1Jo 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.
1Jo 4:15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.
1Jo 4:16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
1Jo 4:17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world.
1Jo 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.
1Jo 4:19 We love because he first loved us.
1Jo 4:20 If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
1Jo 4:21 And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.
[QUOTE]
Here John asserts that there are essentially two types of people. Those know God and love others, and those that do not know God and do not love others. It is not possible to know God and not love, nor it seems is it possible to not know God and to love. From this passage it also seems that listening to John the Apostle is a pre-requisite for knowing God, that knowing God is not just some nebulous thing. I would argue therefore that form this passage those that don’t know God don’t love, at least in the Christian sense. The logic is:
Loving => Knowing God
Listening to John + confessing Jesus => Knowing God
Implies:
Loving => Listening to John + confessing Jesus
Non-Christians don’t confess Jesus (by definition)
Therefore non-Christians do not love in the sense that the passage is talking about.
Note that I DON’T think that non-Christians are heartless monsters who kick puppies and eat babies. Non-Christians can still be relatively nice people. Buth they don’t love Christians in the same self-sacrificial way for the benefit of Jesus that Christians do.
This to me is one of the most arrogant things that you have said yet. You have no trouble in saying things like
basically in one stroke saying that 100,000,000s of Christians worldwide have the wrong idea, yet when asked what a simple passage means you throw up your hands and just say “I don’t know”. Unbelievable.
Yet if you follow closely what you actually say it gets far worse. You actually go so far as to say that the bible writers themselves may actually be confused as to what Jesus actually said, but of course you understand. Riiiiiight. The people either knew Jesus personally or knew people taught by him, spoke the same language as Jesus with the same paradigms, lived in the same type of world as Jesus with the same Jewish background, and who wrote the bible, the only way in which we know anything about the teachings of Jesus, these guys got it wrong. But you, living 2000 or so after Jesus in a world that was completely alien to him, with a completely different non-Jewish background, who doesn’t speak biblical languages natively and who never met Jesus personally or even met anyone who met the pre-resurrection Jesus, you can understand Jesus teachings better than them. Again, unbelievable.
What makes no sense to me is how you can claim that different people with fundamentally irreconcilable belief systems, with fundamentally irreconcilable differences as to what “love” and “truth” actually mean, are converging on any sort of common ground. Nor does it make any sense to me why God would have to accept people that wish to have nothing to do with him, just because they are “good” people. Besides, if just being slightly dishonest or slightly impatient is enough to disqualify you from heaven, where are you getting people to go to heaven from? I don’t know if anyone in history has lived up to the standards you wish to place on people.
Nor does it make any sense to me why spending an eternity in heaven is something that any of these people would actually want. To a Buddhist, eternal life just means eternal suffering. Far better to go into the nothingness of Nirvana. To the Muslim spending eternity with God is impossible, because God has no companions. Heaven is merely a place that is filled with pleasure, God has nothing to do with it. Atheists don’t even believe that God exists. For them being in heaven would be surreal, how can you be with someone who doesn’t exist?
Simply put no matter how much you want to gloss over the differences between religions they are there, they are fundamental and they do matter.
No, if you study the history of the church you will find that the church has never believed in reincarnation. So far the only cite that you have given to show that the early church believed in reincarnation was a vague reference to Origen on the first page. As these sitesshow Origen never taught reincarnation or transmigration of souls. He did believe in the pre-existence of souls in a pre-incarnate state. He believed that these souls were only born once and then after that faced death and judgement. This is in no way re-incarnation. The first page also gives a number of quotes from early church fathers (even one from Origen himself) that show that re-incarnation was NOT a belief of the early church.
Besides this your whole argument is lacking any real logic. Passages about spiritual transformation DO NOT equal endorsement of re-incarnation. Re-incarnation is completely separate from spiritual transformation. Besides, if re-incarnation was real, wouldn’t you think that the bible would mention it somewhere? If re-incarnation is real why does the bible consistently talk as it there is no re-incarnation? How does the biblical message of atonement fit in with re-incarnation? If re-incarnation is so obvious why has no other serious theologian in 2000 of biblical study thought that re-incarnation was taught by the bible. Why are you right and 100,000,000s of Christians world wide and throughout time wrong? Which is more likely, that a doctrine that has never been historically believed, and in the bible is never directly taught, never unambiguously alluded to and is in fact strongly alluded against if not flat out refuted is real, or that you might be mistaken? I think that you might be mistaken is the far more likely.
This is a terribly flawed interpretation of the passage
Krisis does not mean correction. Krisis nearly always carries with it the connotation of final separation or jusdgement. My Greek lexicon defines it thusly
This reading makes no sense in the wider context of the passage
The context is:
The writer of Hebrews is talking about Jesus’ sacrifce for sin being better than the OT sacrifices, because Jesus sacrifice is once for all, where as the OT sacrifices were a never-ending thing. Therefore that which is permanent superscedes that which is temporary.
Anyway the context of verses 27 and 28 is that the writer is making a comparison between our lives and Christ’s sacrifice and return. The obvious logic is that as we die once and only once and then are judged at the end of time, so Jesus dies for sin once and only once and then returns at the end of time to execute judgement. In this context your reading makes no sense. If verse 27 implies that we come back for many lives, then that means that the writer must think that Christ will die for sin many times, or that he will return many times. But that goes against everything that he has been saying in the rest of the chapter, and turns the whole sentance into nonsense.
The idea that this “resurrection of correction” really means re-incarnation is silly. Resurrection is a logically distinct idea to re-incarnation. Resurrection is fundamentally the re-animation of an existing body with the same spirit, where as re-incarnation is the animation of a different body with the same spirit. The two are not equivalent.
Biblically there is not two distinct resurrections. There is only one resurrection, the difference being what happens to people at the resurrection. Some are raised and given eternal life, others are raised to eternal judgement.
Biblically the general resurrection is a once only event at the end of times. It is not an ongoing thing by which we can continually die and be reborn. We are in the “last days” now, and have been ever since the resurrection of Jesus. The only age to come after this is the resurrection age, where those that have faith in Christ will be with him in heaven, and those that have not will not. There is no age to come in which we will be re-incarnated into.
The resurrection has not happened yet. Paul is quite emphatic on this in 2 Timothy 2:18.
As best I can tell JJ Dewey is an ex-mormon who is now part of the new age movement, and has no real qualifications (evangelical, liberal or otherwise) in biblical interpretation. So even as a basic appeal to authority this argument doesn’t work.
I’m sorry, but the only logical way to read this passage is that we die once, and then face final judgement without any intervening re-incarnations. That is the only logical way to understand the passage in its proper context.
Yes , people do bad things, sometines useing religious beliefs to justify their bad choices. I really doubt that belief in Karma has more potential for bad choices than other beliefs. The potential for evil lies within people.
um…yes I am making the distenction which is why I don’t understand or agree whith you saying the belief in Karma has more bad potential. {If that’s what you’re saying}
Welcome to scripture study 101. You may have noticied that there are hundreds of different Christian denominations which don’t agree with each other in the meaning of scripture or apply their interpretations in the same way. It’s what we have to do as human beings.
I recognize that I am interpreting the Bible through the filter of my own personality and experience. That’s what **all **people do who read the Bible. What disturbs me are the folks who can’t see that and think their interpretation is the will of God.
My brother tells me off two famous Christian theologians {John Calvin and someone else} who disagreed on certain doctrinal points. Calvin was concerned that the disagreement would ruin any potential friendship and they would end up antagonists. The other said “Not at all, We think and let think”
Sigh,… What I’m saying is I don’t blindly accept the common interpretation of that passages or the ones like it. Since it is my soul on the line here what person or group of people should I trust to tell me what those passages mean? Should I go by simply popular opinion. More people believe a certain way so that must be the right one. I prefer to choose for myself, and let the right and wrong of it be between myself and God.
So Christ atoned for all mankind. My question is how did he do that? How does that work exactly? What does that atonement require of me? If it is a gift from God? How do I claim that gift for myself? I’m not embaressed or ashamed to ask those questions and to trust my personal relationship with God to furnish the answer. Most of Christianity says the physical death of Christ and his blood served as an atonement. Since we are spiritual beings and God is a spirit and our bodies are fleeting I have a hard time believeing that a physical sacrifice can somehow atone for a spiritual state. I am not rejecting the atonement of Christ. I am questioning the popular interpretation of that atonement and trusting that “the Spirit will guide me into all truth” as Jesus promised.
Is it better to accept something that doesn’t make sense to you because lots of people seem to agree it right? I don’t want reincarnation to be true or not true. I want to know what is true. Right now, reincarnation makes sense to me. I hope you see now that I have not denied the essence of Christ but am seeking to understand it more fully.
When I say it doesn’t matter I mean, there’s not much chance you or I will know with certainty if reincarnation is true or not. We do live our day to day lives and make choices. If we make the best of that day to day and try to be better more loving people then we can trust what comes after to the grace of God.
I’m sorry. I intended to answer this but apparently got caught up in my dicussion with Joey and forgot.
In a nutshell, Jesus is an example of the way back to God. Through total communion and surrender to the Holt Spirit we become one with the father as Jesus did.
“I am the way, the truth and the light no one comes to the father but by me” means just that. There is no other way to become one with the Father except the way Jesus did. It’s not through ceremony or a set of rules. You must surrender to the living spirit within you and let it guide you to all truth and set you free.
That is the spiritual process which our physical lives are a part of. We grow and draw closer to God through a series of lives until we attain the oneness that Jesus spoke of. “I am in the Father and the Father in me” All of this is clearly pointed to by Biblical passages
There are other aspects I am unsure of. Was Jesus the first one to do this and thus open the door for all mankind? Probably. Those are details I am willing to discover later. Jesus said look for Heaven within yourself. Eternity exists in each moment and each moment is my eternity. I choose and learn how to make better choices and try to discern that guiding spirit.
I hope I’ve made it clear that I am **not ** saying we are saved by works. You youself said faith without works is no faith at all. That means we are not saved by faith alone but are required to put that faith into action right? What I said was that if if A is true “we are saved by faith not works” and B is also true “what good is faith without works, can faith save him” and the numerous passages that say we are judged by our works then we must find a theology where both are equally true. That theology would be in harmony with the Bible would it not?
Here’s a good example the classic
seems pretty plain doesn’t it. Now look at the next few verses.
We are required not only to have faith but to live according to the truth.
I have faith. I’ve had spiritual experiences that comvinced me. This is a subject worthy of study. In the NT there are passages that indicate the Holy Spirit was not around until after Christ rose again. Yet the Holy Spirit is all over the OT. How are both things true. What is the spirit that leads people to God before they accept Christ if they are not allowed to have the Holy Spirit? Is there one spirit that leads before and another that leads after? What seems probable to me is that the presence of Christ and his conquest of physical death changed the spiritual level of the whole world. I do feel that all people have access to the Holy Spirit but once again the access is not made by superficial means but by a surrender of the heart and mind to that spirit.
I don’t always know. I choose and I try to grow and I face the consequences of my choices. Jesus described the fruits of the spirit pretty plainly. If I find anger and resentment or selfishness in my heart I know I am away from the spirit. Don’t you see the fruits of the spirit as described by Jesus in non Christians? How do you explain that?
Thats a fair question. How would you explain the vast difference among Christians that seems to be a stumbling block for non believers. If Christians who follow the same Lord can’t agree amongst themselves why should anyone believe their testimony? If Christians accept Christ and verbally praise him but behave badly what kind of spirit resides in them?
Each person is unique and how the spirit expresses itself through each person will also be unique. I have described it as the purest water ppouring through an impure filter. {we humans} What comes out may be the best water you ever had but it still isn’t as pure as the water going in until we lose the filter and are one with that living water. You and I have different backgrounds and different experiences. Our spiritual growth unfolds differently. We may disagree now but when we know as we are known, we will agree.
Again, your opinion. You seem well versed and sheltered within Christian apologetics. What seems unfortunate to me is that your stubborn insistance that your and only your interpretation is the right and logical one. You refuse to even entertain other possibilities although I back them up with reason and scripture.
I find this completely disingenuous. The fact is I have backed up my beliefs with scripture that you claim to hold as the word of God. I can continue to do so. Your only arguement is that your interpretation is correct and mine is wrong. Yours are logical while mine aren’t {which seems obviously untrue to me} You have no more evidence than I do. No more {actually less} scriptural backing and yet you insist you are right. What it amounts to is you insisting your opinion is the truth and mine is not. Yet I am the arrogent one. It’s silly really.
For God’s sake man read the Bible {pun intended} Is God the author of all that is good or is he not?
I’m not talking perfect. I’m saying by seeking love and truth they must be on the path to God according to the teachings of Christ. Two examples who come to mind are Ghandi {a hindu} and Buddha {who taught the same principles CHrist taught 600 years before Jesus lived}
Yes, there is plenty of room for improvement. Plenty of room for those who give lip service to God to apply their faith. That includes myself.
It is here that you are denying the Bible and holding to two conflicting beliefs. The Bible says those that love are born of God and God is the author of all love. Yet you say an act of love by a non Christian is not really love. I find that doctrine wrong, tragic and harmful. Certainly not biblical.
People with differences can still be seeking the truth. Think, be reasonable. How can Christians with conflicting beliefs be following the truth? We are far from a complete understanding, just as the Bible says.
My statement was obviously in general. MAny religions with various termnology and traditions still teach the brotherhood of mankind etc. Some Christians become alarmed at the concept of Karma but still accept, He who lives by the sword, and You reap what you sow because it’s in the Bible. They are pointing to the same thing in different terms. I am not ignoring the differences. I am focusing on the similarities in pursuit of the truth and the fact that we are all children of God.
To clarify, none of us, no religion, has it right. Paul expressed in the NT that we know in part. We choose our path and hopefully make progress. It seems foolish to me for religions to quarrel like school chidren over whose doctrine is the most betterah. They should grow up. {Thats biblical as well}
That sounds good when you take this passage out of context with other passages. If the truth you refer to here is all of it, then what are the things Jesus told the apostles they weren’t ready for. Why did they need the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth if they already had all they needed?
check this out.
This speaks directly to what I’m talking about. Through Christ we believe in God’s love and see it differently. Yet we are called to purify our souls by obeying {action} through the spirit and unfeigned {truly, not just lip service} love.
once again, scriptural support for what I have been saying. I’m not trying to ignore or distort the passages you post {please please, not so many} What I’m saying is if you believe the Bible is the word of God then these other passages must also be true and theology has to reconcile them.
Sigh!! Follow him how?..by obeying the truth presented by the Holy Spirit. IMO you’ve avoided the point. What did Jesus mean by a sin against the HS will not be forgiven? As I see it, he is saying "you may not understand Jesus the physical man, and that’s okay, but you must still follow the spirit within. If you love you follow the spirit even if you don’t understand Jesus the man. BTW, how can people sin against the spirit if it hasn’t been given yet?
Yes and the word of life they need to hold onto is the guidence of the Holy Spirit.
Really Joey, if we are saved the moment we accept Christ then can we do whatever we want after that? What about purifying your soul by following the light. What about “endure to the end”
If we can’t do whatever we want but continue to be less than perfect, what amount of sin does God find acceptable?
Cite?
1 John 4:
7Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and **everyone **who loves is born of God and knows God. 8He who does not love does not know God, for God is love
12No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us. 13By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
This chapter goes on to say that Jesus was a testimony of God’s love and if we belive in Jesus {as a testimony of love} then we will believe in God’s love. This does not say that only those who believe can love God. It says if we love one another we love God.
Please pay attention. You ask for a cite and your next sentance agree with the point I just made. Millions of Christians mouth “love thy neighbor” and yet don’t fulfill this with their actions. Does that mean none of them have faith or are saved even though they accept Christ and have recieved the HS?
No Joey I don’t. What I expect is that we love one another as instructed and purify our souls through love and the spirit as the Bible says. That’s what I think God requires. Much of Christianity seems to think that once we accept Jesus then we only have to be pretty good and reasonably loving. That’s not how I read the scriptures.
You’re going to have to do present your point much better than this for any reasonable discussion on the matter. You are disagreeing with the very foundation of Christianity so you are going to have to explain your point of view. First, look at the words that were used before translation such as “ransom” and all of the other verses that express that Christ died for our sins. Then, if you have a problem with how they chose to translate these words, then we can discuss this. If this is not the problem for you, then you have to explain to me how you can accept one thing the authors wrote about Christ, and not something else. How can you justify picking and choosing quotes that these specific authors wrote? If these authors screwed up that, why wouldnt they have screwed up just about everything else about Christ?
I have a huge problem with your assertion that Christ did not die to erase our sins. The entire genius behind God and Christ is that the only way for God to be just and erase our sins, is for Christ to have died for us. By giving us free will, we certainly have sins to be forgiven for. This is a huge part of what makes Christ believeable in the first place. Your assertion that reincarnation is the way God allows us to reap what we sow is flawed. By knowing that the number of beings when the world was created was less than it is now, it shows that God would have to have had a part in giving new people souls. Giving life. Unless you want to propose that God just got the ball rolling and you take back your belief in Christ, then you are not connecting the dots properly. It has nothing to do with believing what the popular opinion is. It has to do with logic. Here me out. Why would Christ, the perfect sinless man, have to die an incredibly painful death? That is the most unjust thing that God could ever do. For what? Just so we could follow his example? Please. He is not telling us to physical throw our lives away just because this is what he did. If you remember, Christ knew what he had to do before he did it. There are better ways for an all-knowing God than to make Christ suffer for no reason. It was for a purpose. A damn good one at that.
I am afraid that you are looking to me for answers that I probably cannot provide. Possible ways to accept Christs/Gods gift is by believing in Christ. It might also require being like Christ. If you want the tell all way that you can accept His gift, then I am afraid you will have to take it up with Him. I also do not know exactly how His dying works. It could be that the way the world functions, we simply need a reason for blame to fall on somewhere. If Christ had not died, we would have to have died. It could also be that by Christ giving up his spirit, he provided a spirit for all of us. Once again, I do not have a tell all answer.
If you want to believe that God simply creates our souls and has no other part in our lives and we reap what we sow by how we treat each other via reincarnation,then that is a possible logical explanation. But why would you believe in Christ? Would God want a relationship with His creation? The reason for me believing in Christ is because His words “penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” He brings more truth and intelligence than anyone has even come close to bringing in this life. I believe in a God who has a relationship with His creation. I know you do too. That is why I think you are being illogical with the scripture. The idea of Christ giving His life for a purpose only to benefit us was not meant to be open to interpretation.
