okalb 79
Recommended Posts
Did Gandhi go to hell? Was he wrong?
Did you equally study other than Christian religious text so you can make the statment about Jesus?
Did you equally study other than Christian religious text so you can make the statment about Jesus?
QuoteSo if they claim to be Christian and they do good things then they are Christian, but if they do bad things then they are not really Christian. I only find this funny because there are more than a few here that would say the exact opposite if you replaced Christian with Muslim.
No. One's claim to be Christian doesn't make one a follower of Christ (Matthew 7). One's profession of belief or "decision" for Christ doesn't either. "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." (James 2:19) No one should ever tell someone they are saved. People should be told how to be saved (repent & believe the gospel). God then impresses upon them whether or not they really are and their lives should relect that change. "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. Again, I AM NOT talking about works unto salvation (self-righteousness). I AM talking about evidence of regeneration. That IN NO WAY indicates that the professing Christian doesn't also do "bad things." It's in his old nature to do so. However, that cannot be what rules his life. As a pattern of maturation, he should be developing over the course of his life into something different, the "image" of Christ.
QuoteDid Gandhi go to hell? Was he wrong?
Did you equally study other than Christian religious text so you can make the statment about Jesus?
What RonD1120 is describing is pluralism/universalism. That is not what Jesus taught (John 14:6). I would say that Gandi was a very intelligent and "self" righteous man. That does not mean that he didn't do a lot of good (from our perspective). The problem is, unless Gandi appropriated the substitutionary sacrifice that Jesus made on behalf of "His" people through repentance and faith in Him, then his sins were not forgiven. He would have to give an account for them himself when he died. That's what I mean by self-righteous. It's not true righteousness which can only come God because only God is good. The issue is one of righteousness. Not whether or not he did a lot of good while he was here.
david3 0
QuoteQuoteDid Gandhi go to hell? Was he wrong?
Did you equally study other than Christian religious text so you can make the statment about Jesus?
What RonD1120 is describing is pluralism/universalism. That is not what Jesus taught (John 14:6). I would say that Gandi was a very intelligent and "self" righteous man. That does not mean that he didn't do a lot of good (from our perspective). The problem is, unless Gandi appropriated the substitutionary sacrifice that Jesus made on behalf of "His" people through repentance and faith in Him, then his sins were not forgiven. He would have to give an account for them himself when he died. That's what I mean by self-righteous. It's not true righteousness which can only come God because only God is good. The issue is one of righteousness. Not whether or not he did a lot of good while he was here.
I find it ironic how self-righteous you come across in your posts.
–adjective
confident of one's own righteousness, especially when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others.
QuoteI find it ironic how self-righteous you come across in your posts.
–adjective
confident of one's own righteousness, especially when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others.
I'm sorry. I do not mean to be. I'm just trying to explain the theology in response to the question. If I come across as smug, I appologize. My intent is not to appear moralistic or intollerant. I don't think I'm either. The point is, I am NOT righteous in and of myself. However, I have been declared and "seen as" righteous because of what Jesus Christ did in my place. It's a forensic/legal status. I have been declared legally innocent because my fine was paid for me. Now, I am expected to live for the one who stood in my place. That does not mean you don't sin anymore. It does mean that you are now being conformed over the course of your life, however. One who has not made that exchange, however, has to be "righteous" on his/her own terms, which falls short of God's standard, and justice demands that they one day give an account.
RonD1120 58
QuoteDid Gandhi go to hell? Was he wrong?
Did you equally study other than Christian religious text so you can make the statment about Jesus?
I cannot state the with any certainty the status of Gandhi's soul. I do not know.
I have studied other spiritual paths beside Christianity. My spiritual journey started around 1972 and ended 16 Mar 81. When I met the risen Christ my search ended. From that point until now, my focus has been the study and practice of the sanctified life. It is a continual learning process and I have only scratched the surface of what is available.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
RonD1120 58
QuoteQuoteDid Gandhi go to hell? Was he wrong?
Did you equally study other than Christian religious text so you can make the statment about Jesus?
What RonD1120 is describing is pluralism/universalism. That is not what Jesus taught (John 14:6).
I did not make that statement. It belongs to Laszloimage.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
QuoteQuoteQuoteDid Gandhi go to hell? Was he wrong?
Did you equally study other than Christian religious text so you can make the statment about Jesus?
What RonD1120 is describing is pluralism/universalism. That is not what Jesus taught (John 14:6).
I did not make that statement. It belongs to Laszloimage.
Ok. I appologize.
RonD1120 58
Just in case you haven't already been told, you are doing a great job. I appreciate your faith, presence here and the exhausting effort required to stay in the arena.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
QuoteQuoteDid Gandhi go to hell? Was he wrong?
Did you equally study other than Christian religious text so you can make the statment about Jesus?
What RonD1120 is describing is pluralism/universalism. That is not what Jesus taught (John 14:6). I would say that Gandi was a very intelligent and "self" righteous man. That does not mean that he didn't do a lot of good (from our perspective). The problem is, unless Gandi appropriated the substitutionary sacrifice that Jesus made on behalf of "His" people through repentance and faith in Him, then his sins were not forgiven. He would have to give an account for them himself when he died. That's what I mean by self-righteous. It's not true righteousness which can only come God because only God is good. The issue is one of righteousness. Not whether or not he did a lot of good while he was here.
The man on the mat in Luke 5:18 didn't "appropriate the substitutionary sacrifice that Jesus made on behalf of "His" people through repentance and faith in Him". He (the man on the mat) didn't do anything but be lowered through a roof. Further more Jesus doesn't say his sins will be forgiven, but that they are. Before the sacrifice.
What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo
Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama
Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama
QuoteJust in case you haven't already been told, you are doing a great job. I appreciate your faith, presence here and the exhausting effort required to stay in the arena.
It's exhausting effort just to stay on top of my A.D.D.
QuoteThe man on the mat in Luke 5:18 didn't "appropriate the substitutionary sacrifice that Jesus made on behalf of "His" people through repentance and faith in Him". He (the man on the mat) didn't do anything but be lowered through a roof. Further more Jesus doesn't say his sins will be forgiven, but that they are. Before the sacrifice.
Let's look at the verse: "One day He was teaching; and there were some Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting there, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was present for Him to perform healing. And some men were carrying on a bed a man who was paralyzed; and they were trying to bring him in and to set him down in front of Him. But not finding any way to bring him in because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down through the tiles with his stretcher, into the middle of the crowd, in front of Jesus. Seeing their faith, He said, Friend, your sins are forgiven you. The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" (Luke 4:17-21, NASB, emphasis added)
That man was forgiven based on his faith. Just like Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, or anyone else declared righteous by God prior to the attonement of Jesus Christ on the cross. That's what the "Passover" is all about. The blood of the innocent lamb as a "sin covering." Sacrifice of animals doesn't forgive sin. Only God can do that. It is "looking forward" to what would occur. It's the same reason God provided a ram substitute for Abraham. The ram was a type/shadow of Jesus Christ who was to come. One of my absolute favorite sections of scripture is Romans 3:23-26. It explains every man's condition before God and how those prior to Christ could be forgiven based on the sacrifice of Christ.
QuoteQuoteThe man on the mat in Luke 5:18 didn't "appropriate the substitutionary sacrifice that Jesus made on behalf of "His" people through repentance and faith in Him". He (the man on the mat) didn't do anything but be lowered through a roof. Further more Jesus doesn't say his sins will be forgiven, but that they are. Before the sacrifice.
Let's look at the verse: "One day He was teaching; and there were some Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting there, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was present for Him to perform healing. And some men were carrying on a bed a man who was paralyzed; and they were trying to bring him in and to set him down in front of Him. But not finding any way to bring him in because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down through the tiles with his stretcher, into the middle of the crowd, in front of Jesus. Seeing their faith, He said, Friend, your sins are forgiven you. The scribes and the harisees began to reason, saying, Who is this man who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" (Luke 4:17-21, NASB, emphasis added)
That man was forgiven based on his faith. Just like Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, or anyone else declared righteous by God prior to the attonement of Jesus Christ on the cross. That's what the "Passover" is all about. The blood of the innocent lamb as a "sin covering." Sacrifice of animals doesn't forgive sin. Only God can do that. It is "looking forward" to what would occur. It's the same reason God provided a ram substitute for Abraham. The ram was a type/shadow of Jesus Christ who was to come. One of my absolute favorite sections of scripture is Romans 3:23-26. It explains every man's condition before God and how those prior to Christ could be forgiven based on the sacrifice of Christ.
I don't think so. The syntax of the previous verse lends itself to the fact that the faith of his friends is what led to his sins being forgiven, not his.
What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo
Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama
Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama
QuoteI don't think so. The syntax of the previous verse lends itself to the fact that the faith of his friends is what led to his sins being forgiven, not his.
Ok. So what do you do when you don't fully understand a verse with regard to a particular principal? You pull from everywhere else in scripture that deals with that principal to figure out what it means. That systematic approach leads one to believe that faith is required for forgiveness.
Coreece 190
QuoteI don't think anyone can prove Jesus was married to Mary M., but lots of researchers are interested.
Of course, it is interesting, and a great way to make a bunch of quick cash, but the idea has just failed to catch on and hasn't stuck. It didn't catch on during the gnostic times, it didn't catch on in 2003 with The Davinci Code novel, and it didn't catch on with the movie in 2006.
My question to you is, why is this so significant to you? Has Jesus's love life somehow brought you spiritual life in Christ?
It is interesting to me that some people who scoff at the Gospel and find it unreliable because of the fact that it was written between 55-70 A.D are the same people who will zealously proclaim the gnostic gopels that were written around 200-300 A.D and as late as 400 A.D.
It is also interesting how they can take the most fragmented and unreliable of all the gnostic gospels to make their case.
From your wiki link:
QuoteOthers' irritation from the love and affection presented by Jesus to Mary Magdalene is claimed in the apocryphal Gospel of Philip. The text is badly fragmented, and speculated but unreliable additions are shown in brackets:
And the companion of [the saviour was Mar]y Ma[gda]lene. [Christ loved] M[ary] more than [all] the disci[ples, and used to] kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval]. They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Saviour answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her?"
Now after reading that and the other gnostic/apocryphal gospels, I have to ask the obvious question, How did they come to the conlusion that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a child named Sarah based on that? I will just agree with Richard Covington to say that it is simply the "longest of long shots."
To be honest, this really isn't the most interesting part of these gospels...Jesus's love life really has no impact on my spirituality, if it is even accurate to call it that...if it even happened.
What I find most intriguing is that they suggest that Jesus elevates Magdelene by saying her "heart is raised to the kingdom of heaven more than all thy brethren," and the notion that there was tension and jealously between her and other disciples.
This is somewhat consistent with the the actual Synoptic Gospels found within the inspired Scriptures. It is clear that there was tension and jealousy among the disciples as to who was the greatest.
Luke 9:46
[ Who Is the Greatest? ] An argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest.
Luke 22:24
[ Who Is the Greatest? ] A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.
Mark 9:32-34
And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, "What were you discussing on the way?" But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest.
The answer of course:
Matthew 18:4
Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 23:11
The greatest among you shall be your servant.
Luke 22:25-27
And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.
Now, I can almost envision 100, 200, 300 years later, the gnostics still wanting to know who was the greatest. I can see them asking, "well, Jesus never told us who was the greatest, he only told us the most humble servant is the greatest...who was that? Ah, maybe it was Magdelene! Yes, why yes, of course! Magdelene!
So they conjure up this story in an attepmt to elevate Magdelene for what? To distract us from the glory of Christ, just like the old form of Roman pagan goddess worship of Mary (mother of Jesus)still found in the Roman Catholic Church today.
Was Magdelene the greatest? Maybe. Was it her that washed the Lords feet with her hair? Maybe...sounds very humble sevrant like to me. We never read about her mouthing off in ignorance...It's not like she had the balls to rebuke Jesus like Peter did...and what did Jesus say to him? He said, "Get behind me Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."
The fact is that we do not know who is the greatest other than Christ Himself...
Mark 10:35-45
And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, "Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you." And he said to them, "What do you want me to do for you?" And they said to him, "Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory." Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?" And they said to him, "We are able." And Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared." And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John. And Jesus called them to him and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
The greatest is Christ, not Mary, not Peter, not James, not John, not the Pope...Any subordinate still has yet to be disclosed...if any.
The Great News in all this is that if you can have the faith to believe in the gnostic gospels that do not offer spiritual life, then you certainly have the faith to believe in the synoptic Gospels that do. It will change you life brah...
I generally refrain from the vanity of long posts, but given the fact that you consider it closed-minded not to read long drawn out wiki copy-pastes, I have faith that you'll at least read my long drawn out original thought...
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
Coreece 190
QuoteI must admit that the study of theology, particularly the more dogmatic studies, always struck me as being somewhat arrogant.
You've brought this up before, but how else are we supposed to understand God without studying the scripture that we believe to be His revelation to us?
It would seem much more arrogant to say "ah, I don't need to study, I can find God on my own, even if it is superficial and limited." or, "Ah, see...this part of scripture is total B.S, no reason to continue-I know better and can do it ALLLL by myself."
The theologians with whom I'm familiar are rather humble hard working individuals that labor to objectively understand the words of scripture by embracing an understanding of the cultural, historical, and circumstantial contexts and take advantage of the improved areas of hermenutics, isagogics, exegesis, etymology, and the ancient Aramaic, Hebrew, Koine & Classical greek languages over time.
Are you sure you're no confusing arrogance with confindence and a selfless determination in a valiant effort to eliminate the clouds of confusion?
QuoteGod is beyond our experience, yet there are people who say that they know exactly what the Bible means, and how Heaven and Hell work.
I just haven't met those people unless you mean the catholic leadership, perhaps?
The men that I've mentioned above, though having 20, 30 even 50 years of study and presenting some of the best arguments for explaining scripture will still say that they feel as though they are only scratching the surface. They will not force you to take their word for it but rather encourage you to study for yourself. I like the idea of the Berean Jews who listened to Paul and then searched the scriptures to see if what he said was accurate/consistent with what It said. (Acts 17:11)
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
Coreece 190
QuoteLuke 7:36-50
This is my favorite part of those verses:
Luke 7:40-47
And Jesus answering said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." And he answered, "Say it, Teacher."
"A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?" Simon answered, "The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt." And he said to him, "You have judged rightly." Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little."
This gives me another thought about the whole idea of Mary Magdelene proposed by Jumpsalot-2. (I'm really glad he brought this up. It's lead me on a great rabbit trail of a sudy.)
In the wiki link about the apocraphal gospel of Philip given by Jumpsalot-2, it states:
QuoteOthers' irritation from the love and affection presented by Jesus to Mary Magdalene is claimed in the apocryphal Gospel of Philip. The text is badly fragmented, and speculated but unreliable additions are shown in brackets:
And the companion of [the saviour was Mar]y Ma[gda]lene. [Christ loved] M[ary] more than [all] the disci[ples, and used to] kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval]. They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Saviour answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her?"
We don't know if he kissed her on the mouth...that term is in brackets to signify that it is speculative and unreliable.
Given the verses from Luke and assuming it is actually speaking of Magdelene, wouldn't it be acceptable to speculate that perhaps Jesus kissed her feet while washing the disciples feet in a voluntary display of humble servitude, thus causing the other disciples to question why He loves her more than them?
Btw, I'm not suggesting that this happened at all. I want to be careful not to add words to scripture. I'm simply trying to demonstarte the unreliability of the gnostic gospels by proposing another speculative idea that is equally valid, if not more. To me, it would make sense for Jesus to kiss Mary's feet while washing them...it wouldn't seem fit to only wash her feet since she already kissed his feet. The whole point of the excercise was to lower himself below those he served as a demonstration of leading by example.
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
Coreece 190
QuoteNot everyone sitting in the pews who claim the title of Christian really is one.
Which is why Peter calls us to be dilligent to make our calling and election sure:
2 Peter 1:3-10
His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence,by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
Good point.
So if they claim to be Christian and they do good things then they are Christian, but if they do bad things then they are not really Christian. I only find this funny because there are more than a few here that would say the exact opposite if you replaced Christian with Muslim.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites