This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - RandyPNW
1
« on: April 02, 2022, 03:14:54 AM »
No, I claim that Christians are driven by the order in which they read the books in the bible and when they are given information.
If Copernicus and Galileo proposed to the world that the sun was the center of our solar system, and we accept that proposal blindly, then I'd say that was a problem--not because we accepted the truth, but only because we accepted it blindly. But you see, the proposal precedes the acceptance, whether or not it is blind acceptance. Your claim that Christianity is blind acceptance is not valid if your only point is that Jesus' Gospel proposition preceded acceptance by Christians. I don't have a "vested interest" in anything.
Sure you do. You defend your cultural and religious upbringing. At least, I assume it was your upbringing? You're not "examining claims". By the time you get to the Tanach you already "know" that "Jesus is the messiah."
This is pure judgmentalism. I know for a fact *many Christians* and *many former non-Christians* who were initially skeptical and examined the claims of Christ before accepting him. I personally was raised a Christian and very ignorant of a deeper level of Christian experience, which is what allowed me to wander in my teens. My personal failures led me to reexamine my Christianity and its spiritual poverty, which led me to make a full commitment to Christ. You treat this think like it is a debate class, and one just randomly chooses to believe something based on personal interest or personal background. But it's more like real life issues that Christianity comes into our life to confront, forcing us to accept it as a realistic option or not. I personally had problems being addicted to a wayward way of life for a few short years. Dedication to a complete Christian lifestyle was an option, and it turned out to be successful in breaking my addictions. We don't know who wrote the NT, or when, or where.
I don't take this very seriously because if one looks at the systematic theology of the NT, one would know that only someone with extensive, personal knowledge of the Law could write these things, namely Jewish authors. Gentiles did not have easy access, and certainly not without conversion--otherwise, the knowledge of the Law would be very sketchy, and lack any deep thoughts about it. So, you don't have to believe in the story of Adam and Eve either. And yet, the evidence of the Fall of Man is all around us. There was little difference between what the apostles believed, as the NT attests, and what the theologians concluded they believed several centuries later. You don't know this. Nobody knows this. It's impossible to know this. So why present it as a fact?
You have to know the relationship of the NT Scriptures to the historic creeds of the Christian Church, which are the standard fundamentals of Christian belief. Major Christian doctrine wasn't decided until Nicea. Biblical canon wasn't decided until Nicea.
This just shows the poverty of your knowledge on the subject. The creeds were an explanation of apostolic doctrine in the Roman world, applying that same doctrine in a more diverse context. Same teaching, and expanded application, structured into creeds. Of course you don't. He was a Messianic candidate who didn't have a leg to stand on. That's why the Church began, without any evidence for Jesus' messiahship at all! Really? That's why the church was so much more appealing to gentiles than to Jews.
You think because the Jews founded a religion that in future generations other ethnicities cannot read the same material and render better conclusions? Of course they can, in particular when the founding people turn against their own religion. Have the Jews turned against their own religion? Yes. Many times. But if you believe that he fulfilled prophecies, why don't you present them?
That's the 1st thing I did on internet forums more than 20 years ago! I was asked to stop, even though the Usenet forum was titled alt.messianic! It was a discussion between Jews and Christians as to whether Jesus was the Messiah. I presented many, many proofs, which of course would always be rejected by Jews committed to Judaism and raised up in Jewish schools. I actually have. In some cases I seem to know them better than some Christians. 
I'm glad you have. However, you don't seem to understand the NT Scriptures even if you've read them. You don't even recognize that they've been adhered to by those who formulated the creeds and by conventional Christianity ever since. They are chalk full of references to Jewish prophecies that were believed established principles fulfilled in Jesus as Messiah--his death for sin, his resurrection from the dead, his betrayal, his rejection by the Jewish People, and the fall of Jerusalem in his time. None of these are messianic prophecies. I suggest that you read Deuteronomy 30, or the second half of Ezekiel 37. All unfulfilled.
How convenient! You deny Messianic prophecies are genuine Messianic prophecies when they point to Jesus death, burial, betrayal, resurrection, and rejection by the Jewish People. But you accept as legitimate Messianic prophecy only prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled by Jesus!  The same could be said of Mohammed. I'm not running out to become Muslim either, you will note.
Like I said earlier, for you choosing a religion is like choosing a lottery number! One ticket is as good as the other, and it's all decided by chance, depending on where we were raised and what propaganda we were fed. But for me religion is a conscientious decision based on our experience of God and the dictates of our conscience. It is a reasoned choice based on the design of our world and on the design of our own personal life. What works? I notice you're loyal to the religion that you were raised in, too. I guess that you're also not an independent thinker.
No, being raised up in a religion does not make one an independent thinker. When God proposes something to us, apart from all of the machinations of man, then we can render our own independent judgment on the matter. It really depends on if God is the one making the proposal, because only He can expose all of our ulterior motives. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He sad, "I am" even before Abraham existed. He said he is coming on the clouds of heaven, which is Daniel's prophecy of the Messiah coming from heaven to establish God's Kingdom on the earth. Those are claims of divinity, not messiahship. Mind you, from my bible I have no reason to believe that the messiah will be any other than a human being. An exemplary human being. But still a person.
Yes, for doctrinally-orthodox Christians, Jesus' divinity is equal to his claim to Messiah-hood. For example, in Dan 7 we read that the Son of Man comes with the clouds of heaven to establish God's Kingdom on earth. We see that as God's divine heir inheriting God's earthly Kingdom in the form of a human being. He was made to be the "firstborn" among many brethren. Just like Joseph was a virtual "king" in Egypt over his Hebrew brothers. So he fulfilled prophecies that weren't even accepted as prophecies. Yes, strong evidence indeed!
Yes, even Isaiah said that Israel could go blind along with the prophets, so that they would be unable to see clearly the word of God. The Gospel accounts indicate the Jews were very confused about Messianic details in the time of Jesus. They had a number of opinions on what various prophecies even meant. Christians are known to have accepted Christianity "being dragged and kicking" against their will, because the ways of Christ are diametrically opposed to living life for ourselves exclusively. You mean forcibly converted? Yeah that has happened too.
Every abusive political system has done things like that. Putin wants to put people in jail for 15 years if they don't portray his "military action" properly. I'm speaking of genuine conversions--not failed Christian kingdoms! And when a Jew or a Muslim does an act of kindness, it doesn't have the same effect? Or is it your contention that only Christians are kind?
Yes, Jews and Muslims can be kind. But they can't produce the spirit of Christ along with their kindness. Christ produces in believers an enhanced kindness, if you will. That is, the knowledge of Christ is able to come through the act of kindness, acting as a testimony to what he is like. Well here I am, to be convinced. And you haven't presented a single piece of evidence. Your strongest argument thus far seems to be "Jews started it, and now a lot of people follow it". Which is also true of things like Hollywood and communism. Jews are a busy and productive people. That doesn't mean that everything they do is correct.
My argument for Christianity is not "Jews started it!" How inappropriate! A religion is always started by God, as any advocate would claim. To claim the Jewish People are responsible for a religion they despise is absurd! I realize that you show more tolerance than usual, which I appreciate. But still, no--your people starting Christianity is not my argument. That is just to show that the arguments were made by dedicated Jews themselves, and not just by outsiders! The NT Scriptures are therefore *Jewish arguments!*
2
« on: April 02, 2022, 02:43:03 AM »
No, I claim that Christians are driven by the order in which they read the books in the bible and when they are given information.
If Copernicus and Galileo proposed to the world that the sun was the center of our solar system, and we accept that proposal blindly, then I'd say that was a problem--not because we accepted the truth, but only because we accepted it blindly. But you see, the proposal precedes the acceptance, whether or not it is blind acceptance. Your claim that Christianity is blind acceptance is not valid if your only point is that Jesus' Gospel proposition preceded acceptance by Christians. I don't have a "vested interest" in anything.
Sure you do. You defend your cultural and religious upbringing. At least, I assume it was your upbringing? You're not "examining claims". By the time you get to the Tanach you already "know" that "Jesus is the messiah."
This is pure judgmentalism. I know for a fact *many Christians* and *many former non-Christians* who were initially skeptical and examined the claims of Christ before accepting him. I personally was raised a Christian and very ignorant of a deeper level of Christian experience, which is what allowed me to wander in my teens. My person failures led me to reexamine my Christianity and its spiritual poverty, which led me to make a full commitment to Christ. You treat this think like it is a debate class, and one just randomly chooses to believe something based on personal interest or personal background. But it's more like real life issues that Christianity comes into our life to confront, forcing us to accept it as a realistic option or not. I personally had problems being addicted to a wayward way of life for a few short years. Dedication to a complete Christian lifestyle was an option, and it turned out to be successful in breaking my addictions. We don't know who wrote the NT, or when, or where.
[/QUOTE
There was little difference between what the apostles believed, as the NT attests, and what the theologians concluded they believed several centuries later. You don't know this. Nobody knows this. It's impossible to know this. So why present it as a fact?
What a surprise: the Christian Church has believed those same NT teachings and those same creeds many centuries later even until today! Major Christian doctrine wasn't decided until Nicea. Biblical canon wasn't decided until Nicea.
Of course you don't. He was a Messianic candidate who didn't have a leg to stand on. That's why the Church began, without any evidence for Jesus' messiahship at all! Really? That's why the church was so much more appealing to gentiles than to Jews.
But if you believe that he fulfilled prophecies, why don't you present them?
Have you even read the NT Gospels? I actually have. In some cases I seem to know them better than some Christians.
They are chalk full of references to Jewish prophecies that were believed established principles fulfilled in Jesus as Messiah--his death for sin, his resurrection from the dead, his betrayal, his rejection by the Jewish People, and the fall of Jerusalem in his time. None of these are messianic prophecies. I suggest that you read Deuteronomy 30, or the second half of Ezekiel 37. All unfulfilled.
Probably the most important evidence of his Messiah-hood were the recorded words of his, the incredible command of God's word and its application in a variety of settings. His righteousness was in evidence, as was his holiness. And the stories of his miracles would have to make one wonder? The same could be said of Mohammed. I'm not running out to become Muslim either, you will note.
Now you're changing the story entirely, unless I missed it earlier? You're saying Christians believe in Jesus *before cracking the Bible?* That's not how it ever works. Even children raised up in Christianity, as I was, have to confront the claims of Christianity as adults. Yes. And you were taught "Jesus was the messiah" at a young age, before reading the bible. The jury was tainted, as it were. You were told what to believe before the evidence was even presented.
Of course there are those who will be loyal to the religion they were raised up in, just as you are. However, there are also those who exercise independent judgment simply because they want to know for themselves. I notice you're loyal to the religion that you were raised in, too. I guess that you're also not an independent thinker.
Actually he did, though you likely don't know the NT Scriptures that well. Jesus hid his claims from those who were hostile to him and intended to use his words against him. He warned his followers not to throw pearls before swine, lest they turn on you and trample both you and your pearls.
Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He sad, "I am" even before Abraham existed. He said he is coming on the clouds of heaven, which is Daniel's prophecy of the Messiah coming from heaven to establish God's Kingdom on the earth. Those are claims of divinity, not messiahship. Mind you, from my bible I have no reason to believe that the messiah will be any other than a human being. An exemplary human being. But still a person.
No, Christians accept both the Jewish Bible and the NT Scriptures. Both are equally inspired. But Christ had to come and fulfill certain prophecies, even though many Jews didn't even know they had to be fulfilled. Many were noted to have gone back into the Jewish Scriptures to search out if what Jesus claimed was true. This is not the same thing as believing in a claim without evidence, which is what you are saying. So he fulfilled prophecies that weren't even accepted as prophecies. Yes, strong evidence indeed!
I'm reminded of the tale of a man walking through the forest. He comes across many trees, with a bright bulls-eye painted on them, with an arrow in the exact center. "What an amazing archer this must be", he thinks. After a time he comes across a man carrying a bow. "Are you the archer who has been shooting at the trees?" he inquires. "Yes, I am", the man replies. "How do you always hit the exact center? You must be an amazing archer". "Not really," the man replies. "You see, I shoot an arrow into a tree, and then I paint a bulls-eye around it".
Jesus does something. His followers look into the bible, find something approximating that act, and presto! Messianic prophecy, fulfilled! Even if the original something isn't a prophecy at all.
You're saying there is nothing in the Tanach to indicate Jesus could possibly be Messiah. And yet Jews did accept him, and this started the Christian Church. I can't see Jews accepting him if there was absolutely no credibility to Jesus' claim to be Messiah? Jews also accepted Bar Kochba, and in far larger numbers than Jesus. Or Shabtei Tzvi for that matter. Jews can be as wrong as anyone else. The fact remains that one looks to the bible for the ingathered Jewish exiles, the rebuilt temple, the world peace an universal knowledge of God, all proper messianic prophecy, and see them unfulfilled.
Heavens, Fenris! We only have the Jewish Bible's claims to the Creation Story, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Abraham and Moses. We don't even know if there was an Exodus from Egypt without believing in the Jewish Bible first, because we must have the claim before we can consider the veracity of the claim. How does this rebut the fact that we don't know who wrote the NT, or when, or where? Why should I accept claims from a book of unknown authorship? Because you say so?
Religious Experience is all-important. It is equally important to have the right experience, namely the experience of God Himself! You say your experience is "right". I say my experience is "right". A Hindu would say his experience is "right". Ok, and so?
That just isn't true. It just is.
Christians are known to have accepted Christianity "being dragged and kicking" against their will, because the ways of Christ are diametrically opposed to living life for ourselves exclusively. You mean forcibly converted? Yeah that has happened too.
Many people respond only to apologists, who answer questions satisfactorily. Many others embrace Christ because their hearts and emotions have been touched by an act of Christian kindness, or by Christ's teaching itself. And when a Jew or a Muslim does an act of kindness, it doesn't have the same effect? Or is it your contention that only Christians are kind?
From your pov Jesus hasn't done anything Messianic, so what is there left to see? Well here I am, to be convinced. And you haven't presented a single piece of evidence. Your strongest argument thus far seems to be "Jews started it, and now a lot of people follow it". Which is also true of things like Hollywood and communism. Jews are a busy and productive people. That doesn't mean that everything they do is correct.
For me, I see Jesus having started the Church, bringing the teaching of the Law in a new format to the Gentile world. Yes, and this point we can agree upon. That doesn't make it true however.
The Jews wouldn't accept it, so their day has been delayed for many centuries, And there are no prophecies that say the Jews will be wrong at the end times, and the gentiles right.
which has allowed time for many nations to have their go at living life in God's Kingdom.
Which was always available to them. Jesus was not necessary for this.
3
« on: April 02, 2022, 01:38:34 AM »
Cady, I also enjoyed this video. You share in such a way that the Scriptures you share minister, with or without your particular spin on them. But I sense a deep compassion in you for the Jewish People, which is something I share with you. So here is my own view of some of these things.
I agree with you that Joel's locust plague was a literal locust plague. I think there was another one like it in the early 1900s.
Joel depicts the locust plague as a judgment of God coming against Israel due to their infidelity and irreligious disposition. They are being called upon by God to reform, to return to religion, to return to righteousness and service to Him.
Certainly this could be viewed as a metaphor for any great plague God brought upon Israel, including the Babylonian Captivity. Indeed it was at the end of that Captivity that Rabbinic Judaism began and Israel was renewed. Finally, in the time of Jesus his apostles received the anointing and call of the Holy Spirit to found the NT Church.
But again, Joel's plague was a literal locust plague, and not the Babylonian Captivity. It symbolized a great judgment from God against the Jewish People, which we could see as culminating at the time of Jesus and in 70 AD, when Rome destroyed the temple and Jerusalem.
In a very real sense that is when the NT "locust plague" began, because Israel seemed cast off by God to show favor to Gentile nations, to give them "their turn," as it were. But again, when this "plague" is over, Israel will be restored.
But the question is, how will Israel be restored in the endtimes? I think a "return to Jerusalem" is OT phraseology for a return to worship of the one true God, something every Jew was suppose to do to renew their faithfulness to God 3x per year.
So under the Law, a "return to Jerusalem" was quite literal. But in the NT Jesus said worship will not just remain at the temple in Jerusalem, but would evolve into a universal worship across the world. So a "return to Jerusalem" for both the Jew and the non-Jew would be a return to God, and not a literal return to the city of Jerusalem.
Jesus meant that he was the true temple, which the temple in Jerusalem merely symbolized. A "return to Jerusalem," therefore, is a return to Jesus himself. And in the endtimes, Israel must return to Jesus.
I believe in the endtimes God will raise up a strong Christian witness in Israel, in the midst of a nation hostile to it, so that some will be saved. Those who are saved are those who accept Jesus as their Messiah and Savior. They will be saved not from the burning of military warfare, but rather, from eternal death.
But in a very real sense, Israel will be saved in the midst of the judgment that will come. I accept, brother, that the Day of the Lord has a technical eschatological application in many places. And it may include not just the day of Christ's return, but also the things that lead up to that day of judgment. Israel will be judged in that day, but will be plucked, as a remnant, from the fire, so that the nation will survive on and into the Kingdom of God.
That's why the Scriptures say that "today" is the day of Salvation. We can be saved from eternal death now, simply by accepting Jesus as our Lord, and thus obtain his gift of righteousness. This is our "return to Jerusalem." It can happen both for the Jew and for the non-Jew.
4
« on: April 02, 2022, 12:18:38 AM »
Yes, I hadn't forgotten. I thought I was addressing that. What I said was other nations can be invited in to monitor the referendum. Yes, and "other nations" promised the Ukraine that if they gave up nukes, their security would be guaranteed. How did that work out? Russia had already carved away pieces of Ukraine prior to this invasion.
Do you think the Ukrainians are stupid?
No, I think Biden and the Democrats are stupid--not intellectually inferior, of course, but foolish--stupid in that way. The Democrats put Biden in office by hiding material in the media like Hunter Biden's escapades in Ukraine, Russia, and China. If that information had been digested, Biden probably wouldn't be President of the US. But the Dems wanted Biden as a puppet for their cause, to develop new political partnerships. They did this by forming new political alliances with special interest groups that generate a new power base, guaranteeing they would be in power for a long, long time. This is a Europe-wide strategy, to pursue safe sources of energy, to prevent dependence upon external oil sources. And in the meantime the elusive wish to project equality and fairness throughout the world was supposed to invite free trade in the expectation that equal sufficiency among the nations would lessen the animosity and jealousy among nations. That's what "Climate Change" has done for elitists in Europe and in the U.S. It is an attempt at breaking free of dependence on oil suppliers, though this has oddly led to the opposite--to dependence on the oil suppliers. People are called upon to follow a "pipe dream," which is wonderful, but certainly doesn't meet today's immediate needs. Wouldn't it be nice?, sang the Beach Boys. No, I think the forces that separate nations still arise from jealousy and from political ambition. Trading freely with Russia, and speaking well of their place in the world certainly isn't working. Putin is competing with a bloc of nations across Europe, as if he is putting up a wall against the concept of "free nations." Putin's Russia has claimed to be democratic. So let's see a referendum in Ukraine. There are people in some regions who wish to be loyal to Russia. And there are people in the same regions who wish to be loyal to Ukraine. These things have to be resolved politically. And the only preventive against jealousy and ambition is the threat of force. Up to now NATO has resisted doing this, out of fear of a nuclear war. Pride can indeed lead to that. But at some point, we have to choose if we should save the world and let people be inhumanly crushed. It's a matter for prayer, but I think we already know the answer.
5
« on: April 02, 2022, 12:07:37 AM »
I can't believe you took so much time, and typed so much, yet couldn't explain why some verses in the chapter are binding and some are free to be ignored.
It's a big subject. If you can't see the big picture, the little details will make no sense. Again, the laws were designed only for ancient Israel, since God knew the Roman Empire would eventually take the Law away, speaking of *all* the Law, including the Priesthood, the Temple, and the Sacrifices. Many of the laws were designed to get Israel to refrain from even looking like the pagans, whose ceremonies and practices were devoted to corrupt gods. The principle of separation from paganism is the eternal part of many of these laws, which symbolized evil. Some laws may have prohibited practices that caused deception in the market place. The value in prohibiting injustice of any kind would be an eternal principle. So the answer is short and sweet. You keep eternal moral principles, but you don't keep antiquated laws that pertain to only a limited time in history and to a limited covenant of Law that no longer exists in the form of Priesthood, Temple, and Sacrifices.
6
« on: April 01, 2022, 11:54:30 PM »
If you can't tell I'm sincere, then perhaps the message isn't for you? I've been on a number of forums, both moderated and unmoderated, both Christian and semi-Christian, and I've *never* been kicked off of a forum permanently, and certainly not for being a "troll." I've been doing this for more than 20 years. At almost 70 years old I have nothing at all to gain by "trolling," unless it's in a nearby lake!
Nevertheless, your rambling conjectures rarely represent the contextual scriptures and, on a "Bible" forum, should be regarded as "extra" biblical and perhaps considered questionable doctrine because they insist upon the total disregard of the great commission and clear, "biblical" instructions for the Church. Your call to a Theocracy, however you wish to define it, is alien to the scriptures, and your vague recitations of historical events do nothing but prove the point that God is not involved in men's Theocratic ambitions, but is infinitely concerned with the Gospel and the Church's role in the world, which is to call men to Christ, who actually gets very little air-time in your imaginary scheme.
"But we preach Christ crucified..." 1Co 1:23
On the contrary, the Gospel is not to be separated from our worldly lives, as I understand it. It is to take top place in everything we do, politically, socially, religiously. To create a theology of division between politics and religion is to fall into the hands of those who wish to "divide and conquer." Those who hate religion in a subtle way sing the praises of its poetic, moral value, while in their personal lives it's the last thing they want to disturb their own ambitions. I find you a real Christian. But I think your Dem-leaning political viewpoint, if I remember correctly our arguments on the previous forum, may have biased you against my "theocratic views," which are really a belief in the Christian State as it has existed, for real, throughout the centuries. Saying I believe in real history that was "Christian," nominally or not, is certainly not non-Christian. And it most definitely has a place on any forum that allows free discussions. I'm happy to see new subjects arise, taking us in directions that interest you. For lack of subjects I gravitate towards my own pet interests, and raise those issues, such as prophecy, doctrine, and politics. I'm sorry political differences are allowed to become a wedge between real Christians. The value of forums like this is in the opportunity to work out some of these logjams in Christian relations, and help us in dealing with the world in the best way possible. Unfortunately, when we fall into paranoia, and begin to accuse one another of evil motives, the battle is lost. But the war is not lost for those who put Christ first in everything, in serving, and in honesty, speaking out of a pure conscience, inspired by the Scriptures and by the love of Christ.
7
« on: April 01, 2022, 11:34:55 PM »
On the contrary, there were times in Christian history, when Christians were not paranoid of Jews, that they actually accepted Jews as they were, and really admired them. They, of course, wanted them to convert to Christianity. But they understood why they didn't, and didn't judge them. It's not clear to me why you're bringing this up.
Aside from the Jewish experience in this country, when were Jews "admired"?
When were they "not judged" for not converting to Christianity?
And why are Christians "paranoid" about Jews? Does this strike you as normal and healthy behavior? Whole Jewish communities in the middle ages were burned at the stake for "poisoning wells" and "torturing holy wafers".
I do not come away with the feeling that you know the history of Jews in Christian lands. Perhaps that's why you're so eager to recreate the experience.
Or maybe you just don't care.
I'm always challenged, and I always try to answer, whether I get credit for it or not. I've read about Martin Luther, how he initially admired the Jews before getting paranoid that they were "stabbing the Christian State in the back," and turned on them with "Against the Jews and their Lies." We all know about that, of course, if you know anything about Christiani-Jewish relations. And then there is the matter of Replacement Theology and its origins in the Early Church. Some of the earliest Church Fathers admired the Jews and spoke well of them. Ultimately, the Christians in the new Christian Empire grew impatient with Jewish intransigence and unwillingness to convert, en masse, to the Gospel. The end result was a new theology called Amillennialism, with Replacement Theology at its core. If you care for greater detail, I'm sure I can find it? I initially was intrigued with the Jewish People because of my interest in biblical prophecy. Some authors, like Gordon Lindsay spent a lot of time discussing Israel's place in prophecy. There were some good books on the subject. A more in-depth book I read was "The Fall and Rise of Israel," which spares nothing. It was disturbing to read this. Of course I care about the plight of the Jews. As I said before, I went to Israel on my own and volunteered to work for free on a Kibbutz, within range of Lebanese terrorists. I was rejected due to concerns about my health at that time, but it remains that I made an honest effort to do my part to support the Jewish People and the State of Israel. I believe Israel is still called of God, even though the centuries that have passed have had a purpose of some kind. The end for Israel will, think, be a great joy to the Jewish People.
8
« on: April 01, 2022, 01:19:07 AM »
As far as thinking things can't work out with Russia, I think that's a bit on the negative side. There has to be a resolution proposed that does not include WW3, if possible. A referendum is a good idea, I should think.
I just explained why it's a bad idea, and you haven't addressed it at all. A people under military occupation by a dictator are not going to vote freely and it doesn't matter who's watching. The Anschluss, remember?
Yes, I hadn't forgotten. I thought I was addressing that. What I said was other nations can be invited in to monitor the referendum. That could be part of a peace proposal, a truce, or perhaps a treaty. Obviously, if Russia refuses to agree to it, the battle may continue. I'm just looking for *possibilities.* Obviously, if a referendum, or an election, can be monitored by the world, then Russia will be watched by the world as to how they deal with it. If Putin starts murdering everybody who voted to align with Ukraine, what do you think the world will do?
9
« on: April 01, 2022, 01:13:36 AM »
And that's why Deut 22 seems to apply cross-dressing
I'm interested in why you think that some aspects of Deut 22 are in effect today and some aren't. Verses 11 and 12 are in the same chapter as verse 5 is, yet verse 5 is super important to you and I'm guessing you don't keep 11 and 12. Religious Jews do, by the way.
The rationale goes like this. God's eternal principles of holiness existed in the Law of Moses, and it was given "for all your generations," ie on a continuous basis. However, written into the Law, as well, was the inevitable failure of that system to bring Israel back to the tree of life, to experience eternal life and eternal bliss. The Law was only for mortals, and could not bring about immortality. And so, the Law was a confirmation of what the story of the Garden of Eden meant, which is that Man, in his mortal state, could not obtain Eternal Life and Eternal Righteousness. There would always be failure, which is why the Law was chalk full of purification and cleansing ceremonies, and offerings of contrition. And there were all kinds of symbols of separation between a holy God and a people who were kept near only by the grace and mercy of a patient God. There was a division between the temple and the people, between the priest and the people, and between God and the priests. But contained in the Law was a spirit of prophecy, hoping for a return to Eden--a Messianic hope. The Prophets later made this clear. And so, the temporary nature of the Law had to yield up symbols of separation to symbols of unity, like the Communion of Jesus. We now directly partake of God, rather than find ourselves speaking to God through a wall of purification ceremonies. Having been forgiven by the death of Christ, we no longer need all of the purification and redemption festivals and ceremonies. Seasons are no longer important since the ultimate season of redemption has already arrived. Sabbath is no longer necessary since our works are no longer viewed as unclean and in need to rituals of the Law being done year after year. The principles contained in the many laws are eternal--principles like the need to separate from paganism. Citing specific pagan practices under the Law were time-limited, because Israel at that time was the only chosen nation, the only nation following the true God. And they had to remain distinct from the pagans, including even looking like they were following them or their impure ways. So now that Christians view the separating wall between Israel and the nations has come down through Christ, it is a matter of choosing to avoid paganism in other countries or even in our own country, regardless of the practices. Times have changed, and the Law is no longer applicable in its ancient setting, as Christians see it.
10
« on: April 01, 2022, 12:59:40 AM »
I agree that the Christian State has gone the same way as Israel's Theocracy.
Well then, let it be a lesson.
Besides, Israel was a called Theocracy by God Himself.
We however are a different nation -
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
No geology.
No politics.
Purpose : that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
No politics in Christian States??
Name one verse in the NT where we (Jesus followers) are called to create a Theocracy.
I'll give you three. Matt 6.33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
Matt 21.43 Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.1 Tim 2. I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
11
« on: April 01, 2022, 12:44:06 AM »
In order to maintain a consistency of social order, beliefs will need to be codified into law. Changing those laws is especially difficult as there's a theological dimension to them, and this implies, in a theocracy, if a law is changed, that the law was codified in error on the basis of misunderstanding. This is a problem for the state, which claims to be led directly by God, even if by proxy, i.e., a religious class speaking on behalf of God. Of course, such a state would simply start talking about abrogation. Hence, from this reality flows a concept of pure Christian theology, which would just so happen to be the theological position of the state.
Being "led by God" is not an exact science. We "see thru a glass darkly," ie we stumble our way along, being hampered by the contamination of our physical and spiritual being. We must follow righteousness with dim eyesight, but were mercifully given some distinct guidelines to keep us on track. Creeds do us well, in keeping both government and society in alignment with God's Spirit, so that we can frame our laws well enough to keep society moral and spiritually active. Creeds aren't the basis of lawful order. They're declarations of faith around which faith communities are built. I believe political authorities utilized their own religious understanding as well as professional clerics to aid them in pursuing the right goals for society. The creeds were the foundation for Christian education, whether for the king, the priest, or the people. What you mean to say is that Christian empire was not able to tolerate beliefs it believed were antithetical to empire, and which threatened the seat of (political) power.
Right, certain religious corruptions robbed Christianity of its spiritual power. And thus, the very energy driving moral living could be lost if certain theological distinctions were lost. For example, if Christians were led to believe the one true God was the God of Islam then the fruit of Christian love would be lost, and the Church would become just another ethnic ambition to rule the world. It was important to God that society serve Him alone as God, lest His blessing be lost upon a people who choose to follow the wrong Spirit. I believe there is only one God, though there are many claims to Godhood. The important matter is that the true God takes us into a true spirituality that enables us to overcome our selfish ambitions. Without true religion, the Church itself would indeed be just another empire waging war for wealth and vanity. If a Christian state enforces a standard (civic) religion, then any practice of religion outside of that standard is by default paganism, heretical, etc.
I don't believe so, no. A monarchy can be Christian. A democracy can be Christian. Even a social democracy can be Christian. However, a communist state cannot be Christian since by definition it is atheistic. So a Christian State may learn, along the way, that as it corrupts, and it inevitably does, that it is helped by adopting checks and balances, republics, several branches of government--nothing wrong with this. Christian States rise and fall, and we have to deal with it at whatever state of maturity it exits, whether in ascendancy or in decline. Quaint affirmations of the morality of non-Christians don't get you anywhere in a theocracy proper.
I'm not throwing "tidbits to the pagans." I'm stating, as a matter of necessity, that Christians must deal with a myriad of different times and circumstances, whether in good times or bad times, whether due to the need for immigrants to find a home, or out of the need to aid minorities who preexist in Christian lands. People of other religions can be moral. That is a fact, and one that I very much believe in, quite sincerely. There would be no constitutional rights for non-Christians insofar as 'freedom of thought and conscience' are concerned, because these require freedom of speech and act, which the state would firmly deny to anyone who didn't affirm state beliefs. In fact, the very concept of 'freedom of thought' is Orwellian, as if the state controls the thoughts of those unfortunate enough to find themselves within it.
On the contrary, there were times in Christian history, when Christians were not paranoid of Jews, that they actually accepted Jews as they were, and really admired them. They, of course, wanted them to convert to Christianity. But they understood why they didn't, and didn't judge them. The failure of Christian States does not imply they were "failed systems." If that was true, then there would be no system left to try in world history, since all religious and political systems have failed regularly. Times of prejudice and oppression of minorities who lived within acceptable moral limits do not mean that Christian States cannot repent, reform, and return to tolerance of other religions and peoples. These are fancy ideals you have, but the reality of the state you're describing is authoritarian.
No, even the US and the UK have been examples of "Christian States," and perhaps a much lower level of "theocracy." They ruled with Constitutional governments, guided by various checks and balances, had tolerance for minorities, and yet favored Christian theology and morality. None of this was "authoritarian," although pagans have entered our countries and claimed that our Christian laws are in their eyes "authoritarian," simply because they want to be gay, abort their children, or follow Satan. And you would have been jailed or executed for suggesting the church was in need of repentance or spiritual revival, even if it did.
That is patently absurd, unless you're referring to times when the Church was in decline, or when Christian States had fallen on hard times. Whenever a State falls into corruption, calling for its reform puts one in danger. I'm saying there have only been so-called Christian states.
So we're back up to 100% denial that there were "Christian States?" I'm saying that Christians need to quit with the political ambition, as if the Christianising of a country is going to make it better. History shows us that it won't.
History shows us that no political system has 100% success all the time. It shows that all political systems, and all religious political systems, regularly fail. It shows that short of God's Kingdom, *every political system,* no matter how good, will always fail. But that shouldn't stop us from pursuing the best political system available. And if my favored system isn't available, then we'll just have to make do. After all, the Church was born into the pagan Roman Empire, and that didn't stop them from pursuing a Christian State. Did they pursue a Christian State? Obviously, that is what resulted. This is nice and all, but 'the power of Christ' has never ensured a just society, and usually the exact opposite for anyone who wasn't part of the religious in-crowd.
The power of Christ is here not to save all, but to save some. We pursue the best system possible, and wish for the salvation of all. But we know that won't happen. 'Christians should' and 'Christians do' are two entirely different epistemic propositions. I'm starting to wonder if you're trolling, or if you're writing things without having thought them through.
If you can't tell I'm sincere, then perhaps the message isn't for you? I've been on a number of forums, both moderated and unmoderated, both Christian and semi-Christian, and I've *never* been kicked off of a forum permanently, and certainly not for being a "troll." I've been doing this for more than 20 years. At almost 70 years old I have nothing at all to gain by "trolling," unless it's in a nearby lake!
12
« on: April 01, 2022, 12:13:32 AM »
No, they are not Christians, and thus are given greater latitude by God when there are extenuating circumstances and issues of religious ignorance--
Yes, the "enemies" of the state are always "not Christians". Even if they are Christians, just the "wrong kind" or with the "wrong beliefs". Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other over just this.
There never was a true Israel, the Chosen Nation, because they fell into idolatry and sin. The Jewish Bible records that Hebrews fought against each other, and slaughtered each other. Obviously, their stated "beliefs" under the Law were of no consequence, because they followed whatever religion they wanted to follow at the time. All of the nations outside of Israel were "pagans." How convenient! They must've thought that only their God was the true God, and everybody else's God was false? If the Church is corrupt in our time, it's time to fix it--not remove it for something less Christian!
I have a great idea. How about fixing "the Church" before giving it the power over entire countries?
David didn't wait to fix the mess King Saul made before him. Hezekiah and Josiah didn't wait to clean up the idolatry in the land, and set right in to disestablish paganism and idolatry in an evident theocratic government.
13
« on: March 31, 2022, 11:54:37 PM »
I'm not saying that Christians are somehow intellectually inferior to Jews. I'm saying that by reading the NT first, and being told that Jesus is the Jewish messiah first, it makes you less capable of examining the claims of Jesus's messiahship from an objective position.
Yes, you're claiming Christians are driven by presumption, which is exactly how I'd categorize your own position, since you have a vested interest in the outcome of any examination. But as I was saying, it is not presumptuous to examine claims, which have to be made *before* examining them and then choosing to believe them. And of course, the NT was written by converted Jews. We actually don't know who wrote the NT. Or when. Or where.
I see... Furthermore, these believing Jews did not convert to a non-Jewish religion. They, as Jews, founded this religion, simply by accepting Jesus' claim of Messiahship. Indeed. But as mentioned above, once he didn't deliver, they dropped away. Furthermore, they didn't stop following the law. The tension between Paul and Peter(?) shows that the early church hadn't sorted out all of the dogma between the Jewish-Christians and the gentile-Christians. In fact, major theological points would not be decided on until Nicea, some 300 years later! So to say that early Jewish believers of Jesus were in fact "Christian" in the modern parlance is most certainly incorrect.
There was little difference between what the apostles believed, as the NT attests, and what the theologians concluded they believed several centuries later. What a surprise: the Christian Church has believed those same NT teachings and those same creeds many centuries later even until today! I actually don't believed that he fulfilled *any* prophecies.
Of course you don't. He was a Messianic candidate who didn't have a leg to stand on. That's why the Church began, without any evidence for Jesus' messiahship at all! Really? Have you even read the NT Gospels? They are chalk full of references to Jewish prophecies that were believed established principles fulfilled in Jesus as Messiah--his death for sin, his resurrection from the dead, his betrayal, his rejection by the Jewish People, and the fall of Jerusalem in his time. Probably the most important evidence of his Messiah-hood were the recorded words of his, the incredible command of God's word and its application in a variety of settings. His righteousness was in evidence, as was his holiness. And the stories of his miracles would have to make one wonder? Again, being told that Jesus is the promised messiah before even cracking the bible is not reason.
Now you're changing the story entirely, unless I missed it earlier? You're saying Christians believe in Jesus *before cracking the Bible?* That's not how it ever works. Even children raised up in Christianity, as I was, have to confront the claims of Christianity as adults. Of course there are those who will be loyal to the religion they were raised up in, just as you are. However, there are also those who exercise independent judgment simply because they want to know for themselves. Let me explain further. Jesus claims to be Messiah, He actually doesn't, at least not publicly. Anyway.
Actually he did, though you likely don't know the NT Scriptures that well. Jesus hid his claims from those who were hostile to him and intended to use his words against him. He warned his followers not to throw pearls before swine, lest they turn on you and trample both you and your pearls. Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He sad, "I am" even before Abraham existed. He said he is coming on the clouds of heaven, which is Daniel's prophecy of the Messiah coming from heaven to establish God's Kingdom on the earth. No. You accept them. After he's already been accepted, you go into the Tanach and look for the proofs that you already believe to be true.
No, Christians accept both the Jewish Bible and the NT Scriptures. Both are equally inspired. But Christ had to come and fulfill certain prophecies, even though many Jews didn't even know they had to be fulfilled. Many were noted to have gone back into the Jewish Scriptures to search out if what Jesus claimed was true. This is not the same thing as believing in a claim without evidence, which is what you are saying. You're saying there is nothing in the Tanach to indicate Jesus could possibly be Messiah. And yet Jews did accept him, and this started the Christian Church. I can't see Jews accepting him if there was absolutely no credibility to Jesus' claim to be Messiah? These claims were made *by Jews* who themselves accepted Jesus' apparent claim to be fulfilling these prophecies. No, we only have the NT's claim of this. Which again, was written by we don't know who.
Heavens, Fenris! We only have the Jewish Bible's claims to the Creation Story, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Abraham and Moses. We don't even know if there was an Exodus from Egypt without believing in the Jewish Bible first, because we must have the claim before we can consider the veracity of the claim. Finally, and this is your "word salad," we *experience* the righteousness he claimed to fulfill as righteous King. And people of other faiths don't have religious experiences? C'mon, man.
Religious Experience is all-important. It is equally important to have the right experience, namely the experience of God Himself! And the experience of God can be verified when we recognize the authentic marks of holiness, or righteousness. Love is a major element, as are characteristics like forgiveness, mercy, compassion, etc. It quotes the Jewish bible after it is already accepted the Jesus is the messiah. That just isn't true. Christians are known to have accepted Christianity "being dragged and kicking" against their will, because the ways of Christ are diametrically opposed to living life for ourselves exclusively. There is often a sincere period of consideration of the claims of Jesus, with *lots* of skepticism and doubt, and the every present questions about the limits of human knowledge. Many people respond only to apologists, who answer questions satisfactorily. Many others embrace Christ because their hearts and emotions have been touched by an act of Christian kindness, or by Christ's teaching itself. Which hasn't happened yet. So Jesus wasn't the messiah. See?
From your pov Jesus hasn't done anything Messianic, so what is there left to see? For me, I see Jesus having started the Church, bringing the teaching of the Law in a new format to the Gentile world. The Jews wouldn't accept it, so their day has been delayed for many centuries, which has allowed time for many nations to have their go at living life in God's Kingdom.
14
« on: March 31, 2022, 02:35:12 AM »
Do you disagree with any of his principles of financial stewardship as set forth in his sermon?
It was a good sermon. He said a lot of things I've been saying, as well. We give our lives 100% to God. But God is not asking us to give away everything He gives us. We need money to pay bills and expenses. If we don't get ourselves into more debt, we can give some to help others. The church has bills which we all should contribute to--not a tenth, but whatever we deem we should do to give equally, as we are able. God owns everything, and needs us to give nothing. But He apparently wants us to give things simply so that we are like Him, giving not out of legalism, but out of love when we are able to do so charitably, from the heart. Coerced giving is something I absolutely hate. I hate schemes to get you to give. But the sermon was good. Money isn't evil--it meets a lot of needs in life. It's a tool, and we should manage it wisely, and not with a foolish kind of "faith," as the prosperity preachers preach it.
15
« on: March 30, 2022, 11:25:16 PM »
The best bet, to me, is allowing contested territories run referendums for their future, who they're going to belong to--Russia or Ukraine? Oh, you must be joking. Contested territories occupied by Russian solders are going to vote 100% in favor of joining Russia. Or they know what will happen.
By way of historical example, after Germany occupied Austria in 1938, they held a referendum about Austria becoming part of Germany. The votes were 99.73% in favor. Because of course they were.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
You really should read up on these matters, and (from other topics) the history of the Inquisition and Jewish life in Christian Europe. And check out the origins of Western Civ while you're at it.
I've read the histories of all these. The Germanic Peoples of Europe include Germany, Austria, the UK, the Scandinavian countries, etc. I know--I'm half Scandinavian, half-German, and am married to an English woman. But one pair of my grandparents came from Ukraine. Interestingly, my uncle, who was also from there, apparently, spoke Yiddish. My cousin said she was told we had Jewish in us. I just think he had a lot of Jewish friends. Who knows? Who cares? As far as thinking things can't work out with Russia, I think that's a bit on the negative side. There has to be a resolution proposed that does not include WW3, if possible. A referendum is a good idea, I should think. If the world is included as "watchers" in the voting process, perhaps we can get honest results?
|
Better known as
by Sojourner
Today at 11:09:34 PM
|
The ECF and theosis
by watchinginawe
Today at 10:04:56 PM
|
The Jews will be kept safe in the Great Tribulation
by Billy Evmur
Today at 05:51:25 PM
|
Watcha doing?
by Fenris
Yesterday at 11:12:46 AM
|
Is free will a failed concept?
by Fenris
March 29, 2025, 10:53:14 PM
|
Gog's endtime construction?
by Fenris
March 29, 2025, 08:59:05 PM
|
How to reconcile?
by shepherdsword
March 29, 2025, 01:11:46 PM
|
I was a Moderator here once before
by shepherdsword
March 29, 2025, 01:08:03 PM
|
Prayer for my wife
by ProDeo
March 29, 2025, 04:09:58 AM
|
NEW, davy from USA
by IMINXTC
March 27, 2025, 10:24:51 PM
|
The seven seals and how they relate to Matthew 24
by shepherdsword
March 25, 2025, 01:11:33 PM
|
Ash Wednesday / Lent
by Fenris
March 23, 2025, 11:06:23 AM
|
Blessed Are The Barren...
by Athanasius
March 20, 2025, 04:25:09 AM
|
US Presidental Election
by RabbiKnife
March 18, 2025, 08:02:52 PM
|
Plot holes
by Fenris
March 18, 2025, 04:51:14 PM
|
Zechariah 12
by Fenris
March 18, 2025, 11:52:35 AM
|
How Do I Know God Exists?
by davy
March 18, 2025, 12:05:31 AM
|
A big shout out to all of the old (and new) gang
by Kingfisher
March 17, 2025, 08:33:21 AM
|
Looking at Col. 2:16
by watchinginawe
March 16, 2025, 06:40:06 PM
|
Contents of Invitation Email I sent out yesterday to 19 former BF members
by Sojourner
March 16, 2025, 06:00:57 PM
|
|
|
Show Posts
