|
Post by jackjack on Jul 25, 2012 17:27:51 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by jackjack on Jul 25, 2012 19:14:02 GMT 9.5
And if that's not enough...here's a series of illustrations that may help you understand: It is vital to remember the original reason why Lucifer fell; he fell b/c of pride. He wanted to be just like God and since no one will ever be like the Most High, he was swiftly rebuked and thrown out of heaven; of course, the untold story is that there were a whole bunch of other angels who supported his views who were thrown out with him too. In my opinion, we refer to them today as the higher ranking beings. Of course, Lucifer wants revenge, not to mention the fact that having a big kingdom all to yourself and some of your friends is kinda boring; so, he cooked up a big plan and succeeded in getting humanity under the power of sin--all he had to do is get the first parents to believe and trust in him over Jehovah and it worked. Of course, Lucifer ended up creating a bigger problem; for Jehovah ended up promising the woman that there would be a Messiah who would crush the power of the serpent (symbolized by trampling on the serpent's head). So Lucifer now had to come up with a way to stop the prophecy from coming to pass. After God punished Cain for killing his brother, Lucifer saw a potential way to turn people away from God; as mankind developed and their creativity flourished, Lucifer also developed a strategy for turning people away from God. It was very simple, but effective; teach men to call on and worship themselves as gods. Eventually, mankind began to forget about God and look within themselves. The next thing that happened was, people began fighting each other as every man did that which was right in his own eyes. But while the spirit of corruption was working in the hearts of men to increase their wickedness further, there was still a small handful of people who honored the Lord and worshipped Him as the one and only true God. They walked very close to Him, and one of them who was called Enoch ended up disappearing from the face of the earth because God took Him. Some folks have said that the saints in those times talked with God face to face in Paradise and would tell Him all about what was going on and that something should be done to lead men back to the truth. Even the angels begged God to let them go down and teach men about the ways of God Finally, a group of seventy angels descended on Mt. Hermon. Their mission? To teach the people about the ways of God. Unfortunately, they became distracted--and soon, corrupted themselves and had children... As they and their children became more and more corrupt, they began to teach men how to do more and more evil against one another and also began to teach the people how to worship them as gods. It finally got to the place where battles were happening almost everyday and the earth had no rest from the havoc being wreaked on it by the humans, the corrupted angels, and the corrupted angels' children. No...I'm not referring to the Royal Arch Degree. I'm simply referring to the fact that because God got fed up with all the wickedness, He destroyed the entire world except for Noah and his family because they were just and worshiped the one and only true God. Noah preached for many years to the people while he built his boat but no one listened. Consequently, he and his family were the only ones who survived the flood. Later, God put a rainbow in the sky, promising that He would never again destroy the world with the flood (and it's pretty interesting too because the Hebrew word for "rainbow" translates "iris" meaning that the rainbow represents the notion that God would watch over the whole world with tender loving care and would never destroy it with a flood.) So how does all this relate to what I was saying about how Christ defeated the powers? It demonstrates that firstly, through believing in Jesus, we have freedom over the power of sin and the devil. Secondly, it demonstrates that it is only through faith in Christ that we have a real hope for a future life. And finally, through faith in Jesus Christ, the powers of this world have no dominion or power or authority over us anymore. Listen to what Paul and John say about the difference between believing and not believing in Jesus: We are all born blind, under the powerful influence of sin; it is through this powerful influence that the devil and his minions influence our hearts and minds, trying to keep us blind to the truth. Therefore, we need to believe in the truth, in Jesus, in order to see.
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Jul 25, 2012 21:06:12 GMT 9.5
JackJack, I wonder if you would mind helping me understand a few points please? We are all born blind, under the powerful influence of sin; it is through this powerful influence that the devil and his minions influence our hearts and minds, trying to keep us blind to the truth. No huge issue with this JackJack Ok, but, can you help me understand:- 1. How did people find their way before Jesus? 2000 years ago is a pinprick of time, and some religions eg Hinduism are twice as old and still going strong in our world today. 2. The 6bn plus non Christians in the world - are they all doomed? Now let me get up close and personal JackJack. I am just a simple man, a nobody really, I struggled hard to find my way, and some see me as a waster, an arrogant fool, a dreamer, etc. And you know they may be right. However, and given that I am trying to earn a living through writing while caring for my wife, it would be quite easy for me to capitalise on the fact that some people do believe that I am on a divine mission (not something that I have ever claimed by the way - though I do accept that God asking me to return does imply this). Here are some simple facts JackJack, a lot of it is publicly evidincable on masonic and David Icks forums, though clearly not all. Go back to just after the millennium, some people did write to me and tell me/or mention face to face, that they were sure that I was "the one". Others told me that I was a "false prophet". One chap who knows me fairly well has even likened me to your favourite person, which was a tadge embarrassing being in front of my family. And others have said when I have been discussing who this Messiah is/will be, in all seriousness that they thought that it was me. Personally I find it quietly amusing, for I really am just a bloke bumbling his way through life, being a pain in the ass as I encourage better standards of leadership in our world. But when you look at the books that I have written about bringing our world together and overcoming the darker aspects of human nature (which I learnt the hard way btw), and how I would love to see a united Earth, I can understand why some in both the masonic world and in the conspiracy world, think that it is me. My wife laughs her head off about it always replying "they dont have to live with you (me)!!!). Now you are of the view that I must clearly be lying when I talk about my personal experiences with God, and if that is what you want to believe so be it. It matters not to me whether you believe it or not, but I would ask that you at least consider that I might just be telling the truth. Remember that I am going to be getting myself into global politicsover the coming decade or so, and given the grief I give the powers that be, if I lie I would be opening myself up to all sorts of problems once my name becomes better known from here on in, beyond simple intolerance. I am just a bloke, who started life in a difficult place, worked my way into the global professions, against a lot of odds, my wife got ill, I struggled, chose to care as opposed to follow the money trail, got lost, walked myself back out of the darkness I had stumbled into, and got to where I am today. Some like me, some have told me that I have inspired them, some positively dislike me, and they tend to be quite vocal, but such is. I am me. I am who I am. Perhaps you could consider that I might just be telling the truth.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 25, 2012 21:17:49 GMT 9.5
Perhaps I have not understood the part about Jehovah overcoming the other gods. Can you explain that a bit more? And did the gods also suffer from an original (but different) sin? Is that why they could be overcome by Jehovah after(?) the death of Jesus? Unfortunately I cannot see where any of your links or text actually explains about Jehovah needing to conquer the other gods and how the death of Jesus helped that situation. As you will have worked out by now your original statements constitute a new area of Christian theology - one so far neglected by theologians. It might be better to abandon reconciling the Old Testament with the New Testament. Both the Old and New Testaments each has enough of its own problems with internal consistency without requiring joint consistency. Scriptures are only a means to an end. Beyond all the religious and scriptural troubles of Earth humans, the Christ energy exists. The task for most humans is to learn to express it.
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Jul 25, 2012 22:17:22 GMT 9.5
If there is no atonement of sins, then there is no release from sin. Sin simply means "missing the mark." Not something you or I will burn in an everlasting lake of fire for, that's just foolishness. The concept of "original sin," which you and other fundis believe, was introduced in the middle ages, not by Jesus (of whom no historical evidence exists).
|
|
|
Post by cwhite on Jul 26, 2012 0:00:43 GMT 9.5
I thought sin was a reference to the Moon?
|
|
|
Post by jackjack on Jul 26, 2012 2:36:16 GMT 9.5
I do not think that anything that I've said so far is new; in fact, it's ancient history. The whole concept of the fall, man's rebellion against God, the atonement, has been taught for thousands of years; the problem is, it's being slowly forgotten by the next generation who is more concerned with Iphones and talk shows then they are in the truth. The atonement, the cross, and the resurrection play a very important part in Christianity--without it, you do not have anything. Now I thought it was obvious why exactly it was necessary for Christ to die, rise again, and defeat the powers; I guess I will try to attempt it one last time before I move on to address some of the points that Stewart mentioned because I think they are very important questions that sadly many Christians don't try to answer and instead, shuffle to the back of their brain. Anyways... First of all; man fell--and due to the fall, there had to be some kind of, at least, temporary solution for sin. We see Abraham offering animal sacrifices to God almost everywhere he went, yet, the law of Moses wasn't even around--this should immediately made one ask why Abraham did so. Apparently, there was some kind of "law of the jungle", for lack of a better term, that was in place which stated that sacrifices were necessary (frequency not being important but rather just making an offering of some kind once in a while). We also see that from the beginning, God wanted the person's heart of worship more then the sacrifice; we read over and over again God telling the people that He doesn't get kicks out of animal sacrifices but rather out of heartfelt worship. Putting the two ideas together, we get this kind of picture; that when a sacrifice was to be offered, it was to be given from the heart. After it was offered, the person was to worship God with their whole heart. Over time though, the people got to thinking that all God wanted was the animal so they would go up, offer the sacrifice, and then go home. As I pointed out earlier, there was also some kind of pre-mosaic community law that also seemed prevalent because the Bible says that there were also certain things people would do that God seemed to expect them not to do and therefore He would punish them for. After some research, quite happily I stumbled upon this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noachide_lawWhen you realize this, you begin to realize that while the sacrificial system was in place to atone for sins, it was a temporary solution. We then turn to the prophets and see that God was getting fed up with all the dead animals and no heartfelt worship so He makes a promise that one day, heartfelt praise and worship alone would be enough and that the sins of the people would be forgiven and that the sacrificial system would be done away with altogether. But what does this have to do with defeating the powers? Well, the main thing the powers had over God was the fact that when people were born in sin, by default they had influence over the person's heart and mind. From day one, the person would be spiritually born blind and doomed in a sense to live a life under the sway and influence of those powers. There was one provision for this however; whoever determined to serve the true God with a transparent heart, was given the hope that one day, the Messiah would come and deliver them from the enemies. When they died however, their souls didn't get to go up to their rest and reward but went down into Abraham's Bosom, a giant waiting room for the souls who eagerly anticipated the Messiah's coming and had lived lives in conformity to the word of God. They didn't get to go to Paradise and instead went to Hades, the underground subterranean region in the earth (as opposed to Sheol the land of fire and punishment for the wicked) because at the time, there was only a temporary solution to the sin problem!Now sure God could violate his own rules if He wanted but that would make Him an unjust God; so God simply waited until the right time and He sent His Son. His Son, upon dying, went down to hell, stole the keys from the personages of Hell and Death, rescued the saints that were sitting in the waiting room waiting for Him, and He took them with Him to Paradise! Having now permanately fixed the sin issue, the temporary fix, the sacrificial system, was done away with and now, all people had to do was place faith in Jesus, serve God, and hope for His return to set up His Kingdom on earth! The powers were also defeated in the sense that now the sacrificial system was gone, the sins were taken care of completely instead of merely being covered every year and no more would saints descend to hell because Christ conquered hell and the grave and the power of sin that had held the people captive. For more info on this, read the Book of Hebrews. The Christ consciousness concept is Hindu/Buddhist. It is merely an attempt to blend Christianity in with other Eastern Religions. It's the same old story of "all you need to do is love other people and that's it. No sin, nothing like that." Nothing wrong with loving other people, but that alone will not get you into heaven. There's only one way to heaven. But if you want to believe Eastern Mysticism disguised in Christian clothing, then that's your choice. Now, onto Stewart's questions... To learn more, see link below: www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+1&version=NLTGod reveals Himself in many different ways; sometimes in, visions, dreams, and sometimes in the form of a human being Interesting eh? And now for the "big one"! *drumroll* St Paul says, "It depends..." For more info, please see bible.org/seriespage/no-excuse-jews-romans-2
|
|
|
Post by jackjack on Jul 26, 2012 2:41:50 GMT 9.5
...And as for the doctrine of original sin... Well, it's been around longer then the middle ages; in fact, it was King David who admitted that he was originally born in sin! And yes, there is more then one definition for sin; it's very important to note that because so many people believe as I once did that if you're a Christian, all you gotta do is believe that Jesus was a really nice moral dude who died so that you could be good and moral just like him.
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Jul 26, 2012 4:22:21 GMT 9.5
I thought sin was a reference to the Moon? There was a moon god named Sin, but in the English language, sin is an archery term that means "miss the mark." Which, really, is what sin is. A God who creates man, then gives him free will, then punishes him eternally for his choices (being omnipotent and omniscient, he knew his creature would do it), seems to me to be an insane gods, and not worth following. YHVH was the tribal war god of the Hebrews, his territory was limited. He is not the Creator god. Jesus is not YHVH.
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Jul 26, 2012 4:26:13 GMT 9.5
...And as for the doctrine of original sin... Well, it's been around longer then the middle ages; in fact, it was King David who admitted that he was originally born in sin! And yes, there is more then one definition for sin; it's very important to note that because so many people believe as I once did that if you're a Christian, all you gotta do is believe that Jesus was a really nice moral dude who died so that you could be good and moral just like him. The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists mostly dealt with topics other than original sin.[2] The doctrine of original sin was first developed in 2nd-century Bishop of Lyon Irenaeus's struggle against Gnosticism.[2] Irenaeus contrasted their doctrine with the view that the Fall was a step in the wrong direction by Adam, with whom, Irenaeus believed, his descendants had some solidarity or identity.[13] Irenaeus believed that Adam's sin had grave consequences for humanity, that it is the source of human sinfulness, mortality and enslavement to sin, and that all human beings participate in his sin and share his guilt.[14] The Greek Fathers emphasized the cosmic dimension of the Fall, namely that since Adam human beings are born into a fallen world, but held fast to belief that man, though fallen, is free.[2] They thus did not teach that human beings are deprived of free will and involved in total depravity, which is one understanding of original sin.[15][16] During this period the doctrines of human depravity and the inherently sinful nature human flesh were taught by Gnostics, and orthodox Christian writers took great pains to counter them.[17][18] Christian Apologists insisted that God's future judgment of humanity implied humanity must have the ability to live righteously.[19][20] It was in the West that precise definition of the doctrine arose.[2] Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Ambrosiaster considered that mankind shares in Adam's sin, transmitted by human generation.[2] Augustine of Hippo taught that Adam's sin[21] is transmitted by concupiscence, resulting in mankind becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.[2] When Adam sinned, human nature was thenceforth transformed. Adam and Eve, via sexual reproduction, recreated human nature. Their descendants now live in sin, in the form of concupiscence, a term Augustine used in a metaphysical, not a psychological sense.[22] Augustine insisted that concupiscence was not a being but a bad quality, the privation of good or a wound.[23] He admitted that sexual concupiscence (libido) might have been present in the perfect human nature in paradise, and that only later it became disobedient to human will as a result of the first couple's disobedience to God's will in the original sin.[24] In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all humans inherit. As sinners, humans are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace. Grace is irresistible, results in conversion, and leads to perseverance.[25] Opposition to Augustine's ideas about original sin arose rapidly,[26] voiced particularly by the Pelagians.[25] After a long and bitter struggle the general principles of Augustine's teaching were confirmed within Western Christianity by many councils, especially the Second Council of Orange in 529.[2] Some of the followers of Augustine identified original sin with concupiscence in the psychological sense, but this identification was challenged by the 11th-century Saint Anselm of Canterbury, who defined original sin as "privation of the righteousness that every man ought to possess", thus separating it from concupiscence. In the 12th century the identification of original sin with concupiscence was supported by Peter Lombard and others, but was rejected by the leading theologians in the next century, chief of whom was Thomas Aquinas. He distinguished the supernatural gifts of Adam before the Fall from what was merely natural, and said that it was the former that were lost, privileges that enabled man to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to his supernatural end. Even after the fall, man thus kept his natural abilities of reason, will and passions. Rigorous Augustine-inspired views persisted among the Franciscans, though the most prominent Franciscan theologians, such as Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, eliminated the element of concupiscence. Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin equated original sin with concupiscence, affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom.[2] The Council of Trent, while not pronouncing on points disputed among Catholic theologians, condemned the teaching that in baptism the whole of what belongs to the essence of sin is not taken away, but is only cancelled or not imputed, and declared the concupiscence that remains after baptism not truly and properly "sin" in the baptized, but only to be called sin in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin.[27] In 1567, soon after the close of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V went beyond Trent by sanctioning Aquinas's distinction between nature and supernature in Adam's state before the Fall, condemned the identification of original sin with concupiscence, and approved the view that the unbaptized could have right use of will.[2] From about the 18th century, belief about original sin has tended to become softened, but has persisted in some form as in Immanuel Kant's idea of "radical evil". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Jul 26, 2012 4:28:37 GMT 9.5
A notion of original sin had received little attention in the Church until Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430) introduced the concept to the western half of the Christian Church. It was never accepted in the Greek-speaking east and has been largely abandoned by many of the Protestant Churches. Augustine said that original sin resulted directly from the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and believed that it could only be removed by baptism, so without baptism, souls could not go to heaven. Cardinal George Pell recently stated that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, describing it as a religious story told for religious purposes. Without their existence, it will be hard to sustain the belief that Christians are born with original sin as a consequence of the sin of Adam and Eve, or that without baptism all are condemned to hell. It is too early to predict that the Church will soon abandon the doctrine of original sin, yet Adam and Eve can no longer be blamed for original sin that Christian tradition said that we all bear. Read more: wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_the_doctrine_of_Original_Sin_begin#ixzz21f7mdeMc
|
|
|
Post by stewartedwards on Jul 26, 2012 5:39:40 GMT 9.5
God reveals Himself in many different ways; sometimes in, visions, dreams, and sometimes in the form of a human being Interesting eh? What is interesting is that given your own words you called me a liar. So you dont have to be a Christian and Jesus is not the only way. Thank you for clearing that one up JackJack. I agree with you. As do 6+ humans on Earth for every one Christian.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jul 26, 2012 8:27:39 GMT 9.5
Atonement = At ONE ment.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 26, 2012 8:28:14 GMT 9.5
.... Cardinal George Pell recently stated that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, describing it as a religious story told for religious purposes. Without their existence, it will be hard to sustain the belief that Christians are born with original sin.... I can see that the Church has been making progress in my absence. With no original sin, the need for salvation is not so obvious. This may solve one of the theological problems of my youth: whether Jesus needs to be born on all the other planets in the universe that support soul-based life.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 26, 2012 8:42:50 GMT 9.5
...What is interesting is that given your own words you called me a liar. Stewart There is a tendency on some fundamentalist sites to flame posters of different views - including Masons and other Christians. It is an unfortunate practice that is does not contribute to their good name. Jackjack, While it may be uncomfortable for you to discover that others do not support some of your beliefs, it is still required that you demonstrate tolerance and goodwill in your posts here, just as a brother would. If you slow down a bit you might discover that some of the posters grew up in various churches and eventually discovered the Christ spirit within, and thereby no longer needed clergy, scriptures or liturgy. You may be able to learn from the brethren here.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jul 26, 2012 10:11:03 GMT 9.5
There is a tendency on some fundamentalist sites to flame posters of different views - including Masons and other Christians ... and Christian Masons? Agree with you JJ, fundamentalists do like to play with fire, and brimstone, and for some reason they like to scare themselves witless. I have a cousin who is literally worrying herself to death that she will not be one of the blessed 144,000 who are 'saved' and she is a good woman. Needless suffering. I have no doubts whatsoever that she will see The Light, the Way and the Truth when her turn comes as will everyone else in their own time.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jul 26, 2012 10:15:47 GMT 9.5
>I have a cousin who is literally worrying herself to death that she will not be one of the blessed 144,000 who are 'saved' and she is a good woman.
Has she thought of reducing her risk by belonging to more than one church or even more than one religion?
;D
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jul 26, 2012 12:27:39 GMT 9.5
>I have a cousin who is literally worrying herself to death that she will not be one of the blessed 144,000 who are 'saved' and she is a good woman. Has she thought of reducing her risk by belonging to more than one church or even more than one religion? ;D Would you believe, she somehow feels safe in their hands ... She is a simple soul and happy to worry I feel. Wonder where our comfort zone barriers are ... ? We all have them it seems. Probably why we need assistance to go where we have not gone before. Deacons, sojourners, et al.
|
|
|
Post by jackjack on Jul 26, 2012 22:22:32 GMT 9.5
Ok,
I'm telling you what the Bible says, Stewart; assuming that you're upset over me calling you a liar over the fact of the teaching of Christ's pre-existence before the world, I would say that quite frankly, this is what the Bible teaches in regards to the Messiah--whether you like it or not, that's the way it is.
This is an essential teaching of scripture. Period. You know, it would be like Paul telling me that Freemasonry teaches that there is one deity who inspired all of the mystics in the past and is behind all of the major religions in the world and me getting all upset about it and saying that Freemasonry doesn't teach that. No matter how many famous Christian masons I appeal to, Paul is going to keep telling me that this is not in accordance with the nature of Freemasonry's teaching on GAOTU.
So, for what reason do I have to be upset? That is the nature of Freemasonry's teaching on GAOTU isn't it? So if it is, it is. Period. And I can't change that.
Now as for the Church Fathers...
Think of it like the early Masonic councils; you have liberty in each lodge to pretty much do what you felt your call in Masonry was. However, to use a masonic term, there has to be certain landmarks that every lodge has to adhere and participate in. They were drawn up by the early masonic councils so that the essential nature of Freemasonry wouldn't be compromised. Before that, if memory serves, many lodge brothers were fussing and fighting and believing what they wanted pretty much; so many of the Worshipful Masters went to the Grand Lodge of the Orient or a similar body and complained about all the fighting and stuff going on and said something had to be done.
So the Grand Lodge convened; all the lodge masons met in England inside of a big cathedral or ball room (because at the time, there weren't that many lodges) and decided on the rules that were needed in order for the "essential nature" of Freemasonry to be preserved.
In the same way, the early church was set up much the same way and the leaders met at the councils for the same reason, to preserve the "essential nature" of Christianity (and it was something that many of the churches agreed on ALREADY before the councils convened.
The following are the landmarks of Christianity and are NOT to be changed or altered in any way:
|
|
|
Post by jackjack on Jul 26, 2012 22:28:06 GMT 9.5
Catholic is the Latin world for universal
|
|