Thanks for the exchange brutha (or sista?) Tea&uni. I hope things are going well with you & yours ...
I've been thinking about the nature of heaven, and realized that I do not know exactly how one gets in ....
PS please do not get into an argument over what heaven is. I just want the requirements for getting in ....
To everyone, of any (abrahamic) religon, do you get into heaven through faith alone, acts, baptism, or any combination of the above. Thank you.
Casting aside any specific definition of 'heaven', here's to hoping some friendly discussion may lead us towards it.
Yet, before entering into this sort of dialogue, I was hoping you may answer a question as honestly as possible.
Do you feel brother Joshua, the Anointed One, may have provided a way that can lead One towards 'heaven' ?
One Love
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
Thanks for the exchange brutha (or sista?) tuff. Hope things are well for you today ...
Heads up - I wound up posting a lot more scripture text within this post than originally intended. However ...
You can rest assured, it was not done to convince anyone into accepting Joshua as a levitical animal sacrifice.
Having read the first 3 pages of replies to your question on how to get into an afterlife heaven, would I be right in assuming, like me, you are absolutely none the wiser?
Had I placed any faith in the priestcraft, over and beyond the witness of the Prophets and chosen to nullify their unique - although consistent, testimonies while rejecting the faith within my conscience that I've recieved from the Father, I'd - most likely, be inclined to quickly agree. Thankfully, I have no faith in those who contradict Joshua - as well as the radical school of Prophets as a whole, around every bend as they entertain special pleading along their broad straight aways. I guess I'm One with those who perceive Joshua as quite easy to understand, while finding it more difficult to live up to his admonitions.
Here's a few excerpts attributed to Joshua, before he's ruthlessly murdered to the delight of so many, in regards to what he testified as requirements ...
Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?
19 ~ Joshua said to him, Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
20 ~ You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’
21 ~ The man replied, I have wholeheartedly obeyed all these laws since my youth.
22 ~ When Joshua heard this, he said to him, One thing you still lack.
Sell all that you have and give {the money} to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.
Then come, follow me.
As often as brother Joshua spoke in parables and hyperbole, I'm not seeing where the 'confusion' is in his speech here. Perhaps a christian can point it out. Also, if you were involved in priestcraft and making a livin' off of other people's sin and wealth, wouldn't you want to change his rules a bit too? Anyway ... as far as any clear presentations go, I thought brutha truthlover was fairly concise in Message 29; where does the Anointed One make any claim of ease?
Here's a few excerpts attributed to Joshua, still before he's ruthlessly murdered to the delight of so many, in regards to the diffuculty one may encounter ...
Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left home or wife or siblings or parents or children for the sake of God’s kingdom
29 ~ who will not receive many times more in this time — and in the age to come, eternal life.
Perhaps you can see why those indoctrinated within various schools of thought, yet refusing to repent, are made very uncomfortable by Joshua's advice. Nonetheless, there are always going to be a few who choose not to listen to second hand advice - instead, going to the source and striving towards their goal. Not to keep up the bombardment of scripture texts, but I'm referring to people that may experience striking similarities to Zacchaeus, for example.
Look, Master, half of my possessions I am now giving to the poor, and to those I have cheated of anything, I am paying back four times as much!
9 ~ Then Joshua said to him, Today salvation has come to this household, because he too is a son of Abraham!
10 ~ For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.
Religious folk (ie. levitical christian sects, etc.) seem to always be contesting - scratchin' tooth and nail, in a feeble attempt to circumvent Joshua's policies. Perhaps the rest of us simply behave that way in stride or, as you have mentioned, out of the confusion established by the constant ambiguity employed.
Just as it happened in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the Son of Man.
lol - it seems to float rather nicely in the turbulent waters of christian confusion; although I've used only the lumber found within the witness of the Prophets and the pleasantly unambiguous words attributed to the Anointed One. I make every attempt to consistently chink it from within with faith, hope and love ...
My view is that we are all so incredibly lucky to be born at all, especially into this time of astonishing wealth & health, that to fret about being born again and going to some better place is an absolute insult to our ancestors who lead unimaginably harsh lives to give us what we have. We are already in heaven, or at least can be once we realise what we have.
Ahhh - what a breath of fresh air ... if you will, pay special attention to the passage found below drawn from the good news according to Luke.
Now at one point, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, Joshua answered,
The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed,
21 ~ nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’
For indeed, the kingdom of God is in your midst.
I become less amazed, each day it seems, that so many who have not recognized dogma as good news are walking in such a spirit as yours brutha tuff.
At this point, it appears worth noting that while the author(s) of Mark (also Matisyahu 19:29; Luke 10:25, 18:30) perhaps seem(s) to portray 'eternal life' as something one receives primarily in 'the age to come', the good news according to the author of John, on the other hand, continually emphasizes the possibility of receiving 'eternal life' in the present (as Luke 17:21). Heads up - although linked to the original text(s), the verse below has been paraphrased ...
Truly, truly, I say to you, the One who {hears, obeys & commits to} {my Father'swords} and believes the One who sent me has eternal life -
This One does not come into judgment, but has crossed over from death to life.
In the end, we are certainly, imho, indebted to some of our ancestors and while admiring your whole paragraph, that last bit is really hitting home.
Thanks tuff. In the spirit of the Anointing, peace to you ...
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : grammar
Edited by Bailey, : pnct.
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
Thanks for the exchange brutha iano ... Hope things are well with you & yours.
Brutha iano, one liners and meek coincidence are not likely to alter reality. But, please, don't get me wrong - I do love you.
brutha iano writes:
brutha truthlover writes:
It's not popular in Christian circles to say so nowadays, but ...
According to the Bible you go to heaven by doing good works.
It's certainly not popular in Christian circles and here isn't the place to go into why not. But it's interesting to take the opportunity provided by Truthlover to point out that works-based salvation is the basis for salvation in every major Religion and sect ...
Of couse there are plenty of indigenous 'religions', as well as, universalist belief systems that render this statement completely false, yet nonetheless ...
You'd think that'd be a hint to those within it's adherence, but nahh - you can't easily reason with those who've already been convinced they know it all.
Make a struggle and strive to exert every effort towards entering through the narrow door,
Because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.
25 ~ Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, then you will stand outside and start to knock on the door and beg him,
‘Lord, let us in!’ But he will answer you, ‘I don’t know where you come from.’
26 ~ Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’
27 ~ But he will say, saying to you, ‘I don’t know where you come from! Go away from me, all you workers of iniquity!’
28 ~ There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
And ALL the Prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves thrown out.
I find it pleasantly interesting that all the Prophets are mentioned specifically in the passage directly above, but notta priest at all ...
Mind you, the ones prophesied about above - who are banished from the light, are under the impression that they were serving brother Joshua.
Also, although we are admonished that the 'way is narrow', sola fide is one of the broadest paths in existence - and established through politics.
So then, money, money, money, money, money. The situation we face is one where people believe they know their bibles - after all we can quote verses at the drop of a hat as if that were somehow evidence. That is not the same as understanding one's own bible and without understanding, there is not knowledge. Without understanding and knowledge there can not be evaluation. Let's be absolutely clear: everyone interprets scripture.
And so, every stance taken on scripture is an interpretation. There is no value-free understanding of scripture.
We don’t need to go over the contentious passages located within various scripture texts. They are well known and well rehearsed. What is perhaps much less well known is any concise understanding of what these passages were trying to convey to their original audiences. To understand the religious background of those times is to discover that they do not offer a blanket condemnation of salvation resulting from a balance of mitzvah.
... bar for Christianities salvation by faith alone.
Which indeed requires nullifing huge portions of canonical scripture texts - with the admonitions attributed to brother Joshua being no exception.
Of course, what remains must be buried under the extreme weight of polemical argumentation. It appears sola fide is most effective at proselytizing when ...
* promoted through a prison ministry
* your dealing with primarily illiterates
* there is no personal access to a bible
* the adherents have the bible read to them
* you can slaughter all the people who disagree
* you pay those who can't be slaughtered to hush
Here's a question for you: how long do you think the United States would have lasted if the founding fathers hadn't, through a certain foresight, established and implemented a Supreme Court, which maintains the final word in the interpretation of the Law of their Land? Answer: that country would have been split into factions right from the very beginning.
So then, it is little surprise that this is exactly what happened to sola fide's daddy, Protestantism. Luther separated from the commanding Roman Levites in 1521 and immediately there were squabbles between him and Hiccup Zwingli - his fellow reformer from Switzerland, as well as with Thomas Munzer. As a matter of fact, Munzer broke away that very same year and formed the Anabaptists. Calvin & Hobbes then separated in 1536 and formed a polished turd of his very own, which he humbly entitled Calvinism. Following suit soon thereatfer, Johnny Knoxville parted company and formed the Presbyterians 'roundabout 1560. Accordion{ingly} John Smyth hustled together the Baptists in 1609, and John and Charles Wesley started Methodism in 1739.
This could keep on going and going and going like the energizer bunny, seeing as there are now over 33,800 differing levitical denominations, none of which can claim any substantial authority over one another regarding the interpretation of the the Father's ToRaH - or teaching ... or law, if you so prefer. From the moment the Universal Church of God crapped out Protestantism, they both lost the 'Supreme Court' of bible interpretation, which the popes had been losing fine on their own for all those years since Constantine bought and paid for his favorite book.
Call it Christianities Unique Selling Point
There is an overwhelming sense that the adherence to a human animal sacrifice would quicker fit that bill ...
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : grammar
Edited by Bailey, : grammar
Edited by Bailey, : pnct.
Edited by Bailey, : pnct.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
Thanks for the exchange brutha iano. I hope things are well with you ...
Please forgive me and take a stride towards seeing past my tone; while having much to say, I am very low on energy and patience.
As of now, I am still just a man, and so, a sinner; just like uncle Paul and yourself.
brutha iano writes:
weary writes:
brutha iano writes:
brutha truthlover writes:
It's not popular in Christian circles to say so nowadays, but ...
According to the Bible you go to heaven by doing good works.
It's certainly not popular in Christian circles and here isn't the place to go into why not. But it's interesting to take the opportunity provided by Truthlover to point out that works-based salvation is the basis for salvation in every major Religion and sect ...
Of couse there are plenty of indigenous 'religions', as well as, universalist belief systems that render this statement completely false ...
Such as?
As an aside, even the evangelical sect of levitical christianity requires the act of metanoia to procure salvation, which, I reason, nullifies your original point.
That specific point being, as is said - evangelical levitical christianities doctrine of sola fide, somehow, equates to a non works-based salvation method.
Honestly, I can hardly believe I'm spending any energy or taking the bit of time necessary to respond to this query. Are you at all aware of how many indigenous belief systems do not entertain the notion of condemning mankind to 'hell'? Obviously not - apologies for the stupid question. Be encouraged.
Btw, even the Kondhs - or Kui, as they call themselves, living throughout the jungles of Eastern Ghats of Orissa, India, while declining in their practice of ritual killing, have employed buffalo to replace their human victims. So then, when will these other tribes stop promoting the bloodshed of the Prophets of Yisrael? Maybe when they start reading more than uncle Paul's letters and begin to have a little more faith in God than in their ancestors and relatives ...
Perhaps enroll in a basic religion course at a community college or even Google 101. Reading the same letters all the time seems a bit dangerous. Anyway, you'll have to do your own homework, as I have lil' faith you'd be convinced, even if the Father told you directly. I have little desire to make the attempt.
However, here's a couple links you can begin to read and, perhaps, follow up on ...
I think it is certainly worth noting three points of interest within this ancient tradition.
* One need not ever recognize a 'god' in any capacity in order to be salvaged.
* There are no 'good works' or mitvah required at all in order to be salvaged.
* A system of governance must be placed in effect.
Salvation, in this tradition, requires 'abstaining' from six various acts therein considered evil, but not especially 'doing' anything - much less 'works', at all.
If, by chance, one of the six laws are transgressed, the fix is rather easy. Watch Ezekiel dismantle the putrid doctrine of 'original sin' in the following verses.
The person who sins is the one who will die. A son will not suffer for his father’s iniquity,
And a father will not suffer for his son’s iniquity;
The one who adheres to justice will be judged according to his justice, and the wicked person according to his wickedness.
21 ~ Butif the wicked person turns from all the sin he has committed and observes all my statutes and does what is just and right,
He will surely live; he will not die.
22 ~ None of the sins he has committed will be held against him; because of the justice he has done, he will live.
Wait a sec - why, again, 'will he live', brutha Ezekiel - 'because of the justice he has done', lil' fella. Oh really, you may say - but how many sins will be held against the one who 'turns from all the sin' they have 'committed and observes all' the Father's 'statutes', so then, doing 'what is just and right'? None, lil fella.
quote:The central theme of the priestly traditions consisted of various rituals, in particular the greatest ‘sacrament' of the sacrifice of animals. This religious system was condemned by the Prophets of ancient Yisrael as a hypocritical charade intended to divert the people into sterile activities and the hollowness of religion and its dogmas, and so subvert the pursuit of true justice in the land.
The priests, as described by the Prophets, were in bed with the government and with a rising oligarchy in the land, and were using the sterility of their hollow rituals and doctrines as a device to keep the population dulled and stupid, attempting to please the Father with religion and its hollow practices, while turning a blind eye to the gross injustices taking place in the land, the oppressions of the poor, and the greed that was running rampant at the time.
Which seems, most certainly, to be what we evidence running rampant today within our current landscape.
These priestly traditions are exactly where this doctrine of brother Joshua, as a levitical animal sacrifice, originated - not at all with the Prophets of ancient Yisrael. This was, further, promoted as an outright diversion, within our own canonized bibles - quite plainly I might add, by a handful of angry nationalists ...
Brutha Yirmiyahu's contemporaries plotted to murder him when he exposed their vanity and forgeries, just as brother Joshua was plotted against ...
Two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the chief priests and the experts in the ToRaH were trying to find a way to arrest Joshua by stealth and kill him.
The chief priests and the experts in the ToRaH were trying to find some way to execute Joshua, for they were afraid of the people.
And then, that angry mob found their 'way' as a scheme is put into motion through the high priest in an attempt to further their doctrine of animal sacrifice.
Remember, when dealing with nationalists, it's almost always about three things ...
* Keepin' that nation.
* Makin' all that easy money.
* Pullin' the wool over your eyes.
Watch closely and perhaps you may perceive the beginning of the lovely 'propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of all mankind' doctrine take form ...
If we allow Joshua to go on in this way, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation.
49 ~ Then one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said, You know nothing at all!
50 ~ You do not realize that it is more to your advantage to have one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.
51 ~ (Now he did not say this on his own, but because he was high priest that year, he prophesied Joshua was going to die for the nation of Yuhdea,
52 ~ and not for the nation of Yuhdea only, but to gather together into one the children of God who are scattered in all the world.)
53 ~ So from that day they planned together to kill him.
Yea, he prophesied it all right - all the way to the bank.
You can almost hear the registers of the money handler's goin' 'cha-ching, cha-ching' in v.52.
What's more interesting - one cannot find this so called 'prophecy' anywhere within any canonized prophetic booklet whatsoever.
This lil' verse, encapsulated within a curious set of parentheses, is the only place you'll ever find the notion. Perhaps somebody can prove me wrong there.
And so, the Romans went right along with it after they kicked the Yuhdeans asses, as they're the ones still dribblin' the ball all over the court. One cannot serve the Father and mammon. Luckily, I'm not very athletic - religiously speaking, or perhaps I could have made some perdy good money with all them folk.
This next part's totallyawesome though - while brutha Yirmiyahu and brother Joshua were both persecuted, Yirmiyahu demanded justice ...
Yet, brother Joshua, the Anointed One, forgave his handlers ...
But you, Lord, know all their plots to kill me. Do not pardon their crimes!
Do not ignore their sins as though you had erased them! Let them be brought down in defeat before you!
Deal with them while you are still angry!
That, my friend, is but one reason I testify to Master Joshua's Anointing. Read carefully and he will tell you how sins are forgiven as well.
Again, Brother Joshua never referred to himself as a sacrifice, but rather a ransom. He ransomed me from people who won't read their bible.
Please, demonstrate otherwise - so as I may concede, within a good conscience, to the seemingly peculiar theory many attempt to put forth.
Hopefully you will understand why I would rather believe the words attributed to Brother Joshua within these ancient scripture texts over the word of confused sectarian churches who nullify huge swaths of the bible. After all, before he was murdered, Brother Joshua poured out his wisdom to teach every man and woman how sins are removed; however, Joshua never discussed any penal substitution method whatsoever. Please, demonstrate otherwise.
He attested that if you forgive others the Father will forgive you (no penal substitutionorblood required).
Then I confessed my sin; I no longer covered up my wrongdoing. I said, I will confess my rebellious acts to the Lord.
And then you forgave my sins. (Selah)
Can you see now, why those who promoted penal substitution atonement methods and sacrificial blood rites wanted to murder Brother Joshua ??
So he would be dead, gone and out of their hair - the same reason they wanted Yirmiyahu dead and gone after he blew the whistle on their forgeries!!
Can you even imagine how many member's of the ruling sect were noticing a decrease in wages as brother Joshua set out freely forgiving sins?
Remember this brutha iano - according to the G.O.S.P.E.L.S, it is not a tantalizing piece of Edenic Garden variety fruit that is the root of all evil ...
For the love of money is the root of all evils. Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains.
Again, this 'propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of all mankind' did not originate with the Prophets of Yisrael, but rather with 'the lying pen of the scribes' who 'have made [ToRaH] into a lie' according to the Prophet Yirmiyahu. Augustine and the likes then, whether through deceit or naivety - nullification or murder, or perhaps all of the above, employed ancient corrupted texts, proceeding to corrupt them and as many other people as possible, even further.
As stated by brother Joshua, the role of the Anointed One - or 'Messiah', was to fulfill ToRaH and the Nevi'im by dividing the truth from lies; and not by the pen, which is prone to corruption, but rather through a living testimony of obedient and righteous existence.
Brother Joshua testifies rather plainly that, while his example will be set forth in the spirit, the lies within the written ToRaH code, found in the law books of Levitical regulations as stated by Brother Yirmiyahu, will not be abolished until everything takes place, including heaven and earth pass away.
There is a sense that this is a polite way of telling us that, 'you cats just ain't gonna learn, 'til ya have just about destroyed everything'.
While I have no faith that the Father will allow that to happen, these last couple of hundred years have certainly been tumultuous.
Do not think that I have come to abolish the ToRaH or the Nevi'im. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them.
18 ~ I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the ToRaH until everything takes place.
Take note - brother Joshua is not on record saying that he will in any way fulfill the priests, but rather the Prophets, who the priests murdered.
Ok, now, back to basics ...
Another tradition that does not require anything but existence. Both of these traditions are Abrahamic in nature, which I thought you may find comforting.
Interestingly enough, while being considered the 'father of christian theology', Origen was indeed declared a heretic and the trend is carried on by the latter evangelical breeds. Regardless, Joshua never referred to himself as a sacrifice - not in the roman scripture texts, nor even within any apocrypha I've seen.
I would be grateful if you could demonstrate otherwise.
However, the Anointed One consistently referred to his decision to forgo aggressive self-defense and be mutilated on a torture stake as that of a ransom. Again, I would'nt expect you to take the word of a man, who claimed to have spoken only the words of the Father, over that of another - or even seriously.
Especially if the scheme interferred with one's theological upbringing.
It is quite obvious, at this point, that a sacrifice and a ransom are easily equivocated to those persuaded towards trusting second hand sources. After all, there is no question that the consistent manipulations of uncle Paul's writings, as mentioned by brutha Pete, must be spot on, right? Here's what you say ...
... the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve,
And to give his life as a ransom for many.
Curiously, in the preceding verse where brutha Pete mentions the writings of uncle Paul, he carefully refers to brother Joshua's patience as salvation, rather than his murder. Let me ask you one final question before I retire from this debate with you - what must one do to receive this free gift you speak of?
If no 'works' are involved, there mustn't be anything required at all - right? That is referred to as universalism and doesn't require a fee.
Surely we needn't even hear about it or listen according to sola fide, because that may be considered a 'good deed'.
Believing something special is definitely to be construed as a good deed. Noahides got it made.
‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven — only the One who does the will of my Father in heaven.
The first point to make centres around your canon vs. a Christians canon. You have writings of certain people which I assume are taken by you to reflect the words of Jesus. In order to give them the weight you do, I'd go further in assuming that you consider them in some way heaven sent (ie: very accurately reflecting the words of Jesus). Fair enough?
Absolutely fair e'nuf - the tradtion I walk in, as it's been revealed to me, employ's the same canon as everyone else brutha iano. Consider ...
All scripture inspired by God is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness ...
Perhaps where we differ is that, my conscience does not allow for me to accept that all scripture text is inspired by the Father. I then, carefully ...
So then, I do not hold fast to what is, most certainly, suspect. Again, I cannot discount the value of CE historical data as easy as most seem willing to do. Archaeologists have uncovered numerous forgeries throughout the additional testaments within the Roman tradition. Most thankfully, the Father has made it completely impossible for me to contend that the roman scripture texts are inerrant in the way a great number of souls have been persuaded.
As another example, brutha Yirmiyahu testifies plainly to the fact that the ToRaH was forged by scribes within the Yerusalem temple of his day. I have no reason to trust the doctrine or word of a priest over a Prophet such as Yirmiyahu. So then, I cannot blindly trust the five blood law books filled with sacrificial priestly rites known as the ToRaH. Moreover, I can in no way accept that the Father desires or requires sacrifices of any sort over childlike obedience.
While those booklets plainly declare that certain sacrificial rites were given to Moses at the time of an exodus, brutha Yirmi testifies to the fact that there were no such sacrificial rites issued at that time. It then becomes very convincing to me that Yirmiyahu's tradition is in direct conflict with the priestly traditions. This can be further evidenced by their fellow priests throwing them headlong into a cistern to rot, as well as scheming to do away with them completely, after he and Baruch ben Neriah blew the whistle on them.
However, while I do fully understand how difficult it is for some to even trust the 'bible' after they have learned and accepted the fact that it's numerous texts have been forged multiple times, it is - thankfully, not difficult for me to decide regarding who is to be believed. As it is written: the letter kills, but the spirit gives Life. In the end of the matter, the texts we study most focus around the canon promoted by the Anointed One, numerous times, throughout the roman scripture texts, which include the law books which have been tampered with, as well as, a few other booklets ...
quote:Do not think that I have come to abolish theToRaH or the Nevi'im; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the ToRaH until all is accomplished.
quote:In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is theToRaH and the Nevi'im.
quote:Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?
He said to him ...
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
This is the greatest and first commandment.
And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
Nevertheless, brother Joshua admonishes us - not brutha Pete or uncle Paul, or any of the original crew - what literature will serve his disciples well as far as the Anointed One is concerned. Within the few gospels selected for compilation into the Roman scripture text collection, Joshua refers to three parts of the TaNaKh by name - the ToRaH (Law), the Nevi'im (Prophets) and the Tehellim (Psalms).
For a number of others and myself, this is where the canon of the prophetic tradition begins.
Now I do the same with the writings of other people - including eg: Paul. So far so equitable.
That is great. I love uncle Paul.
However, he is not my 'savior' or my Anointed One, but rather a great man who's writing's we consider very special in a number of different ways.
The question now is whether or not the balls can be juggled and in the case of Jesus words harmonising with Pauls words there isn't an enormous problem.
There really isn't, except when those who have been persuaded to disagree with the plain testimony put forth by the Anointed One twist things.
Certainly so, if reading Jesus words through the equally important lens of Pauls words. If you can't juggle the two then of course it's an either/or - in which case folk are likely to err on the side of Jesus ...
While I, honestly, am - as of yet, unable to perceive their testimonies and words equivocally, I hope and pray folks would err on the side of Joshua.
(or in the case of one stripped-down-canonist I know, to only those bits of the gospels which didn't interfere with his reincarnation doctrine)
lol - cute. For some reason, I don't think you are joking though. I have only two doctrines and they have proven challenging enough for me to achieve ...
* Love and trust the Father with all my heart, all of my being and all of my force.
* Love, but not trust, all of mankind in an identical fashion.
Beyond these, as far as I can tell, is just make believe.
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : grammar
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
I'm workin' on a response to your post and have only made it to a certain point. I decided to post this bit separately.
Consider the picture of a fisherman catching a fish - whose nature is geared towards staying out of the fishermans reach. If the fish is landed it is due to the fisherman exhausting the will of the fish using the hook and line to exert a force. The fish hasn't done a thing to contribute to it's being landed. If the fish is lost it is due to the will of the fish insisting on it's escape. God, although a skilled fisherman won't insist on a person being saved if the persons will insists otherwise.
quote:2 Thessalonians 2:10.. they perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Refusal to love the truth is the act of will in question, the wriggling off Gods hook. It's an insistance of will unto damnation. So you can say that salvation doesn't require we do anything - God will do the drawing in to himself .. and that damnation requires we do something - we pull ourselves away from God.
Finally - an objective statement. Now, how it that done iano: how does one pull away from God?
Or, if you prefer to have it put another way: What must one do to not become unsaved.
* believe something
* not believe something
* do something
* not do something
* believe anything
* not believe anything
* do anything
* not do anything
Let's start with baby steps. Do we not belief something or do we not do something?
One Love
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
Thank you for the exchange iano. I hope things are well with you.
iano writes:
weary writes:
As an aside, even the evangelical sect of levitical christianity requires the act of metanoia to procure salvation, which, I reason, nullifies your original point.
Christianity generally recognises God as the empowering agent behind a mans repentance ...
Believe it or not, I have quite a few brothers who consider themselves to be within the confines of the christian traditions. I am familiar enough with these practitioners, and their variant traditions, to have learned they don't recognize God as the 'empowering agent behind' their repentance. That is the single step that one takes towards God iano. However, I would quickly agree that, after that step's taken, God meets anyone where they stand. Anyway ...
... and attributes salvation ultimately, to Gods grace. So no, my point isn't nullified so.
Oops - I totally misunderstood you. I thought you were promoting the doctrine of penal substitution. I strongly agree that it is the grace of God that will, ultimately, salvage mankind. When combined with the faith of Abraham, it always has. The the ancient Noahide tradition demonstrates this effectively.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Honestly, I can hardly believe I'm spending any energy or taking the bit of time necessary to respond to this query. Are you at all aware of how many indigenous belief systems do not entertain the notion of condemning mankind to 'hell'? Obviously not - apologies for the stupid question. Be encouraged. Btw, even the Kondhs - or Kui, as they call themselves ...
My apologies for being non-specific unto wasting your time.
No apology necessary - after all, I'm the one lacking in energy and patience.
Let me expand on the spirit behind the term 'salvation by works' by describing works as anything you do or don't do in order to get on the right side of whatever deity/deities/energy/lifeforce/etc that lies at the root of the religion in question.
In all fairness, I think we should take strides towards reducing our definitions whenever possible, rather than expand - and perhaps, increase ambiguity.
So, anyway, you don't hold that repentance plays a part in salvation? While I'll admit that's interesting, I'll, however, strongly disagree.
That is basically the only 'doctrine' I hold to, aside from the two I put forth towards the end of the last post, those being ...
* Love and trust the Father with all your heart, all of your being and all of your force.
* Love, but not trust, all of mankind in an identical fashion.
For your tradition, it is then - what exactly?
And let's describe salvation not so much an issue of heaven instead of hell, but as 'a positive afterlife outcome' vs a negative one.
That's the same thing iano. Perhaps there's no need to increase your tendency to be extremely ambiguous, considering that is what Tea&uni is troubled by.
Rightly so, I may add.
Thus, a works-based salvation can be said to involve your doing/not doing things in order to ensure a positive afterlife outcome for yourself.
A succint and salient premise to begin from. I hold.
We don't have to look too deeply in order to conclude the Kondhs religion works-based according to this definition, Hinduism being awash with works.
quote: The Dongria are Hindus with syncretic beliefs combining animism. Their pantheon has both the common Hindu gods and their own...
There's been no time for college, so I take it you went the Google 101 route. Dongria are a sub-group of the Kui, later proselytized through Hinduism bud.
The Kui are an indigenous people of India that have been around for thousands of years, practicing anywhere from variant forms of animism, nature worship, shamanism, ancestor worship and fethism, to the more highly evolved forms of religion like Brahmanism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism. Basically, the Kui have been indoctrinated by almost all imperialist faiths, including - but in no way limited to, Levitical Christianity.
quote:Christianity in Orissa blossomed during the British Rule. It is some time around 1850 to 1947 A.D. The church in Orissa is a mosaic of places where the church is thriving and places where it is merely surviving.
People who came to faith were frequently put out of their own communities with no place to go but to the mission. One mission in the 1930s reported that 80 percent of their converts were financially dependent on the mission. These factors removed the converts from their own culture.
These new Christians were perceived as giving allegiance to a foreign land and culture. Most Protestant denominations are represented in Orissa, the result of missionary activities throughout the Orissa, starting with the onset of British rule.
The Kui weren't being suggested as a people who don't practice works-based atonement methods - although they fit in many instances, in as much as I was attempting to set them forth as an example of a people who have successfully evolved from the archaic notion and practice of a human ritual atonement killing in order to attain God's favor. So then, the point is ultimately mute if you're not advocating p-sub, but rather the pure grace of God.
They are after all, not necessarily equivalent by any stretch.
Unless, perhaps, you contend that God's grace is abundantly displayed by God not eradicating those who promote the bloodshed of Yisraeli prophets.
To that, I may hold - lol
Similarily..
quote:Noahidism (Wikipedia, 2009) Noahidism is a monotheistic ideology based on the Seven Laws of Noah. According to Jewish law, non-Jews are not obligated to convert to Judaism, but they are required to observe the Seven Laws of Noah...
Wait a sec ...
Are you equivocating the observance of six rules within an assemblance of governance to the notion of a works-based atonement method?
I feel it's important and very much worth keeping things in context here. Within the verses below from the booklet of Matisyahu, Joshua has gone up to the mountain to begin teaching his disciples after seeing the crowds. A couple of chapters later, by the time he offers this warning regarding the discernment of the pretenders, we are not told exactly who is being spoken to. Then, in the following verses provided from the booklet of Luke, it is made relatively clear that Joshua is not speaking to his disciples or Pharisees, but rather a bystander of sorts who asks 'Master, will only a few be saved?'.
Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, then you will stand outside and start to knock on the door and beg him,
‘Lord, let us in!’ But he will answer you, ‘I don’t know where you come from.’
26 ~ Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’
27 ~ But he will say, saying to you, ‘I don’t know where you come from! Go away from me, all you workers of iniquity!’
lol - following six rules is work? Talk about 'workers of iniquity' and those who practice 'lawlessness'. I digress.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Perhaps, you should have let this one go, as now I'm feelin' motivated.
Again, my apologies if I've wasted your time (although in my partial defence ...
Again, no apology necessary - after all, I'm the one lacking in energy and patience. I do thank you for the courtesies though. Very nice of you.
I'd remind you that I did bracket my original claim to major religions and sects - recognising that there might exist, somewhere in the world, a religion aside from Christianity who'd buck the works-based trend.
Ohhh, I see what you are saying, I think. Indigenous people do not 'count', so to speak, in regards to a religion worthy of comparison to your own.
{cough, cough ... bigot ... cough, cough}
Ahem, I strongly disagree.
But as your your examples demonstrate, even the minor sects can be trusted to produce those same..er.. goods.
Seeing as you consider following an assemblance of governance revolving around even six basic rules 'work', I suppose I did not deliver.
I'll not attempt to display anymore of those measly 'minority' indigenous traditions - who happen to constitute the majority of the planet's religious practitioners, again either, as you have made it abundantly clear that their traditions are certainly unworthy of a comparison unto your own fantastic tradition.
{cough ... bigot, bigot ... cough}
Ahem, I'm just kidding - sort of, but seriously ... thank God for the UN.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Again, Brother Joshua never referred to himself as a sacrifice, but rather a ransom.
Please, demonstrate otherwise - so as I may concede, within a good conscience, to the seemingly peculiar theory many attempt to put forth.
See later..
How about, just post 'em if ya got 'em. If you can't find any verses where the Anointed One referred to himself as a sacrifice, then, perhaps, be honest.
Either there is an example of such a reference in your bible or there is not such an example in your bible. It's not a difficult request from where I stand.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Hopefully you will understand why I would rather believe the words attributed to Brother Joshua within these ancient scripture texts over the word of confused sectarian churches who nullify huge swaths of the bible. After all, before he was murdered, Brother Joshua poured out his wisdom to teach every man and woman how sins are removed; however, Joshua never discussed any penal substitution method whatsoever. Please, demonstrate otherwise.
Every man and woman?
Yes - indeed, anyone who is either literate or willing to listen to a few simple verses that promote forgiveness, bold faith and abundant love.
If you will, imagine - for at least one second, what the world may have turned out like if Joshua's murders displayed these traits.
These three things can change the world when adhered to on a consistent basis.
But Paul tells us that the natural (unsaved) mans mind cannot understand the things of God, that such things are but foolishness to him.
So, let me get this straight ...
You are suggesting that 'the natural (unsaved) mans mind cannot understand the things of God' which 'are but foolishness to' them when they hear or read the words attributed to Joshua the Anointed One - who's words were understood clearly and concisely as need be for him to ascertain a large enough following to threaten the authoritative power of the ruling sects of Yuhdea into a sense of justification condoning the Prophet's murder; but that the 'things' which 'are but foolishness to' the 'the natural (unsaved) mans mind' are more clearly understood when they hear or read the writings attributed to uncle Paul - which the apostle Peter testified contained certain 'things in these letters {that} are hard to understand'? Is that what you are saying??
No jive talk here, please - a simpleYES or NO answer will, more than, suffice. At that point, I'll continue into a response to your additional comments.
Seriously dude. Please, a simpleYES or NO.
What use this wisdom of Jesus to every man and woman if that wisdom cannot, per definition, be considered by them as anything but foolishness. You might as well tell a pig to fly.
* Place marked until you respond to the query above.
And what of those who could never have access to Jesus words - living as they did on the other side of the world when they were being written down? Are you suggesting something along the lines of Calvinisms abominable "for God so loved the ... elect"?
* Place marked until you respond to the query above.
And how can anyone nullify huge swathes of the Bible when what was written is there for people to see and judge for themselves? Your not supposing your dissent the result of your discernment with all the others gullible fools by any chance?
* Place marked until you respond to the query above.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Brother Joshua displayed that he had authority to forgive sins through bold faith alone (no penal substitutionorblood required).
When they found no way to carry him in because of the crowd,
they went up on the roof and let him down on the stretcher through the roof tiles right in front of Joshua.
20 ~ When Joshua saw their faith he said, Friend, your sins are forgiven.
Are you suggesting that Christ's split blood (assuming for a moment that it is indeed the means whereby sin can be forgiven) could only be effective from the day he died, onwards?
No.
You are quite the contortion artist, huh? I just can't figure out if you are doing that on purpose, or if you genuinely have trouble reading - lol
What I'm suggesting is that Joshua the Anointed One's 'blood' - and his very murder, are - and were, completely unnecessary in order to forgive sins.
quote:23The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousnessfor us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. —Romans 4
This would fly in the face of Romans 4 in which the means of our justification is modelled on Abrahams example ...
Yes, had I been suggesting that 'Christ's split blood could only be effective from the day he died', it would certainly nullify the faith of Abraham. However ...
It should prove more than reasonable that the notion that an all powerful and magnificent God, who rains down unconditionalagapelove upon ALL of mankind, would need any blood or murdered Yisraeli prophets in order to accomplish the forgiveness of sins through repentance, bold faith, abundant love and pure grace seems to effectively and most completely nullify the childlike faith of Abraham just as quick, if not even quicker.
... with the statement that that self-same mechanism applies to us today and that it hinges on Jesus death and resurrection.
Now if Abraham is justified by faith (distant past) and we are justified by faith (present day) then what problem with that man-in-between-times on a stretcher being forgiven too when he, like we, firstly demonstrates his faith?
There is absolutely no problem at all iano; it is as it has always been said by every Prophet that ever spoke on God's behalf - repent, and be saved.
Apparently your definition of 'repent' is, 'cling to an animal sacrifice'. Unfortunately, no Prophet is on record in the common bible suggesting that.
Please, demonstrate otherwise.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Within the text of 1 John, we are told to repent, confess our sins and they will be forgiven (no penal substitution or blood required).
Yes.
Thank you for conceding to this point.
But if the 'us' referred to happen to be those who are born again/in Christ then we are already relying on Christs blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sin.
Let the one who boasts, boast of this fact - That they understand and know the Almighty
And that they know and understand that the Almighty Father acts out of lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth
And that it is God's desire for people to do these same things.
quote:But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
We can't strongly establish the sense of two types of person (the saved/unsaved) from 1 John but it is elsewhere made clear enough so that we can assume the 'us' to whom 1 John is addressing itself, to be the saved. The saved will sin and do, as Jesus points out, need their feet washed - even though they themselves are clean
Perhaps, depending on the honesty you display in other responses preceding this one, we can come back to this, together, to discuss what is taking place.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Before he was murdered, Brother Joshua poured out his wisdom to teach every man and woman how sins are removed; however, Joshua never discussed any penal substitution method whatsoever. Please, demonstrate otherwise.
Can you even imagine how many member's of the ruling sect were noticing a decrease in wages as brother Joshua set out freely forgiving sins?
Can you see now, why those who promoted penal substitution atonement methods and sacrificial blood rites wanted to murder Brother Joshua ??
John wanted Jesus murdered?
That's what you took away from the context of that portion of the post?? Oh well - lol
Yea, I guess the author, editor and/or redactor of the booklet of John must have, right? How else would yoos guys have been saved??
If we allow Joshua to go on in this way, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation.
49 ~ Then one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said, You know nothing at all!
50 ~ You do not realize that it is more to your advantage to have one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.
...
...
53 ~ So from that day they planned together to kill him.
iano writes:
weary writes:
See my comments in defence above re: major religions and sects: Islam, Roman Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jehovahs Witnessism, Mormonism .. that kind of thing. The point being that if someone was considering where to dip an investigative toe in the religious water, then a works-based Religion isn't perhaps the best one.
And again, I'll not attempt to display anymore of those measly 'minority' indigenous traditions - who happen to constitute the majority of the planet's religious practitioners, again either, as you have made it abundantly clear that their traditions are certainly unworthy of a comparison unto your own fantastic tradition.
As well, providing you do concede that you equivocate the observance of six rules within an assemblance of governance to the notion of a works-based atonement method, I'll not bother you anymore as you revel in your bloody lawlessness. That is, as long as you don't go too far out of your way to proselytize everyone to their very death with your bloody anarchist based salvation system - you ol' worker of iniquity, you
iano writes:
weary writes:
However, the Anointed One consistently referred to his decision to forgo aggressive self-defense and be mutilated on a torture stake as that of a ransom. Again, I would'nt expect you to take the word of a man, who claimed to have spoken only the words of the Father, over that of another - or even seriously.
Especially if the scheme interferred with one's theological upbringing.
All scripture is God breathed.
lol
You truly don't recognize any of the documented forgeries that God has made privy to us, huh??
lol - quick question ... how many chapters are currently within the booklet of Mark that you employ?
Whilst some parts deal with bigger issues than other parts and so can be considered to be more important than other parts, I can't see how one could take one part as being more authorititive than another.
As I said iano, I wouldn't expect you to if the scheme interferred with your 'sacred' doctrine or theological upbringing in any way.
In the end of the matter, the issue is not really about what's authoritative, but rather what is required by God's authority.
I understand that you've arrived at a personal canon by convoluted means.
Oohhh - lol
You honestly feel that acknowledging a prophet such as Yirmiyahu when he says the ToRaH was forged - a definitive fact further evidenced to a certain extent by the scholarly work that went into the documentary hypothesis, and then, further basing the initial premise of one's 'canon' from texts which are spoken of directly by the Anointed One himself and found entirely within a common bible, is somehow arriving 'at a personal canon by convoluted means'?
You can't be serious??
Whilst admiring the time and dedication that must have gone into such a pursuit ...
It took an hour.
* note the texts spoken of by Joshua: the ToRaH (Law), the Nevi'im (Prophets) and the Tehellim (Psalms) - check
* note the repeated assertion by the prophet Isaiah that states animal sacrifices are an abomination to God - check
* note the fact that the Yirmiyahu asserts animal sacrifices were not asked for and the ToRaH was forged - check
* note, by reveiwing the documentary hypothesis, that the ToRaH - while allegedly 'written by Moses', indeed has multiple authors - check
Like I said, it takes about an hour and seems to require much less effort than nullifying the information canonized within the booklets of Prophets such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, Hoshea, Amos, Jonah, Micah and Yirmiyahu while simultaneously ignoring the scholarly evidence which corroborates his assertions.
... it's indicative of a means of salvation open only to the very bright ...
While I appreciate the compliment, as I've said before - I'm about as bright as a stump, with faith the size of a mustard seed.
It also clarifies the fact that God never asked for animal sacrifices, as Yirmiyahu risked his life to state and that Joshua the Anointed One needn't have been murdered for any other reason except for the greed of a handful of angry nationalists coupled with the naivety of those persuaded to believe that blood sacrifices were, for some bizarre reason, required to forgive sins. The means of salvation then reverts back to the childlike faith of Abraham. However ...
Childlike faith does not hinge on a murder iano.
... and of those, to only the one's with access to the means whereby an accurate opinion as to what is and isn't God-inspired can be formed.
There's nothing to form an opinion about bro. The writings were written by men and forged by men - everybody except dogmatics already knows that and has known that for years. God made sure the canonized bible maintained that fact within it's pages, through the testimonies of trusted prophets such as Isaiah, Yirmiyahu and the likes, and then God further allowed for archaeologists and scholars to confirm the fact.
Additionally, we have Joshua the Anointed One on record - in the same common bible, reiterating the message given by Hoshea and pleading with people, asserting that if anyone had known what 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice' meant, he wouldn't have had to have undergone execution. That basically wraps it up - what more information would anybody need?? God does not ever leave anybody hanging and God is not obscure.
We are the ones who are faithless, unreliable and ambiguous by nature friend.
Call me simple ...
You are simple.
... but if it's possible to reconcile the text by straightforward, internal means, I don't see the necessity of suspecting it of being erroneous/uninspired.
If it were 'possible to reconcile the text by straightforward, internal means' I have a sneaking suspicion that it would have been done by someone by now - after all, it's been hundreds and hundreds of years since Constantine had the book assembled. The fact that Teapots&unicorns has started this very thread and repeatedly stated, along with numerous others, that absolutely none of you makes any actual sense whatsoever seems to suggest the notion that ...
No religious dogmatic has the ability 'to reconcile the text by straightforward, internal means'.
merriam-webster writes:
sacrifice : an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar
ransom : a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something from captivity
For example: are ransoms and sacrifices mutually exclusive things? I think not.
Ok. If you remember, in Message 56 I already stated ...
quote:It is quite obvious, at this point, that a sacrifice and a ransom are easily equivocated to those persuaded towards trusting second hand sources.
Thanks for proving the point though.
Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that ...
Sound them out iano. Listen - a sacrifice is a sacrifice and a ransom is a ransom.
So, a tomato is not a hot dog, and they are not both skyscrapers - cut ... it ... out.
You'd go to any length necessary to defend your 'sacred' doctrines. Right or wrong?
Iano, I'm going to be honest with you bro - one issue, when you start doing shit like that, is it turns people who are not in your fairytale right off, because you begin to make no sense at all. That is the shit that drives people away from any genuine believe in God. Ask any athiest and I'm sure they'll tell you the same. If you had the ability to witness for God and make sense - you would be stylin'. That's not to imply that I necessarily have that ability either - lol
if the unit of currency used to pay the ransom wasn't considered precious by the recipient then the efficiacy of the ransom would be seriously depleted.
Yea, whatever ... an apple is an orange - I know. Thanks again.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Let me ask you one final question before I retire from this debate with you - what must one do to receive this free gift you speak of?
If no 'works' are involved, there mustn't be anything required at all - right? That is referred to as universalism and doesn't require a fee.
Surely we needn't even hear about it or listen according to sola fide, because that may be considered a 'good deed'.
In a nutshell? You don't have to do a thing.
If we are all saved, there's no need to discuss peculiar bloody details at the risk of making absolutely no sense and driving people further from God.
Why run around tellin' everybody about this archaic human ritual atonement killing? Let it go already. There must be a reason you are unwilling to do this.
Consider the picture of a fisherman catching a fish - whose nature is geared towards staying out of the fishermans reach. If the fish is landed it is due to the fisherman exhausting the will of the fish using the hook and line to exert a force. The fish hasn't done a thing to contribute to it's being landed.
Let's look at that example from another angle. The fish was deceived by the fisherman, much like Eve was by the serpent in the Eden narrative.
If the fish is lost it is due to the will of the fish insisting on it's escape.
If the fish wasn't being hunted by some form of deception it would have likely been fine - now, it has a nasty hook embedded within it's gill.
God, although a skilled fisherman won't insist on a person being saved if the persons will insists otherwise.
quote:2 Thessalonians 2:10.. they perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Refusal to love the truth is the act of will in question, the wriggling off Gods hook.
quote:Towards the beginning of this post iano stated:
A works-based salvation can be said to involve your doing/not doing things in order to ensure a positive afterlife outcome for yourself.
Ummm - I'm afraid refusing 'to love the truth' is, most certainly indeed, 'doing/not doing things in order to ensure a positive afterlife outcome for yourself'.
That's your definition of 'works' iano.
Earlier you set off 'describing works as anything you do or don't do in order to get on the right side of whatever deity/deities/energy/lifeforce/etc that lies at the root of the religion in question'; yet, willing yourself to begin loving the truth may certainly be construed as 'work' - indeed, this certain 'act of will in question', as you say, may be very challenging work for some people bud. Laying aside the internal inconsistency of your various statements for a brief moment ...
From where many others stand, there seems to be a whole lot of truth you do not even like, much less love.
Are you sure you want to hold - and even promote, that challenge as a deciding factor of your salvation?
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
The question now is whether or not the balls can be juggled and in the case of Jesus words harmonising with Pauls words there isn't an enormous problem.
There really isn't, except when those who have been persuaded to disagree with the plain testimony put forth by the Anointed One twist things.
One mans twisting (ransom vs. sacrifice) is another mans reasonably straightforward, if multi-layered, puzzle.
lol - wtf is a 'reasonably straightforward, if multi-layered, puzzle'? Is this your coy way of acknowleding that Joshua never refers to himself as a sacrifice?
As I've said elsewhere, it seems we're our own worst enemy when refusing ourselves the joys of taking a definitive stance on a definition. So then, much like the game of politiks, the religious authoritarians then seem to take great strides towards employing an ever present sense of ambiguity in their games.
If words are Play-DohTM, we can form from them whatever definitions, and so - doctrines, we decide.
However, I do not contend words are Play-DohTM, but rather words.
A ransom deals with that part of the problem which indicates man a captive and slave to sin. A (self)sacrifice deals with that part of the problem which demands that any forgiver pay the price of the transgression against himself, himself. If men require both release from captivity from sin and forgiveness of his sins, then he needs both a ransomer and a self-sacrifice.
I don't see the problen in God providing the two (and more) in one.
I know you don't bud. That's part of the issue here.
Perhaps, depending on the level of ambiguity you display in other various responses, we can come back to this, together, and discuss it.
iano writes:
weary writes:
While I, honestly, am - as of yet, unable to perceive their testimonies and words equivocally, I hope and pray folks would err on the side of Joshua.
So far I've not seen reason to side with either. Harmony is to be found.
Perhaps there is no conflict at all; then again, perhaps you see 'no reason' because you're unwilling, and so, unable?
No offense - harmony is always found when one allows no questions my friend.
iano writes:
weary writes:
I have only two doctrines and they have proven challenging enough for me to achieve ...
* Love and trust the Father with all my heart, all of my being and all of my force.
* Love, but not trust, all of mankind in an identical fashion.
Your two doctrines can be summed up in one. Works. Or they can be summed up in one. Grace. The former demands you succeed in the challenge or else Hell. The latter demands you succeed in the challenge or spit in the face of unconditional love.
I'm inclined to suppose the latter as providing the greater by way of motivation.
Along with my repentance, I prefer to sum these two doctrines up like this ...
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
In regards to waltzing with dogmatic ambiguity - Part 1 (of 3)
Hi iano ... I hope things are well with you.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Oops - I totally misunderstood you. I thought you were promoting the doctrine of penal substitution. I strongly agree that it is the grace of God that will, ultimately, salvage mankind. When combined with the faith of Abraham, it always has. The the ancient Noahide tradition demonstrates this effectively.
I'm not sure what penal substitution (a mechanism through which grace is applied) has to do with the point raised.
The thread is entitled 'Heaven: How to Get In'.
I think it's fair to consider and examine the dynamics of your 'mechanism through which grace is applied'.
If you are contending that it is 'grace' that allows one to enter 'heaven', then especially so, as this 'mechanism' is something other than pure faith (our part) or pure grace (our Father's part). It is a ritual atonement killing involving blood magic, otherwise known as a 'mechanism', apparently.
The assertion was that it is God's grace that lies at the very root of all aspects of salvation.
Exactly. Yet, it is an inhumane, torturous and unjust murder that lies at the very root of your p-sub mechanism.
A human animal sacrifice doesn't seem to be the same thing as pure grace; maybe to someone who thinks an apple is an orange.
For example: where would Abraham get his faith - if not through the gracious action of God?
Abraham didn't demonstrate a human animal sacrifice after leaving behind the pagan religion of his father in Ur.
Abraham's faith did not arise from a ritual atonement killing according to the witness of a common bible, so ...
What is your point?
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
Let me expand on the spirit behind the term 'salvation by works' by describing works as anything you do or don't do in order to get on the right side of whatever deity/deities/energy/lifeforce/etc that lies at the root of the religion in question.
In all fairness, I think we should take strides towards reducing our definitions whenever possible, rather than expand - and perhaps, increase ambiguity.
When referring to the major religions, including ones that have no salvation as such (eg: Buddhism) ...
Buddhism has a salvation referred to as Nirvana.
It is accomplished through the Noble Eightfold Path. Nirvana is a blissful state of transcendental spiritual fulfillment.
quote:To reach Nirvana you must follow the Noble Eightfold Path. The Noble Eightfold Path is:
1. Right Understanding: accepting the Four Noble Truths. (The existence of suffering; the cause of suffering; the end of suffering; and the end of pain.)
2. Right Resolve: renounce the pleasures of the body. Change your lifestyle so that you harm no living creatures and have kind thoughts for everyone.
3. Right Speech: do not gossip, lie or slander anyone.
4. Right Action: do not kill, steal or engage in an unlawful sexual act.
5. Right Occupation: avoid working at any job that could harm someone.
6. Right Effort: heroically work to eliminate evil from your life. Through your own effort develop good conduct and a clean mind.
7. Right Contemplation: make your self aware of your deeds, words and thoughts so that you can be free of desire and sorrow.
8. Right Meditation: train your mind to focus on a single object without wavering so as to develop a calm mind capable of concentration.
I even pulled that from an apologetic site, so if you would like assistance denigrating that world belief system, you can just draw from that well again.
They have already started doing a pretty good job, as can be seen by anybody who has studied Buddhism in, even, a basic college course.
... expanding definitions so as to arrive at an all-inclusive phrases such as "positive afterlife outcome" is a necessity.
It seems increasing ambiguity is a dire necessity to make sure you're arguments and theories stay nice and ambiguous.
Perhaps learning about other cultures and religions in an attempt to better communicate with people is a necessity.
iano writes:
weary writes:
So, anyway, you don't hold that repentance plays a part in salvation? While I'll admit that's interesting, I'll, however, strongly disagree.
It plays a part alright. Just like believing on the one who God sent plays a part. Just like being sanctified plays a part. But the critical point - the fulcrum over which you tip from lost-to-found isn't, I hold, repentance. The tipping point is a little further back at conviction - for it is only the man convinced he his wrong that has his mind changed to the new view.
For murderers and convicts perhaps the 'tipping point' is at conviction.
However for those who love the idea of seeking and serving God, as well as their fellow wo/man, perhaps this point comes with compassion and love.
They both hold truth to some extent apparently, as conviction has lead you to:
* consider forgiving others, having bold faith and loving abundantly as a matter of works
* and promote Joshua's murder as a blissfull and necessary ritual atonement killing
And compassion and love for God, as well as mankind, has lead me to:
* consider repenting, forgiving others, having bold faith and loving abundantly as a way to have ones sins forgiven
* and promote Joshua's murder as one of the saddest and, indeed, most horrible unnecessary injustices that has ever occured within recorded history
Which is why the Spirit is sent: to convince the world of sin.
More inconsistency.
It seems that is a christians job, as that is who we evidence making attempts to convince others of sin.
Are you, therefore, suggesting that the holy spirits is somehow incompetent to perform it's duties ...
Or that it, perhaps, relies on tag team partners??
I would quicker agree that the holy spirit guides one into faith, hope and love.
Jesus insisted a man repent alright, but issued the command to those who had the (convicted) ears to listen.
Would you like to demonstrate a biblical example of this?
Or would you rather I demostrated otherwise?
Without open ears his call falls on deaf ones.
The deaf ones were - and still seem to be, the ones relying on animal sacrifices to forgive sins, and so, gain God's favor.
This is evidenced repeatedly in the roman bibles latter testaments.
God is the one who convinces men and in doing so opens their ears. Their subsequent repentence is but a consequential domino fall - not a starting point.
As I've already demonstrated, this can go more than one way.
For some, a sense of God convicting them led them to repentance.
For others, a sense of God loving them led them to repentance.
Perhaps these two traditions reflect the difference between a ransom and a sacrifice.
iano writes:
weary writes:
For your tradition, it is then - what exactly?
I dunno that it has a name. Whatever it's called ...
I didn't ask a name. Stop diverting please.
100% of the credit goes to God for my salvation.
We'll see ...
Btw, was your willingness to accept and promote Joshua's murder as a levitical ritual atonement killing an act of your will or an act of God's will?
A simple yes or no answer first, please - then, a brief explanation if you feel the need.
There isn't the merest whiff of an act of my will to sully the glory and honour due to him.
Yes there is. Stay consistent.
In Message 59 you stated that the 'act of will in question' was a willingness to not entertain any 'refusal to love the truth'.
Now, if you want to say that God was responsible for that too, then you are disagreeing with Paul.
Also, you seem to be, at that point, moving into predestination territory.
Is that what you are claiming then ...
Paul is a liar and nobody can approach God unless they are one of the chosen ones and that if God doesn't pick someone, they cannot go to heaven?
iano writes:
weary writes:
The Kui weren't being suggested as a people who don't practice works-based atonement methods - although they fit in many instances, in as much as I was attempting to set them forth as an example of a people who have successfully evolved from the archaic notion and practice of a human ritual atonement killing in order to attain God's favor. So then, the point is ultimately mute if you're not advocating p-sub, but rather the pure grace of God.
Again, I'm not sure where p-sub fits in this given that it's merely (if I might respectfully use that word) a mechanism whereby God applies grace.
Again, p-sub, as a 'mechanism', is quite relevant to the topic.
If you are not sure where p-sub fits in, although you acknowledge it as a mechanism of sorts, why do you subscribe to - and promote, it?
Kind-deed works or keeping-to-law works differ not at all from human ritual atonementworks. All rely on you and your actions for a positive afterlife outcome.
Nobody is talking about 'human ritual atonementworks'. The word and doctrine that is in question is the doctrine of ritual atonement killings.
In modern levitical christianity, the doctrine of p-sub is rooted within a ritual atonement killing of an innocent jewish prophet who was anointed.
Are you saying that being nice to people, following the law of one's government and relying on p-sub - as some sort of 'mechanism', are all works?
If the Kui's 'Christianity' is a works based version then they haven't evolved at all.
quote:The Kui weren't being suggested as a people who don't practice works-based atonement methods - although they fit in many instances, in as much as I was attempting to set them forth as an example of a people who have successfully evolved from the archaic notion and practice of a human ritual atonement killing in order to attain God's favor.
Christians who subscribe to p-sub are definitely behind the times of the Kui, who have eliminated ritual atonement killing's almost entirely.
Christians who subscribe to p-sub are subscribing to the doctrine of a ritual atonment killing which relies on blood magic as a means to seek God's favor.
Please pay better attention.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Wait a sec ... Are you equivocating the observance of six rules within an assemblance of governance to the notion of a works-based atonement method?
Er.. I undertood Noahidism to be posited by you as a system concerned with a positive afterlife outcome (P.A.O.) which was not reliant on works. If it's adherance to the 6 laws is critical to a positive afterlife outcome then it's a works based system.
The adherence, within Noahidism, to it's seven basic tenets are not critical to a positive afterlife outcome.
What is critical to a positive afterlife outcome, within Noahidism - when one of the basic tenets is transgressed, is repentance.
If adherence the 6 laws have nothing to do with a P.A.O in Noahidism then I'd be interested in hearing what does have to do with a P.A.O in that system.
The active substance of a POA is as it has always been said by every Prophet that ever spoke on God's behalf - repent, and be saved.
I'd bet my bottom Euro that it centres on works of some sort.
As the ol' saying goes - for most men, 'til by losing rendered sager, will back their own opinions by a wager.
iano writes:
weary writes:
lol - following six rules is work?
One rule or a thousand rules. All works.
Than you are either assigning your tradition within the confines of predestination or you are admitting that it consists of at least one work.
Paul was pretty clear that the choice to be saved belonged to the one who accepted it, so I would assume the latter.
I don't imagine you as anyone who would accuse Paul as being a liar.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Ohhh, I see what you are saying, I think. Indigenous people do not 'count', so to speak, in regards to a religion worthy of comparison to your own. {cough, cough ... bigot ... cough, cough}
Cast your mind back from whence we came. I pointed out to an unbeliever that a distinguishing feature of all but one 'religion' is that they are works based.
True. Yet, allegedly, you can't even name your tradition. You said earlier that 'I dunno that it has a name. Whatever it's called ...'.
Now we can see that even your nameless tradition actually does have a work that must be accomplished in order to secure a POA.
Someone poking around at the edges of investigation (a not unreasonable possibility given that said person is engaging in a religious discussion) might find that noteworthy.
More than likely, if they are on the search, they will find the assertion falsified or overly ambiguous.
Something to put in one's pipe and smoke for a while.
If that's the substance within your pipe, perhaps you should quit smoking for a while ...
Then again, you could always go hit up onifre or Larni for something more potent - lol
Chances are, it won't be quite as musty smelling ...
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
In regards to waltzing with dogmatic ambiguity - Part 2 (of 3)
Hi iano ... I hope things are well with you.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
weary writes:
Again, Brother Joshua never referred to himself as a sacrifice, but rather a ransom.
Please, demonstrate otherwise - so as I may concede, within a good conscience, to the seemingly peculiar theory many attempt to put forth.
See later..
How about, just post 'em if ya got 'em. If you can't find any verses where the Anointed One referred to himself as a sacrifice, then, perhaps, be honest.
Either there is an example of such a reference in your bible or there is not such an example in your bible. It's not a difficult request from where I stand.
What about parts of the Bible that refer to him as a sacrifice?
What about them?
Is it easier to call an apple an orange, or a fig a thorn, rather than simply provide the verse I've requested?
A sign of an honest debater would be one who admitted the non existence of such a verse, if that were the case.
Please be an honest debater iano - either provide the verse or say 'such a verse does not exist'.
Will they do - or are we still singing from different Himsheets?
Himsheet - cute lol.
No. That won't do. We are not on different 'Himsheets'. We are in debate forum. Enough is enough already.
I have requested your acknowledgement of this point of debate in Message 56, Message 64 and now I'm asking you one more time.
Please provide a biblical reference where Joshua refers to himself as a sacrifice or honestly and kindly admit that you cannot or will not do this.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
weary writes:
Before he was murdered, Brother Joshua poured out his wisdom to teach every man and woman how sins are removed; however, Joshua never discussed any penal substitution method whatsoever. Please, demonstrate otherwise.
Every man and woman?
Yes - indeed, anyone who is either literate or willing to listen to a few simple verses that promote forgiveness, bold faith and abundant love.
If you will, imagine - for at least one second, what the world may have turned out like if Joshua's murders displayed these traits.
These three things can change the world when adhered to on a consistent basis.
That's an Everest-sized 'when'.
Irrelevant to the point of debate, again.
Before he was murdered, Brother Joshua poured out his wisdom to teach every man and woman how sins are removed (Matisyahu 6:14; Luke 5:19, 7:47, etc.); however, Joshua never discussed any penal substitution method whatsoever.
Please provide a biblical reference where Joshua discusses any penal substitution method whatsoever or honestly and kindly admit that you cannot or will not do this.
The proof is in the pudding ...
The proof of our contentions are within the common bible. Please stay on track.
... it's simply not in man's range of abilities to live like Jesus said he should live.
How great is your faith!!
It's been said before, predominant opinions are generally the opinions of the generation that is vanishing.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
weary writes:
Before he was murdered, Brother Joshua poured out his wisdom to teach every man and woman how sins are removed ...
But Paul tells us that the natural (unsaved) mans mind cannot understand the things of God, that such things are but foolishness to him.
So, let me get this straight ...
You are suggesting that 'the natural (unsaved) mans mind cannot understand the things of God' which 'are but foolishness to' them when they hear or read the words attributed to Joshua the Anointed One - who's words were understood clearly and concisely as need be for him to ascertain a large enough following to threaten the authoritative power of the ruling sects of Yuhdea into a sense of justification condoning the Prophet's murder; but that the 'things' which 'are but foolishness to' the 'the natural (unsaved) mans mind' are more clearly understood when they hear or read the writings attributed to uncle Paul - which the apostle Peter testified contained certain 'things in these letters {that} are hard to understand'? Is that what you are saying??
Yes.
This just keeps getting more and more interesting. Who is your 'savior' again?
How often have unsaved men read Jesus and admired his teaching and rated him as a remarkable man - yet failed to understand his dire warnings.
As many as were confused by the latter commentary??
How many stood by him at his death of the many followers he garnered?
Four, if I remember correctly.
How often have unsaved (and saved at times) men read Jesus and concluded a works-based salvation when the standard Jesus set was an impossible one to reach.
I doubt any. The standard of repentance is not impossible to reach.
However, I'd quickly agree that plenty of people who didn't read Joshua's words were convinced by various church systems that he preached things other than loving the Father with all one's heart, mind and force, as well as, loving one's fellow wo/man as oneself, while having bold faith, abundant love and forgiving others as often as the occasion arises, so the Father could return these blessings, and, indeed, do all these things for you as well. Most importantly perhaps, was the command to repent when one missed these marks of the Anointing, so they could be saved.
Again, The standard of repentance is not impossible to reach.
Did Jesus ever insert a "try your best to.." before his instruction to live according to the standard set?
Not that I know of - yet, why should he have??
iano writes:
weary writes:
What I'm suggesting is that Joshua the Anointed One's 'blood' - and his very murder, are - and were, completely unnecessary in order to forgive sins.
Despite..
quote:
Romans 4:25He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
..? You'd agree that if we're reading from two hymnsheets then discussion is rather pointless?
Perhaps if we read the One Himsheet, before skipping ahead to the latter commentary, you wouldn't incur this sense of pointlessness ...
I would agree that when one is unable and/or unwilling to address one point before shuffling around to others, debate and discussion are difficult ...
Also, when one constantly refuses to address specific points of debate by way of ignorance, nullification and obsfucation, debate may become impotent.
I would appreciate any effort you could afford us towards addressing the points previously raised, in an honest fashion, before introducing new ones.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
weary writes:
Brother Joshua displayed that he had authority to forgive sins through bold faith alone (no penal substitutionorblood required).
When they found no way to carry him in because of the crowd,
they went up on the roof and let him down on the stretcher through the roof tiles right in front of Joshua.
20 ~ When Joshua saw their faith he said, Friend, your sins are forgiven.
Are you suggesting that Christ's split blood (assuming for a moment that it is indeed the means whereby sin can be forgiven) could only be effective from the day he died, onwards?
No.
You are quite the contortion artist, huh? I just can't figure out if you are doing that on purpose, or if you genuinely have trouble reading - lol
What I'm suggesting is that Joshua the Anointed One's 'blood' - and his very murder, are - and were, completely unnecessary in order to forgive sins.
If we allow Joshua to go on in this way, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation.
49 ~ Then one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said, You know nothing at all!
50 ~ You do not realize that it is more to your advantage to have one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.
51 ~ (Now he did not say this on his own, but because he was high priest that year, he prophesied Joshua was going to die for the nation of Yuhdea,
52 ~ and not for the nation of Yuhdea only, but to gather together into one the children of God who are scattered in all the world.)
53 ~ So from that day they planned together to kill him.
These resentful priests claimed Joshua's murder would serve as a ritual atonement killing - a human animal sacrifice, which would facilitate three goals ...
* salvage the Yerusalem Temple from the Roman Empire
* salvage the Yuhdean's nation from the Roman Empire
* gather together into one the children of God who are scattered in all the world
This is an evident false prophecy, for if it were not, the Yuhdean's nation - and the Yerusalem Temple would not have been destroyed; yet, they were.
As one can read through the historical writings of Josephus, the Yerusalem Temple was destroyed by the Romans, along with the Yuhdean's nation state.
All of the dogmatics who placed their faith in this alleged prophecy were destroyed in, what may perhaps be referred to as, Gehinom fire.
It should prove more than reasonable that:
Since, neither, the Yerusalem Temple or Yerusalem itself were salvaged, neither will the latter prophecy - or derivative doctrine, be fulfilled.
The 'propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of all mankind' doctrine takes root within an evident false prophecy. Please, demonstrate otherwise.
The reference both here and in Hosea would have me suppose that God isn't truly interested in man's sacrifices at the expense of humane treatment of others.
So, let me get this straight ...
Your God would rather maintain a sacrificial system of penal substitution, than see mankind being treated nicely by the pharisaical priests?
You honestly believe that?? In other words, God desires priestly sacrifice more than humanity??
Please tell me you mistyped here.
Which is an altogether different thing to God being uninterested in his own sacrifice, ie: the lamb of God. Which reminds me: what kind of parallel do you yourself suppose for this expression, "the lamb of God"? Are you suggesting there is no sacrificial element involved despite it being so apparently obvious?
Iano - please, stop diverting. I have told you plainly what I believe and why.
Btw, Joshua never referred to himself as a lamb anyway.
Please, feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
Are you suggesting that Christ's split blood (assuming for a moment that it is indeed the means whereby sin can be forgiven) could only be effective from the day he died, onwards?
What I'm suggesting is that Joshua the Anointed One's 'blood' - and his very murder, are - and were, completely unnecessary in order to forgive sins.
This would fly in the face of Romans 4 in which the means of our justification is modelled on Abrahams example ...
Yes, had I been suggesting that 'Christ's split blood could only be effective from the day he died', it would certainly nullify the faith of Abraham. However ...
It should prove more than reasonable that the notion that an all powerful and magnificent God, who rains down unconditionalagapelove upon ALL of mankind, would need any blood or murdered Yisraeli prophets in order to accomplish the forgiveness of sins through repentance, bold faith, abundant love and pure grace seems to effectively and most completely nullify the childlike faith of Abraham just as quick, if not even quicker.
An all powerful God who applies mechanism instead of magic ...
Incorrect. You are referencing a 'mechanism' that is entirely based on blood magic that is, furthermore, apparently rooted in false prophecy.
... the magic involving how you might square the notion of universal unconditional love with the requirement that you do something in order to ensure you continue receiving it.
You appear to be making even less sense than usual. Will miracles never cease - lol
How would anyone do anything to receive unconditional love?
It is, by definition, unconditional!
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
... with the statement that that self-same mechanism applies to us today and that it hinges on Jesus death and resurrection.
quote:As an aside, even the evangelical sect of levitical christianity requires the act of metanoia to procure salvation, which, I reason, nullifies your original point.
quote:Christianity generally recognises God as the empowering agent behind a mans repentance and attributes salvation ultimately, to Gods grace. So no, my point isn't nullified so.
It was at that point, in Message 64, I overlooked your earlier reasoning and stated ...
quote:Oops - I totally misunderstood you. I thought you were promoting the doctrine of penal substitution. I strongly agree that it is the grace of God that will, ultimately, salvage mankind. When combined with the faith of Abraham, it always has. The the ancient Noahide tradition demonstrates this effectively.
I thought you were implying, as I reasoned later within that message, that the operative 'mechanism' through which God accepted his children was repentance, coupled with the the raw, unadulterated and unlimitedpower of God, as the Nevi'im consistently state in their booklets, rather than p-sub.
However, you nullified the prophetic tradition - and condemned the innocent, by clarifying your reasoning in Message 59 when you stated ...
quote:But if the 'us' referred to happen to be those who are born again/in Christ then we are already relying on Christs blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sin. That would be the operative mechanism by which forgiveness occurs.
In the end of the matter, you did not deny p-sub at all.
You, rather, negated and nullified how Joshua and others state that sins were forgiven instead (forgiveness, bold faith, abundant love, repentance, etc.).
... other than to mention (iirc) it not being mentioned in a particular passage...
Note that the curious set of paratheses within John 11:52-53, asserting multiple false prophecies, plainly evidence the root of p-sub.
...(which says nothing about whether p-sub is the way it is).
I suppose not, if one - for whatever reason, believes in evidential false prophecies, blood magic and a certain 'justice' when murdering the innocent.
Neither do I see how something relying on Jesus death and resurrection in anyway diminishes the purity of the grace directed us-wards.
Your perogative.
Perhaps you could tease out for me why you think purity would be diminished - I'm getting curious about the depth of your arguments.
Stating false prophecies to gullible practitioners to condone the murder, in an attempt to maintain a temple, a nation and an economy, diminish the purity.
Joshua, as innocent as they come, being mutilated on a torture stake further negate any purity factor as far as I'm concerned.
I have not been ambiguous throughout our debate.
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
In regards to waltzing with dogmatic ambiguity - Part 3 (of 3)
Hi iano ... I hope things are well with you.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
Now if Abraham is justified by faith (distant past) and we are justified by faith (present day) then what problem with that man-in-between-times on a stretcher being forgiven too when he, like we, firstly demonstrates his faith?
There is absolutely no problem at all iano; it is as it has always been said by every Prophet that ever spoke on God's behalf - repent, and be saved.
First the conviction, then the changing of mind ...
Abraham was convinced that his former pagan religion in Ur was erroneous. He repented and believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.
Study the greek word metanoia. To repent is to make a paradigm shift in one's world view and turn to God and trust God.
... commoner garden logic and experience tells you that much.
I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
Abraham didn't first repent btw ...
Yes, he did. Abraham left the former pagan world view of his ancestors that he was born into.
... he believed God.
Correct.
Same as me really.
Nothing like you. Abraham did not rely on p-sub as any sort of 'operative mechanism' through which God could otherwise not apply his own grace.
He simply turned and trusted God. He certainly didn't promote the murder of prophets, resurrected or otherwise.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Apparently your definition of 'repent' is, 'cling to an animal sacrifice'. Unfortunately, no Prophet is on record in the common bible suggesting that.
Hymnsheets - issue stalemated.
Stop being dishonest please. There is no stalemate.
Repentance has a specific connotation and definition.
As well, Nevi'im continually condemn animal sacrifices.
Your stalemate, if any, is with those truths.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
We can't strongly establish the sense of two types of person (the saved/unsaved) from 1 John but it is elsewhere made clear enough so that we can assume the 'us' to whom 1 John is addressing itself, to be the saved. The saved will sin and do, as Jesus points out, need their feet washed - even though they themselves are clean
Perhaps, depending on the honesty you display in other responses preceding this one, we can come back to this, together, to discuss what is taking place.
Perhaps. Although it's looking increasingly unlikely given our respective canonika.
Nonsense. The premise of your canon initiates with the letters of a single Pharisee. The premise of mine initiates with the booklets of the Nevi'im.
We are brothers through a believe that Joshua is the Anointed One. In both cases, our 'canonika' is the common bible.
iano writes:
I'm not sure I understand what the problem is here.
Hopefully you will as you study your bible more often.
Remember Paul was a ToRaH observant Jew who accepted Joshua as the Anointed One.
Learn what the Pharisees that murdered Joshua, as well as the Sadducees, taught that the ToRaH was.
Consider, then, what Joshua taught in regards to an interpretation of ToRaH.
If Paul accepted Joshua as the Anointed One, and understood Joshua's interpretation accurately, than Paul the Jewish Pharisee won't contradict his leader.
Try to understand Paul's letters from the veiw of a ToRaH observant Jew within the Pharisaic traditions who had made a realization that his former interpretation of ToRaH was erroneous. There is no reason to accept someones veiw of Paul as a lawless pagan. Think about it iano.
The Establishment had nefarious reasons to kill Jesus and succeeded in doing so. The ineffective (and ultimately undesired by God) system of blood sacrifice, a system which demonstrably doesn't change the evil hearts of men, is replaced by a system of blood sacrifice which does change the evil hearts of men.
Translation = Ineffective farm animal sacrifices are replaced human animal sacrifices.
The claim that men's hearts are changed, by any animal sacrifices, carries little weight.
Did the ritual atonemet killing of Joshua, prophesied by Yosef Bar Kayafa, change any of those Yuhdean nationalist's hearts?
Please, draw your answer, regarding these Yuhdeans attitudes at the time of the murder, from the common bible.
Hasn't that an elegance that causes the breath to catch - so much so it's worth highlighting:
quote:a system which isn't the antidote to evil is itself destroyed by evil - making way for a system which is the antidote to evil?
Evil shoots itself in the foot the day it put Christ on the cross. What could be more elegant than that!!
I am so disheartened that people are overtly elated by Joshua's murder. That you could, in any way, describe Joshua's time being mutilated as 'elegant' ...
This really makes me want to weep myself.
iano writes:
weary writes:
As well, providing you do concede that you equivocate the observance of six rules within an assemblance of governance to the notion of a works-based atonement method, I'll not bother you anymore as you revel in your bloody lawlessness. That is, as long as you don't go too far out of your way to proselytize everyone to their very death with your bloody anarchist based salvation system - you ol' worker of iniquity, you
Antinomianism is a charge all to frequently levelled by those who have difficulty in swallowing their grace neat.
Please stop with your facetious and well rehearsed martyr complex. Also, hopefully you are not, regarding grace, implying that towards me.
After all, I do not even contend that Joshua need have ever been murdered in order for my reception towards such abundant grace to be accomplished.
However, there is a sense that you are indeed promoting predestination. Due to ambiguity, I am not sure if this is what you actually beleive though.
Do you disagree that you have suggested that you are under no obligation to obey any laws concerning ethics or morality, in order to acquire a POA?
Captivation by the law of the Spirit of life that is in Christ Jesus isn't a picnic, let me tell you.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however, I strongly disagee with this statement.
Aside from being cursed at and ridiculed by dogmatics, my picnic with Joshua has been rather enjoyable.
But compared to the law of sin and death - however few you happen to boil it down to..
Whether fifty goats, twenty five lambs or One human, the law of sin and death is, almost by definition, murdering animals to attain God's favor.
iano writes:
weary writes:
You truly don't recognize any of the documented forgeries that God has made privy to us, huh??
lol - quick question ... how many chapters are currently within the booklet of Mark that you employ?
Trick answer: as many as can be reconciled within the theological mechanism whose wheels I watch turning smoothly.
Please, enough with your ever present and quite transparent tactics of evasion.
How about an honest answer instead - you are capable of honesty and unambiguity, correct?
Seriously iano - how many chapters are currently within the booklet of Mark that you employ?
If there's a spanner thrown into the works at some point in my travels I'm sure I'll notice something grinding to a halt - such is the nature of mechanisms.
Again, you lost me ...
And if the machine should collapse to the point of my arriving at a works-based salvation then you'll be the 2nd to know - there's another works-based-salvationist I know who I promised to tell 1st.
I offered truthlover a commendation based purely on his willingness to promote a religious tradition that recognizes a certain value to humanitarian values.
As can likely be seen, one may quicker identify my tradition as a 'repentance based salvation'.
iano writes:
weary writes:
You honestly feel that acknowledging a prophet such as Yirmiyahu when he says the ToRaH was forged - a definitive fact further evidenced to a certain extent by the scholarly work that went into the documentary hypothesis, and then, further basing the initial premise of one's 'canon' from texts which are spoken of directly by the Anointed One himself and found entirely within a common bible, is somehow arriving 'at a personal canon by convoluted means'?
Sorry, I thought your canon included Pauls/other epistles to some extent what with your praise of Truthlover who shoehorns at least some of them into his works doctrine.
Truthlover is quite justified in doing this, as Joshua and Paul were both ToRaH observant Jews who struggled with the poli-religious influence that had hijacked ToRaH within their days. Paul's writing's are quite plain about works being a direct result of grace, just as James and his older brother held.
On the basis of different hymnsheets I'll ignore subsequent discussion based around that difference for timesake
Translation = I'm a dishonest debater with little to no respect for the truth, whatsoever, when it interfers with my theology; I nullify the prophets meanderings, so please - by all means, shit in your hat.
I have only taken one semester of Ambiguity 101 - is that translation about right?
iano writes:
weary writes:
If we are all saved, there's no need to discuss peculiar bloody details at the risk of making absolutely no sense and driving people further from God.
Why run around tellin' everybody about this archaic human ritual atonement killing? Let it go already. There must be a reason you are unwilling to do this.
Er... I didn't say we're all saved. I said you don't have to do anything/avoid doing anything in order to be saved.
You refer to this as something other than 'lawlessness' though, right?
You'll have seen my post outlining the mechanics of that so I'll not say much more about it here.
I wish some type of formal outline was visible in your posts, as it would probably help your case, in whole - and in regards to specifics, to say the least.
As to why telling? To gospel is the power of God unto salvation and is worth sharing in order that it's power is spread.
Nice rehearsal. How about using your own words iano - or would that be too much to ask?
Not to mention Jesus' instruction that we do so.
No one needs to have been murdered, nor have murdered any animals, for the forgiveness of sins or to attain continuous living.
Brother Joshua never referred to himself as a sacrifice, but rather a ransom.
Brother Joshua never discussed any penal substitution method whatsoever.
Please, demonstrate otherwise.
Brother Joshua the Anointed One attested that if you forgive others the Father will forgive you (no penal substitutionorblood required).
Truly I say to you, her sins, which were many, are forgiven, thus she loved much; but the one who is forgiven little loves little.
In this instance, an abundance of love caused a sinner's many sins to be erased from the Father's memory.
iano writes:
weary writes:
quote:Towards the beginning of Message 59 iano stated:
A works-based salvation can be said to involve your doing/not doing things in order to ensure a positive afterlife outcome for yourself.
Ummm - I'm afraid refusing 'to love the truth' is, most certainly indeed, 'doing/not doing things in order to ensure a positive afterlife outcome for yourself'.
That's your definition of 'works' iano.
Earlier you set off 'describing works as anything you do or don't do in order to get on the right side of whatever deity/deities/energy/lifeforce/etc that lies at the root of the religion in question'; yet, willing yourself to begin loving the truth may certainly be construed as 'work' - indeed, this certain 'act of will in question', as you say, may be very challenging work for some people bud. Laying aside the internal inconsistency of your various statements for a brief moment ...
From where many others stand, there seems to be a whole lot of truth you do not even like, much less love.
Are you sure you want to hold - and even promote, that challenge as a deciding factor of your salvation?
Aah I see your point!
Excellent.
Nice divertion btw ...
It's a semantical issue I know ...
And then you step right in the same hole once again ... just know that you are the only one fooled by your rhetoric iano.
The honest report is in any common bible - albeit mingling with forgery, I hope and pray you won't always be fooled ...
... but the intention behind 'doing' was eg: "help the lady across the road / offering up human sacrifice" and my intention behind 'not doing' was eg: "not stealing". Both being works YOU do/don't do to ensure youself a positive afterlife outcome.
So by your own admission, you offering up a human sacrifice implemented by the high priest of Yuhdea, Yosef Bar Kayafa, is a 'work'.
While you didn't carry out the act of murder ...
You condone the ruthless murder as righteous and offer it to God, as a means of reconciliation, in an attempt to procur a PAO.
I appreciate this honesty and hopefully you, as well as others, will too.
To further underline the point let me suggest that you can't choose to love the truth so can't do something for your salvation in that regard.
That is predestination, and so, along the lines of Antinomianism, no??
And not doing by way of a "refusal to love" is something that results in your damnation - so can't be considered relevant to your getting a positive afterlife outcome either.
Again, just know that you are the only one fooled by your rhetoric.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
A ransom deals with that part of the problem which indicates man a captive and slave to sin. A (self)sacrifice deals with that part of the problem which demands that any forgiver pay the price of the transgression against himself, himself. If men require both release from captivity from sin and forgiveness of his sins, then he needs both a ransomer and a self-sacrifice. I don't see the problen in God providing the two (and more) in one.
I know you don't bud. That's part of the issue here.
Perhaps, depending on the level of ambiguity you display in other various responses, we can come back to this, together, and discuss it.
You've an uncanny nose for kicking all the ..er.. interesting challenges into touch.
As you will.
For the record, I am not the one who has continually ignored the request, or rather - challenge, to provide any portion of scripture, apocrypha or otherwise, wherein Joshua the Anointed One refers to himself as a sacrifice. That has been your interesting challenge repeatedly kicked to the curb.
I am happy to let the audience, made up of dogmatics and critics alike, decide if I have a knack for performing the same way.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
weary writes:
While I, honestly, am - as of yet, unable to perceive their testimonies and words equivocally, I hope and pray folks would err on the side of Joshua.
So far I've not seen reason to side with either. Harmony is to be found.
Perhaps there is no conflict at all; then again, perhaps you see 'no reason' because you're unwilling, and so, unable?
No offense - harmony is always found when one allows no questions my friend.
I dunno that that's much of a response.
Anyway ...
Then, perhaps, you are unfamiliar with the terms confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.
Btw, you did not offer much of a response as to why you think mine was lacking ...
... Anyway, Jesus burst that rich young rulers bubble with a well-aimed arrow. An arrow that circumvented the need to debate him regarding his murder (murder as understood by Jesus) of others. I imagine he'll do the same to any proud enough to suppose, as that young ruler did, that they are capable of meeting Gods' standard. Hopefully for them the puncturing of their balloon will happen on this side of Judgement.
Did you notice that mans question btw? "what must I do to inherit eternal life"? And his finding out that I couldn't do what Jesus demanded? There's a message in there for all the other I's in the world who suppose they too can do something to inherit eternal life.
The disciples recognised the impossibility of man doing. You don't.
With God, all things are possible - you know this.
Perhaps you are cutting me down because I don't adhere to your idea of murdering the Anointed One as an 'extravagant' or 'blissful' ordeal.
Once you appreciate the standard Jesus sets for you, once the arrow that would deflate your own particular bubble strikes home, you too will be panting for salvation by grace, like a deer pants for water. It was riches in that young rulers life - it'll be something else in our own. We've all got a balloon(s)
Yes iano - divert some more with a beatiful story about archers and balloons.
The story of the rich young ruler had nothing to do with murder iano, as we all know, but rather nationalism and wealth, and the problems they create.
That being, they often become a stumbling block towards us loving one another, and so, God. There is, of course, more to the story ...
iano writes:
weary writes:
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
If only he had said "Try your best to love the Lord your God..."
But he didn't say that. He commanded "You shall love..."
And you don't love - not with ALL your heart, soul and mind.
You know that's right, not yet with all of them to full capacity - yet, I love you more than you may ever know.
I am thankful for all things.
Happy (if ultimately fruitless) working, Bailey.
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
Hi iano and thanks for the exchange ... I hope thinks have been well for you.
Our previous exchange, while drifting far from the topic at times, has proved enlighteneing to me in various respects, and so, thanks for that ...
However, I've made the decision to forgo any further response, for the time being, to the majority of our previous debate. Your consistent inability, hesitancy and - overall, unwillingness to answer simple question(s) such as, 'How many chapters are currently within the booklet of Mark that you employ?' in Message 64 and Message 73, appear to go a long way towards showing what length you will entertain towards supporting your contentions.
I will say, there is the sense that my abundance of sarcasm/lack of patience (ie. a dishonest debater will nullify the truth when it interfers with their theology, suggesting that - by all means, their opponent should shit in their hat, etc.) and brutish unambiguity speak of my opinion (ie. the high priest Yosef Bar Kayafa as a false prophet, etc.), to the same degree that your personal rational (ie. a ritual atonement killing involving blood magic is akin to a helicopter engine, etc.) and ever increasing ambiguity speak towards your own opinion (ie. the high priest Yosef Bar Kayafa as a genuine prophet, etc.).
That said, I would like to highlight the focus of our further discussion where I believe our traditions seem to differ beyond reconciliation.
These variant traditions will rest upon the premise that 'works' do not secure a PAO, unless you will then disagree and suggest that repentance is a 'work'.
I have made the assertion that a ritual atonement killing of a human or of the divine - directly involving blood magic was, is and will always be completely unnecessary to accomplish a 'positive afterlife outcome' (PAO) or procure salvation or enter the Kingdom of Heaven; however one would word this.
On one hand, I contend that a repentant heart and the unconditional love of God are the primary 'mechanisms', if I may borrow one of your terms, that are necessary for one to procure salvation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
On the other hand, you have asserted that a ritual atonement killing involving blood magic and the unconditional love of God are the primary 'mechanisms' necessary for one to procure salvation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
If you'd be so kind, I was hoping you might move forward, establishing your contention(s) while employing the common roman bible as a witness. Perhaps you may first begin to accomplish this by showing when the Father requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the original testaments ...
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : grammar
Edited by Bailey, : grammar
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
Thanks for the exchange iano ... I hopr things are good with you.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Our previous exchange, while drifting far from the topic at times, has proved enlightening to me in various respects, and so, thanks for that ...
However, I've made the decision to forgo any further response, for the time being, to the majority of our previous debate. Your consistent inability, hesitancy and - overall, unwillingness to answer simple question(s) such as, 'How many chapters are currently within the booklet of Mark that you employ?' in Message 64 and Message 73, appear to go a long way towards showing what length you will entertain towards supporting your contentions .....
That said, I would like to highlight the focus of our further discussion where I believe our traditions seem to differ beyond reconciliation.
These variant traditions will rest upon the premise that 'works' do not secure a PAO, unless you will then disagree and suggest that repentance is a 'work'.
My position is that your 'works' do not secure a PAO.
So then, as long as you make a valid attempt to keep from misrepresenting my position as you seem to have done below, the above premise should hold.
I am considering that you have performed this misrepresentation of my veiw in regards to repentance for one of two reasons.
The first one being that, such a mischaracterization was a seemingly feeble attempt to avoid any debate whatsoever of the levitical doctrine of sacrifice initiated within the alleged corruption of the ToRaH of Moses, which doctrine was further propagated by the final biblical initiator of Joshua's venemous murder, the high priest and supposed prophet Yosef Bar Kayafa - who apparently disagreed with the prophet Yirmiyahu that the ToRaH was indeed corrupted after being forged by levite scribes of the first Yerusalem Temple, and so, accordingly contended that the Almighty Father, according to the ToRaH of Moses, required sacrifice - or rather legalistic 'works', as opposed to the Father's requirement of faith and mercy, in order for the Yuhdeans, along with their nation state and second Yerusalem temple, as well as all of the children of God deriving from the goyim, to secure the procurement of salvation.
Or secondly, providing I'm reading too far into your tendencies, you have performed this specific mischaracterization inadvertently.
At this point, in order to better clarify my position in regards to repentance, I'll expound a bit ...
Repentance, as you appear to consider it, would be considered a 'work' also - such a thing stemming from the will of a man and not from the prior work of God.
Repentance, as I understand it, is an ongoing project - a joint venture if you will, that the Father continuously works on TOGETHER with his children.
First, consider the author below, one speaking as a representative of ancient Yisrael, who the Father has been working with for many years ...
Having been buried with him in baptism, you also have been raised with him through your faith in the energy - even power, of the Father who raised him from the dead.
So then, as I understand it ...
Repentance is initiated by the Father's insistence and kindness, but not without the children's assistance and recognition of the Father's kindness and trustworthiness. Whether you, then, consider something that one does, with their Father and brother - and family as a whole, as overseers, a 'work' is then - finally, your perogative. As for my tradition, it is the absorption of a personal ego and pursuit, into the ego and pursuit of One (John 13:30, 17:20-21).
Within the tradition I have been adopted into, repentance is an endeavor that the Father has been pursuing from the ancient of days. It is a thing that won't be forced upon any person, as choice and love, by their own definition and nature, are not inclined to employ the force of guilt's aggression.
As uncle Paul states, providing a certain contrast towards your suggestion that 'a guilty conviction by the Holy Spirit' is responsible for leading one to repentance, and so, salvation - it would quicker seem that, the Father's kindness, forbearance, and patience leads one to begin forming a genuine repentant heart, together, with the Father - and God's faith in our trust towards His unadulterated and unlimitedpower then provide for salvation ... (Romans 2:4, 2nd Corinthians 6:1, Phillipians 2:13, etc.)
Hopefully this will clear up the matter and allow us to progress.
All 'works' find their source in the heart of man and so the glory for a mans salvation can be (part) attributed to man - contrary to the movement of the NT indicating all the glory due to God.
Since you are intent on steering this conversation back towards 'works' at every bend we encounter, and have employed the fourth verse of the second chapter of Romans to accomplish that task this time around, it seems befitting and proper to nestle it within it's surrounding context for a moment ...
Please pay special attention to the passages that proceed from the verse you pulled from it's natural habitation.
Therefore, you are without excuse, O' man - everyone of you who judges.
For on whatever grounds you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things.
2 ~ Now we know that the Father's righteous discernment is based on truth against those who practice such things.
3 ~ And do you think this, O' man - the one who judges,
When you judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape the Father's righteous discernment?
4 ~ Or do you have contempt for the wealth of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, being unaware that the Father's kindness leads you to repentance?
5 ~ But because of your hardness and your unrepentant heart,
You are storing up wrath for yourselves towards the day of wrath and unveiling of the righteous discernment of the Father,
6 ~ WHO WILL RENDER EACH ONE ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS:
7 ~ Eternal life to those who by perseverance in good worksseek glory and honor and immortality,
8 ~ but wrath and anger to those who from selfish ambitiondo not keep the truth, but rather are persuaded to obey unrighteousness.
9 ~ Suffering and distress on every soul of the one who does evil, on the Jew first and also the Goyim,
10 ~ But even glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, for the Jew first and also the Goyim.
Considering the above discourse, especially in conjunction with the better part of the sixth chapter of second Corinthians ...
It seems quite dangerous to set out convincing others that 'works' are 'useless' and/or an 'insult to God's grace' iano. This portion of uncle Paul's theology should, hopefully, go a long way towards showing you just how integral he contended, instructed and felt 'works' were to one's complete salvation.
According to his theology, it is those who 'practice mercy' and who 'love their neighbour' that are justified in our Father's sight, as opposed to some others who - like Paul before his conversion and repentance, hear the ToRaH and practice breaking it by, for example, being proponents and propagaters of ruthless, unjustified venomous murders like Paul once was. How and why, would you argue against the fact that uncle Paul indeed acknowledges that it is those who follow the true, unforged and unmolested ToRaH of our Father while putting it into living practice who are justified? It is my hope you won't ...
While deeds are certainly not the power that accomplish salvation, they are most certainly the substance by which one will be discerned accordingly.
For not the hearers of the law are righteous before the Father but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.
Uncle Paul then compares dogmatic religious men - in this case those of Yuhdean traditions who, like him, were circumcised and had a written ToRaH code, with someone who had no common bible or written ToRaH code and yet kept the requirements of our Father by showing mercy and loving ones neighbor, etc.. If a dogmatic religious practitioner is a law breaker, as Paul once was, then, he concludes, a religious man is ‘unsaved' while an ‘unreligious man' - uncircumcised and not in possession of the written ToRaH code or common bible, who yet keeps the requirements of our Father, will then be justly discerned ‘religious' by the Father and considered saved; for it truly ismercy God requires and not the legalistic religious sacrifices laid out in the written ToRaH code.
This theology of uncle Paul's contrasts sharply with the traditional Levitical Christian interpretation of Romans, which teaches that the ‘nonreligious' with ‘no common Bible' are automatically damned to 'hell', or that showing mercy cannot save anyone; for it is often alleged that Paul condemned the behavior of the non-religious as inadequate in God's sight. That Paul never taught this doctrine, among others attributed to him by forced theological interpretations, can be evidenced, quite obviously, upon even a cursory glance of his letters of encouragement, and by anyone who is willing to consider these passages.
Those who do right, Paul states, are ‘a law unto themselves' and are counted as ‘saved' since ‘it is mercy that God requires, and not religious sacrifices'.
For circumcision has its value if you practice the ToRaH, but if you should be a transgressor of the ToRaH, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
26 ~ Therefore, if the uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the ToRaH, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
Reflecting on his own experience in regards to Joshua's torturous crucifixion, as it related to his admonition of murdering early followers of Joshua's tradition, uncle Paul reminds his Yuhdean and Goyim listeners who have been convinced Joshua deserved to die that the whole point of the exercise must have been to lead people to repent, for if they will not be convinced that Joshua's bloody and venemous murder was unjust, and so, convinced of their own sins and repent - instead becoming stubborn while they rely on falsehoods, all they accomplish is securing a storehouse of wrath for themselves.
Why then, uncle Paul asks his listeners, do so many presume to judge others - no doubt confident in their religion, when they are in fact law breakers themselves? As this pharisee indicates, they even went so far as to judge those who were not even law breakers, strictly on the grounds that they were ‘uncircumcised' in the flesh; in otherwords, for a violation of an orthodox dogma of the day, rather than for any actual reasons of authentic real justice. Uncle Paul ‘saves' those the religious would certainly have condemned, which has hopefully been illustrated above. Everyone will be discerned by a complete and trustworthy righteous standard by the Father on the basis of what they have done, Paul insists, not based on who they are - or who they think they are.
So then, justification in our Father's sight - according to Paul's theology, is found in genuine repentance, and righteousness in our Father's sight is keeping the requirements of God's authentic ToRaH, and not the corrupted written code. Uncle Paul tempers his call to keep the requirements of our Father by acknowledging the ever so real fact of human weakness and that no one is perfect; even while striving and struggling not to, he finds that he often falls short of the mark. Failure can lead to feelings of guilt and guilt can lead to fear of punishment, and so, these dynamics can lead to a collapse of faith - the very faith Paul makes every attempt to instill within his listeners; for the righteous, he constantly insists, strive and struggle to live by that very faith ...
That peaceful and quiet, complete confidence and trust in God.
The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before the Father.
Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
While uncle Paul makes attempts to keep one from boasting their works - or others, as a means of salvation, he also takes great strides towards keeping one from condemning themselves - or others, as a means of damnation. This latter task is accomplished by personifying sin as a separate and foreign entity at work inside a man, rather than a man personifying evil and being at work in this corrupted world. Speaking of his own failings, uncle Paul notes that ...
For I don’t understand what I am doing. For I do not do what I want — instead, what I hate, this I do.
16 ~ But if I do what I don’t want, my conscience must be in agreement that the law is good.
17 ~ But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me.
18 ~ For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For to wish is present within me, but not to do it.
19 ~ For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil I do not want!
20 ~ Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me.
21 ~ So, I find the law that when I want to do good, evil is present with me.
22 ~ For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.
In the end of the matter, being that I enjoy the theology found within the booklets of the radical prophetic traditions which are in accordance with Joshua's theology, as one who was murdered for not promoting the doctrine of sacrifice, as well as Paul's theological view from the other side of the fence, as one who formerly murdered those who wouldn't promote that same doctrine - along with being one who enjoys my coffee sweetened, while not enjoying it black; I'd say that if salvation could ever be likened to a pleasant cup o' mocha java, grace and works would be akin to sugar and cream my friend.
iano writes:
weary writes:
On one hand, I contend that a repentant heart and the unconditional love of God are the primary 'mechanisms', if I may borrow one of your terms, that are necessary for one to procure salvation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
On the other hand, you have asserted that a ritual atonement killing involving blood magic and the unconditional love of God are the primary 'mechanisms' necessary for one to procure salvation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
If you'd be so kind, I was hoping you might move forward, establishing your contention(s) while employing the common roman bible as a witness. Perhaps you may first begin to accomplish this by showing when the Father requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the original testaments ...
I'm of the opinion that forward movement won't be possible. You've got a way of accomodating the likes of..
quote:1 Cor 6; Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeastas you really are.For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
..which differs wholesale from mine.
It seems that where we differ 'wholesale' is that you contend the Father requires sacrifice and His power is limited without blood revenge, and I don't.
That is, all blood sacrifices are legalistic regulations, or 'works'. As far as boasting's concerned regarding the accomplishment of salvation, I may easily agree with uncle Paul that boasting is excluded - not on the basis of 'works', but rather on the principle of faith (Romans 3:27). That is, I contend, one may be considered righteous in our Father's sight, regardless whether those who are dogmatic religious practitioners - or otherwise, consider them the same.
For any further boasting rights, I'd happily forward one towards Yirmiyahu 9:24.
Would not the simplest thing be to state that your position is arrived at by excluding as Gods word, those portions of scripture which state Christ a sacrifice? And mine position arrived at by doing the opposite?
Perhaps things would be much easier if that were indeed the truth. However, that doesn't seem to be the case, but rather just another misrepresentation.
Perhaps it would be more correct to suggest that your tradition is arrived at by parroting the tiring and seemingly senseless dogmas propagated by the wealthy overseers of the mainstream church. And my tradition is arrived at by many hours of bible study and a God given faith, that have produced the knowledge that sacrificial blood rites were implemented into the ToRaH through scribal forgeries, just as Isaiah suggests and Yirmiyahu plainly states, and that Joshua was murdered under the unjustified guise of a 'Leviticus whole offerings sacrifice to pay for sins', as suggested by Yosef Bar Kayafa, Augustine and the likes as ‘the fulfillment of the Levitical whole offerings sacrifice, as God commanded the Yisraelites when they came out of Egypt', because - as the Anointed One, he would not confirm, or even state, that sacrifices or penal substitution were acceptable or necessary to forgive sins in our Father's sight.
If you could possibly concede that the ritual atonement killing of Joshua as a whole offering sacrifice was a legalistic regulation of the ToRaH of Moses ...
Perhaps, then, we could make progress; granted, I understand that, for those with more faith in doctrine than in God, this is not an easy task. Yet...
With God, all things are possible. You are in my prayers iano. In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : grammar
Edited by Bailey, : pnct.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
Thanks for the exchange iano ... Hope things are well with you.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
weary writes:
... I would like to highlight the focus of our further discussion where I believe our traditions seem to differ beyond reconciliation.
These variant traditions will rest upon the premise that 'works' do not secure a PAO, unless you will then disagree and suggest that repentance is a 'work'.
My position is that your 'works' do not secure a PAO.
So then, as long as you make a valid attempt to keep from misrepresenting my position as you seem to have done below, the above premise should hold.
I am considering that you have performed this misrepresentation of my veiw in regards to repentance for one of two reasons.
The first one being that, such a mischaracterization was a seemingly feeble attempt to avoid any debate whatsoever of the levitical doctrine of sacrifice initiated within the alleged corruption of the ToRaH of Moses, which doctrine was further propagated by the final biblical initiator of Joshua's venemous murder, the high priest and supposed prophet Yosef Bar Kayafa - who apparently disagreed with the prophet Yirmiyahu that the ToRaH was indeed corrupted after being forged by levite scribes of the first Yerusalem Temple, and so, accordingly contended that the Almighty Father, according to the ToRaH of Moses, required sacrifice - or rather legalistic 'works', as opposed to the Father's requirement of faith and mercy, in order for the Yuhdeans, along with their nation state and second Yerusalem temple, as well as all of the children of God deriving from the goyim, to secure the procurement of salvation.
Or secondly ...
Discussion on Christ's sacrifice is being avoided for reasons of 'different hymnsheets' - you implying his sacrifice wasn't one ("show me where Christ/the Father said he was a sacrifice" to paraphrase you) by excluding those pieces of scripture which say it was.
To put matters straight, refer to Message 56. We both agree that ...
quote: Joshua never referred to himself as a sacrifice - not in the roman scripture texts, nor even within any apocrypha.
However, the Anointed One consistently referred to his decision to forgo aggressive self-defense and be mutilated on a torture stake as that of a ransom.
What I've suggested is that Joshua the Anointed One's 'blood' - and his very murder, are - and were, completely unnecessary in order to forgive sins.
For the record - I'm working under the premise that Joshua is the Anointed One. Previous and latter authors in relation to his testimony are not.
I contend that a ransom is different than a sacrifice; you equivocate. For further reference to my position, please refer to Message 72 ...
quote:Please provide a biblical reference where Joshua discusses any penal substitution method whatsoever or honestly and kindly admit that you cannot or will not do this.
I don't recall denying p-sub other than to mention it not being mentioned in a particular passage ...
You were shown exactly where that inclusive doctrine originated and how it was originated by Joshua's legalistic murderers within the follow up message.
Rest assured, theology does not save anyone and does not interfere with God's power; it only provides a certain comfort in the intermediary period.
Nonetheless, I know you like your idea of 'different hymnsheets' iano. However, we aren't really working from 'different hymnsheets' at all.
We are both drawing our information from three sources ...
* the common roman bible
* CE historical data
* reality
If then, it could be considered that we are working from 'different hymnsheets', it would be when one of those sources was being nullified in some fashion.
I'm able and willing to admit that I don't place the same amount of faith in documented forgeries that you do. I also admit that I don't know everything.
If any at all, what are you able and willing to admit as your nullifications, as well as, the motivating impulses that cause them?
(ie. 'Because it would cause my theology to undergo reconstruction, documented forgery does not exist as long as I do not acknowledge it', etc.)
It's fairly simple Bailey: when language isn't common, discussion can't take place.
Discussion is taking place good friend.
iano writes:
weary writes:
So then, as I understand it ...
Repentance is initiated by the Father's insistence and kindness, but not without the children's assistance and recognition of the Father's kindness and trustworthiness. Whether you, then, consider something that one does, with their Father and brother - and family as a whole, as overseers, a 'work' is then - finally, your perogative. As for my tradition, it is the absorption of a personal ego and pursuit, into the ego and pursuit of One (John 13:30, 17:20-21).
1) You've not exactly cleared up the chicken & egg situation that persists as to the source of a mans repentance (unto salvation).
You appear to be making an issue where there is none.
My position is that action on Gods part convinces him and that conviction leads to a changing of his mind. Gods action followed by his repentance. The credit goes to God for his salvation. Unless of course a mans suppresses the evidence that would convict him - in which case the credit for his damnation is his alone.
I'm not sure what you are arguing.
When a personal ego and pursuit are surrendered to a greater authority, any form of credit can only be given to that greater authority.
Your description above appears to fudge things. Repentance is initiated by the father, but...
Given the statement above, hopefully you can better understand that there is no 'but'.
2) Your quotations from Paul fail to acknowledge that the (Paulian)salvation transaction has already occurred at this point and that when Paul addresses 'you' at these points in his letters he is addressing those who are saved through faith.
Don't take this the wrong way, please.
Isn't is awkward enough that you place limitations on the Father's power ...
It seems that where we differ 'wholesale' is that you contend the Father requires sacrifice and His power is limited without blood revenge, and I don't.
As to God's power limited? I think yes ...
God limited by his nature isn't God's power limited in any sense that matters.
... without placing further restrictions on the power of your blood sacrifice?
I wasn't under the impression that you were being inclusive, but rather I was working under the premise that you agreed with Paul that all are saved.
In fact this is why we work hard and struggle - even suffering reproach,
Because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of ALL people, especially of believers.
Please don't tell me you disagree with uncle Paul, being persuaded that the Father is a respector of persons who would let even one perish.
Repentance unto salvation is history at this stage - not that your point about co-operation is lost. There is indeed cooperation but God is the instigator it being his Spirit that drives the sanctifying work in his adopted children.
I'm glad to see that we are on the same level here and in various other places.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Within the tradition I have been adopted into, repentance is an endeavor that the Father has been pursuing from the ancient of days. It is a thing that won't be forced upon any person, as choice and love, by their own definition and nature, are not inclined to employ the force of guilt's aggression.
Agreed*. Repentance unto salvation is decline-able, the tradition into which I've been adopted indicating a mans will limited to expression in the negative direction only, if it is to be expressed at all. His salvation relies on him doing nothing at all - let's call it contributing by doing no work at all.
*almost. Given the alternative, I don't see it as contra-God's love that he utilise guilt as a way of levering us into repentance. And so long as his levering so is resistable and decline-able I don't see how our element of choice is diminished.
Again, I'm glad to see that we are, to some degree, on the same level here and in various other places. However ...
I don't perceive the Father that way; yet, the Father has revealed himself to many people in many ways. That you serve a God of guilt is fine by me.
I only ask you to allow the Father to reveal himself to others in the way he sees fit, as opposed to the only way you are willing to see and know.
Refusal to love the truth is indicated as the means of damnation at 2 Thessalonians 2:10. Refusal being a thing we chose to do.
'A thing we choose to do', as in a 'work'. Yet, according to your theology, when we choose not to refuse, it isn't a 'work', but 'grace'. Whatever dude.
If you can help it, please make a valid attempt to not bring up the 'refusal to love the TruthTM' bit again as a means of your theological salvation ...
At least until you are willing to address the fact that the ToRaH was forged by Levite scribes and stare other documented forgeries head on.
Suppression of evidence is equivilent to refusing to love the truth.
It seems completely hypocritical and senseless to measure another's risk of damnation upon something that you are not prepared to do yourself.
Again, theology does not save anyone and does not interfere with God's power; it only provides a certain comfort in the intermediary period.
iano writes:
weary writes:
As uncle Paul states, providing a certain contrast towards your suggestion that 'a guilty conviction by the Holy Spirit' is responsible for leading one to repentance, and so, salvation - it would quicker seem that, the Father's kindness, forbearance, and patience leads one to begin forming a genuine repentant heart, together, with the Father - and God's faith in our trust towards His unadulterated and unlimitedpower then provide for salvation ... (Romans 2:4, 2nd Corinthians 6:1, Phillipians 2:13, etc.)
Hopefully this will clear up the matter and allow us to progress.
Kindness, forbearance and patience aren't sentimental things. I consider it a kindness that God utilised pain to bring me to my knees - pain being his design-in indicator to tell us that something is amiss.
That you're able to perceive pain as kindness is your perogative and I'd assume not judge that perception. In the same regard, I would hope you may offer someone else a similiar courtesy providing they choose to perceive kindness as kindness, as opposed to forcing your theological interpretation upon them.
And seeing as nothing could be more amiss than our faulty relationship with him pre-salvation it is not unreasonable to expect severe degrees of pain involved in diverting us from our doomed path.
It should be clear by now where it is I view your 'work'. It lies that fuzzy chicken & egg area of "together, with the Father" above, the implication being a sort of hand-in-hand, side-by-side, together-WE-did-it kind of salvation. Not quite man on the throne but not quite God on the throne either.
Nearly by grace..but not quite.
I understand that you are having trouble with this. I have told you that repentance, as it has been revealed to me, is initiated by the Father's insistence and kindness, but not without the children's assistance and recognition of the Father's kindness and trustworthiness. You agreed that there is indeed a cooperative measure at work between the Father and his children.
I've also stated that repentance, as I understand it, requires the absorption of a personal ego and pursuit, into the ego and pursuit of One (John 13:30, 17:20-21). Earlier in this post I attempt to clarify that statement by asserting that when a personal ego and pursuit are surrendered to a greater authority, any form of credit can only be given to that greater authority.
And so, if you're unable and unwilling to recognize that repentance in this understanding doesn't have an option to claim any boasting rights, I'm at a loss.
Apparently, repentance, in this understanding, will be considered as some type of 'work' by certain individual's in certain instances - yet not as such by others, just as your 'refusal to love the TruthTM' will be considered a type of 'work' by certain individual's in certain instances - yet not as such by others.
Seeing as the veiw of repentance I've set forth can plainly be seen to not be a 'work' on our behalf, we are, then, back to the substance of Message 78 ...
These variant traditions will rest upon the premise that 'works' do not secure a PAO .....
I have made the assertion that a ritual atonement killing of a human or of the divine - directly involving blood magic was, is and will always be completely unnecessary to accomplish a 'positive afterlife outcome' (PAO) or procure salvation or enter the Kingdom of Heaven; however one would word this.
On one hand, I contend that a repentant heart and the unconditional love of God are the primary 'mechanisms', if I may borrow one of your terms, that are necessary for one to procure salvation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
On the other hand, you have asserted that a ritual atonement killing involving blood magic and the unconditional love of God are the primary 'mechanisms' necessary for one to procure salvation and enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
If you'd be so kind, I was hoping you might move forward, establishing your contention(s) while employing the common roman bible as a witness. Perhaps you may first begin to accomplish this by showing when the Father requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the original testaments ...
In the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : grammar
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : pnct.
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
No, really though - I'm sayin', 'let us cut to the chase'.
Thanks for the exchange iano ... Hope things are well with you.
iano writes:
weary writes:
iano writes:
weary writes:
I am considering that you have performed this misrepresentation of my veiw in regards to repentance for one of two reasons.
The first one being that, such a mischaracterization was a seemingly feeble attempt to avoid any debate whatsoever of the levitical doctrine of sacrifice initiated within the alleged corruption of the ToRaH of Moses, which doctrine was further propagated by the final biblical initiator of Joshua's venemous murder, the high priest and supposed prophet Yosef Bar Kayafa - who apparently disagreed with the prophet Yirmiyahu that the ToRaH was indeed corrupted after being forged by levite scribes of the first Yerusalem Temple, and so, accordingly contended that the Almighty Father, according to the ToRaH of Moses, required sacrifice - or rather legalistic 'works', as opposed to the Father's requirement of faith and mercy, in order for the Yuhdeans, along with their nation state and second Yerusalem temple, as well as all of the children of God deriving from the goyim, to secure the procurement of salvation.
Or secondly ...
Discussion on Christ's sacrifice is being avoided for reasons of 'different hymnsheets' - you implying his sacrifice wasn't one ("show me where Christ/the Father said he was a sacrifice" to paraphrase you) by excluding those pieces of scripture which say it was.
To put matters straight, refer to Message 56. We both agree that ...
quote: Joshua never referred to himself as a sacrifice - not in the roman scripture texts, nor even within any apocrypha.
However, the Anointed One consistently referred to his decision to forgo aggressive self-defense and be mutilated on a torture stake as that of a ransom.
What I've suggested is that Joshua the Anointed One's 'blood' - and his very murder, are - and were, completely unnecessary in order to forgive sins.
For the record - I'm working under the premise that Joshua is the Anointed One. Previous and latter authors in relation to his testimony are not .....
For further reference to my position, please refer to Message 72 ...
quote:Please provide a biblical reference where Joshua discusses any penal substitution method whatsoever or honestly and kindly admit that you cannot or will not do this.
I don't recall denying p-sub other than to mention it not being mentioned in a particular passage ...
You were shown exactly where that inclusive doctrine originated and how it was originated by Joshua's legalistic murderers within the follow up message.
Rest assured, theology does not save anyone and does not interfere with God's power; it only provides a certain comfort in the intermediary period.
Nonetheless, I know you like your idea of 'different hymnsheets' iano. However, we aren't really working from 'different hymnsheets' at all.
We are both drawing our information from three sources ...
* the common roman bible
* CE historical data
* reality
If then, it could be considered that we are working from 'different hymnsheets', it would be when one of those sources was being nullified in some fashion.
I'm able and willing to admit that I don't place the same amount of faith in documented forgeries that you do. I also admit that I don't know everything.
If any at all, what are you able and willing to admit as your nullifications, as well as, the motivating impulses that cause them?
(ie. 'Because it would cause my theology to undergo reconstruction, documented forgery does not exist as long as I do not acknowledge it', etc.)
My apologies for scrolling down past so much (well formatted) posting to arrive at the nub of the issue.
No worries and thank you for the compliment, as I - and many others, do find that an assemblance of coherency is integral to discussion and debate.
Consider it my 'cutting to the chase'.
It is easier considered as what it plainly seems; that being, your - not so unique, way of evading debate and discussion as it pertains to challenging issues.
The immediate issue being what, if any at all, you are able and willing to admit as your nullifications, as well as, the motivating impulses that cause them ...
The former issue and actual matter of debate being clearly presented, for the third time, at the bottom of this post.
The reason for your singing from a different hymnsheet to me isn't the point of interest. The fact that we are singing so, is
If you were interested in the notion that we were 'singing from a different hymnsheet', you would address that issue. Instead, as seen above, you do not.
You appear to evade some issues outright and casually divert others, as is customary for conservative apologetic discourse, as you demonstrate below.
In case temptation to shift the discussion to "who wrote what bits of the Bible" raises it's head, know that that topic holds about as much interest for me as does discussion on quantum mechanics.
All things considered, I'll quickly afford you the defense that such an issue, as the one above, is off topic. However, the matter of actual debate is not.
Another diversionary tactic it seems - the issue has never been 'who wrote what bits of the bible', but rather what is written within the pages of the bible.
You've made it abundantly clear that you find no value in the genuine authorship, editing and redacting that has occured throughout various biblical manuscripts over the centuries; instead, relying on and working from the premise of the doctrine of sola scriptura which, again, is understandable considering the customs of conservative apologetic discourse that you have adapted to.
While that bothers some people, it does not bother me at all; however, what is bothersome is when, instead of reading the bible from front to back and arriving at a conclusion, many seem to be convinced by some sectarian division of levitical christianity of a certain conclusion and then attempt to employ the common roman bible and various unevidenced doctrine(s) to support their contention(s).
What's even more troubling is they will, often times, not even make any forthright attempt to support their contention(s), as you seem to be demonstrating quite effectively. The issue raised in Message 82 was that we do not 'sing from different hymnsheets', as you suggest. The 'hymnsheets' that we are working from are the common roman bible, CE historical data and reality. As I stated in that message ...
quote:If then, it could be considered that we are working from 'different hymnsheets', it would be when one of those sources was being nullified in some fashion.
I'm able and willing to admit that I don't place the same amount of faith in documented forgeries that you do. I also admit that I don't know everything.
If any at all, what are you able and willing to admit as your nullifications, as well as, the motivating impulses that cause them?
(ie. 'Because it would cause my theology to undergo reconstruction, documented forgery does not exist as long as I do not acknowledge it', etc.)
As can be seen, evidently, by anyone who reads the exchange, you evaded the issue entirely and diverted to irrelevant issues, again - as is customary with conservative apologetic discourse, instead of admitting any form of nullification or attempting to identify the correlating motivating impulses behind them.
The rest of your post seems to be, plainly, a further diversion from the actual issue that's been repeatedly brought towards your attention within Message 78 and Message 82, and then subsequently diverted by you in the reponses you've provided to those messages; those being Message 81 and Message 83.
While I certainly don't mind straying off topic to discuss alternate content from time to time and have assuredly enjoyed our various exchanges immensely, your diversionary tactics seem - even if unintentional, to be quite exhaustive, tiring and transparent, and so, rather than affording you the continued opportunity to perform this way, I am - at this point, insisting that you focus on the actual issue at hand, or kindly admit that you cannot or will not do so.
Before engaging in discussion with you any further, I am pleading that you ...
Do your best to present yourself to the Father as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
At this moment, I refuse to accept the overwhelming sense that you may not be debating fairly.
With that said, if you'd be so kind, I was hoping you may move forward, establishing your contention(s) (sacrificial blood revenge techniques performed through religious rites are reguired by God in order to attain the forgiveness of sins, Joshua's venemous murder on a torture stake is a ritual atonement killing that effectively employs blood magic to atone for and forgive sins through a 'mechanism' referred to as penal substitution; then allowing those who justify the murder to enter 'heaven', etc.) while employing the common roman bible as a witness. Perhaps you may first begin to accomplish this by showing when the Father requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the original testaments, or kindly admit that you cannot or will not do this.
Thank you for your undivided attention in this matter. You are in my prayers; in the name of brother Joshua the Anointed One, peace be with you iano.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
™ Version 4.2
