S
Soma-Sight
Guest
The worshippers of Jehovah at one time offered Jesus as a sacrifice!!! In fact your whole Salavation depends on it!!!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
The worshippers of Jehovah at one time offered Jesus as a sacrifice!!! In fact your whole Salavation depends on it!!!
D
DivineNames
Guest
bibleberean said:
No doubt that is wrong.
Didn't Jephthah sacrifice his daughter to Yahweh? (Judges 11:30-40)
Does God like the smell of burning flesh?
:D
S
Soma-Sight
Guest
B
bibleberean
Guest
Soma-Sight said:
Jesus was never offered by worshippers as a sacrifice.
John 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
The people who crucified Christ wanted Him dead because He claimed to be the Messiah. He died as a criminal.
Isaiah 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
S
Soma-Sight
Guest
Any true Christian believer has done just this BB!! HE IS OFFERED EVERY SUNDAY AS JUST THIS BB!! Are you saying that Christ's death is not necessary for Salvation!
IF YOU WERE LITERALLY AT THE CROSS AND TRIED TO STOP THE CRUCIFIXTION AND SUCEEDED, YOU WOULD BE DAMMED. THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO "ACCEPT" THE DEATH OF CHRIST AS A "SACRIFICE" AND BY DEFINITION YOU ARE A "WORSHIPPER"! IN FACT IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ALL BELIEVERS TO POUND IN A NAIL YOURSELF!
B
bibleberean
Guest
DivineNames said:
If Jephthah sacrificed his daugher to God then Jeptha sinned against God.
Deuteronomy 12:31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.
Because the bible records an event it does not mean that God approved of it.
The bible records that Judas hung himself but that does not mean that God approves of suicide.
Another explanation: an excerpt
"The historian is, Josephus. I have his complete works in my library and I do refer to him. He is accurate on many things, but he is not perfect, nor is his writings inspired. He is a Jew who worked for Rome as their historian, so he has some valuable things to say, but he is not infallible. He does not claim to be saved; however, he does have an interesting statement about Christ. The point is we can not say he is the final authority as to what happen here.
Here is his statement, "…she only desired her father to give her leave, for two months, to bewail her youth with her fellow-citizens; and then she agreed, that at the fore-mentioned time he might do with her according to his vow. Accordingly, when that time was over, he sacrificed his daughter as a burnt-offering, offering such an oblation as was neither conformable to the law, nor acceptable to God…" (Pg. 118, pp 1, Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus) There are those who would say, "See there Josephus said it; I believe it that settles it!" Not quite so fast, I believe there is more to the story if we will look closer at the context, and also compare Scripture with Scripture as we are instructed to do.
What is the thrust of the context? Is it not her "virginity" that is lamented over, and not her death? If he had in fact sacrificed her, you have several major problems. Why would he not be punished by the people or by God? Why would he be mentioned in Hebrews 11, in the "Hall of Fame" with the heroes of the faith?"
No, the context makes it very clear to a careful reader; he kept her from ever marrying. This may have also kept him from having children because there are none mentioned of his, and she was his only child. Look at the context with me, "Then she said to her father, ‘Let this thing be done for me: let me alone for two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains and bewail my "virginity," my friends and I…’" (Judges 11:37) She was sad over the fact that she would never marry, not that she was sad over the fact that she was going to die. Someone might argue, "Well maybe she was sad because she was dying without ever being able to marry and was also sad because she was going to die." But when you say this you are reading more into Scripture than what it plainly states. Then if you take this argument that she was actually killed by her father, why is there not an outcry from the people? Keeping your daughter from not marring would not have been a problem with the people; it was up to the fathers in those days to give their daughter in marriage or to keep them single."
The above quoted from this site.
http://bible-christian.org/jephthah.html
B
bibleberean
Guest
Soma-Sight said:
You don't get it...
We do not sacrifice Jesus every Sunday. We commemorate His death.
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
He willingly died for our sins. His body was given for us. God did not require that we kill His son.
In fact read what Peter says...
Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
No, you do not get it...
D
DivineNames
Guest
bibleberean said:
Well I imagine that virtually all Hindu's would also believe that sacrificing people to God is wrong.
D
DivineNames
Guest
DivineNames said:
Free said:
"We become Christ's limbs or members, and Christ becomes our members... Unworthy though I be, my hand and foot are Christ. I move my hand, and my hand is wholly Christ, for God's divinity is united inseparably to me. I move my foot, and lo! it glows like God himself." (St. Simeon Neotheologos)
"O abyss! O eternal Godhead! O deep sea! What more could you have given me than the gift of your very self?...[presumably she means that the Self is God]... This water is a mirror in which you, eternal Trinity, grant me knowledge: for when I look into this mirror, holding it in the hand of love, it shows me myself, as your creation, in you, and you in me through the union you have brought about of the Godhead with our humanity." (Saint Catherine of Siena)
From these two quotes above, it seems that the Trinity has a "unity" with the material creation.
"This identity out of the One into the One and with the One is the source and fountainhead and breaking forth of glowing Love." (Eckhart)
"it is of the very essence of the soul that she is powerless to plumb the depths of her creator. Henceforth I shall not speak about the soul, for she has lost her name yonder in the oneness of divine essence. There she is no more called soul: she is called infinite being." (Eckhart)
Eckhart seems to be saying that an aspect of the Self is identical with the Absolute, which is very close to Advaita Vedanta (I say "aspect of the Self" and "close to Advaita" because Eckhart does qualify his position at other times)
"The Father ceaselessly begets his Son and, what is more, he begets me not only as his Son but as himself and himself as myself, begetting me in his own nature, his own being. At that inmost Source, I spring from the Holy Spirit and there is one life, one being, one action. All God's works are one and therefore He begets me as he does his Son and without distinction." (Eckhart)
"I find in this divine birth that God and I are the same: I am what I was and what I shall always remain, now and forever. I am transported above the highest angels; I neither decrease nor increase, for in this birth I have become the motionless cause of all that moves. I have won back what has always been mine. Here, in my own soul, the greatest of all miracles has taken place - God has returned to God!" (Eckhart)
"...There the Godhead is, in simple essence, without activity; Eternal Rest, Unconditioned Dark, the Nameless Being, the Super-essence of all created things." (Ruysbroeck)
i.e. the ultimate essence of everything is the Absolute. (Eckhart and Ruysbroeck use the term "Godhead" for the Absolute)
"My Me is God, nor do I recognize any other Me except my God Himself." (St. Catherine of Genoa)
"The Word was made man that we might be made God" (St Athanasius)
"Though I have said before that we are one with God... yet now I will say that we must eternally remain other than God... And we must understand and feel both within us, if all is to be right with us." (Ruysbroeck)
So we find in at least some Christian mystics a qualified identity with God. Compared with the various schools of Vedanta, (the most prominent philosophy within Hinduism), this appears to be somewhere in the middle, so to speak.
Introducing Vedanta
http://www.nalanda.demon.co.uk/vedanta.htm#Vedanta
D
DivineNames
Guest
bibleberean, what do you think of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox mysticism? Do you approve? Or is it satanic?
D
DivineNames
Guest
Alan Watts, defending the God of "mystical experience"-
"Here, then, will be trotted out all the old objections to the negativity of mystical ideas, to the dissolution of God our Father into the "divine darkness" or "cloud of unknowing" of [Christian] Western mystics, or the featureless Void of the Buddhists. One can but reiterate the point that only concepts and idols of God are being negated."
"the objection that the conception is too vague and impersonal to inspire devotion or grace could be to the point if it were no more than a conception, but is groundless if held against the vision which the concept merely represents."
"The notion that any identity of Creator and creature makes a fundamental "I-Thou" relationship of love between the two impossible is untenable for any believer in the Holy Trinity. How, then, could there be mutual love between God the Father and God the Son, since both, though different, are yet one God?"
"Here, then, will be trotted out all the old objections to the negativity of mystical ideas, to the dissolution of God our Father into the "divine darkness" or "cloud of unknowing" of [Christian] Western mystics, or the featureless Void of the Buddhists. One can but reiterate the point that only concepts and idols of God are being negated."
"the objection that the conception is too vague and impersonal to inspire devotion or grace could be to the point if it were no more than a conception, but is groundless if held against the vision which the concept merely represents."
"The notion that any identity of Creator and creature makes a fundamental "I-Thou" relationship of love between the two impossible is untenable for any believer in the Holy Trinity. How, then, could there be mutual love between God the Father and God the Son, since both, though different, are yet one God?"
S
Soma-Sight
Guest
Mysticsm in the Church is what it lacks for its vitality and vision in these days of men browbeating semantics........
The Hindi worship created things and things of their imaginations like incarnated fish, cows, bears, etcetera. There have never been any witnesses to anybody's incarnation. It all comes from the imagination and superstition. Krishna was what psychologists today would call a sex addict. He had many sexual liaisons. That's not someone who lives for the good of others but for his own bodily gratification.
S
Soma-Sight
Guest
Wrong.
Hindus do not worship created things but the Spirit that dwells inside them.
You can call this spark "LIGHT" inside a created object.
The Hindu calls it the "Self".
I am the WAY, TRUTH, LIGHT.
Krishna did not promote lustful activities.
Lust is of "tamas", the lowest guna of the Hindu.
Of course he promotes the sativic way of life but ultimately all good works and bad works are superceded by meditation and the Cosmic Vision.
Soma,
You are erroneously mixing Christian theolgy with Eastern philosophy and that is wrong. Hinduism and Christianity are very different and they do not have "the Spirit". According to the Bible, it is only those who believe in Christ for salvation that have the Holy Spirit indwelling them and those who don't are condemned.
You are erroneously mixing Christian theolgy with Eastern philosophy and that is wrong. Hinduism and Christianity are very different and they do not have "the Spirit". According to the Bible, it is only those who believe in Christ for salvation that have the Holy Spirit indwelling them and those who don't are condemned.
S
Soma-Sight
Guest
Free,
I thought it was those who did the Will of the Father in Heaven? Which is to Love God and your neighbor as yourself? According to Jesus only those that take up there own Cross will be worthy to call Him Master!
At least that is what Christ said!
Maybe you are thinking of Paul!
B
bibleberean
Guest
A true Christian and not a heretick knows that Pauls writings are the very words of God and are not in conflict with Christ.
Those who reject 2/3rds of the New Testament are lost non-believers in need of salvation and sound doctrine.
We are to first love the God of the bible with all our hearts and then our neighbor as our selves.
Hindus worship a false god...not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
They need to hear, and believe the gospel to be saved...
Peter told the Philipian jailer what he needed to do to be saved.
Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Acts 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Where in the Bhagavad-gita is anyone instructed to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ?
Peter said:
The unlearned will twist what Paul said and say he is conflict with Christ.
2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
There are a few in this forum who are "unlearned" and definitely "unstable".
I would even go so far as to say down right "crackers".
:
Those who reject 2/3rds of the New Testament are lost non-believers in need of salvation and sound doctrine.
We are to first love the God of the bible with all our hearts and then our neighbor as our selves.
Hindus worship a false god...not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
They need to hear, and believe the gospel to be saved...
Peter told the Philipian jailer what he needed to do to be saved.
Acts 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Acts 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Where in the Bhagavad-gita is anyone instructed to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ?
Peter said:
The unlearned will twist what Paul said and say he is conflict with Christ.
2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
There are a few in this forum who are "unlearned" and definitely "unstable".
I would even go so far as to say down right "crackers".
:
S
Soma-Sight
Guest
BB,
You really know your Bible well!
The Lord will be proud of you in the end!
No need to take things personal here however!
But I guess I am a bit "green" and "unpredictable". Those must be Satanic traits I need to work on......
B
bibleberean
Guest
Soma,
Jesus said a lot of things concerning how one is saved. The most common thing one must do to be saved, as far as I have seen, as stated by Christ is that we must believe in him - believing in all he is, says, and does. We cannot just pick out the one verse that appeals to us the most and say that that is how Christ said one is to be saved.
John 3:14-18 should really settle the matter.
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
Joh 3:15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
There are a few important points in this passage:
1. The Son of Man must be lifted up - he must be crucified.
2. God gave his Son - he gave him up to be crucified for the sins of the world.
3. Only those who believe in Christ will not perish - believing in his sacrifice and in his name
4. Whoever doesn't believe is already condemned.
To believe in the name of Jesus is to believe in all that he is and all that the name of Jesus implies; most importantly that he is God in the flesh who died as a propitiatory sacrifice to reconcile men to God.
Jesus said a lot of things concerning how one is saved. The most common thing one must do to be saved, as far as I have seen, as stated by Christ is that we must believe in him - believing in all he is, says, and does. We cannot just pick out the one verse that appeals to us the most and say that that is how Christ said one is to be saved.
John 3:14-18 should really settle the matter.
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
Joh 3:15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
There are a few important points in this passage:
1. The Son of Man must be lifted up - he must be crucified.
2. God gave his Son - he gave him up to be crucified for the sins of the world.
3. Only those who believe in Christ will not perish - believing in his sacrifice and in his name
4. Whoever doesn't believe is already condemned.
To believe in the name of Jesus is to believe in all that he is and all that the name of Jesus implies; most importantly that he is God in the flesh who died as a propitiatory sacrifice to reconcile men to God.