The Ascension

[SaulToPaul 2]

You underestimate the caliber of scholars that God has raised up to keep the sheep from falling for false teaching and ignorance on important subjects. Why should I trust you as an expert on things, and reject those with proven track records and godly character/insights? Eph. 4:11-13 vs internet wannabees with no training or accountability.

I am not incorrect to point out the emphasis on studying Scripture, etc. for truth. The Spirit of Truth does lead us into truth, but you have to explain why so many sincere, godly believers have such a myriad of divisive, doctrinal views despite the same indwelling Holy Spirit, same sincerity, same prayerful study of Word, etc. (hint: noetic effects of sin; bad teaching; subjective, fleshly impressions mistaken for the Spirit, etc.)…..



You think he will notice?

Are you referring to initial justification? Who is your guru?

 

[Nick M]

Are you referring to initial justification? Who is your guru?

I believe it in context, not as a proof text for your views. Justification is about our initial coming to Christ when we are declared righteous (legal term) and our past sins are dealt with. At that point of conversion, there are no future sins yet. Reconciliation deals with our past sins....My objection is to think we can persist in sheer rebellion, sin, and disobedience with impunity because non-existent sins have blanket forgiveness just because our past sins were dealt with at justification.

I think you are jumping to conclusions in a reactive vs responsive way, becoming a godplayer, quick to deny the same grace you have in your fellow believer's lives. You should be going after the Mormons, JWs, Unitarians, etc. here, not your fellow believer who avoids license and legalism by following the way of love demonstrated by Jesus and Paul (loving obedience flowing from grace/faith is not legalism or self-righteousness, but the fruit of yielding to the Spirit)

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I believe it in context, not as a proof text for your views. Justification is about our initial coming to Christ when we are declared righteous (legal term) and our past sins are dealt with. At that point of conversion, there are no future sins yet. Reconciliation deals with our past sins....My objection is to think we can persist in sheer rebellion, sin, and disobedience with impunity because non-existent sins have blanket forgiveness just because our past sins were dealt with at justification.

I think you are jumping to conclusions in a reactive vs responsive way, becoming a godplayer, quick to deny the same grace you have in your fellow believer's lives. You should be going after the Mormons, JWs, Unitarians, etc. here, not your fellow believer who avoids license and legalism by following the way of love demonstrated by Jesus and Paul (loving obedience flowing from grace/faith is not legalism or self-righteousness, but the fruit of yielding to the Spirit)

Do you not know that the new birth is analagous to, but not identical to physical birth?

 

[Nihilo]

That is one way out of several to see it. I held the same view for 35 years because I didn't know any better. Then I realized Jesus represents the infinite eternal part of us. It is not about anything outside of us. It is about our inner divinity.

For everything, there is only one nonfictional way to see it, IOW there is but one truth of the matter. Everything else is fiction.

 

[Nick M]

Then I realized Jesus represents the infinite eternal part of us.

No, he represents God the Father. He is the exact representation of him.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You think he will notice?

Saving faith is not divorced from loving obedience to the revealed moral law of God.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

That is one way out of several to see it. I held the same view for 35 years because I didn't know any better. Then I realized Jesus represents the infinite eternal part of us. It is not about anything outside of us. It is about our inner divinity.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

You ought to consider becoming a GURU? Obviously, you're not a Christian so, why not come up with some oddball words and phrases and pitch a tent, sit on an ornate pillow in a long flowing multi-colored robe and a funny little hat? Then, just make up a bunch of consciousness garbage and go to town. At the end of your "service" pass your silly hat around and collect some cold hard cash.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

For everything, there is only one nonfictional way to see it, IOW there is but one truth of the matter. Everything else is fiction.

Not true. It can be taken literally or figuratively or anywhere in between. The personality insists on holding on to only one way to see things because it's self-worth depends on it.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Prizebeatz1]

No, he represents God the Father. He is the exact representation of him.

God is infinite and eternal. The soul is infinite and eternal. This is not a coincidence. He who has seen me has seen the Father. The literal Jesus is not an exact representation of Him. All that outer space you see in the night sky is.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Nihilo]

For everything, there is only one nonfictional way to see it, IOW there is but one truth of the matter. Everything else is fiction.

Not true. It can be taken literally or figuratively or anywhere in between. The personality insists on holding on to only one way to see things because it's self-worth depends on it.

Then you appear completely irrational because what I said is unequivocal.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

The Ascension

You ought to consider becoming a GURU? Obviously, you're not a Christian so, why not come up with some oddball words and phrases and pitch a tent, sit on an ornate pillow in a long flowing multi-colored robe and a funny little hat? Then, just make up a bunch of consciousness garbage and go to town. At the end of your "service" pass your silly hat around and collect some cold hard cash.

Once again you fail to add anything useful to the conversation fart face.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

Do we honestly believe a man was taken up into the sky? It's a fairytale and a myth. It must mean something other than the literal interpretation. What could it symbolize?

What about Enoch? He was taken up. Do you believe that the Hebrew Text is without validity in its supernatural references, even void of the 27 books Christians refer to?


Sent from my iPad using TOL

 

[Ben Masada]

Do we honestly believe a man was taken up into the sky? It's a fairytale and a myth. It must mean something other than the literal interpretation. What could it symbolize?

According to the Tzadikim aka the Jewish Wise Men, ascension means only an euphemism to be used to describe the death of the righteous. A reference to it, we find with what happened to Prophet Elijah and to Enoch.

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

What about Elijah?


Sent from my iPad using TOL

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

According to the Tzadikim aka the Jewish Wise Men, ascension means only an euphemism to be used to describe the death of the righteous. A reference to it, we find with what happened to Prophet Elijah and to Enoch.

11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, which parted them both asunder; and Eliyahu went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

vai-HEE HAY-mah ho-l’-KHEEM ha-LOKH v’-da-BAYR v’-hi-NAY RE-khev aysh v’-SU-say aysh va-yaf-RI-du bayn sh’-nay-HEM va-YA-al ay-li-YA-hu bas-a-RAH ha-sha-MA-yim
יא וַיְהִי הֵמָּה הֹלְכִים הָלוֹךְ וְדַבֵּר וְהִנֵּה רֶכֶב אֵשׁ וְסוּסֵי אֵשׁ וַיַּפְרִדוּ בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם וַיַּעַל אֵלִיָּהוּ בַּסְעָרָה הַשָּׁמָיִם.


Ben, would not this verse from Kings be in error if that were 100% true of all Hebrew references?


Sent from my iPad using TOL

 

[Nick M]

It's the traditional interpretation of the bible that doesn't fool me.

So why don't you tell us what it really says starting at Genesis 1:1

opcorn:

Why can't we decide for ourselves instead of letting someone else decide for us?

Didn't I just say that? Tell us what it really says.

I am not going to tell you what it really says.

Don't waste your time posting in his thread or responding to him.

 

[Prizebeatz1]

The Ascension

What about Enoch? He was taken up. Do you believe that the Hebrew Text is without validity in its supernatural references, even void of the 27 books Christians refer to?


Sent from my iPad using TOL

A literal interpretation doesn't hold any weight. That doesn't mean there is not validity. It just means there is something more important under the surface meaning. There is a moral to the story. When we read sacred texts from other cultures or little red riding hood which are obviously myths and fairy tales we don't believe them at face value either.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

A literal interpretation doesn't hold any weight. That doesn't mean there is not validity. It just means there is something more important under the surface meaning. There is a moral to the story. When we read sacred texts from other cultures or little red riding hood which are obviously myths and fairy tales we don't believe them at face value either.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Prizebeatz..... To be more specific, I understand what you mean when you say literal, and I understand that the moral compass and message of love is the little red riding hood, as well as a warning that mankind fails itself regularly.

That brings the 24,000,000 dollar question. Is there any validity to Theism, Deism, or Pantheism at all?


Sent from my iPad using TOL

 

[Nick M]

Do you not know that the new birth is analagous to, but not identical to physical birth?

The glorified body is irreversible/unconditional/unilateral since it is a metaphysical/ontological change that God will not reverse. Salvation is not metaphysical (confusion of categories on your part), but a reciprocal love relationship that is conditional and involving two parties. As in marriage, it is reversible (divorce is possible; analogies can be used both ways, so are limited). Spiritual rebirth is relational, not ontological like physical birth (so the unborn or unparent argument is lame).

You divorce salvation from ongoing relationship and being in Christ, the condition for eternal life (since it is in Him alone, not apart from Him I Jn. 5:11-13 present, continuous tenses). You seem to reduce it to an irreversible metaphysical change parallel to physical birth. In reality, it is a reciprocal love relationship, not an unconditional zapping. Past sins can be dealt with, but this does not preclude the possibility of heinous future sins, including blasphemy, that cannot be swept under the carpet by a holy God (judgment starts with the house of God; Ananias and Sapp were struck down; I Cor. and I Jn. has temporal judgment of believer's sin by death).

 

[Nick M]

Saving faith is not divorced from loving obedience to the revealed moral law of God.

Jn. 3:16; I Jn. 5:11-13; Jn. 1:12 You say this is circ. This is now, not future. Jesus, Peter, John, James taught grace.