The Disease of Fear and Unbelief

This is the place to discuss anything to do with scriptural doctrine. It is the primary purpose of this site, and most discussions will be here.
Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
Message
Author
lamesa
Posts: 64
Joined: 6 months ago

Re: The Disease of Fear and Unbelief

#11 Post by lamesa » 6 months ago

RETRACTION:
lamesa wrote: 6 months ago
and even the apostles didn't fully agree on all things. We know Paul rebuked Peter publicly, and later Peter said of Paul's letters, "Some parts of his letters are hard to understand" (2 Pet. 3:16).
I made two errors:

(1) My context was not correct. Where the apostles disagreed on certain things, those matters were resolved by assembly, prayer and Holy Spirit (Acts 15:12, 13, 28). Though Peter was rebuked and corrected by Paul, he later wrote, “our beloved brother Paul” (2 Pet. 3:15).

(2) My statement appears to say that there are no absolutes in Christian doctrines, and the opposite is true! What I meant to say was that doctrines about Eschatology (end times prophecies) is NOT something we should argue about, or be dogmatic about.

When it comes to Eschatology (doctrines regarding end times prophecies), there are many schools of interpretations. For anyone who wishes to compare the various interpretations, see:
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/millennial-maze

Also, I recommend two authors on this: E.W. Hengstenberg (1802-1869) and Leon L. Morris (1914-2006).

Also, you can listen (free) to two preachers:
Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) https://www.mljtrust.org/search/?name=&q=revelation
and,
Eric Alexander (living): http://www.tapesfromscotland.org/catalo ... EAlexander (scroll down to Revelation).

Get out of her
Posts: 1227
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: The Disease of Fear and Unbelief

#12 Post by Get out of her » 6 months ago

I appreciate your reply and clarifications on some things lamesa. Also I appreciate that you clearly understand this is all about scriptural discussions and certainly not about fighting and arguing even if things unfortunately devolve to that with certain ones at times.

lamesa wrote:
we are no longer in a cult so we don't expect, or want, total mental conformity. Our Lord is so much "bigger" than any of us puny humans can understand, and even the apostles didn't fully agree on all things. We know Paul rebuked Peter publicly, and later Peter said of Paul's letters, "Some parts of his letters are hard to understand" (2 Pet. 3:16).
I realize I probably sound like a broken record at times and a appreciate that you in fact are beginning to pay a bit more attention to the contexts you are dealing with as you made clear in your retraction. But once again particularly in view of scriptures like 1st Corinthians 1:10 and the way it might seem rather contradictory to other passages we encounter, I would encourage becoming more mindful of very sudden and key changes in the setting we are dealing with at any given moment in our Bible reading and study; ones in fact that we in reality are constantly stumbling upon in the scriptures.

The setting we are considering there in 2 Peter 3:16 is of course the same one we are dealing with in 1st Corinthians 1:10 in which God's holy nation (the first of the foretold SPIRITUAL manifestations of Israel in this case) had once again been re-established on the earth. Since scriptures like John 14:26 and 1 John 2:27 make it clear that the Holy Spirit is ultimately the ONLY thing that truly performs any genuine teaching at all in such a setting, what would this imply in connection with your current understanding here? Obviously unless we were to take the position that the Holy Spirit contradicts itself at times, we need to factor in simply that sin and imperfection was still part of the equation here even with the Apostles along with the issue of the …"apostasy already being at work among"… the first century congregation virtually from the very start, just as Paul makes clear in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8.

However in the setting that WE currently find ourselves in, one in which we are once again eagerly ANTICIPATING another foretold "coming of the kingdom" or "birth of the barren woman," it would of course be rather ridiculous for any of us to expect to find (as you say) "total mental conformity" even if some of us might want such a thing in connection with the scriptural understanding of the anointed "virgins." (Jer 15:9) (Isa 54:1-4)

I often direct people's attention to the Job account in this case since the fact is it's among the prophetic/symbolic dramas designed to picture or represent the situation that ALWAYS exists in these time frames with EVEN the anointed ones. Job himself and his completely devastated condition is a symbolic representation of what BECOMES of what WAS Jehovah's nation after the holy covenant that establishes it is once again violated with spiritual adultery. All the disagreeing and arguing on spiritual matters that now commences with Job and his three companions is a representation of the kind of discussions that are taking place also at this very moment on websites such as this one. The appearance of Elihu toward the end of the drama and his rather distinct dialogue is a representation of how true prophets of Jehovah always arrive shortly before a complete healing and restoration of what is SIGNIFIED by Job.

You see due to the fact that Job at this point began to distinguished himself from his companions by actually LISTENING to Elihu and acknowledging and repenting over mistakes he had made, he now represented MORE than what he had previously. This is namely the "DISCREET virgins" who would now experience having the holy marriage covenant renewed between them and their heavenly "bridegroom." (Mt 25:1-10) (Re 21:2, 9) The tremendous restoration that Job now experiences is of course representing the re-establishment of God's nation or kingdom on the earth which at this point is ALWAYS made official with what is represented at the very end of this prophetic drama. This is namely the priestly sacrificial offering of what both Job AND Elihu ultimately represent at this point. (Job 42:7, 8)
I'm sorry but this is Greek to me, as I really don't understand what you are getting at. But I suspect we have a different view on End Times prophecies.
Since I cannot follow what you are saying, I'll share my understanding: I am now convinced that the millennium* is the period between the two advents of Christ. I believe that Satan was bound so that the Gospel could be preached among the nations. Now, I suspect that the devil has now been let loose among the nations (Rev. 20:1
Based on some of the things I've read in your posts (such as the above) I suppose I should not be assuming you recognize the increasingly alarming events on the world scene as among the evidence that we find ourselves specifically in the time frame that ones like Jesus spoke of in passages like Matthew 24:37-39. This is of course a time frame that many of us including myself associate with the immanent arrival of "thousand year reign," and since you recognize this event as having begun evidently around the time of 33 CE I suppose I should not be confused over the fact that I might as well be speaking "Greek" to you in this case.

I'm already aware of your position on this lamesa. What I am much more interested in however is how you would go about establishing and defending this position with the scriptures, and particularly since I have already gone to great lengths over the last few years to demonstrate otherwise. Perhaps (assuming you are interested) we would do well to address this on a different thread.
I believe the "two witnesses" represent the church, in every era between the two advents of Christ.
Once again (respectfully) I am certain what we are all much more interested in here is how you might go about demonstrating your understanding on this with the scriptures. In my case I have already done this rather extensively. Would you be interested in going over some of my material on the topic? Actually I recently posted what I recognize as my most concise coverage of this subject on another website. I'll make a point of posting it on this one as well as soon as I am able.
The "Son of Man" is Christ, as he used that term so many times for himself during his earthly ministry, and again in the Revelation.
Particularly in view of the fact that Jehovah also addressed the prophet Ezekiel as the "son of man," and the scriptures actually define the Christ as a "body" made up of "MANY members," I hope you don't mind if I point out that this is a word that simply means –anointed or –anointed one. (Eze 2:1) (1 Cor 12:12) (Ro 12:5) Moreover while satan and his minions have gone to tremendous lengths to hide this from you, the ancient fleshly Jews were very familiar both in understanding AND experience not only with the Christ which they referred to as –Mashiyach, but even with Christ JESUS which they always distinguished as Mashiyach Yahawahshi. While they basically referred to ANYONE who was anointed as Christ, it was always when one of these anointed ones would become involved in something like assisting Jehovah in delivering them from their bondage in ancient Babylon or saving them from the countless hordes of Canaanite soldiers after crossing the Jordan River that the term Christ JESUS was used. As opposed to simply –anointed, these two words together now literally mean- Jehovah's anointed means of SALVATION which is precisely why they were now utilized.

In other words, even the name Jesus (let alone Christ) does not technically point to an individual. Regardless of what we have always been led to believe, this term actually points to the "few" members of this "body" of anointed ones who SUCCEED in assisting Jehovah with furnishing salvation for humankind. (Mt 22:14) Let's not forget that the ones who actually do so become not only fellow kings with their leader and exemplar, but also fellow "PRIESTS." (Re 5:10) In fact scriptures like Revelation 6:11, 11:3, 7, 11, 12 and Hebrews 9:26-28 remind us that accomplishing this ultimately includes even the very same act of blood atonement that the "head" of this "body of many members" engaged in. (Col 1:18)
The "faithful steward" is the same as the "two witnesses." Except that the parable isn't prophetic like the Revelation, except to show there will be wolves in sheep's covering. The important lesson from the "faithful steward" is to be faithful (JW have massacred the parable ever since Russell).
The fact that the "faithful steward" is yet another way of referring to the "two witnesses"/"two spies" or even "inspectors" and more, such as "prophets to the nations" or "son of man" is indeed something I'll insist can be scripturally demonstrated, and I believe I have in fact done so on more than one occasion. (Lu 19:44) (Jos 2:1) (Jer 1:5) (Eze 2:1) But to insist the two are the same and then turn around and claim that one is prophetic and one is essentially not or otherwise serves more as a symbolic parable, do you not see how this would come across as rather contradictory?
Respectfully, I truly don't understand any of it. Israel was the unfaithful nation, right?
God's "nation/kingdom," his "woman," "Israel," "The Way," "Christianity," the "kingdom of the son of his love" etc., there has been several names assigned to Jehovah's nation over the millenniums. What I am getting at here is that whether it be re-established with an "anointing" of a theocratic "shepherd" by the name of Cyrus or a renewed and inaugurated kingdom covenant in the first century that resulted in "holy ones" right among the "household of Caesar" for at least a few decades (before John confirmed around 98 CE that what Paul was warning about some 45 or so years earlier had fully transpired by then), (1 Joh 2:18) (Re 17:10) (2 Th 2:7, 8) there was a very well established pattern of behavior on the part of certain individuals that allowed them to SHARE in the tremendous level of theocratic power and authority that was basically "birthed" by these ministries of the "two witnesses" or "prophets to the nations." (Jer 1:5 15:9) (Php 4:22) I am simply inquiring as to whether you can identify what always distinguishes the "foolish virgins" from the "discreet" in these prophetic time frames.
The bottom line: "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" (Romans 9:6). "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). I believe in the priesthood of all believers, and all true Christians are the same in Christ. Ethnicity no longer matters.
I'm not arguing against any of these points here except that like most people you are falling back on MAN'S definition of a Christian or what the first century Bible writers also identified as Jews. (SPIRITUAL Jews obviously in this case) Ones like Luke and the Apostle Paul made it clear that it is a "circumcision of the heart by SPIRIT" that qualifies one as such, and while bearing in mind that a Jew AS OPPOSED to simply an Israelite was always used to signify the distinction between the shepherding and flock facets of God's nation, it's also important to understand that BOTH of these facets go out of existence altogether with the developments mentioned in accounts like 1 John 2:18 or Daniel 11:30-32. (Ro 2:28, 29) (Ac 18:24-28) (Zec 11:14-17) Once again it is the forming of a holy kingdom covenant along with the "keeping" of this covenant that establishes and MAINTAINS people as EITHER Jews OR Israelites. (Ex 19:5)
OK, but setting aside our differences in interpretation of prophecies, we can agree that Jehovah controls who is in power. His control is so specific that he provides prophecies to show he is in total control. In some cases, he provide the man's name centuries before the man was born (e.g. "Cyrus, ‘He is My shepherd," Isa. 44:28)!
Among the things I am endeavoring to convey here is that I personally would not use accounts like Isaiah 44:28 45:1 to make the point you seem to be trying to make. In scriptures like this we are dealing specifically with the "seven kings" Jehovah would personally choose as "anointed shepherds" of his people during the period of time identified as that of their foreign "exile and captivity" or what is also referred to with terms like the "appointed times of the nations." (Re 17:10) (Jer 1:3) (Lu 21:24) Obviously at least in the SELECTION of such ones Jehovah would exercise MUCH control, just as he did with kings like the ancient David or Solomon. Otherwise based even simply on the behaviors we witness even today with the ones endeavoring to rule this earth, wouldn't it seem rather self evident that at least generally speaking Jehovah exercises his power and control only in the sense that he effectively holds the off switch in his hand, ready to flip basically the moment yet another foretold ministry or "prophesying" of "two witnesses" is completed? (Re 11:3, 7, 11, 12)

Agape love;
Sol

User avatar
coccus ilicis
Posts: 1027
Joined: 6 years ago

Re: The Disease of Fear and Unbelief

#13 Post by coccus ilicis » 5 months ago

lamesa wrote: 6 months ago
coccus ilicis wrote: 6 months ago when we prove ourselves to be sons of God, and do his will on earth
Do you truly believe one can merit forgiveness and salvation? HOW is it possible that one could “prove ourselves to be the sons of God and do his will on earth”?

Compare with the Lord’s parable about the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). This is one of the great teaching passages on the significance of true salvation and repentance. The father could not have the prodigal son at his table in the rags of the far country even though he had forgiven him. When the father goes out to meet the son, he forgives the son. But before the son can come to the father's table the father puts new clothing on him, he robes him in a new robe and puts a ring on his finger and shoes on his feet. And may I suggest that going out to meet him and forgiving him and justifying him is the equivalent of redemption described in Romans chapters 3 and 4. The son cannot receive all the blessedness of the father's table until he is robed in the right robe.

Now compare with Romans 4 where is says that “God justifies the ungodly” (Romans 4:5). God only saves the ungodly. God only saves the people who come back and cry out, "I have sinned," who realize they are in rags, who realize they have no resources. He only saves number one son, not number two in that story because the number two son never recognized his ungodliness.

“For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.’ Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (Romans 4:3, 4, 5).

Abraham is the classic illustration of the fact that “God justifies the ungodly”, that God redeems men not by their works but by their faith. This is a really hard lesson to learn because we want to believe we have some merit. But the Bible is clear:

“We are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6).

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).

The natural heart dislikes this teaching. It runs counter to man’s ideas. It leaves him no room to boast. Man’s idea is to come to Christ with a price in his hand, his regularity, his morality, his repentance, his goodness, in order to buy pardon and justification. The Bible’s teaching is quite different—it is, first of all to believe:

“If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (John 3:12)

“Whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:15).

“Whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the
only begotten Son of God.” (John 3:18).

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.” (John 5:24).

Some say this teaching cannot be right, because it makes the way to salvation too easy. But the fact is that many persons find this too hard. It’s easier to give donations, or do many good works, than to thoroughly receive justification by faith without the deeds of the law, and to receive forgiveness as a sinner saved by grace.

Some say this teaching is foolishness. But the fact is, this is the only teaching that will ever bring peace to an uneasy conscience, and rest to a troubled soul. A person may get on pretty well without it as long as he is asleep about his spiritual condition.

I am not ashamed of free pardon through faith in Christ, whatever some may say against the teaching. Jesus, and faith in him, is the only way to the Father. Whoever thinks he can get into paradise by some other road, will find himself fearfully mistaken. There is no other foundation but faith in Christ.

“This is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment” (1 John 3:23).

Jesus said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life” (John 5:24).
Hello Iamesa.

Thank you for your replies. I gather your question does not so much concern whether God or the devil rules the world, but concerns faith and the forgiveness of sin. You say:
But how do I PROVE that my faith is real? Many claim to "believe" in Christ, but we know it's not real because real faith is alive and produces real results ("works"). We aren't saved by our works, but our works SHOW that our faith is the real thing'?
Please correct me if I am wrong, but the reason for the confusion with regard to belief/faith and works has to do with your belief in the doctrine of original sin. Original sin is the Christian doctrine that holds that humans, through the fact of birth, inherit a tainted nature... The belief began to emerge in the 3rd century, but only became fully formed with the writings of Augustine of Hippo (354–430), who was the first author to use the phrase "original sin" , Wikipedia. As you can see this doctrine is not based on scripture but on 3rd-century human reasoning. This doctrine underpins the faith of the majority that believe in Christ. Thus some believe works are needed and others believe works are not necessary. What Paul wrote in Romans chapter four applies to works of Law, at that time the Scribes and Pharisees believed one had to obey the letter of the Law, (cf Mt 23:23)

So what does the bible say happened in the garden of Eden. Man who was created in God's image was created to cultivate and care for the earth. Would you agree that being created in God's image meant that, unlike animals, humankind has the unlimited mental capacity to think reason and learn, as well as the emotional qualities, such as love, joy, hate, anger, jealousy, etc., even as a child inherits these qualities of their parents; and even though they were fully grown adults, they still had much to learn?

With that in mind, Jehovah made two trees grow in the Garden of Eden, the tree of life, and the tree of good and of bad knowledge, telling Adam not to eat from the latter, as in the day he ate from it he would surely die, (Gen 2:9; 3:3). Adam knew what death was, as he had been learning all there was to know about animal husbandry, (Gen 2:20). When they had eaten of that tree and were challenged by God, Eve had said she had been deceived, she had believed what the serpent had said. But Adam who had been with her at the time when they ate the fruit could not use that excuse, he knew what the tree represented and so said ... The woman whom you gave to be with me, gave me fruit and so I ate, Gen 3:6,8-13). So it was a deliberate choice on his part. He knew what he was doing, and chose to leave the security of the nest, even as a fledgling bird does. He pictures the prodigal son of Lu 15:11-31. Like a good father, Jehovah told him what to expect. The ground would grow thorns and thistles for him as at that stage he knew nothing about agriculture. That meant they would go hungry and children would die. And so he said to Eve ... I shall greatly increase your labour, and your conception and her craving would be for her husband, as she would need him to protect and provide for the family. And as a result, he would dominate her, (Gen 3:16).

Then he provided them with warm clothing and sent them out into the world to do their own thing (Gen 3:21,23).

The first time sin is mentioned is when Cain became jealous of his brother Abel, and God said to him: "Why are you hot with anger and why has your countenance fallen? If you turn to doing good, will there not be an exultation? But if you do not turn to doing good, there is sin crouching at the entrance and for you is its craving, (Gen 4:6,7). One can overcome jealousy and anger by doing the exact opposite of what one wants to do at that time. Jesus said ... You heard that it was said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. This is a knee jerk reaction, we lash out at someone that hurts us, (cf Mt7:2). However I say to you do not resist him that is wicked, but whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him also ...Continue to love your enemies, (Mt 5:38, 39,44). Why is this necessary? Because in order to become perfect/complete we must learn to control negative reactionary reflexes, even as our heavenly Father does, who makes the sun rise and shine and makes it rain upon both the righteous and unrighteous,(Mt 5:45-48). If Cain had had the strength to do this then there would indeed have been exultation in heaven, because the sons of God knew how difficult it is to control one's emotions. But Cain didn't have the necessary moral strength and killed his brother at which point the unchangeable knee-jerk reaction, of a life for a life came into play, (Gen 4:14, 23,24). Up until then, Cain had had God's blessing. Unlike Adam's efforts, the ground didn't grow thorns and thistles for him but gave back its fruitage, (cf Gen 4:12). And he was the first one to worship Jehovah and bring an offering, (Gen 4:3, 26), and so he pictures the older son, in the sense of being the more experienced, that remained with the Father.

The son of man, Jesus, not only taught us what we need to do in order to come to be perfect/complete but also demonstrated it by his own example. The author of Hebrews explains it thus: In the day of his flesh he offered up supplications ... to the One who was able to save him out of death, with strong outcries and tears, and he was favourably heard for his godly fear, [cf Mt 26:39-44]. And though being a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered; And after having been made perfect/complete he becomes responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, (Heb 5: 7-9).

At the time the writer of the letters of 1Jhn 2 &3 wrote his letters, darkness has descended once more. The writer considers himself a church father, much like the Pharisees and Sadducees had done whom Jesus had condemned, (cf Mt 23:8,9 & 1Jhn 2:18). These ones believed that anyone who doesn't apply the letter off the Law, sins, (Mt 9:2,3,4,5). And it is this Law, that Paul discusses in his letter to the Romans when he says ...On the other hand the man who does not work, but puts faith in him, who declares the ungodly righteous, his faith in God is counted as righteousness, (Rom 4:5). Paul is telling them that one cannot become perfect by doing works of the Law.

To have faith in Jesus means listening and heeding what he taught. He said ... but if anyone hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him ... he that disregards me and does not receive my sayings has one to judge him. The word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day, because I have not spoken of my own impulse but the Father himself ... has given me a commandment as to what to say and what to tell and what to speak, (Jhn 12:47,48,49). He told his disciples to make disciples of people of the nations ...teaching them all the things he had taught them, (Mt 28:20). But doctrines replaced the things he had taught when darkness descended on the world once more.

So to become perfect/complete, like Jesus, one must follow his example. it is a two-fold work, teaching what he taught and controlling our inherited reactive negative tendencies. In this way, we will prove ourselves sons of our heavenly Father. And if we can manage to do this there will indeed be exultation in heaven, (Gen 4:7; Mt 5:44,45,48; Heb 5:9 ).

Jesus told his disciples: We must do the works of him that sent me while it is day, the night is coming when no man can work. As long as I am in the world I am the world's light, (Jhn 9:4,5). He knew that after his departure, organized religion, with each branch having its own set of doctrines, would be like the qiqayon - caster oil plant of Jon 4:6,9-11, which is believed to come from the Heb. verb qayah - to vomit. Jehovah says concerning this plant that it came to be a mere growth of the night and perished as a mere growth of the night, (Jon 4:10). The city of Nineveh, founded by Nimrod, (Jon 4:11), pictures the prodigal son who squandered his inheritance, before coming to his senses, (Lu 15:17,18,19). It also pictures those who heed the call of the messenger that flies in mid-heaven that declares everlasting good news to those who dwell on the earth, saying in a loud voice: "Fear God and give Him glory because the hour of judgment by him has arrived, and so worship the one who made the heaven and earth and sea and fountains of waters (Rev 14:6,7). In this way, our heavenly Father saves all those who serve Him with a complete heart, (cf. Isa 38:3).
LRW~

lamesa
Posts: 64
Joined: 6 months ago

Re: The Disease of Fear and Unbelief

#14 Post by lamesa » 5 months ago

coccus ilicis wrote: 5 months ago
Please correct me if I am wrong, but the reason for the confusion with regard to belief/faith and works has to do with your belief in the doctrine of original sin. Original sin is the Christian doctrine that holds that humans, through the fact of birth, inherit a tainted nature... The belief began to emerge in the 3rd century, but only became fully formed with the writings of Augustine of Hippo (354–430), who was the first author to use the phrase "original sin" , Wikipedia. As you can see this doctrine is not based on scripture but on 3rd-century human reasoning.
Wikipedia is not an authority.

“The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?" (Jer. 17:9)

"For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, all sexual immorality, theft, lying, and slander" (Mat. 15:19).

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).

"For if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24).

“Through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners” (Romans 5:19)

"Just as everyone dies because we all belong to Adam, everyone who belongs to Christ will be given new life" (1 Cor. 15:22).

"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man" (Mark 7:21‑23).

Respectfully, your writing feels more Buddhist than Christian.
coccus ilicis wrote: 5 months ago So to become perfect/complete, like Jesus, one must follow his example. it is a two-fold work, teaching what he taught and controlling our inherited reactive negative tendencies. In this way, we will prove ourselves sons of our heavenly Father. And if we can manage to do this...
Good luck with that.

lamesa
Posts: 64
Joined: 6 months ago

Re: The Disease of Fear and Unbelief

#15 Post by lamesa » 5 months ago

coccus ilicis wrote: 5 months ago So to become perfect/complete, like Jesus, one must follow his example. it is a two-fold work, teaching what he taught and controlling our inherited reactive negative tendencies. In this way, we will prove ourselves sons of our heavenly Father. And if we can manage to do this...

Respectfully, your writing feels more Buddhist than Christian.


You would have us believe that Jesus was merely a good Teacher, so if we "follow his example," we can "manage" to please God.

The first and most important fact of the Christian gospel is that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3). The death of Christ as our substitute is the heart of the gospel. It’s not just that He died, but that He died for our sins.

Jesus Christ came to pay the penalty for your sin. Until you come to grips with the fact that you are a sinner, separated from God and under His condemnation, you cannot be saved.

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8, 9).

User avatar
coccus ilicis
Posts: 1027
Joined: 6 years ago

Re: The Disease of Fear and Unbelief

#16 Post by coccus ilicis » 5 months ago

lamesa wrote: 5 months ago
coccus ilicis wrote: 5 months ago So to become perfect/complete, like Jesus, one must follow his example. it is a two-fold work, teaching what he taught and controlling our inherited reactive negative tendencies. In this way, we will prove ourselves sons of our heavenly Father. And if we can manage to do this...

Respectfully, your writing feels more Buddhist than Christian.


You would have us believe that Jesus was merely a good Teacher, so if we "follow his example," we can "manage" to please God.

The first and most important fact of the Christian gospel is that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3). The death of Christ as our substitute is the heart of the gospel. It’s not just that He died, but that He died for our sins.

Jesus Christ came to pay the penalty for your sin. Until you come to grips with the fact that you are a sinner, separated from God and under His condemnation, you cannot be saved.

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8, 9).
Hello Iamesa,

Thank you for replying. You say in post 14 above
Wikipedia is not an authority... “The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?" ...
Respectfully, your writing feels more Buddhist than Christian. ...You would have us believe that Jesus was merely a good Teacher, so if we "follow his example," we can "manage" to please God.
I agree the human heart is deceitful. That includes your heart and mine. But if what you say is what Buddhists believe then they are wrong.

We are told that Jesus learned obedience from the things he suffered (Heb 5:8). He could have wiped the floor with his detractors, but he held himself in check because he had been given a job to do. He explains what this was at Jhn 12:47-50, saying he hadn't come to judge the world but to save it; adding that the things he said did not originate with him, but that he spoke the words his heavenly Father had commanded him to speak, and he knew that this commandment ...means everlasting life. That meant that his words were carefully chosen. John chapter 6 is an excellent example of this. Another example is at, Lu 9:55. Jesus's disciples had asked him whether they should make fire come down from heaven to annihilate a Samaritan village. Most Bibles only say he turned and rebuked them, and omit the actual words of his rebuke. He added: ... You do not know what kind of spirit you are of, (Lu 9:55 NASB).

So even the heart of the 12 apostles was treacherous. Therefore the onus is on us to make sure that when we quote or cite what Jesus said it is not taken out of context. We have to get it right because the words he spoke are those his Father had commanded him to speak, and he told us that heeding these commands means life everlasting, (Jhn 12:48,49,50). We cannot simply assume his words mean this or that in support of our belief.

For instance, you quote Jhn 8:24. At John 8:1-11. It says that the Scribes and Pharisees who were sticklers for the law brought him a woman caught in adultery and asked him, since the Law says that such women should be stoned: What really do you say?. But rather than publicly humiliating them, he wrote something in the dust, which only the literate Scribes and Pharisees would have been able to read. Then getting up, he said: "Let the one that is sinless be the first to throw a stone". And then bent down and wrote some more. What they read disconcerted them to such an extent that they left one by one. They never revealed what he had written, but it no doubt included what it said at Lev 20:10. When Jesus looked up they had all left, and he asked the woman where her accusers were and if there was anyone who would condemn her. She answered no one Sir. Not one of her accusers had come forward to present the proof that would condemn her. Either the whole thing was a set-up, or else they didn't dare to present the proof because then they would also have to present the adulterer. So Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go you your way and sin no more. And addressing these same Pharisees later that day when they accused him of bearing witness about himself, Jesus again quoted the Law and told them that they were from the realms below, and he was from the realms above; adding, therefore you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe I am [he], [the one from the realms above], you will die in your sins, (Jhn 8:24). This is the verse you quoted. As you can see, it doesn't have anything to do with the original sin doctrine at all. And confirming that heeding his words was all-important, at Jhn 8:31, speaking to the Jews who had believed him he said: If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free,", [free from the Law]. In the same chapter Jesus tells them that they are from their father the devil, who was a manslayer when he began that did not stand fast in the truth, even as they hadn't, because I, on the other hand, tell you the truth, you do not believe me ... I honour my Father and you dishonor me ... Most truly I say to you if anyone observes my word he will never see death at all, (Jhn 8:44-51). Nothing in this discourse supports the notion that his death would redeem them so that they could live forever.

Man has sought to understand God and his ways from early times. Abraham had a collection of clay tablets that contained the history of his family, see, Genesis Authorship, including the creation account. And that was all he knew about God and so he prayed to the God of the field, (Heb.sadday, which the Latin Vulgate changed to read God Almighty), because he knew that this creator God controlled the weather which could make or break a harvest, (Gen 17:1 cf. Ex 6:3). When he was ninety years old this God appeared to him and told him: "Walk before me and prove yourself faultless and I will give my covenant between me and you. Abraham proved himself faultless and was told ...by means of your seed, [seed, can be both plural or singular, as at Gen 1:11], all the nations of the earth shall have blessed themselves, due to the fact that you have listened to my voice, (Gen 22:18).

Since then different ones have tried to understand what was meant by this and how it would come about. Buddha was such a man, and Augustine was another, each with their own hang-ups that led them to formulate doctrines to explain how it was that humankind was walking in the wrong direction, and what was needed to become approved by God. Before becoming a Christian Augustine had been a fleshy sensual man, see Augustine of Hippo. Becoming a Christian did not cure his addiction to sexual gratification, (cf. 1Cor 7:5,6,7) and so he reasoned it must be inborn and formulated the doctrine of original sin. If you type 'Did Jesus teach the original sin doctrine' into your search engine, you will see many entries. It is the current hot potatoe between those who abide by traditional Christianity and those who are labelled progressive.

Both sides have reasons for their belief. But I think you will find that they all agree that Jesus nor the OT teaches this. Below is a link from each camp. This one agrees with the original sin doctrine, Did St. Augustine Invent the Doctrine of Original Sin Because He Had Sexual Issues?. And this one is against, 5 Old Testament Reasons Why “Original Sin” Doesn’t Work. But the problem I see with their arguments is that their field of vision is too narrow. Its all about academics quoting other academics in support of their view with a few scriptures thrown in. The issue that man was made in God's image, and as such experiences the same ups and downs as his heavenly Father does, i.e. rage, jealousy, disappointment, joy, love, a sense of justice etc., is not even considered. And that the crux of the problem for man is that he has yet to learn how to control his negative emotions. Jehovah felt regret that he had made man when he brought the flood. And afterwards said: Never again shall I call down evil upon the ground on man's account because the inclination of the heart of man is bad from his youth up,(Gen 6:7;8:21). Note it says from his youth up, and not from the day he was born. Parents can attest to that. It is as a babe grows and interacts with others of their own age that the inclination of their heart changes. The measure for measure principle comes into play, and they simply don't have the strength of character, to stop themselves from hitting back, (Mt 7:2).

How, when and where we were born, how we were brought up and what happened influences what we believe. This acts like a rafter in our eye. Jesus asks us ...How can you say to your brother, 'Allow me to extract the straw from your eye; when look! a rafter is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First, extract the rafter from your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to extract the straw from your brother's eye,(Mt 7:4,5). Like Buddha and Augustine, these rafters/hang-ups distort our vision. We all have them. The first step therefore to seeing clearly is to start removing that rafter, splinter by painful splinter. In my case, I find it is an ongoing process. But I have learned how to spot it. Each time I react strongly to what someone says or does, I try to hold off from giving a tit-for-tat response. It isn't easy but it is always worthwhile, it's like cleaning my glasses. Each time I do this I can understand a little more about myself and about our heavenly Father's ways.

Jesus wasn't a good teacher at all, if he had been, everybody would have understood what he said and would be able to repeat what he taught word for word. But as it was they didn't understand, and so they returned to their own vomit. The empowering Pentecostal Spirit enabled them to preach, but as Paul said their knowledge at that time was partial, complete knowledge was yet to come, (1Cor 13:9-12). But it is exactly as the Son of Man said, and how God purposed it: that in the days of the sounding of the seventh trumpet, the sacred secret according to the good news which he declared to his own slaves and the prophets is indeed brought to a finish," (Rev 10:7). That time is now.
LRW~

Orchid61
Posts: 709
Joined: 6 years ago

Re: The Disease of Fear and Unbelief

#17 Post by Orchid61 » 5 months ago

Hi CI,
Jesus wasn't a good teacher at all, if he had been, everybody would have understood what he said and would be able to repeat what he taught word for word.
Jesus way of teaching brought out the conditions and intensions of the listeners hearts.

Such as: how bad wanted they to know what he meant?

When the crowd left, the disciples asks for further explanations, and so Jesus gave it to them.


Love Maria 🌷

Stranger
Posts: 2707
Joined: 4 years ago

Re: The Disease of Fear and Unbelief

#18 Post by Stranger » 5 months ago

Orchid61 wrote: 5 months ago Jesus way of teaching brought out the conditions and intentions of the listeners hearts.
Hi Maria,

Thank you for your comment and wisdom, you put it very wisely. (Jn 10:27) :)



Stranger, (1Cor 10:28 KJV)

Get out of her
Posts: 1227
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: The Disease of Fear and Unbelief

#19 Post by Get out of her » 5 months ago

If anything Jesus was of course the ULTIMATE teacher. For ones such as ourselves to understand this differently is to essentially fail to take into account that just as was the case with ALL of Jehovah's prophets, Jesus had a target audience. The target here was one that went even BEYOND the people who were at least WILLING to hear him out. Scriptures like John 6:53, 66 are prime examples in fact of his INTENTIONAL efforts to sift through even these ones.

Yes as scriptures like Matthew 13:10-12 make rather clear, even the vast majority of the people who are willing to actually LISTEN to or even READ the words of Jehovah's prophets are actually not even INTENDED to understand them. It is only the ones who have developed a heart condition that is determined to actually OBEY the words of God's prophets that comprise this target audience. (Lu 22:28, 29) (Mr 3:14, 15) (1 Joh 5:3) This is what is involved in TRULY listening to Jehovah's prophets. In their case Jehovah himself opens up their minds and hearts to actually understand and fully appreciate these words by means of his holy spirit. (Ac 16:14) (Mt 16:17)

Agape love;
Sol

User avatar
coccus ilicis
Posts: 1027
Joined: 6 years ago

Re: The Disease of Fear and Unbelief

#20 Post by coccus ilicis » 5 months ago

Orchid61 wrote: 5 months ago Hi CI,
Jesus wasn't a good teacher at all, if he had been, everybody would have understood what he said and would be able to repeat what he taught word for word.
Jesus way of teaching brought out the conditions and intentions of the listeners hearts.

Such as: how bad wanted they to know what he meant?

When the crowd left, the disciples asks for further explanations, and so Jesus gave it to them.


Love Maria 🌷
Maria, You have hit the nail on the head, when you say his teaching was to bring out what was in the heart of his listeners. That is why many shut their ears to what he said, (Mt 13:15). And yes, the disciples did ask for further information, as at Mt 13:36.

But darkness descended on the world when he died,(Jhn 9:4,5) and then even they began to ignore some of the things he had said that they did not agree with, compare Mt 18:15-17,21,22 with Act 5:1-10. And ignored that he had sternly instructed them not to call him the Christ, (Mat 16:20). The last one to obey this instruction was Stephen. He retold the entire sorry history of Israel's misconduct, (Acts 6:8-14; 7:1-55). And then concluded his condemnation of them by saying: "Look! I behold the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at God's right hand.", (Act 7:56).

By the time Jesus gave John the visions recorded in Revelation all including John referred to him as Christ, (cf. Rev 1:4-7). And yet in the visions, he is always referred to as the Lamb or the Son of Man, (Rev 1:13;5:13;14:14), which indicated that he does not become the Christ/Messiah/Anointed one until The kings of the earth take their stand and high officials have taken council together as one against his anointed one, [Christ], saying:] "Let us tear their bands apart and cast their cords away from us!" The very one sitting in the heavens will laugh; Jehovah himself will hold them in derision. At that time he will speak to them in his anger. And in his hot pleasure, he will disturb them, [saying:] "I, even, I have installed my king upon Zion my holy mountain ...Jehovah ... said to me: "You are my son; I today, have begotten/conceived you, [as at Nu 11:12], Ask of me that I may give nations as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your possession. You will break them with an iron rod. As though a potter's vessel you will dash them to pieces, (Ps 2:1-11; Dan 7:9-14).

And he will shepherd them with an iron rod ... And upon his outer garment, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of Lords, (Rev 19:15,16). That is when he comes to be the Christ.

Their calling him Christ was premature, and Jesus having known this would happen, warned them: Then if anyone says to you, 'Look! Here is the Christ' or 'There!', Do not believe it. For false Christs will arise and mislead many, and give great signs and wonders so as to mislead if possible even the chosen ones, (Mt 24:23, 24, 28). The presence of the Son of Man now lights up the heavens from the east to the west, even as the sun does at the dawn of a new day. And then all the tribes of the earth will see the Son of Man coming in power and glory, (Mt 24: 27, 29,30).

When a complaint had been laid by the Greek-speaking Jews against the Hebrew speaking Jews concerning the distribution of bread, the apostles appointed seven men to oversee the distribution of food. One was Stephen a man full of faith, whom the Jews killed, (Acts 7:56-59). And then there was Philip, Prochorus, Nicador, Timon and Parmenas. And the last one mentioned was Nicolaus a Greek-speaking proselyte from Antioch. Each of them would have overseen the food distribution in one of the houses where the disciples gathered. And we are also told that it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians, (Acts 11:22).

In Rev 2:1 to Rev 3:18 we can read the letters the Son of Man sends to 7 congregations. In his letter to the congregation in Ephesus, he writes: I know your deeds and your labour and your endurance, and that you put to the test those that say they are apostles, but they are not ... Nevertheless I hold this against you, that you have left the love you had at first ...Still, you do have this, that you hate the sect of Nicolaus, which I also hate, (Rev 1:13;2:1). Today we do not know who this Nicolaus was, but we can be certain that late in the 1st-century when John received Revelation, they would have known who Nicolaus was. The only thing the congregation in Ephesus had in their favour was that they did not have this teaching, which indicates that the teaching was commonplace at that time. So commonplace that not even John twigged/realized, (Rev 1:5). Somewhere along the line, there was a disconnect between what Jesus had said when he had strictly forbidden them from referring to him as the Christ, (Mt 16:20). We do not know what else this Nicolaus taught, but what we do know is that his teaching appeared to have been widely accepted amongst Jesus's disciples. And we also know that a Nicolaus was a Greek-speaking Proselyte from Antioch.

And we do know that Revelation was transmitted to John via Jesus, (Rev 1:1), and he consistently referred to himself as the Son of Man or the Lamb, It is not until he judges mankind with the two-edged sword, (God's word), that he is given the name king of kings and Lord of lord's,(Rev 19:11,13,15,16). This is when the words of Ps 2:1-12 are fulfilled, ...The kings of the earth have taken their stand. And high officials have massed together as one. Against Jehovah and his anointed one /Christ/Messiah. This has not happened yet.

Yes, Jesus was not a great teacher, but a superlative one. He not only brought what was in the heart to the surface but taught that which would only be understood nearly two thousand years later at the dawn of a new day. Now is the time when we must kiss the Son that he may not become incensed ...Happy are those taking refuge in him.
LRW~

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Bing [Bot] and 1 guest