Saved or Saved Being Saved?

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

11.25.2020 06:21PM

Though which one becomes the most popular club depends primarily on who breeds the quickest.

Islamic societies have ALWAYS had a higher birth rate than Christian societies. Yet Christianity is almost double their number.

Sometimes I wonder if you are able to distinguish between facts and what your bias makes you feel. You certainly talk as if the distinction is lost on you.

#33

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

11.25.2020 10:32PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

t doesn't matter. Free Will that is, because according to your own god we don't really "choose" anything. There is a set plan by god and everything will go according to that plan. The bible was the first source of determinism. Lmao

The Bible is not deterministic in the sense of Plato and Aristotle. Unlike the greek notion, the bible distinguishes between first and second causes. It also is an example of covenantal determinism. The greek understanding is of absolutes. Some describe it in terms of rock logic. The biblical notion is not black and white or hard rock absolutes.

Determinism in the greek understanding is also a determinism that is fatalistic - one without any feeling or personality. The biblical model is one where personality is entirely part and parcel with it.

The bible clearly talks of God completing what he begun. And that his will be completed entirely.

Yet it also clearly talks of humans being responsible for their own sin and needing to be saved from it.

Hence, your paragraph above is clearly flawed. It does not deal with free will - as the Bible does. You simply dismiss it - because you have a flawed and greek understanding of determinism.

Yet that does not surprise me. You need to read wider than you are currently.

#34

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

11.25.2020 10:39PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

This is a non-sequitur, in the case that you KNOW for an absolute fact that a person would commit genocide, then yes it is absolutely right to never have that child. God apparently KNEW for an absolute fact, EVERYTHING. Beyond that, he was the one who made us unable to comprehend his reasoning, we are literally classically below him in intelligence, that means us being tempted or tricked is also his fault.

I am glad you are not my father. Why would you judge me before I had actually committed any offence - indeed even while I am still completely innocent? You cruel and evil person.

Just because you knew absolutely I would commit genocide - does not give you a legal or even a moral right to stop me from being born. And certainly not before I commenced doing such an evil act. You ought to instruct me to love others and to treat them well. Caution me not to do it. Instruct me that if I do anything like that, that I would be punished and receive the appropriate punishment. But you are not a loving father. You are cruel and twisted and even perverted because you think that I should be unjustly punished for offences I had not yet committed and which if you carried out your punishment - then I would never commit. In other words, your cruelty would be aggravated because I never got around to committing these offences. I am so pleased you are not my father.

Topic's author

#35

Debates: 0

Posts: 58

11.26.2020 01:19AM

-->

@RoderickSpode

That passage in 1st Corinthians 5, the fifth verse has the word may instead of will except in a few translations. May never necessitates will
A problem with saying "will" is it would require knowing the person was a genuine believer, or having a revelation that they will "become" a believer.

So there is a problem with saying will, as I was trying to say in the reply, but was partly working with the story you brought out, that's why I posted it under section 5. My apology. Here is section 3.

If a saved person continues in wilful sin, they will still be saved, but will need to undergo a severe process before being received into eternal joy.

How are you using "saved"? Are all your instances in this section about the afterlife only? If not, then there is something presently saved in a Christian that can be undone in some capacity.

As far as the problem with saying will, being that it would require knowing the person was a genuine believer, I don't think this is fair to the new testament. The texts repeatedly testifies to watching out for false teachers, describing their character and testing what they say with Scripture. For this reason I don't think measuring out a punishment has room for suspecting who is genuine.

I think the text suggests that Paul may have had doubts about the person's stance as a believer.

Why?

#36

RoderickSpode

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

RoderickSpode

11.26.2020 08:30PM

-->

@Lit

How are you using "saved"? Are all your instances in this section about the afterlife only? If not, then there is something presently saved in a Christian that can be undone in some capacity.

I'm not sure what you mean by something presently saved that can be undone.

As far as the problem with saying will, being that it would require knowing the person was a genuine believer, I don't think this is fair to the new testament. The texts repeatedly testifies to watching out for false teachers, describing their character and testing what they say with Scripture. For this reason I don't think measuring out a punishment has room for suspecting who is genuine.

I think the question revolves around how we treat the words, spoken or written by fully human saints of the bible.

Do we treat their words as golden, uninfluenced by human frailty as we would the direct word from God, and also Jesus in human form? Or words that are messages from God, spoken or written along with human influence?

An example would be the words from Paul to the Corinthians that if he had it his way, all Christian men would be single. This was a very admiral statement. Even a Godly statement. And the reason is that Paul wanted to see Christian men completely free to serve God without the distractions of marriage.

However, it's not something that Jesus/God would suggest because if every man on earth became a believer after Pentecost and remained celibate, there would be no

reproduction, and humans would die out.

Another example.

Sometimes prophets spoke the direct word of God without their humanity manifesting itself. And sometimes they said things very human. The prophet Nathan was fairly straight forward when he gave God's message to King David concerning the sin involving Bathsheba. But even there he qualified his prophesy by giving the king a scenario so that David could better relate to the prophesy. And Nathan probably did that because he wanted to be tactful, thinking that the king might not respond very well to just being told that he sinned. That was Nathan's human side if that's the case. Obviously God wouldn't worry about any retaliation when giving a straight forward message.

Did Paul have the same kind of insight Jesus had about the condition of another person's soul? Jesus could tell for instance that the thief on the cross would be with him in paradise. Paul on the other hand probably had a realization that the chaff could appear like the wheat. And unless he had an accurate direct revelation from God, there had to be that room for error no matter how slight. He at times spoke with positive affirmation, stating he had confidence that God would see believers like the Philippians into his kingdom. But that still leaves room for sleight doubt because he understood it's not guaranteed. Like when we tell some we know they will succeed, we have to leave room for error even though we are expressing absolute confidence because we know the possibility of failure is still there. We can't say they can't fail even if they tried to because the affirming word is not a physical law disallowing failure.

So if we ponder Paul's words allowing for his humanness to manifest, then I don't see any real problem with what I said. But if the bible only records the word's of Paul that are divine without human influence, then that's another story.

I think the text suggests that Paul may have had doubts about the person's stance as a believer.

Why?

Well Paul did make judgments about the condition of some follower's soul as not being genuine believers when he referred to those who left them. Paul considered them as those who were never of them. And if they were, they never would have left. And these were those who had fellowship with believers living under persecution, like those Jesus referred to when giving the parable of the sower.

So Paul may have viewed the man in sin positively to some degree because at least he didn't actually leave the fellowship.

However, there may have been some doubt because this was in Corinth, where a Christian could probably have had one foot in the church, and the other in the world.

Topic's author

#37

Debates: 0

Posts: 58

11.26.2020 09:27PM

-->

@Stephen

Does Christianity present salvation as a whole, in the afterlife, or are Christians saved while being saved?

Christians can never make their minds up when it comes what they call to being "saved".

For instance, when the subject of "innocent" children being killed for no reason by god or anyone else, Christians stampede to tell us that the children "weren't innocent" as we are all sinful because our ancestor/s had listened to a snake instead of god.

Ok let's accept that on the face of it, for now.

But then along comes John the Baptist, seemingly without any authority, teaching people to pray going around baptising others in a ritual that scriptures says washes away our sins as long as we repent and believe Example:

Mark 1:4 And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Let's notice what it is not saying. It is not saying John was preaching a baptism for repentance for the forgiveness of sins, but a baptism of repentance. If it was for repentance then we could definitely conclude that repentance demanded a condition other than recognition. Baptism just means being fully immersed in, the Jews used water as a symbol of this definition but John elsewhere also speaks of a baptism by fire, and by the Holy Ghost.

and to make this clear Paul in says the same in ( Acts 22:16)

as does Peter (Acts 2:38)

Being baptized into a name is different than being baptized for a name. The latter could symbolize the former but the former can't symbolize the latter because the former is dealing with identification. Being baptized into a name is fully immersing oneself into the character of the name. By immersing oneself into the character or image of a name, one becomes baptized, or fully immersed, and the course of things is an inevitable receiving of their spirit, the way of their disposition. I doubt this to be true only for Christianity and Jesus. Pick any influential person, model your way after theirs and you will have essentially been immersed into their way of thinking, identifying yourself as their follower. This person might even have an action that symbolizes a deeper connection between you and them, but is not the thing itself that makes you their follower.

and Lukes gospel (Luke 3:3)

So here we now are, according to the above, cleansed of our sins , all's forgiven all back in the state of innocents. It must have felt like they had been born all over again to those sinners. Nice and clean just out the wrapper, lovely, brilliant and absolute smashing we are all going to heaven or paradise, take your pick.

But then, along comes Jesus/ God and son of himself. He speaks a few bias and contradictory parables, tell us to give all our hard earned worldly goods to the poor while the bible tells us the end is nigh (which one has to wonder how giving away one's worldly goods benefits the poor if the end is just around the corner) and love him/god and one another and THEN! Christians tell us that - after being beaten to within to inches of his life , he suffered the most HORRIFIC execution ever dreamed up by man AND - HE - DIED!?

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son [ that would be giving himself as ransom for himself], that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

WHY? Well you may well ask , Lit. By all accounts it was to "save us from our sins" that we didn't even have ! That is if we are to believe Mark 1:4 & Peter (Acts 2:38) & (Luke 3:3) & John 3:16 & ( Acts 22:16)

What is anyone to make of this garbled nonsense?

I think first we have to understand what we're dismissing. Religious matters can't be expected to be understood by words alone but by understanding who we are as humans. We don't speak only one tone but we have a multitude of ways to get across to each other what we're saying and religion exemplifies our understanding of non-literal language.

#38

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,322

11.27.2020 12:23PM

-->

@Lit

Mark 1:4 And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. [A]
Lit, wrote: Let's notice what it is not saying. It is not saying John was preaching a baptism for repentance for the forgiveness of sins, [B] but a baptism of repentance.

Well I am sorry but it clearly does say exactly that "preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins". So first compare A & B ^^^^. I do hope you are not going to continue denying what the scriptures actually DO say.? Just as I predicted on this very thread at post #3

So now then compare if you will>>

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)

“Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. “(Acts 2:38)

“John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4-5)

“And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 3:3)

Let's notice what it is not saying.

No, lets not. I am only interested in what the scriptures actaully DO say. Not what you want them to or even attempt to speculate what they are saying.

I don't care about speculation, imagination, conjecture, your theories. these scriptures are supposed to be the " breathed words of god himself". I am sure they wasn't written for anyone to speculate about or theorise what he- god meant or jump to any conclusions or interpreted to what one may only believe is being conveyed. Why would god even leave room for error?

and to make this clear Paul in says the same in ( Acts 22:16)

as does Peter (Acts 2:38)
Being baptized into a name is different than being baptized for a name. The latter could symbolize.....................

Lets get get this right, nowhere does JOHN THE BAPTIST baptise anyone IN or FOR the name of anyone. Nowhere.

Christians may well have done so when they come on the scene and said Jesus was god, but I am referring to, and talking about repentance and the forgiven sins as clearly described in the scriptures and being saved, as per OP.

You are wasting your own time and mine by attempting to go off on your own tangent by injecting your own ideas and theories of what "could be" or what something "could" mean. It is what ONLY the scriptures themselves CLEARLY say that interests me.

My concerns are that we are first washed of our sins by John via a ritual of baptism. And then along comes Jesus who appears to decide we are not clean enough and takes it upon himself that he must PAY with his LIFE! for my sins that had already been washed away by Johns baptismal ritual.

Besides, the idea that I would ask or want anyone to suffer for my crimes or sins is abhorrent and it appalls me. Neither my brother nor Jesus is my keeper. And I will suffer and bare my own cross, as it is I, that am responsible for my own actions.

Religious matters can't be expected to be understood by words alone but by understanding who we are as humans.

Well I for one wouldn't and don't know anyone that would accept or expect someone going to the gallows and die for me. Especially without my consent.

We [religious people] don't speak only one tone but we have a multitude of ways to get across to each other what we're saying

Yes I bet you do. I imagine you pray for an all size fits answer to every question posed to you now that old excuse of "the lord works in mysterious ways" had had its day.

and religion exemplifies our understanding of non-literal language.

Well the bible is completely literal and if it is "gods word" and the "word is god" I can only say he is the most backward illiterate monster in the whole of the scriptures.

I am sorry but your imaginative word salad does not explain why we are cleansed by Johns hands after repenting and then Christians tell us years later that Jesus died for the sins of everyone in the whole world that we were already cleansed of.

Does Jesus ever once tell his Jewish disciples that he will, and is, voluntary going to be put to death for their sins, . ?

#39

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,322

11.27.2020 04:44PM

-->

@Tradesecret

The bible clearly talks [................................] Yet it also clearly talks of humans being responsible for their own sin and needing to be saved from it.

Hence, your paragraph above is clearly flawed. #33 Tradesecret

And the bible seems to be "saying" a lot here, doesn't it Reverend ? Now either what you say the bible says is flawed or what the bible itself says is flawed? I am not quite sure which.

I need to know first if are you taking responsibility for what you say "the bible says" or are you going to to show us where about in the bible it actually " clearly talks of humans being responsible for their own sins ?

Topic's author

#40

Debates: 0

Posts: 58

11.27.2020 05:34PM

-->

@Stephen

Mark 1:4 And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. [A]
Lit, wrote: Let's notice what it is not saying. It is not saying John was preaching a baptism for repentance for the forgiveness of sins, [B] but a baptism of repentance.

Well I am sorry but it clearly does say exactly that "preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins". So first compare A & B ^^^^. I do hope you are not going to continue denying what the scriptures actually DO say.? Just as I predicted on this very thread at post #3

I have compared and found that we're in agreement. The text says of repentance and not for repentance.

So now then compare if you will>>

And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)

“Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. “(Acts 2:38)

“John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4-5)

“And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 3:3)

Let's notice what it is not saying.
No, lets not. I am only interested in what the scriptures actaully DO say. Not what you want them to or even attempt to speculate what they are saying.
I don't care about speculation, imagination, conjecture, your theories. these scriptures are supposed to be the " breathed words of god himself". I am sure they wasn't written for anyone to speculate about or theorise what he- god meant or jump to any conclusions or interpreted to what one may only believe is being conveyed. Why would god even leave room for error?

Reading involves doing a lot of things when trying to understand what's being said, and considering things that aren't said is one of the things that helps a person to comprehend better what texts actually do say.

and to make this clear Paul in says the same in ( Acts 22:16)

as does Peter (Acts 2:38)
Being baptized into a name is different than being baptized for a name. The latter could symbolize.....................

Lets get get this right, nowhere does JOHN THE BAPTIST baptise anyone IN or FOR the name of anyone. Nowhere. Christians may well have done so when they come on the scene and said Jesus was god, but I am referring to, and talking about repentance and the forgiven sins as clearly described in the scriptures and being saved, as per OP.

If you were referring to John the Baptist then it doesn't make sense to bring up a place where John isn't mentioned. My response was to the Acts reference.

You are wasting your own time and mine by attempting to go off on your own tangent by injecting your own ideas and theories of what "could be" or what something "could" mean. It is what ONLY the scriptures themselves CLEARLY say that interests me.

Wasting time? This is an online forum board, we can come and go when we please. You cannot here waste my time and neither can I yours.

If we don't take into account though the nuances of human expression then anything we read won't be clear, nor give us the chance to receive clarity.

My concerns are that we are first washed of our sins by John via a ritual of baptism. And then along comes Jesus who appears to decide we are not clean enough and takes it upon himself that he must PAY with his LIFE! for my sins that had already been washed away by Johns baptismal ritual.

Besides, the idea that I would ask or want anyone to suffer for my crimes or sins is abhorrent and it appalls me. Neither my brother nor Jesus is my keeper. And I will suffer and bare my own cross, as it is I, that am responsible for my own actions.

Religious matters can't be expected to be understood by words alone but by understanding who we are as humans.

Well I for one wouldn't and don't know anyone that would accept or expect someone going to the gallows and die for me. Especially without my consent.

We [religious people] don't speak only one tone but we have a multitude of ways to get across to each other what we're saying

Yes I bet you do. I imagine you pray for an all size fits answer to every question posed to you now that old excuse of "the lord works in mysterious ways" had had its day.

I don't know why you're imagining this. I'll definitely be curious if it's based off things I have said though, not because of what I have said but because you don't care to speculate or imagine when reading text. You said this about Scriptures but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

and religion exemplifies our understanding of non-literal language.

Well the bible is completely literal and if it is "gods word" and the "word is god" I can only say he is the most backward illiterate monster in the whole of the scriptures.

I am sorry but your imaginative word salad does not explain why we are cleansed by Johns hands after repenting and then Christians tell us years later that Jesus died for the sins of everyone in the whole world that we were already cleansed of.

Does Jesus ever once tell his Jewish disciples that he will, and is, voluntary going to be put to death for their sins, . ?

I can assume right away you're not Christian and you're asking someone who is interested as well in learning these things.

#41

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,322

11.27.2020 06:58PM

Let's notice what it is not saying.
No, lets not.

Reading involves doing a lot of things when trying to understand what's being said, and considering things that aren't said is one of the things that helps a person to comprehend better what texts actually do say.

Possibly but inserting words into the text is not one of them.

Lets get get this right, nowhere does JOHN THE BAPTIST baptise anyone IN or FOR the name of anyone.
If you were referring to John the Baptist then it doesn't make sense to bring up a place where John isn't mentioned. My response was to the Acts reference.

Opinion. It makes perfect sense because the crux is that John and those other verses All speak of "repentance and or forgiveness of sins". John T B doesn't even mention "in the name of anyone " but they all mention washing away "for the forgiveness of sins".

You are wasting your own time and mine by attempting to go off on your own tangent by injecting your own ideas and theories of what "could be" or what something "could" mean. It is what ONLY the scriptures themselves CLEARLY say that interests me.
Wasting time? This is an online forum board, we can come and go when we please. You cannot here waste my time and neither can I yours.

You are mine and I have explained why above. But , if you don't think you are wasting your own time then you bang away typing you word salad on that key board..

If we don't take into account though the nuances of human expression then anything we read won't be clear, nor give us the chance to receive clarity.

The only thing we can take into account is what is written. Injecting ones own unprovable beliefs into these "god breathed" scriptures only serves to distort even further this contradictory ambiguous mess and the way they have come down to us in. But you do appear to be admitting that they are not clear. Kudos for that.

Does Jesus ever once tell his Jewish disciples that he will, and is, voluntary going to be put to death for their sins, . ?
I can assume right away you're not Christian and you're asking someone who is interested as well in learning these things.

Are you? It comes across to me that you are only come here to defend these ancient and unreliable scriptures full of ambiguous half stories.

And I am not a practicing christian if that is what your asking. It was all arranged by the church against my so called "free will". As was my fathers and my fathers fathers father and at time when the church still had a pretty firm grip on the conscience of men.

I have compared and found that we're in agreement. The text says of repentance and not for repentance.

Well not quite true is it. First of all we are talking the washing away of sins and the path to being "saved"

You wrote:

Let's notice what it is not saying. It is not saying John was preaching a baptism for repentance for the forgiveness of sins, but a baptism of repentance.

“John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4-5)

So you want to play semantics and argue "for" as apposed to "of", where it mentions repentance. Ok I will accept that for what it is worth.

But the point being made at post #29 is to do with innocence and being saved (twice) by the "washing away of ones sins" . Three of those verse don't even mention the name of anyone. Two don't even mention the word repentance . Three mention forgiveness . And the one that does speak of the Christ was written by Christians well after the JEW Christ was crucified dead and buried. So take your pick, they are all concerned with washing and cleansing ones sins.

So lets not drift away from what we do know into the realms of what the scriptures do not even mention.

See below

“And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)

“Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. “(Acts 2:38)

“John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4-5)

“And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 3:3)

Topic's author

#42

Debates: 0

Posts: 58

11.29.2020 03:36AM

-->

@Stephen

Let's notice what it is not saying.
No, lets not.

Reading involves doing a lot of things when trying to understand what's being said, and considering things that aren't said is one of the things that helps a person to comprehend better what texts actually do say.
Possibly but inserting words into the text is not one of them.

Lets get get this right, nowhere does JOHN THE BAPTIST baptise anyone IN or FOR the name of anyone.
If you were referring to John the Baptist then it doesn't make sense to bring up a place where John isn't mentioned. My response was to the Acts reference.

Opinion. It makes perfect sense because the crux is that John and those other verses All speak of "repentance and or forgiveness of sins". John T B doesn't even mention "in the name of anyone " but they all mention washing away "for the forgiveness of sins".

One doesn't follow after an influential person without first knowing them. If you want to go by Scriptures only, then by Scriptures alone we can say John came to prepare "the" way.

Luke 1:17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous - to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

Mark 1:2-3 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way. "A voice of one calling in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'"

Matthew 3:3 This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: "A voice of one calling in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'"

John 1:23 John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.'"

You are wasting your own time and mine by attempting to go off on your own tangent by injecting your own ideas and theories of what "could be" or what something "could" mean. It is what ONLY the scriptures themselves CLEARLY say that interests me.
Wasting time? This is an online forum board, we can come and go when we please. You cannot here waste my time and neither can I yours.
You are mine and I have explained why above. But , if you don't think you are wasting your own time then you bang away typing you word salad on that key board..

If we don't take into account though the nuances of human expression then anything we read won't be clear, nor give us the chance to receive clarity.
The only thing we can take into account is what is written. Injecting ones own unprovable beliefs into these "god breathed" scriptures only serves to distort even further this contradictory ambiguous mess and the way they have come down to us in. But you do appear to be admitting that they are not clear. Kudos for that.

Does Jesus ever once tell his Jewish disciples that he will, and is, voluntary going to be put to death for their sins, . ?
I can assume right away you're not Christian and you're asking someone who is interested as well in learning these things.

Are you? It comes across to me that you are only come here to defend these ancient and unreliable scriptures full of ambiguous half stories.

The answer is yes. I am always interested in learning. One has to state their thoughts in order to garner feedback and correction, yes?

If we view the bible through a completely literal lens, we have essentially stopped thinking that men wrote it. Still, if we have the expectation that the bible is about saving man and that it's a diety's words, should we excise the very part of humanity that helps us understand better - language? Humans don't communicate that way all the time, and true still, if in conversation we take everything said literally, we'd have a difficult time following the flow of it. It isn't just the bible that marks of humanity in this way, so it would be weird to read it as an outlier in this respect.

And I am not a practicing christian if that is what your asking. It was all arranged by the church against my so called "free will". As was my fathers and my fathers fathers father and at time when the church still had a pretty firm grip on the conscience of men.

I have compared and found that we're in agreement. The text says of repentance and not for repentance.

Well not quite true is it. First of all we are talking the washing away of sins and the path to being "saved"

You wrote:

Let's notice what it is not saying. It is not saying John was preaching a baptism for repentance for the forgiveness of sins, but a baptism of repentance.
“John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4-5)

So you want to play semantics and argue "for" as apposed to "of", where it mentions repentance. Ok I will accept that for what it is worth.

First we have to agree what we mean by saved. Is it only the soul? Then I see no need for obedience. Is it only the body? Then being physically immersed into water would do, if that's what the religion taught. If the spirit is saved first, and not the physical body or the soul, then the path to being saved has to start neither with obedience or any physical act, but a turning around in the heart. A turned around heart is ready and prepared.

But the point being made at post #29 is to do with innocence and being saved (twice) by the "washing away of ones sins" . Three of those verse don't even mention the name of anyone. Two don't even mention the word repentance . Three mention forgiveness . And the one that does speak of the Christ was written by Christians well after the JEW Christ was crucified dead and buried. So take your pick, they are all concerned with washing and cleansing ones sins.

So lets not drift away from what we do know into the realms of what the scriptures do not even mention.

See below

“And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)

“Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. “(Acts 2:38)

“John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4-5)

“And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 3:3)

#43

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,322

11.29.2020 04:50PM

-->

@Lit

One doesn't follow after an influential person without first knowing them.

Which is exactly what his disciples did do , didn't they? Jesus spoke some words and as if by some miracle dropped everything.

Matthew 4

Mark1:16-20. tells us much the same

Luke nor John don't mention the "calling"

And all without some much as a goodbye to family, any children they may have had, and possible wives that may have been left behind, not to mention homes, businesses and leaving their own father in the lurch. And they by all accounts had only just him face to face. where as, you didn't see him at all. But follow him you did, didn't you? Are you an honest person?

Are we to believe this story at all at face value? Is the story wrong? Is it right? Or is it just another biblical ambiguous half story that I keep mentioning that most here deny, and where one has to use imagination and fill in the blanks with assumptions with only very little information to go? If so, then yours would be as good as mine... with a few differences. I don't believe Jesus was the son of god and I don't believe that he performed a single miracle either. And I know that you can never explain them away without defaulting to the supernatural.

First we have to agree what we mean by saved.

Its your thread. Why don't you start by telling us what you mean by " being saved"? And what it is you believe we are being saved from & by who one is being saved and why?

#44

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875