Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

|re: Note 1324.0                       "Christians"                        No replies
|CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Mirthful Mystic"                   5 lines   5-FEB-1997 18:12
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    Have you ever noticed how we tend to speak of ourselves as the genuine
|    article and refer to others as "Christians" (an ingenuine article)?
|    
|    Richard
 
    Richard,
    
     I think most who use "Christian" use it to include a large group of 
    people who profess a "Christian" type belief. When they speak of themselves
    they are refering to a subset or unique group.
    
    robin    

    I suppose the definition varies a lot.  Just finished an excellent book
    about Ghandi.  He called hiimself a Christian (and a Hindu, and a
    Moslem,  and a Jew...amoung others) meaning that he believed in what he
    perceived was Jesus' message.  Others would deny his Christianity
    flatly because he did not accept Jesus in the same way they do.  And
    then Ghandi questioned the christianity of many west europeans of the
    time, being as they were engaged in world wars, exploitational
    imperialism and wealth gathering.  
                                       
    So was he (or any of us for that matter) a christian?  I suppose it all
    depends on how you interpret Jesus' message.

    -dave
    
    

    Ghandi's position on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ would
    determine whether he was regenerated or not.  This of course, only he
    knows.
    
    -Jack

 What do we know about those who were first called "Christians" in Acts
 chapter 11?




 Jim

    RE .3 (Jack)
    
    >Ghandi's position on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ would
    >determine whether he was regenerated or not.
    
    ...in the opinion of you and others like you who have interpreted
    scripture in that particular way.  Ghandi saw Jesus' message to be
    somewhat different.  Does that make him wrong?
    
    -dave

>    Ghandi's position on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ would
>    determine whether he was regenerated or not.  This of course, only he
>    knows.

What I hear you say here, Jack, is that unless someone agrees with
you on the death and resurrection of Christ, they are not a christian.

Tom

11:1  And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles
 had also received the word of God.

11:2  And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the
 circumcision contended with him,

11:3  Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

11:4  But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by
 order unto them, saying,

11:5  I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A
 certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by
 four corners; and it came even to me:

11:6  Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw
 fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and
 fowls of the air.

11:7  And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.

11:8  But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time
 entered into my mouth.

11:9  But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that
 call not thou common.

11:10  And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.

11:11  And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the
 house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me.

11:12  And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these
 six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house:

11:13  And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and
 said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

11:14  Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be
 saved.

11:15  And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the
 beginning.

11:16  Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed
 baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

11:17  Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who
 believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

11:18  When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God,
 saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

11:19  Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose
 about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching
 the word to none but unto the Jews only.

11:20  And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were
 come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.

11:21  And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and
 turned unto the Lord.

11:22  Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was
 in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as
 Antioch.

11:23  Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted
 them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.

11:24  For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much
 people was added unto the Lord.

11:25  Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:

11:26  And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to
 pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught
 much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

11:27  And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.

11:28  And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit
 that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass
 in the days of Claudius Caesar.

11:29  Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to
 send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:

11:30  Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas
 and Saul.

7:13  Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the
 way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

7:14  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto
 life, and few there be that find it.

7:15  Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but
 inwardly they are ravening wolves.

7:16  Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or
 figs of thistles?

7:17  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
 bringeth forth evil fruit.

7:18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
 bring forth good fruit.

7:19  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into
 the fire.

7:20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

7:21  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
 kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

7:22  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in
 thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many
 wonderful works?

7:23  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye
 that work iniquity.

evil fruit.....not a good thing, eh?

 Z   ...in the opinion of you and others like you who have interpreted
 Z       scripture in that particular way.  Ghandi saw Jesus' message to be
 Z       somewhat different.  Does that make him wrong?
    
    Depends on what element of Christian teaching.  There are actually very
    few principles touted in here that in my opinion are incorrect.  The
    social gospel is correct, loving thy neighbor is correct, etc.  There
    are lots of biblical principles that can apply to every life.
    
    One who doesn't believe in the death and resurrection of Christ, and
    the blood of Jesus cleansing them from sin, then one has no choice but
    to be culpable for their own sin.
    
    -Jack

    Lord I'm ready now
    I'm waiting for your triumphant return
    Your coming so soon
    This world has nothing for me
    I find my peace and joy solely in you
    Only in you
    I want the world to see that you're alive and living well in me
    Let me be a part of the harvest
    For the days are few
    He's coming soon
    
    {Chorus}
    |: So people get ready
    Jesus is coming
    Soon we'll be going home
    People get ready
    Jesus is coming
    To take from the world His own :|
    
    There will be a day
    When we will be divided right and left
    For those who know Him
    And those who do not know
    Those who know Him well
    Will meet Him in the air, Hallelujah!
    God is with us
    Those who do not know
    They will hear "Depart I knew you not."
    For my friends you see
    There will be a day when we'll be counted
    So know Him well, know Him well

    It's Gandhi.
         ^^^^^^
    
    I can handle misspellings.  A man's name is somehow different.
    
    Richard
    

    RE .10 (Jack)
    
    >One who doesn't believe in the death and resurrection of Christ, and
    >the blood of Jesus cleansing them from sin, then one has no choice
    >but to be culpable for their own sin.
    
    ...in your opinion and in accordance to your interpretation of
    the ressurection story.  Right?  
    
    Let me ask you this, how many angles appeared at the tomb the morning
    of the ressurection?  You can get 3 different answers depending on
    which gospel you read.  Because of cases like this, it's clear that
    something was lacking in the process of writting it all down and
    indeed, brings to question whether the whole story was fabricated.  So
    what does the story of the ressurection mean?  If the gospels fail to
    give a clear literal recounting of what happened, then maybe it should
    all be taken in a less than literal way.  
    
    "Gandhi" (thanks Richard) read the gospels and found great truths in
    them.  He took to heart Jesus' message with a courage and commmitment
    lacking in 99.99% of the christians I know.  He walked the walk when it
    came to living as Jesus perscribed...without material wealth, in
    non-violence, and with unconditional love and acceptance of everyone. 
    It's been said of Gandhi that perhaps the greatest christian that ever
    lived wasn't even a christian.  Officers of the catholic church
    pleaded with him to convert, claiming that he'd be cannonized as a
    saint if he did.  He walked the walk and saw that simply paying lip
    service to Jesus wasn't enough (citing the passage "Not all those who say
    Lord, Lord...") as scriptural justification for his claim and actions.
    
    And his interpretation is wrong?  He's doomed to Hell?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                            

|    Let me ask you this, how many angles appeared at the tomb the morning
|    of the ressurection?  You can get 3 different answers depending on
    
    Angles?  How about acute, obtuse, and supplementary?! ;-)

  z    ...in your opinion and in accordance to your interpretation of
  z      the ressurection story.  Right? 
    
    Dave, my opinion isn't based strictly on the gospel accounts.  The need
    of Messiah is blended and woven into the entire Old Testament.  The
    Jews are still awaiting the messiah and the regenerated believers
    recognize Jesus as that person.  So, there is a universal understanding
    of the need for redemption.
    
    One of the greatest fallacies of mankind is to assume that since 99.99%
    of Christians don't act like Christians...which is apparently what
    Ghandi did, the essence of the belief is a hoax and anything relating
    to the essence of said belief is null and void.  This is a very
    dangerous and bad assumption to make.  Regardless of the bad testimony,
    we are still going to be held culpable for our sin.
    
    It sounds Dave, like you and I came from the same school of thought.  A
    loving God would never......
    
    Again, dangerous assumption to make.  Israel who was the apple of God's
    eye was sent into exile and only a remnant came out.  The times of
    Noah, fact or fable, identify God's holy nature...only eight persons
    were saved through the water.  The rest of the world perished.
    
    It all comes down to belief.  You asked the question if Ghandi was
    going to hell....because he didn't believe in my interpretation of
    scripture.  I provided an answer by saying that Ghandi, regardless of
    the poor testimony he witnessed, will still be culpable for his sin.
    
    This is something we all need to reflect on, for our days are numbered.
    
    -Jack

================================================================================
Note 1324.12     Use in quotation marks of the term 'Christians'        12 of 15
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Mirthful Mystic"                   7 lines   6-FEB-1997 16:53
                                -< The Mahatma >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It's Gandhi.
         ^^^^^^
    
    I can handle misspellings.  A man's name is somehow different.
    
    Richard
    

    RE .15 (Jack)

    First, let me say that I appreciate this conversation and that I'm very
    interested in and respect what you have to say.

    Perhaps the missing component here, as in so many other instances, is
    your belief that the Bible is all truth.  Given that, the OT
    prophecies, the gospels, and the writtings of Paul and the others... ALL
    being accepted as truth, then I can see why you hold the position that
    you do.  But without this sort of mindset, it's easy to see why others
    believe differently.

    >One of the greatest fallacies of mankind is to assume that since
    >99.99% of Christians don't act like Christians...

    I do not believe that the essence of the christian belief is
    compromised in any way by the action (or inaction) of it's followers.
    After all, christians are mere people who don't always "hit the mark"
    when it comes to practicing what Jesus taught.  But I find it astonishing
    that someone who apparently hit very close to this mark wasn't even a
    christian.  Or was he?

    Gandhi read the Bible too.  He did not accept it as being cover to cover
    truth, but, like those who do accept it as truth, he filtered what he
    read and acted on what seemed to be true.  For example, Jesus
    instructed someone to sell all that he had and follow him.  99.99% of
    the christian community finds a way to read around this such that they
    get to keep all their posessions.  I mean hey, selling all that you
    have and living in poverty is not a thing we're all eager to do, so,
    interpretational license is applied, the passage is re-evaluated with a
    squinted eye, the passage gets watered down somewhat and we get to keep
    our posessions.  The passage is still seen as being a source of truth,
    but not to be taken so literally.  This is practiced by all christians,
    save perhaps some Franciscan monks or the like.

    In a similar way, Ghandi may have been uncomforatble with accepting
    Jesus as being God.  So, he took a look at the passages that made this
    claim, squinited his eye and found "Jesus as Messiah" to be something
    more akin to "Jesus saved all who follow him by setting an excellent
    example.  He pointed the way to God through this example, his life.
    No one gets to God but through him (follow his example)".  Much, much
    more palletable to Ghandi and he is no more guilty of failing to live
    up to Jesus' message than a christian who fails to sell all that he has.


    >...will still be culpable for his sin.

    Perhaps we're all culpable for our sins, regardless of what we believe.
    If our beliefs are based on how we interpret scripture, and that
    interpretation is flawed, then even believing christians may be
    culpable.  "Not all those who say 'Lord, Lord'... but those who do
    God's work..." (I wish I knew the proper ref to this one).  Also,
    Jesus admired the Good Samaritan as doing God's work, someone who would
    not be claiming Jesus as Lord (except, perhaps, through his actions).
    I can't help but imagine Jesus pointing to that little man in a loincloth,
    living in a hut in India somewhere as being someone who was doing God's
    work. The "Good Indian" perhaps :-) ?


    Your thoughts?

    -dave

    Hi Dave...
    
    I have to leave but would love to continue Monday!
    
    In my view, the two core elements of the epistles and gospels are
    advocacy and mediatorship.  As stated, even the Israelites recognized
    the need for atonement...a sin covering.  
    
    Unfortunately, faith cannot be proven...except through actions.  I have
    to start by believing Jesus made a promise...if I don't start with
    this, I will be a skeptic throughout my life as a believer.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    All I know is Gondie's tomb is still full (as well as Buddha, Mohammed,
    Confucious, etc.), Jesus Christ's is still empty.

    Gandhi was cremated, his ashes spread out on the river Gangis.  And
    intentionally misspelling his name in a derogatory way is unworthy of
    anyone who claims to be a christian.
    
    Gandhi never claimed to be anything but a man.  He is and was, by his
    own words unworthy of worship.  Why you thought he ever was is beyond
    me.  Instead of judging the man as being evil, wrong and an occupant of
    Hell, you might want to open your mind (not to mention your heart) and
    take an honest glance at what he said and did.  Or are all non-christians
    unworthy of consideration of any kind?

    Buddha and Mohammed... both men as well.  Buddha wrote nothing and
    nothing was written about him in his time (sound familiar?).  The
    ultimate destiny of his earthly body is unknown and unimportant.  I
    seriously doubt someone who lived in poverty as he probably did would
    have been laid in a tomb. More like placed in a hole or cremated.

    Confucious was more of a political philosopher than a religious figure.
    He was held in high regard in his time and is probably still in some
    tomb somewhere.

    Jesus?  Who knows.  The 4 written accounts which describe this were
    written the better part of a century after the fact and are apparently
    not in synch. They were written by people who definately had a
    christian "agenda".  Scholars believe that Matthew and Luke borrowed
    the rusurrection story from Mark, dropping the original number of
    accounts to 2.  All other gospels which failed to mention the
    ressurection were summarily excluded from the Bible, probably in part
    for this very fact.  This would be laughable if we were talking about
    anything but a man which you hold to be a God.

    IMO, the body of Jesus is still lying in the earth somewhere, probably
    completely decomposed.  Think about it Mike. Where do you claim it went? 
    Did it float up into the air?  Is it in space, frozen solid, orbiting the
    earth?  Did it go to ferther out... to heaven?  How many kilometers did it
    have to travel in space to get there?  Does heaven keep things like
    physical bodies?  Immortal spirits, perhaps, but someone's body?  Do they
    eat in heaven?  Are there farms in heaven to feed it's occupants?  Houses?
    Furniture?  Bathrooms?  Don't you think it's more likely that his spirit
    ascended into heaven and his body left behind?  Didn't Jesus himself teach
    how unimportant the body is compared to the non-physical?

    Re: -1
    
|    Gandhi never claimed to be anything but a man.  He is and was, by his
|    own words unworthy of worship.  Why you thought he ever was is beyond
|    me.  Instead of judging the man as being evil, wrong and an occupant of
|    Hell, you might want to open your mind (not to mention your heart) and
    
    I never stated as you claim.  All I said is Jesus Christ is the only
    one with an empty tomb.  Over 500 eyewitnesses have testified to his
    resurrection.  If the case was tried in court today, it would be a slam
    dunk.  The rest don't even compare to Jesus Christ.
    
    Mike

    My hero's better than your hero.

    Oh, yeah?  Says who?

    Says me, that's who!

    Well, so's your old man!

    Why don't you just......!

    And you're just a ......!

    Only 1 Hero died for the sin of the world, and rose again.  His
    followers are the medals proudly displayed by the Hero.

| <<< Note 1324.19 by PHXSS1::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

| All I know is Gondie's tomb is still full (as well as Buddha, Mohammed,
| Confucious, etc.), Jesus Christ's is still empty.

	Maybe the others just aren't as restless! :-)

| <<< Note 1324.21 by PHXSS1::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>


| If the case was tried in court today, it would be a slam dunk.  

	No... it wouldn't. All the witnesses are dead ya see, and they are
still in their coffins. :-)



Glen

    RE .21
    
    If the case was tried in court today, the judge would want to talk to
    those 500 eyewitnesses, or at least have sworn depositions from them.
    You said there was testimony from these 500.  Where?  
    
    Slam Dunk?  Perhaps, but in the basket at the opposite end of the
    court.
    
    
    

 Z   IMO, the body of Jesus is still lying in the earth somewhere, probably
 Z   completely decomposed.
    
    This actually is an answer which determines whether one is or is not a
    Christian.  It has nothing to do with the social gospel and everything
    to do with the gospel of life and death.  
    
    Tom, I find your previous entry to lack merit and simply inflamatory.
    Write something that is going to add value.
    
    -Jack

.27

>    This actually is an answer which determines whether one is or is not a
>    Christian.  It has nothing to do with the social gospel and everything
>    to do with the gospel of life and death.  

The social gospel has everything to do with life and death.  To focus
exclusively on personal salvation is to ignor a significant chunk of
Jesus' teachings and also the prophets.
    
Richard

|    If the case was tried in court today, the judge would want to talk to
|    those 500 eyewitnesses, or at least have sworn depositions from them.
|    You said there was testimony from these 500.  Where?  
    
    There are both Biblical and extra-Biblical testimonies to this fact.
    
    Or you can run out and get a copy of "Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 
    Vol. 1" by Josh McDowell.  ISBN 0-918956-46-3 (Here's Life Publishers).  
    He's rolled most of it up into one book and is meticulous in outlining 
    all the evidence.
    
    Many people, including Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis, were former
    skeptics that gave their lives to Christ as a result of doing some
    honest research.
    
    Mike

    Richard:
    
    If you plant an apple in the ground, it will rot.  It won't grow an
    apple tree!
    
    -Jack

    RE: .27

    Oh, yee of little sense of humor.

    Re .27 (Jack) 
    
    >This actually is an answer which determines whether one is or is not..
    
    This was the sort of thing I was talking about last week.  It would
    appear that those who take the ressurection story literally as fact
    will hold it up as a criteria for determining what a christian is. 
    Other parts of who/what esus was/said are held in lower regard (the
    social gospel mentioned by Richard in .28) when it comes to being a
    criteria.  
    
    Why?  Why the resurrection story and not all the rest?  If the social
    gospel was not important, why did Jesus even bother to mention any of
    this.  If simple belief wass all that was needed, then why didn't he
    just say that and ommit all the rest?  Why do I see the passage "Not
    all those who say Lord, Lord..." being avoided by those who claim that
    simple belief is enough?  Why are my observations that the gospels have 
    differing accounts of the ressurection dismissed or not even responded
    to?  Is this stuff being avoided because it's uncomfortable to
    consider?  And then there's the Good Samaritan story. 
    
    You claim tht criteria "A, B and C" must be met to be a christian but
    not "E-Z".  Who makes the decisions about what's important and what's
    not?  For every gospel passage you pluck out to support this, there
    appears to be one which advocates the opposite.  
    
    Getting back to Gandhi, for the most part, he lived the social gospel
    (met criteria E-Z), yet you claim that he was not a christian because
    he didn't meet the criteria that you(?) chose to be important?  
    
    Glancing back to .17, I suggested that Gandhi was no more guilty of
    picking & choosing "palletable" gospel passages than you are.  Yes? No?
    
    
    
    
    Re .29 (Mike)
    
    >Or you can run out and get a copy of "Evidence that Demands a Verdict...
    
    Not an inexpensive book, but I did skim through it at the bookstore.  I 
    chose to look at the justification for the story of the flood.  He's quick
    to cite evidence like marine fossils on plateaus which are thousands of
    feet above sea level, but neglects to cite the geoligist's explanation
    that plateaus rise some sizable fraction of an inch per year, and that
    what is now 5000 feet high was underwater a few hundred thousand years ago
    (yesterday in geological time).  This type of gross omission of the
    counterpoints in this case makes me wonder how objective, fair or
    thourough he is or can be in presenting other points in his book.  Yet,
    I'll probably buy it someday and go through it. 
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Okay...Sorry Tom!  I didn't know ye were speaking in jest!!  :-)

Hi Dave:

Z    This was the sort of thing I was talking about last week.  It would
Z    appear that those who take the ressurection story literally as fact
Z    will hold it up as a criteria for determining what a christian is. 
Z    Other parts of who/what esus was/said are held in lower regard (the
Z    social gospel mentioned by Richard in .28) when it comes to being a
Z    criteria.  
    
Dave, this is the only non random element between Christianity and other
faiths.  The resurrection is the crux (no pun intended) of the redemptive
process needed in a person.  The issue of salvation or being a Christian does 
not rest in the hands of a person but in the beliefs of a person.  Jesus
constantly used the term believe when getting into a discussion on the nature
of sanctification and redemption.  The social gospel is NOT held in lower
regard but is only a sign or an extension of one's sanctification (holiness).

Z    Why?  Why the resurrection story and not all the rest?  If the social
Z    gospel was not important, why did Jesus even bother to mention any of
Z    this.  

I never claimed it was unimportant.  I claimed that it is of no relevance to
the eternal security of a believer...anymore than bringing a spouse flowers
everyday makes them any more married.

Z   If simple belief wass all that was needed, then why didn't he
Z   just say that and ommit all the rest?  Why do I see the passage "Not
Z    all those who say Lord, Lord..." being avoided by those who claim that
Z    simple belief is enough?  

This is important as it is a testimony to the fact that not all who profess 
God possess redemption.  I have found in my own personal experience that 
there are many I know, yea in my own family who have a profound and rooted
religious system in their lives and openly reject the simple message of 
redemption through the blood of Christ.  I am at a loss as to understand why..
but the sacrificial system is myred throughout the old and new testaments.

Z    Why are my observations that the gospels have 
Z    differing accounts of the ressurection dismissed or not even responded
Z    to?  Is this stuff being avoided because it's uncomfortable to
Z    consider?  And then there's the Good Samaritan story. 
 
My guess on this is that it was written to accomodate different audiences.  
Why would, for example, the readers of Mark's gospel care about lineages?  
They weren't Jewish and therefore didn't have an interest in such matters.  
   
Z    You claim tht criteria "A, B and C" must be met to be a christian but
Z    not "E-Z".  Who makes the decisions about what's important and what's
Z    not?  For every gospel passage you pluck out to support this, there
Z    appears to be one which advocates the opposite.  
 
As I said, the sacrificial system has been a theme throughout old and new 
testament history.  But the short answer is that Jesus stated who he was and
what his mission was.  You may remember Peter stating, "Oh Lord, may this never
be!"  Jesus response was what...."Get thee behind me Satan, for thou art an 
offense to me.  For thou seekest not after the will of God but of man!"
   
Z    Getting back to Gandhi, for the most part, he lived the social gospel
Z    (met criteria E-Z), yet you claim that he was not a christian because
Z    he didn't meet the criteria that you(?) chose to be important?  
 
Again, going strictly by presuppositions...because I don't really know what
Ghandi professed in his heart...Someone as described above can spend a 
lifetime engaged in the goodness of mankind.  Redemption can only...ONLY
come through the perfect sacrifice offered by God himself.  So Ghandi, while
he may have put everybody to shame, would still be in an unredeemed state, 
because we are not saved by works but by faith in the Son of God.
   
Z    Glancing back to .17, I suggested that Gandhi was no more guilty of
Z    picking & choosing "palletable" gospel passages than you are.  Yes? No?
 
Dave, consider this for a moment.  The blood sacrifice Jesus made is not a 
palletable gospel message.  In fact, I find the whole concept distateful...
that one so purely innocent would have to endure what he did.  This gospel
has been a bone of contention throughout history since the days of the
Caesars.  I accept it as truth because it was fulfilled by the savior and done
in a shroud of love and self sacrifice.  If Jesus did this for me, then it 
would be the most utterly contemptable act I could do in refusing such a great
gift.  To claim I could reach holiness on my own part reeks of piety and
self righteousness...that my pittance of good works could possibly measure up
to the provision of a holy God.

-Jack   

>I accept it as truth because it was fulfilled by the savior and done
>in a shroud of love and self sacrifice.  

    I don't doubt it.  It required great love.

>If Jesus did this for me, then it 
>would be the most utterly contemptable act I could do in refusing such a great
>gift.  

    Who's rejecting the gift?  Dave isn't saying it didn't happen or
    that it has no significance.  I feel that the act is one of *many*
    things Jesus did to teach us and inspire us to turn from sin and
    towards God.  That doesn't lessen the significance of it.

    Where we differ is in the interpretation of the gift, not its depth.

    I believe it is Love, Love and more Love.  You think it's a ransom.

    If our hearts are set right, does it matter how Jesus did it?

    About the gospels you wrote:

>My guess on this is that it was written to accomodate different audiences.  

    Jesus' life was orchestrated to do just that: to speak to all of us.
    We don't all hear the *same* thing, but we hear what is important,
    what speaks to and touches us.

    You hear sacrifice (love) and ransom (love).  I hear love.  Do you
    still think I have  no appreciation for Him?

>To claim I could reach holiness on my own part reeks of piety and
>self righteousness...that my pittance of good works could possibly measure up
>to the provision of a holy God.

    I'm not claiming otherwise.  If I actually thought I could get
    there myself I would have dumped this stuff long ago.  This is
    part of the lesson.

    Tom

  ZZ      I believe it is Love, Love and more Love.  You think it's a ransom.
    
    Correct...a payment which was a love act.  For God so loved the
    world...
    
    Your contention is that it is love love and more love.  I agree with
    this also.  If Jesus died as a mere martyr...a man who died for a
    political cause, then the application of his death is concretely
    meaningless.  It only has a symbolic meaning.  Jesus shed his blood for
    concrete purposes, not symbolic purposes.  The death of bulls and goats
    in the OT are symbolic of Christ's death.
    
  ZZ      If our hearts are set right, does it matter how Jesus did it?
    
    Yes, it absolutely does matter.  Any other methodology would have
    proven Jesus a false messiah because he would not have fulfilled the
    prophecies laid out by the ancient prophets.  Any other kind of death
    would have shown him to be a counterfeit.
    
    "Cursed be the man that hangs on a tree."  Paul explains this whole
    thing very well in Galatians 3.  
    
    -Jack

|    Re .29 (Mike)
|    
|    >Or you can run out and get a copy of "Evidence that Demands a Verdict...
|    
|    Not an inexpensive book, but I did skim through it at the bookstore.  I 
|    chose to look at the justification for the story of the flood.  He's quick
|    to cite evidence like marine fossils on plateaus which are thousands of
|    feet above sea level, but neglects to cite the geoligist's explanation
|    that plateaus rise some sizable fraction of an inch per year, and that
|    what is now 5000 feet high was underwater a few hundred thousand years ago
|    (yesterday in geological time).  This type of gross omission of the
|    counterpoints in this case makes me wonder how objective, fair or
|    thourough he is or can be in presenting other points in his book.  Yet,
|    I'll probably buy it someday and go through it. 
    
    We're definitely talking about 2 different books.  the one I mentioned
    above has nothing in it about the flood.

    I think a lot of the problem, at least for me, is in understanding the
    notion of authority here.  If I understand you correctly Jack, the
    WHOLE Bible must be considered when evaluating Jesus.  This includes
    the OT prophecies as well as what Paul and the rest had to say.  Given
    that, then it's clear that Jesus=Mesiah as layed out in the OT.  It's
    probably also clear that his life/death were for the purposes you layed
    out.  In this scenario, the Bible, not Jesus, is the authority. What
    Jesus had to say is part of the Bible, true enough, but it's only a
    small part, fragments in the 4 gospels.  
    
    I've been under the impression that christians regard the teachings of
    Jesus to be the core of christianity and "THE" figure of authority. 
    Doesn't matter what was written in stone or in the Torah... doesn't
    matter what others might say about him in his future...  what was
    cannonized, etc...  Jesus' words are #1.  I see Jesus' teachings as
    being a restating, or clarification of the OT teachings only this time
    directed to gentiles as well and in terms everyone, not just the
    pharisees, can understand and live by.  IOW, you don't need the OT and
    you don't need Paul and the gang because Jesus said it all.  From that
    perspective, and from the perspective that the Bible in not inerrant,
    I (and I think Tom, and Gandhi and others) come up with a different
    interpretation and indeed, perhaps a different definition for
    "christianity".
    
    -dave
                   

  Z      I've been under the impression that christians regard the teachings of
  Z      Jesus to be the core of christianity and "THE" figure of authority. 
  Z      Doesn't matter what was written in stone or in the Torah... doesn't
  Z      matter what others might say about him in his future...  what was
  Z      cannonized, etc...  Jesus' words are #1.  I see Jesus' teachings as
  Z      being a restating,
    
    I consider the individual teachings of Jesus to be core ELEMENTS of
    Christianity...again if I may use the analogy since Jesus refers to his
    relationship with the church as a bride/groom relationship.
    
    Bonding...compassion...mercy....perseverance...patience...many of which
    are ATTRIBUTES of Christianity but also a marriage.  As I stated to 
    Richard, a buried apple will rot in the ground because the fruit doesn't 
    bear a tree...it is the other way around.  The Sermon on the Mount
    stands as a masterpiece of clarifying the law of love.  He didn't
    assert these as the core of Christianity but the core elements.  The
    person of Jesus Christ is the core of Christianity...what he did on the
    cross, his power alone is what brings conversion to us.  
    
    Anybody in the world can exemplify a life of charity, compassion and
    integrity.  A Christian should above all things exemplify these
    attributes but one cannot be defined as a Christian solely by these
    kinds of marks...unfortunately.  Jesus spoke many times of wolves among
    the sheep.
    
    -Jack

    >a buried apple will rot in the ground because the fruit doesn't
    >    bear a tree...it is the other way around. 
    
    Not sure if I get this analogy, and not sure how far it can be pressed.
    But it's abundantly clear that many non-christians bear some wonderful
    fruit.  What does this say to you about the non-christian trees from
    which the fruits sprang?
    
    >He didn't assert these as the core of Christianity but the core elements.
    Why do you say that?  Why do you not see this sermon and other
    teachings as the core?
    
    >Anybody in the world can exemplify a life of charity, compassion and
    >integrity.
    
    Yes, if they have the courage and commitment to pursue it as St.
    Francis did (I'll spare you a reference to Gandhi here) they can come
    close.  Some see this as the road to salvation, namely, doing God's
    works.  Jesus at very least implied this many times.  For example, and
    again, the Good Samaritain, doing God's work gets you salvation, even
    if you're a disbeliever.  Also see Matthew 5:20 and 7:21 amoung others.
    All these speak to action, or doing God's will, and not mere belief.
    
    -dave
    

>    >He didn't assert these as the core of Christianity but the core elements.
>    Why do you say that?  Why do you not see this sermon and other
>    teachings as the core?

    Because the blood of Christ is what speaks to him.  It doesn't
    speak as strongly to us as His teachings.
    
    Jack,
    You said that the Bible, that you say is "God Breathed", has
    4 gospels to talk to the different temperments of people.

    God made us, on the one hand, similar, and on the  other, different.
    We hear and interpret things differently.

    For you, the blood of Christ is what you need for salvation.  That
    and His teachings.  But more the blood.  This is what pulls you to
    God and Christ.

    For us (Dave and I?), it is His teachings.  The sacrifice, though
    not insignificant, doesn't speak to us AS MUCH AS HIS TEACHING.

    We are all pulled towards Christ.  It doesn't matter what about
    Jesus draws us.  It is toward Jesus that we are drawn.

    I believe in His teachings.  They are the primary focus of my
    spiritual endeavors.  They are what I try to live up to.  That
    makes me a christian.

    Tom

    .30

>    If you plant an apple in the ground, it will rot.  It won't grow an
>    apple tree!

    I'm not much of a farm boy, Jack.  Where are the seeds of an apple
    tree if not in the fruit?
    
    Richard
    

    Well Richard, you have a point.  Many people buried apple cores (why
    waste that succulent fruit) to start another tree in the past.  when
    the weather dries out enough and they come into bloom, you can cruise
    several park paths I know of and see the apples that came from this
    sort of planting, as well as those from cores tossed out from cars
    along I25.  
    
    meg

    Well, okay...let me change the analogy to a seedless grape! :-)  Point
    being that fruit comes from the tree.  If all things are from God, our
    efforts are not driven by us but by the Spirit of God.
    
Z     For us (Dave and I?), it is His teachings.  The sacrifice, though
Z     not insignificant, doesn't speak to us AS MUCH AS HIS TEACHING.
    
    Tom, Christ' core teaching was that he was the bread of life.  I am
    truly amazed that you can attain such righteousness through your own
    efforts.  I certainly can't to this of myself.
    
Z        We are all pulled towards Christ.  It doesn't matter what about
Z        Jesus draws us.  It is toward Jesus that we are drawn.
    
    Tom, I am interested by who's authority you make this claim...that we
    are all pulled toward Christ.  And especially when Christ says that
    many are called but few are chosen.  
    
    
Z        I believe in His teachings.  They are the primary focus of my
Z        spiritual endeavors.  They are what I try to live up to.  That
Z        makes me a christian.
    
    Tom, Christ's teachings are on the need for redemption and
    sanctification.  
    
    Christianity is a belief system in a doctrine.  Acting Christian can be
    emulated by anybody who chooses to take upon themselves righteousness. 
    The key again isn't how good or bad you are...this is an established
    fact.  The question is what are we going to do about it?!  I choose to 
    have my sin...which is many, be cast away from me.  This is where the
    blood comes in.  No visit to any rest home...soup kitchen...yea even
    giving my own life can substitute for the sacrifice from a perfect God.
    
    -Jack

    I dunno Jack.  That's not how I'm reading the stuff in the gospels.
    Sure, there's the bread of life thing, but what does that mean?  He's
    not a piece of bread so the need to interpret this in some symbolic way
    is clearly in order.  He referred to himself as the way, but that could
    just mean he was a good example of how to behave.  It's all so vague.
    
    No one is without sin, that's true.  But I just read last night,
    somewhere in Matthew, where he said "forgive and you will be forgiven"
    and "judge and you shall be judged".  So a person loaded with sin who
    forgives and doesn't judge would seem to be in good standing.  Right?
    
    I'm inclined to agree with Tom when he said that we're all drawn toward
    Jesus.  I believe this to be true even of non-christians who have never
    heard of Jesus or never heard his message by reading a book.  I don't
    need to, and probably copund not cite a biblical passage to support
    this claim.  It's a matter of observation.
    
    >Christ's teachings are on the need for redemption and sanctification.
    
    Lookiong at it through the eyes of someone who casts Jesus in the role
    of the Messiah, then maybe.  Viewed on his own, without those
    constraints, then maybe not.
    
    
    >Acting Christian can be emulated by anybody
    
    And maybe that's enough.  In the game of hockey, you win games by
    scoring goals.  If I emulate Wayne Gretsky and score goals, I may
    just win a game or two.  It all depends on what you see as being
    important, action or belief.  If I sit at center ice simply believing 
    I can score goals, I'll lose.  In matters of religion, like hockey, I
    do not believe believing is enough.
    
    
    Got to go (got a game tonight :-) )
    
    -dave
    
    
    
    

    Jesus's words, his actions, his life.  These are what feed
    people.  It shows them how to live.  This is nurishment.

    You can include blood in this as well.  The blood is used
    only to carry the love.  I didn't say it wasn't important.
    But, compared to the rest of Jesus the Christ, it is not
    *the* most important thing about Him.

    Well, Jack.  I don't think we're going to agree on this one.

    Tom

     Z   Jesus's words, his actions, his life.  These are what feed
     Z   people.  It shows them how to live.  This is nurishment.
    
    Yeah...I would agree with this.  This isn't the subject of our
    discussion though.  The subject under discussion is redemption, to
    which you have yet to present a cogent resolution to the issue of 
    ridding ourselves of culpability for the sin nature.
    
    Z    You can include blood in this as well.  
    
    I'm all ears.  Was Jesus a savior or was he a political martyr?  
    
Z    The blood is used only to carry the love.  I didn't say it wasn't 
Z    important.  But, compared to the rest of Jesus the Christ, it is not
Z    *the* most important thing about Him.
    
    I don't understand the context of your first statement.  How exactly
    did his blood bring forth love to us?    As far as the second
    statement, I believe the most important thing about HIM is his
    personhood...who he is...his essence and nature.  As far as his
    purpose...his purpose was to die for mankind.  This is a clear and
    exact statement he made throughout his ministry.  
    
    -Jack

    Might we be culpable?  Maybe.  But we may not need to worry about them 
    if they are forgiven us.  "Forgive and you shall be forgiven".  
    
    Might we be judged?  Maybe.  But if if we're not judgemental of others
    then maybe we won't be judged either.  "Judge and you shall be judged".
    
    Maybe that's where redemption comes from.  Maybe it's granted on the
    basis of how forgiviong and non-judgemental you are to others.  
                              
    -dave

 Z    Might we be culpable?  Maybe.  But we may not need to worry about them 
 Z       if they are forgiven us.  "Forgive and you shall be forgiven"
    
    If we are culpable, then they are not forgiven...this is the whole
    point of the matter.  
    
    -Jack

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Hmmmmmm......
    
    
    Luke 6:37
    
    "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will
    not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
    
    Matthew 6:14
    "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father
    will also forgive you."
    
    Matthew 7:2
    For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the
    measure you use, it will be measured to you.
    
    John 8:15
    You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
    
    John 12:47-48
    "As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not
    judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it.
    There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my
    words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.
    
    (John 12 seems to indicate that Jesus is different than God.  Also,
    Jesus warns to accept his words... not accept impending sacrifice or
    advocate simple belief)
    
    
    Hmmmmmm.....
    
    

    There is equality in the Godhead, but there is still order.  Just as
    there is equality in body, soul, and spirit, but there is still order. 
    The spirit is the head in the life of a Christian.  The body is
    the head in the life of a non-Christian.

    RE: .47
    
>    I'm all ears.  Was Jesus a savior or was he a political martyr?  

    You seem to think that I think he was simply a martyr.  I've
    answered this several times.  Why do you keep asking?

>    I don't understand the context of your first statement.  How exactly
>    did his blood bring forth love to us?    

    I didn't say His blood brought forth love.  Spilling it was yet
    another way of Him showing His love.

>    As far as the second
>    statement, I believe the most important thing about HIM is his
>    personhood...who he is...his essence and nature.  As far as his
>    purpose...his purpose was to die for mankind.  This is a clear and
>    exact statement he made throughout his ministry.  

    If He were to simply "die for mankind" and nothing else, there
    might have been a change in Heaven, but humanity would have been
    none the wiser.  Without His teaching, His death would have gone
    unnoticed.  On the other side, if he hadn't died perhaps his
    messages would have gone unnoticed.

    It is my belief in His message that makes me a christian.

    BTW:  Where does Jesus say that His (main?) purpose was to die
    for mankind?

    Tom

 Z   BTW:  Where does Jesus say that His (main?) purpose was to die
 Z       for mankind?
    
    Hi Tom:
    
    Jesus specifically brings this up in Matthew 16.  Peter is referred to
    as Satan for admonishing Jesus not to allow such a thing to happen. 
    
    And needless to say, the sacrificial system of the Hebrews was a
    forshadowing of the Messiah's death.  Passover stands as a clear
    picture of this.
    
    I keep bringing up the martyr thing because you seem to make light of
    the importance of the blood sacrifice.  If you don't give it the
    credence it is due, it makes me ask, how could a persons death for a
    cause have any significance to a person unless they were simply a
    martyr or unless the person's death was in place of another.  It would
    seem these are the only two choices.  If you believe the blood of
    Christ is not of prominence here, then it stands to reason I would ask
    you if you thought he was a martyr.
    
    -Jack

    One other thing I wanted to mention.  You mentioned a few weeks back
    the word "ransom", as in my seeing Jesus' death as a ransom.  I never
    commented but yes, this is the exact word used in scripture.  He gave
    his life as a ransom for many!
    
    -Jack

>    Jesus specifically brings this up in Matthew 16.  Peter is referred to
>    as Satan for admonishing Jesus not to allow such a thing to happen. 

    Yes.  This was something that Jesus had to do.
    
>    And needless to say, the sacrificial system of the Hebrews was a
>    forshadowing of the Messiah's death.  Passover stands as a clear
>    picture of this.

    Perhaps.  There is symbolism there.  However, this doesn't say
    that dying was the *main* purpose for Christ to come to Earth.

    Tom

    
    In the essence of "If a tree falls in the woods..." 

    If Jesus had been in a coma from the age of, oh say, 30 until he was
    33, then came out of the coma on Monday, pissed off the Romans on
    Wednesday and then was put to death on Friday, would his death have
    meant anything? Would you be saved today?

    Eric 

    John 3:14  
    And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the
 Son of man be lifted up:
    
    John 12:23  
    And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man
     should be glorified.
    
    John 12:34  
    The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ
     abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted
    up? who is this Son of man?
    
    John 13:31  
    Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man
     glorified, and God is glorified in him.
    
    Luke 9:22  
    Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the
     elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the
    third day.
    
    Luke 9:56  
    For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.
     And they went to another village.
    
    Luke 11:30  
    For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man
     be to this generation.
    
    Luke 19:10  
    For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
    
    Luke 24:7  
    Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men,
     and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
    
    Mark 8:31  
    And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things,
     and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes,
    and be killed, and after three days rise again.
    
    Mark 10:45  
    For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister,
     and to give his life a ransom for many.

    Thanks Mike...this is not to discard or belittle ANY of Jesus ministry. 
    But Jesus is messiah and messiahship is the instrument of a Holy and
    pleasing sacrifice to God on behalf of sinful man.  
    
    No sacrifice, no resurrection, no resurrection, no redemption, no
    redemption, eternal judgement as opposed to eternal life.  The issue of
    sin is what was at the heart of Calvary.  Christ recognized this fact
    by becoming a ransom for the lost.
    
    -Jack

1 Corinthians 15:14  
    And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith
 is also vain.

    
    Ooookay..... But neither of you addressed my question. 

    Eric

    
    Mark 22: 36-40

    "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" He said to
    him, "You shall love the lord your God, with all your heart, with all
    your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first
    commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as
    yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two
    commandments."

>    No sacrifice, no resurrection, no resurrection, no redemption, no
>    redemption, eternal judgement as opposed to eternal life.  The issue of
>    sin is what was at the heart of Calvary.  Christ recognized this fact
>    by becoming a ransom for the lost.

    I don't deny it was a *very* powerful act.  Without it His message
    would not have touched us and compelled us so.  I do not deny that
    His death had to be.  But I don't think it's because God's heart
    was so hard, but because *our* hearts are hard.

    To have one's heart cracked open to let the Holy Spirit in is
    to be redeemed.  Out of the old shell of our heart we can then
    be born into the Spirit.

    Tom

|    If Jesus had been in a coma from the age of, oh say, 30 until he was
|    33, then came out of the coma on Monday, pissed off the Romans on
|    Wednesday and then was put to death on Friday, would his death have
|    meant anything? Would you be saved today?
    
    If "if's" and "but's" were candy and nuts, oh what a Christmas we'd
    have!
    
    I say No because He wouldn't have fulfilled all 332 Messianic
    prophecies and couldn't have been the Messiah.  God is a God of 100%. 
    Even if only 331 were fulfilled, He wouldn't have been Messiah.
    
    The above scenario would only be valid if it was prophecied for the
    Messiah ahead of time.
    
    Mike

|    I don't deny it was a *very* powerful act.  Without it His message
|    would not have touched us and compelled us so.  I do not deny that
|    His death had to be.  But I don't think it's because God's heart
|    was so hard, but because *our* hearts are hard.
    
    Amen, Tom!  God *knew* the condition of our hearts and made it possible
    for us to be saved because He knew we couldn't do it on our own!  That
    is Agape!!!

|    To have one's heart cracked open to let the Holy Spirit in is
|    to be redeemed.  Out of the old shell of our heart we can then
|    be born into the Spirit.

    Amen again, Tom!  This is being born again!  A heart of flesh for a
    heart of stone.
    
    Mike

 Z       I do not deny that
 Z       His death had to be.  But I don't think it's because God's heart
 Z       was so hard, but because *our* hearts are hard.
    
    This is EXACTLY correct!!!  This is so refreshing to see.  Your last
    sentence may just be the same as what I say about the depravity of
    man...more eloquently put though! :-)
    
 Z       To have one's heart cracked open to let the Holy Spirit in is
 Z       to be redeemed.  Out of the old shell of our heart we can then
 Z       be born into the Spirit.
    
    Absolutely...now to bring it to the next level, one must recognize their
    need for the savior, enter eternal life through the power of his shed
    blood, and by redemption, the Holy Spirit will dwell within your heart
    until you are taken to be with the Lord.  
    
    Now that we are redeemed, we must put upon ourselves an attitude of
    Holiness.  Hence the 2nd commandment.
    
    -Jack

    Hey, guys.  I appreciate the positive feedback, but I still think
    we disagree on whether or not His death was *the* most important
    thing about His ministry.

    His death drove home his message.  His sacrifice is something to
    marvel, to crack hearts to let the message enter.
    
    You *could* say we are redeemed by his death, but not as a 
    bargin with God.  There was a path in the wilderness and His
    death rivetted our attention to it.  No mean feat.

    I still say that the path He pointed out, the message of His
    ministry has the most power and is the most redeeming thing
    about His entire trip to Earth.  It is so simple - Love - that
    even someone from another culture/religion can pick up His 
    word, read His message, and change the world without even
    "converting."

    Tom

    Tom, His death *IS* the message!  It provided *THE* path!  It proved
    His Love!  Salvation was not possible without it.  You can't deny the
    immense importance Christ Himself put on His death and resurrection.
    
    There is a song that uses the "What If?" scenario and states that
    Christ could've called 10,000 Angels to His side while on the cross.
    Given the many miracles that Christ performed before the cross, I'm
    sure you'll agree that He didn't have to stay there if He didn't want
    to.  
    
John 18:3
    Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief
 priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
John 18:4  
    Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went
 forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
John 18:5  
    They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I AM. And
 Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.
John 18:6  
    As soon then as he had said unto them, I AM, they went backward, and
 fell to the ground.
John 18:7  
    Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.
John 18:8  
    Jesus answered, I have told you that I AM: if therefore ye seek me,
 let these go their way:
John 18:9  
    That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou
 gavest me have I lost none.
    
    The NAS says the Romans brought a 'cohort' which is 600 men.  Christ 
    caused His enemies to fall by just speaking.  It is obvious who is in 
    control of this situation.  The Romans didn't kill Him.  He went 
    voluntarily.  All the Gospels declare that they tried to kill Him 
    sooner, but "...it was not yet His time."  Tom, you know Jesus Christ
    had the power to avoid death if He wanted.  He didn't have to die.  He
    *CHOSE* to die, out of Love for us.  It was the only way.  It was His
    Mission as the Suffering Servant!
    
    Mike

    Are you saying that the path didn't exist until He died?

>    Tom, His death *IS* the message!  It provided *THE* path!  It proved
>    His Love!

    Unwittingly, perhaps, you've just pointed out that the Love is most
    important thing.


>    You can't deny the
>    immense importance Christ Himself put on His death and resurrection.

    Well, I certainly can't deny the importance some of the writers of the
    NT put on it.

    "It proved His Love!"  's funny.  I thought this was what I'd
    been saying, or close to what I'd been saying all along.  The
    path of Love is paramount because it leads to God.  And the 
    greatness of Jesus is that He not only pointed the path out to
    us but also, first got us to take it seriously, and then made
    us want to walk it.

    Tom

|    Are you saying that the path didn't exist until He died?
    
    Not exactly.  The path was there, Christ's death opened the path's
    gate.  You still have to walk through the gate.
    
    John 8:56  
    Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
    
    I'll add all of Romans 4 so you can see how Abraham was saved/justifed 
    by faith in the coming Messiah the Redeemer.
    
    Romans 4
    --------
4:1  What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the
 flesh, hath found?
4:2  For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not
 before God.
4:3  For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted
 unto him for righteousness.
4:4  Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
4:5  But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
 ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
4:6  Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God
 imputeth righteousness without works,
4:7  Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are
 covered.
4:8  Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
4:9  Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the
 uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for
 righteousness.
4:10  How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in
 uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
4:11  And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of
 the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of
 all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness
 might be imputed unto them also:
4:12  And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision
 only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham,
 which he had being yet uncircumcised.
4:13  For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to
 Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of
 faith.
4:14  For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the
 promise made of none effect:
4:15  Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no
 transgression.
4:16  Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the
 promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law,
 but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us
 all,
4:17  (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him
 whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things
 which be not as though they were.
4:18  Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of
 many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
4:19  And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead,
 when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's
 womb:
4:20  He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong
 in faith, giving glory to God;
4:21  And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to
 perform.
4:22  And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
4:23  Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
4:24  But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that
 raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
4:25  Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our
 justification.

    (2) _What about the New Age claim that Jesus perceived His mission to 
    be that of a "way-shower" for humanity in the attainment of Christhood?_
    
        Contrary to the New Age rendition, the Jesus of the Gospels
    taught that His mission was to provide a substitutionary atonement
    for the sins of humanity by His sacrificial death on the cross. By
    so doing, He provided a salvation for human beings which they had
    virtually no hope of procuring for themselves.
    
        Jesus affirmed that it was for the very purpose of _dying_ that
    He came into the world (John 12:27). Moreover, He perceived His
    death as being a _sacrificial offering_ for the sins of humanity
    (He said that His blood "is poured out for many for the forgiveness
    of sins," Matt. 26:26-28). Jesus took His sacrificial mission with
    utmost seriousness, for He knew that without Him, humanity would
    certainly perish (Matt. 16:25; John 3:16) and spend eternity apart
    from God in a place of great suffering (Matt. 10:28; 11:23; 23:33;
    25:41; Luke 16:22-28).
    
        Jesus therefore described His mission this way: "the Son of Man
    did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a
    ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28); "the Son of Man came to seek and to
    save what was lost" (Luke 19:10); for "God did not send his Son
    into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through
    him" (John 3:17).

    Personal salvation is integral.  Unfortunately, for many it is also
    a stopping point.
    
    Oh, the saved Christian wants to keep a clean nose personally, alright.
    But all too often, the saved Christian gives little more than lip
    service to Christ as "way-shower."
    
    Richard
    

	The three main reasons for Jesus coming to the earth are:

	1) To make known his Father, ie to teach the truth about him
	"Therefore, Pilate said to him: 'Well, then, are you a king?'
	Jesus answered: 'You yourself are saying that I am a king.
	For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the
	world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that
	is on the side of the truth listens to my voice.'" John 18:37 NWT
	(also compare John 17:26).

	2) To leave a model for us to follow, by maintaining perfect integrity,
	"In fact, to this [course] YOU were called, because even Christ suffered
	for YOU, leaving YOU a model to follow his steps closely." 1 Peter 2:21 NWT

	3) To give his life as a sacrifice, which in turn would give the opportunity 
	to free us from sin and death. "Just as the Son of man came, not to be 
	ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul a ransom in exchange for
	many." Matthew 20:28 NWT


	John 17:3 NWT reads "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of
	you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth Jesus Christ."
	Recognising the 3 main reasons for Jesus' coming to earth, is essential in
	taking in knowledge of the only true God and the one whom he sent forth Jesus.
 

	Phil

	Resource material, the brochure "What Does God Require of Us?" published by the
	Watch Tower Bible and Tract Soceity.

re.72

The one sentence version:

God became man to make man God.

Regards,
Ace

re .73

Ace,

;God became man to make man God.

Sorry, is that how you interpret these scriptures?. Peter certainly
is clear that Jesus left a model for his disciples to follow his 
steps closely. I don't know why imitating Jesus is so frowned upon, 
when the Apostles and God's Word forcefully endorse it. In no way could 
man become God, so why think badly of a person's intention to imitate
God. A son imitates his father but this doesn't mean he wants to 
become his father. But how can a son imitate his father if he is
not given a model to follow?. Jesus having observed his Father could
give that model. What would a Christian be like if they didn't 
imitate God's fine qualities?. 

Phil.

    Whoa.

    The first thought that came to me is how horrible it is when
    people "play God".  IE: decide who is to live and die,  who 
    should prosper or perish, etc.

    But then I realized you were talking about Jesus as the role
    model.  God, whose main attribute is not judgement, but love.

    I'll take it :-)

    Tom

 ZZ    God, whose main attribute is not judgement, but love.
    
    Tom, you...once again, have no basis for stating this.
    
    This is a point of discussion....I don't mean to come across negative
    so please don't take it this way.  Scripture teaches us that God has
    many many attributes...of which love is one of them.  The whole theme
    of the Old Testament is at worst, the equality of God's love and God's
    sovereignty.  While it is true his love overshadowed obstinent Israel,
    God's holiness and sovereignty are certainly displayed on many many
    occasions through his judgement of godless nations...all of which had
    women and children.  Furthermore, Israel lost a great many in the
    exile, of which were men, women, and children who had no knowledge of
    what transgression was.
    
    -Jack

    "God is love."

    What part of that don't you understand?

>    God's holiness and sovereignty are certainly displayed on many many

    What do you think (w)holiness is?  I think it's love.
    
    Tom

re.74

Phil,

You're analogy is a good one but you're missing the point of it.

A son has his father's life. Do you believe that you are God's
son and have His life?

Ace

 ZZ   What do you think (w)holiness is?  I think it's love.
    
    Well, wholiness and holiness are two completely different things.  I
    would like to comment or discuss the second since the first has no
    bearing here.  
    
    The word Holy means to be set apart.  In the case of God, it is God's
    sinless pure and perfect nature.  On mankind's part, it is being made
    clean or being sanctified (to use the correct terminology).  Love to me
    is not an emotion but more an allegiance.  This is different than
    sanctification.  Holiness is something we put upon ourselves through
    Jesus Christ...one could say it was Jesus' love for us that gives us
    the sanctification we so desperately need.  But remember that God in
    his holiness has judged many an idolatrous nation into obscurity...even
    his beloved Israel, the apple of his own eye!  
    
    I do not make light of the passage from 1st John 3 that you like to
    use.  Just remember that love is one of many attributes God has.  God
    is not the essence of love because love is not a tangible entity.  Love
    manifests itself through action.
    
    -Jack

    Well, I disagree.

>    The word Holy means to be set apart.

    In my dictionary it is the third of 3 definitions.  The first definition
    is: Belonging to or derived from or associated with a divine power.

    In other words (you guessed it :-)  Love.
    
>    In the case of God, it is God's
>    sinless pure and perfect nature.  On mankind's part, it is being made
>    clean or being sanctified (to use the correct terminology).

    What is left when all the "stuff" is cleared away?  (Can you guess
    *my* answer?  :-)

>    Love to me
>    is not an emotion but more an allegiance.

    Nah.  To me it's a state of being.  Kinda like holiness...

>    the sanctification we so desperately need.  But remember that God in
>    his holiness has judged many an idolatrous nation into obscurity...even
>    his beloved Israel, the apple of his own eye!  

    Yes.  There is "tough" love.  Why do you keep pushing that point?
    Is tough love the only love you know?  Or are you just trying to
    balance me out?

    Tom

    Holiness - n. 1. The quality of being holy; sanctity.  2. A title of
    address used for the pope.
    
    Holy - adj. 1. Of or associated with a divine power or religious
    beliefs and traditions.  2. Spiritually pure; saintly.  3. Worthy of
    special respect or awe.
    
    {DEC issue American Heritage Dictionary, p. 332}

    This is amusing.

    *MY* DEC issue American Heritage Dictionary, Copyright 1980, p. 339,
    says something different.

    Tom

    Z    Yes.  There is "tough" love.  Why do you keep pushing that point?
    Z    Is tough love the only love you know?  Or are you just trying to
    Z    balance me out?
    
    I'm pushing the point mainly because I believe you are inadvertently
    misrepresenting God's nature, and therefore yes I am trying to balance
    things out.  You seem to continually avoid the fact that God has many
    attributes, one of which is hate.  
    
    God did not wipe out the Edomites, the Philistines, and other
    Idolatrous nations because he was displaying tough love.  He did so
    because of his disdain for an obstinate and idolatrous people.  
    
    You need to realize there are some who are created for honor and others
    for dishonor.  
    
    -Jack

    Tom, mine is copyrighted 1983.

    Obviously, the older edition is correct.

.79
    
>    The word Holy means to be set apart.

True.  And it also means to be whole.  Sometimes being whole does
set you apart.

Richard

    When does holiness (or being whole) not set you apart from those who
    aren't holy (or whole)?

>    When does holiness (or being whole) not set you apart from those who
>    aren't holy (or whole)?

When you are in communion with them.

    Not true, Tom.  Spiritual communion can't happen under those
    circumstances.  Light does not mix with darkness.  God calls His people
    to "come out and be ye separate."  Righteousness has no part of
    unrighteousness.

    So, is your view of holiness where once you're "there" you
    walk away from everyone else with an attitude of "screw you,
    you poor losers."?

    If your wife and/or children are not "holy" you should 
    leave them because you don't mix with "them?"

    This does not strike me as a Christian thing to do.  Maybe
    it is in the way some christianity is practiced these days.
    But, I believe that holiness is to be shared, not hoarded.
    
    Let your light shine and be a guide to others.  Help them
    up.  Don't walk away from them.

    Jesus associated with tax collectors and prostitutes.  People
    not generally thought to be righteous.  And the pharisies used
    that against him.  He didn't hoard His holiness, despite other's
    opinions.

    Our duty is not to rise above the masses, but to love them,
    one person at a time.

    Tom

| <<< Note 1324.89 by PHXSS1::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

| God calls His people to "come out and be ye separate."  

	Gee, when I came out you said it was wrong! :-)

|    This does not strike me as a Christian thing to do.  Maybe
|    it is in the way some christianity is practiced these days.
|    But, I believe that holiness is to be shared, not hoarded.
    
    This isn't what I was trying to say.  Don't know how you got here from
    there.
    
    RE: Glen
    
    I don't recall ever discussing such things with you.

    Tom:
    
    If we are born in a perpetual state of unrightness, then we cannot be
    whole...but we can be MADE whole.  So being made Holy requires the
    proactivity of a Holy God.  I know we've already concurred on this
    point.
    
    -Jack

>    So being made Holy requires the
>    proactivity of a Holy God.

    It happens, doesn't it?  Well, once one is made holy, is s/he
    supposed to turn his/her back on the rest of the "unholy" world?
    Should one remove oneself from the community?

    Tom

     Z   This does not strike me as a Christian thing to do.  Maybe
     Z   it is in the way some christianity is practiced these days.
     Z   But, I believe that holiness is to be shared, not hoarded.
        
     Z   Let your light shine and be a guide to others.  Help them
     Z   up.  Don't walk away from them.
    
    Tom, I couldn't agree with you more.  In the sense that we need to
    exemplify our holiness to a lost world...you are absolutely correct. 
    This is why we are called the salt of the earth.
    
    The only gotcha here is that one cannot put their holiness upon another
    person...except for Jesus Christ of course.  In other words, King
    Hezekiah, one of the most godly kings of Israel had a son Manasseh, one
    of the most evil kings of Israel.  Hezekiah could not bestow his
    holiness upon his son.
    
    -Jack

>    The only gotcha here is that one cannot put their holiness upon another
>    person...except for Jesus Christ of course.  In other words, King

    Of course.  You may be "different" but it needn't separate you 
    from everyone else.

    Kinda gives a new slant to "valuing differences"  :-)

    Tom

    Tom, I still think you misunderstood me and have taken the focus off
    the holiness issue to paint an elitist label on Christians.  Jesus Christ 
    said Christians are the salt of the earth.  Why do you think He said that?  
    He also said Christians are in the world but are not of the world.  He 
    also called us to fulfill the Great Commission.  The separation I was 
    speaking of is much more spiritual than physical. 

    I'm not painting.  I'm inquiring.  From what I read earlier it sounded
    like you thought it was right and good to separate yourself from the
    rest of the world.  And that is what it meant to be "holy."

    It didn't make sense to me.  It certainly sounded elitist.
    
    Tom

re 1324.78

Ace,

;You're analogy is a good one but you're missing the point of it.

Missing the point?, when Jesus gave the great commission he told his
followers to preach and teach so as to help persons observe all the
things he had commanded them (compare Matthew 28:18-20). Now I agree
that trying to do this on ones own would be impossible, but not if
one relies on God especially in prayer for there is a helper. Further,
the model Jesus left was one of total reliance on God and for this 
reason I find your finding fault difficult to except. It's not as
though Jesus expects persons to carry their 'yoke' (discipleship) on 
their own but is helping Christians on the road to life. 
                                                     
;A son has his father's life. Do you believe that you are God's
;son and have His life?

Well no I don't believe I am God's son but I'm of Adam's offspring and
therefore in need of a redeemer.  However, I would clarify that by saying 
that the Bible identifies firstfruits, that is 144 Thousand persons, bought 
from mankind (Compare Revelation 14:1-4). These ones are indeed adopted sons
of God. I look forward to the time when Jesus and these 144 Thousand are
ruling from the heavens and have turned their attention to the earth (Rev
5:9,10). As the Apostle Paul put it, "For the eager expectation of the 
creation is waiting for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation
was subject subjected to futility, not by it's own will but through him that
subjected it, on the basis of hope that the creation itself also will be set 
free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the
children of God." Romans 8:19-21 NWT For then Jesus and his brothers will
release many from bondage to sin and death (Revelation 21:1-4). 

Phil.

re.98

Painting is a good analogy.

Only God is holy. If you want to become holy you must get
painted with God. The more strokes of the divine brush you
allow Him to paint you with, the more holy you become. 

Holiness is not a behavior, it's a Person.

Ace

re.99

Phil,

Don't get offended when I say that I think you've missed the point. No
doubt you think I have.  8*)

Are you the father of your children because they obey you or because they
received your life? 

I am a son of God having received the very life of God my Father into me.
Without this relationship as a basis, all conformance to biblical
instruction is nothing more than moral teaching which may obtained from
any of several religions and their teachings. This intrinsic relationship
of God with His many sons is the unique revelation of the Bible and thereby
demonstrates that it is a more than just a guidebook for moral living and
a prediction of events. If you desire a Godly living well pleasing to God,
then you must possess God's life. Our human life is a failure at best and
no matter how hard we try we cannot please God. However, when we possess
God's life then all things become possible as it becomes the powerful
indestructible all-available enabler within us.

Regards,
Ace 

re .101

Ace,

I'm not offended by your words. You say that it is impossible to
please God if we don't posess God's life. By posessing God's life
do you mean spirited anointed?. If so, then why was Abraham considered
as God's friend?.

;However, when we possess
;God's life then all things become possible as it becomes the powerful
;indestructible all-available enabler within us.

According to Jesus it is faith that enables one to be powerful (Matthew
17:20).

As James 2:23 NWT reads "and the scripture was fulfilled which says:
'Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as rightousness,
and he came to be called Jehovah's friend.'"

So it is faith that is needed.

; all conformance to biblical
;instruction is nothing more than moral teaching which may obtained from
;any of several religions and their teachings.

Did find this a very strange statement to make, seeing that the Bible writers
were inspired of God. Are you saying that the writers of the books of other
religions were inspired also?. 

Yes, we need a relationship with God but following Jesus' example this will
only come about through prayer and supplication and a reliance on God. We
need instruction from God and the source of this instruction is found in 
the pages of the Bible. Jesus said in reply to the Devil "' It is written,
''Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth
through Jehovah's mouth.'''". Matthew 4:4b NWT It is through his prophets
that Jehovah speaks (compare Amos 3:7).

Though we disagree I would like to thank you for sharing your faith.

Phil.

    Tom:
    
    Seperation from the world means to avoid adopting the practices and
    Philosophies of the world.  There are many good examples in Old
    Testament history as to what happens to a person or a society that
    intermixes true faith with Paganism.
    
    Two examples which come to mind are Solomon, who through humanistic
    practices acquired many wives who were paganisitc and idol worshippers.
    This lead to corruption and dysfunctionalism within his family. 
    The land of Israel, God's chosen people, adopted the practices and
    beliefs of the pagan nations surrounding them and this resulted in a
    high death rate and the exile of a whole nation.
    
    God calls for purity in the local church.  You will find this theme
    throughout the epistles.
    
    -Jack

	Ace.... that was a great note!

re.102

> By posessing God's life do you mean spirited anointed?.

I mean "the Spirit Himself witnesses with our spirit that we are
children of God". Romans 8:16; and .." that which is born of the
Spirit is spirit." John 3:6 Those who received the Spirit into their 
spirit become joined to the Lord as one spirit. "He who is joined to
the Lord is one spirit".

How about his question Phil:

Are you the father of your children because they obey you or because they
received your life? 

>Though we disagree I would like to thank you for sharing your faith.

Certainly Phil. Likewise.

Ace

re.104

Why thank you Glen. Hope that it nourished you.

Regards,
Ace

re .105

;Are you the father of your children because they obey you or because they
;received your life? 

Ace,

I don't have children, but in a physical sense I agree with you. It's
interesting, because their is a parallel account to our discussion in
John 8, take verses 31-51 for example. Jesus is clear that in a spiritual 
sense our works do indeed identify who is ones father. 

Phil.

John 8:31-51 NIV......

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you 
are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set 
you free." They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been
slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" Jesus replied, 
"I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no 
permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son 
sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know you are Abraham's descendants. 
Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. I am 
telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you 
have heard from your father. "Abraham is our father," they answered. "If you 
were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did.
As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that 
I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your
own father does." "We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only
Father we have is God himself." Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, 
you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my 
own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are 
unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want 
to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not 
holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks 
his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I 
tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? 
If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God 
hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to 
God." The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a 
Samaritan and demon-possessed?" "I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, 
"but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. I am not seeking glory for myself; 
but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. I tell you the truth, if 
anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."

.100

>Holiness is not a behavior, it's a Person.

I would agree, but holiness unmanifested in behavior is as lifeless as faith
without works.

Richard

 Z   but holiness unmanifested in behavior is as lifeless as faith
 Z   without works.
    
    Richard:
    
    This quote has a place in the hall of fame!  Good one!!!!
    
    -Jack

re.108

What you said.  8*)

Seriously, when you get saturated with God there will be
no problem with behavior. Life swallows all weakness and
death.

regards,
ace

.110

>Seriously, when you get saturated with God there will be
>no problem with behavior. Life swallows all weakness and
>death.

Well, it looks good on paper (as the expression goes).

However, I've seen a lot of faith stop at faith.

Richard

re .108

;Seriously, when you get saturated with God there will be
;no problem with behavior. Life swallows all weakness and
;death.

Ace,

But how do you understand Jesus' illustration of the sower of seed?.
I mean the sower could drop as much seed as he likes but if the
soil is not right then fruit will not follow. It is the heart
condition that is important, if our figurative hearts are not 
receptive to God's Word then nothing will grow. The point being
how can God do anything if ones heart is like a rocky place?.

As the Psalmist succintly put it "Your word is a lamp to my foot, And
a light to my roadway." Psalms 119:105 NWT

Ace, can you direct me to any of Jesus' illustrations that make the
point that you are making?.

Phil.

Matthew 13 NIV , with the illustration of the sower of seed follows:

3    Then he told them many things in parables, saying: "A farmer went out
     to sow his seed.
4    As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds
     came and ate it up.
5    Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang
     up quickly, because the soil was shallow.
6    But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered
     because they had no root.
7    Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants.
8    Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop--a
     hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.
9    He who has ears, let him hear."
10   The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people
     in parables?"
11   He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has
     been given to you, but not to them.
12   Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever
     does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.
13   This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not
     see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14   In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "`You will be ever
     hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never
     perceiving.
15   For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with
     their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see
     with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts
     and turn, and I would heal them.' [1]
16   But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they
     hear.
17   For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to
     see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did
     not hear it.
18   "Listen then to what the parable of the sower means:
19   When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not
     understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in
     his heart. This is the seed sown along the path.
20   The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who
     hears the word and at once receives it with joy.
21   But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or
     persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away.
22   The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man
     who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness
     of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.
23   But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man
     who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a
     hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown."

    RE: Salt of the Earth

    The "salt of the earth" quote is from Matthew 5:13. It is part of the
    sermon on the mount. Jesus is calling the assembled crowd, those
    exemplified in the "Blessed are..." statements, the salt of the earth.
    These folks may or may not have been disciples of Christ, and most
    likely many would not have passed muster to call themselves Christian
    by those who have today set themselves up as keepers of the name tags.
    
    Eric

re.112

Phil, 

	Ah, here it is. Found it. Thanks for the pointer.

> Ace, can you direct me to any of Jesus' illustrations that make the
> point that you are making?.

Before continuing let me ask, what you mean by Jesus' illustrations? I 
view the whole Bible as Jesus' illustrations. If you mean to limit the
discussion to the four gospels only, well then I'm puzzled. The four gospels
are the words of the incarnated Jesus, and the remainder of the New
Testament contains the words of the resurrected and ascended Jesus.

Please clarify.

Thx,
Ace

re .114

;Before continuing let me ask, what you mean by Jesus' illustrations? I 
;view the whole Bible as Jesus' illustrations. If you mean to limit the
;discussion to the four gospels only, well then I'm puzzled. The four gospels
;are the words of the incarnated Jesus, and the remainder of the New
;Testament contains the words of the resurrected and ascended Jesus.

Ace,

My reason wasn't to limit the discussion to the four gospels. I picked
on Jesus' illustrations for they were a wonderful teaching aid and would
effect those ones with receptive hearts, ie ears that listen. That is 
they would recognise the significance and motivate them to learn more. 
Yes the resurrected Jesus Christ certainly continued to use illustrations 
to teach, the letters to the seven congregations in the book of Revelation 
is a good example.

Phil.

Phil,

The aspects of the Lord Jesus as life is clearest in the book of John of
all the gospels. Christ is shown in this book as the life supply to
meet the need of everyone's case. 

1:4 "I Him was life..";  "I came that they have life and have it abundantly"
10:10 is the theme throughout.

Here are samples of the impact of His life as illustrated in John:

- The need of the moral - life's regenerating  2:23-3:36
- The need of the immoral - life's satisfying 4:1-42
- The need of the dying - life's healing 4:43-54
- The need of the impotent - life's enlivening 5:1-47
- The need of the hungry - life's feeding 6:1-71
- The need of the thirsty - life's quenching 7:1-52
- The need of those under the bondage of sin -- life's setting free 7:53-8:59
- The need of the blind in religion - life's sight and life's shepherding 	
		9:1-10:42
- The need of the dead - life's resurrecting 11:1-57

Anyone who receives the Lord Jesus will find that He as abundance of life will
meet their every need. Every weakness, sickness, death, blindness, will be
swallowed up by His life. This is not a theory it is an experience. 
Everyone will find themselves in at least one or all of the above
catagories. Bible doctrine cannot help you, teachings cannot heal you,
the world cannot satisfy (especially the religious world), good clean
living cannot deliver you, works cannot give you sight, and good behavior cannot
raise you. Only life, the divine indestructable life of God, can meet our
every need. 

Ace

    Amen, Ace!

| <<< Note 1324.116 by SUBSYS::LOPEZ "He showed me a River!" >>>


| The aspects of the Lord Jesus as life is clearest in the book of John of all 
| the gospels. Christ is shown in this book as the life supply to meet the need 
| of everyone's case.

	Weird how a book that is supposed to be 'the book' has some parts
clearer than others. So much for perfection....

| Bible doctrine cannot help you, teachings cannot heal you, the world cannot 
| satisfy (especially the religious world), good clean living cannot deliver 
| you, works cannot give you sight, and good behavior cannot raise you. Only 
| life, the divine indestructable life of God, can meet our every need.

	On this, we agree. And I think it puts the Bible in perspective, as
well. It makes it as a part, and not THE thing. It keeps Him in the proper
perspective.


Glen

re.118

Hi Glen,

Actually each book shows a different aspect of the Lord Jesus. John
reveals the Christ of life, Matthew unveils Christ the King, Mark 
focuses on the Jesus the Slave-Savior, and Luke shows us the humanity
of Christ.

Altogether they reveal the multi-faceted beauty of the Lord, kinda like
a diamond reflecting multiple colors from a single stream of light. 

Regards,
Ace

Ace,

Please correct me if I'm wrong but were we differ is that the everlasting 
life that Jesus promises differs in this respect. You refer to it as His life, 
yet Jesus makes the promise of everlasting life to the person who exercises 
faith (John 3:16). Do you think it's impossible for Jesus to transform a person,
so that they can enjoy and experience their own life in harmony with God's will?.

Take the following verses:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever 
believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send 
his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands 
condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only
Son.This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness 
instead of light because their deeds were evil.Everyone who does evil hates 
the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be 
exposed.But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be 
seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." John 3:16-21 NIV

God's Word which includes Jesus' teachings is "light" (compare Psalms 119:105).
Yet you say it is of no benefit, it cannot help or heal, but Paul says it
exerts power and is alive (compare Hebrews 4:12). 

How do you personally express love and appreciation for the things God has given
you, including the hope of everlasting life?. 

I find your argument difficult to accept in that the observation of Our Grand
Creator is that he loves to give life and for his creation to experience their 
own life in harmony with his will. 

Phil.

RE: .116


>catagories. Bible doctrine cannot help you, teachings cannot heal you,
>the world cannot satisfy (especially the religious world), good clean
>living cannot deliver you, works cannot give you sight, and good behavior cannot
>raise you. Only life, the divine indestructable life of God, can meet our
>every need. 

But Jesus kept saying over and over "Your faith has made you well."

re.121

Absolutely. Faith initiates our transaction with life.

ace

re.120

>I find your argument difficult to accept in that the observation of Our Grand
>Creator is that he loves to give life and for his creation to experience their 
>own life in harmony with his will. 

Phil, 

The words are all there but we differ on several underlying facts. The Lord
Jesus terminated the old creation on the cross, He crucified me, you,
Satan, sin, and all the negative things in the universe there in His 
all terminating death. However, in His resurrection He also formed a
new creation in which all things become new. In resurrection He became
the life-giving Spirit and by this was the germinating element for the
new creation.

When a Person receives the Lord Jesus through their believing, God
transfers that saved one out of the old creation into the new creation and
that person becomes a new creature (or creation) in Christ. God 
the Father gives His life (zoe - eternal divine life of God) to that one
causing them to experience regeneration or the new birth whereby
he/she becomes a child of God having God's life and nature. Of course, this
is only the beginning of the christian life and one must go on to reach 
the full maturity of sonship. But the process of maturation is not by works,
teachings, good behavior etc. No. Rather it is by beholding and reflecting
the Lord as a mirror that we are being transformed into the same image. 
Said differently, it is the very appearance of the God of glory to us in
our regenerated human spirit that causes something divine to transfer to
us and thereby transforms us. 

Unless one experiences the termination of their old self, old man, etc. 
and the germinating of their spirit by Christ the life-giving Spirit,
then all works, good behaviors, adherence to teachings, and religious
practices, are by definition still in the old creation. Only the new
creation matters. In other words, we need a divine positional transfer out of
Adam into Christ and a daily experiential transfer out of the flesh into
the spirit. Then and only then, will all the works of faith, gospel preaching,
evangelism etc. be placed in their proper context, that is, the new creation.
The human life that is in harmony with God's life is the one that has been
terminated, germinated, and is in the process of transformation.

By this and my previous replies in this note you should be able to understand 
my beliefs concerning various aspects of the christian life.

Regards,
Ace