French Prometheus

You wanted to add something, Timothy?

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

First, on the issue of a "PERSON CAN'T MAKE THEMSELF BELIEVE" - that's TRUE; however, "faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the Word of God." There is great advantage to reading and listening to the word of God. It's clear that many responders to this thread are rejecting a gospel other than that which the Scripture teaches. It would be a shame on judgment day to have rejected the Scripture because of what one thought or heard was taught in it without taking the opportunity and discovering its own claims for oneself. Also, one should not reject the true gospel simply because of the behavior of some who profess faith in it but live inconsistently with doctrine and life it proclaims. I recommend the gospel of John to begin with, for it clearly answers many of the errors some have advocated.

For example, concerning the DIETY OF CHRIST, and the question of whether JESUS CLAIMED TO BE GOD. Was this not what he was persecuted and ultimately crucified for? In John 10:33, we read: "'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." In Mt 26:63ff, we read "But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, 'I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.' 'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied. '" In the verses that follow, they accuse him of speaking blasphemy and say he is worthy of death. The Scriptures refer to his divinity over and over (Old Testament: Isa 9:6; Jer 23:6; Micah 5:2; Mal 3:1; New Testament: Mt 11:27, 16:16, 26:63, 64; Jn 1:1, 18; Rom 9:5; 1 Cor 2:8; 2 Cor 5:10; Phil 2:6; Col 2:9; Heb 1:1-3; Rev 19:16; etc.) The claim to his divinity is abundantly clear through the divine titles given him (Lord, Lord of glory, son of man, son of God, etc.) as well as thru the attributes assigned to him, the functions he fulfills, as well as the perogatives (i.e., he is to be worshipped) In Titus 2:13, we reade "while we wait for the blessed hope - the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, ..." Even at the beginning of some books, like 2 Pet 1:1, we find: "... To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ..." If I may borrow from the writer of Hebrews, and apply it to this context, "We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard [or read] so that we do not drift away. Four classic books in this area include "The Divinity of our Lord (H.P. Liddon); The Lor4d of Glory (B.B. Warfield); "The Self Disclosure of Jesus (Vos); and "Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament Witness (Raymond).

Likewise, when it comes to the subject of SALVATION BY WORKS - the Scripture could not be clearer. Rom 9:12 "not by works, but by him who calls"; Rom 4:2 "If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had comething to boast about, - but not before God."; Rom 4:6 David ... speaks of the blessedness of the man to who God credits righteousness apart from works."; Eph 2:9 "...not of works, lest anyone should boast..."; Gal 2:16 "...we, too, have put our fiath in christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law NO ONE will be justified."

Concerning the issues of LEV 18:22; LEV 19:19 AND THE LAW - One must distinguish between the Civil, Ceremonial, and the Moral Law. The civil and ceremonial law served a specific purpose and were fulfilled in Christ. The moral law remains. This is not to say that the civil law of the theocracy of Israel have no application to us today. While we recognise that those laws were given to Israel (as a nation) when it was a theocracy and in the context of their day, the governing principles found in the civil law still apply today (The civil law demonstrates the moral law applied in their context). For example, where the civil law required a person to build a fence around their roof, we do not do that today because we do not lounge on our roofs; however, the general principle behind the law still applies - if there are places on our property where people could get hurt, we should take precautions to protect them. Concerning Lev 18:22, the principle clearly still applies. That's why Paul refers to homosexuality as "unnatural"; "perverted"; and "immoral". Concerning the relationship between homosexuality and professing believers, I would point out that this is a lifestyle that is inconsistent with the teachings of the Lord, and to claim him to be both Savior and LORD, but to choose to deny his Lordship in this area is inconsistent. The truth is... this is one issue that is undebatably clearly taught in Scripture. While it's true, that many seek to "pick and choose" what Scripture they comply based on their lives and choices, the Scripture condemns such practice. Concerning Lev 19:19, these commands applied to the context of their time and pointed to the fact that the holiness and purity of God's people were to be enhanced by observing the principles of separateness. See R.K. Harrison in the Tyndale Commentaries.

On the issue of being a LITERALIST, I do not claim to be a strict literalist. The Bible speaks against such in passages such as Gal 4:24 "These things may be taken figuratively." Like with other genres of literature (poetry, wisdom literature, historical narrative,...) you must discern how words and statements are to be taken and not always apply one method.

On the issue of MAKING SURE I HAVEN'T HITCHED MY WAGON TO THE WRONG HORSE (How can one be so sure Christianity is right) - On can be "moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the holy scripture, and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is to give all glory to God,) the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts." Concerning other faiths such as Islam, there are clear inconsistencies such as the fact that they claim Jesus was a good teacher, even a prophet, but he was only one of many leading to Mohammed. This causes a problem since Jesus states: "I am the way, the truth and the life, and no man comes to the father except through me." Here, the claims of Islam are seen to conflict with themselves, and this not a matter of interpretation. The Quran on many occasions contradicts the Bible, which it holds to be true. This combined with the testimony of Mohammed's life and teachings, etc., as well as the ultimate goal of Islam (personal island, sex w/ multiple virgins, etc. - man-centered/cravings of flesh) provide adequate reason on the whole to reject it. The same can be said of any religion that in the end is man-centered. There's a reason for the warning of Scripture in Rev 22 - "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this bood. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Anything that adds or takes away from the Scripture ... detracts from the truth and promises found in it!

Starboy

Nowhere in this list does Jesus say in his own words "I am god." The son of god doesn't cut it since Jesus claimed that all people were children of god so if you were a male that would make you a son of god, so Jesus claiming to be a son of god was no big deal. It was only well after the death of Jesus from people who had never known Jesus that such claims about Jesus as god were made. If you study all historical information available you will find that there were sects of early Christians that did not consider Jesus to be supernatural in any way, just a prophet with something important to say.

Starboy

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

Ha! Do you really believe that in Mt 26:63-67, the high priest thought Jesus deserved death because he said he was the Son of God (a general term, refering to everyone being a son of God)? It's clear those in Jesus' own day knew exactly what his claims were, but you don't.

It's silly to debate symmantics, the truth speaks for itself.

Starboy

Even so, Jesus did not say he was. He didn't say anything. Also the passage is an indication that the bible is cooked since being a son of god is no big deal.

Starboy

Biff the unclean

How odd that the high priest should suddenly abandon the Jewish idea of what a "son of God" was and what the messiah was and take up the Helenistic idea of a demigod christ. Stranger still that Jesus goes along with these Roman beliefs without skipping a beat.
Was this high priest guy a priest of Dionysus because he clearly wasn't Jewish?

Javaman

There are two issues at hand here. One, that you think many of us don't understand what the bible says and that is why we haven't accepted Jesus. Given that many here are intimately familiar with both scripture, early Christian writing, and biblical commentary, I say your assumption is unwarranted.

The second issue concerns clarity of scripture. Why on earth would a divinely-inspired conglomeration of books designed to lead us to a being that loves us without bound be difficult to understand and interpret? Millions upon millions of faithful people have come to radically different ideas about the bible teaches... and these are ones that think it is true!
Although you say it "could not be clearer", you do not speak the truth:
James 2
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Although you choose to interpret scripture this way, it doesn't absolve you from dodging the questions posed to you earlier that elicited this lengthy response. Essentially, you've said that it is good to follow The Law but you haven't said whether or not you personally follow the law. From earlier in this thread:
As the writings of Paul are central to Christianity and apparently to your faith, I'll reiterate what I posted earlier:
Romans 2
23 You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?
Is it that difficult to follow what you've deemed "ceremonial" laws?

dado

how do you know which texts rightly constitute scripture?

dado

as a member of the 70 Nations you are, of course, free to eat all the bacon-wrapped shrimp you like for whatever reasons you like - but it should be pointed out that the Mosaic dietary regulations are neither civil nor ceremonial - they are part of moral/ethical.

dado

but this is demonstrably not true. the only way to make such a claim consistently is to accept Jewish oral tradition - but then you have to explain why that oral tradition is correct when agreeing with your personal interpretation of homosexuality but not correct when disagreeing with your interpretation of Messiahship.

'm afraid, dear reverend, you are bringing your belief *to* the scripture rather than deriving it *from* scripture. how very...catholic of you.