seekinheart
Star
- Joined
- May 15, 2017
- Messages
- 2,133
Nikon is trying to confuse u with antichristian rhetoric because they can't get their head around the doctrine of the trinity.I Didn't say anything about - Worshiping, what have i done?
Nikon is trying to confuse u with antichristian rhetoric because they can't get their head around the doctrine of the trinity.I Didn't say anything about - Worshiping, what have i done?
Truth is always in the eyes of the beholder, one get deceived with lack of knowledge.Nikon is trying to confuse u with antichristian rhetoric because they can't get their head around the doctrine of the trinity.
I think you should read the Bible instead of spouting rubbish.Nikon is trying to confuse u with antichristian rhetoric because they can't get their head around the doctrine of the trinity.
What are you talking about. At the very least in the new testament Jesus is referred to as God and saviour. The holy spirit can be blasphemed as a specific differentiated person. This is silly.Anyway the appeal to mystery fallacy isn't convincing when you can trace the doctrine of the trinity down to specific people and their specific philosophically-derived thought (usually a movement known as Middle Platonism, and in the case of Augustine; Neoplatonism) in the 3rd and 4th centuries.
It is not a doctrine present in any of the books contained in the canonized Bible and was not known by Jesus or any of the Apostles, period. To even need to explain this is just an insult to the intellect and the spirit.
Dispensationalism is highly contradictory of what the Bible teaches.What are you talking about. At the very least in the new testament Jesus is referred to as God and saviour. The holy spirit can be blasphemed as a specific differentiated person. This is silly.
It's ironic that someone that leans toward islamic teaching can't seem to grasp progressive revelation.
This really sprung to mind and I think really speaks to learned people that just can't face the truth about who GOD is and I've been coming across alot of them lately.
You are very correct it did begin Eden with the first prophecy regarding JesusDispensationalism is highly contradictory of what the Bible teaches.
You're very mistaken if you think that either Jews or Muslims believe in Dispensationalism. Both Jews and Muslims believe that salvation is a consistent thing that originated in the garden of Eden itself with God. Jesus never taught anything that contradicted this.
Excuse me?You know when you are enamoured with Hinduism
You are conflating the mode of salvation with revelation itself, which in this context have nothing to do with each other.Muhammad was writing the Qur'an as he went along there's nothing more dispensational than that.
Yes, I've practiced various things in the past. This doesn't contradict that I have a negative view of Hinduism, Pantheism and related ideas.
My guess is that they likely believe in the nihilistic monist-monadic-nondual view of God, which is not really "God" at all (at least in any meaningful sense other than being a stand in of "that transcendent ultimate reality"). Their type of ontology and eschatology is generally cyclical and is ultimately lax about both meaning and consequence within manifest existence ('Creation' to us Abrahamics, but for instances what the Dharmics would call 'Samsara').
Despite what they say, their "God" is a dumb, ignorant, sleepy "nothingness" which, when it comes down to it, validates rejection of morality.
Repentance, loving God and following God's commandments/laws. The Bible repeats this consistently, in Islam the same belief directly applies.Anywho, so what in ur view is the mode of salvation for Jews and Muslims?
Y
Why do you keep trying to tell me what the Bible teaches I already know what it teaches lol. also how do you come to the conclusion the Bible doesn't teach salvation through Christ atoning deathRepentance, loving God and following God's commandments/laws. The Bible repeats this consistently, in Islam the same belief directly applies.
Because the Torah doesn't teach this whatsoever, nor do any of the Prophets. The belief in vicarious atonement is not Biblical, Moses didn't teach it, Jesus didn't teach it.also how do you come to the conclusion the Bible doesn't teach salvation through Christ atoning death
Then you will have to concede that "Repentance, loving God and following God's commandments/laws." is in every way superior to vicarious atonement (and any variations of it). In fact "Repentance, loving God and following God's commandments/laws." is so superior that it makes the very idea of any kind of vicarious atonement redundant and worthy of ridicule, given how much of a step backwards it is from the salvific model of the ancient Israelite patriarchs.Why do you keep trying to tell me what the Bible teaches I already know what it teaches lol.
I'm sorry you dont understand my post.I don't understand...
Why regret creating humans if you did not like them?
Aka Pharisaism and its Noahide offshoot, Muhammadanism.Nikōn said:This, both Jews and Muslims believe
He did, but by that he meant you have to live like he did and follow exactly what he taught, which isn’t easy. He also said that very few will make it.Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
So we should bring back stoning etc? This argument is cyclical and always comes up with Muslims about the law and living under it. It's boring. And in no way biblical you are saying Bible and leaving out the new testament.Because the Torah doesn't teach this whatsoever, nor do any of the Prophets. The belief in vicarious atonement is not Biblical, Moses didn't teach it, Jesus didn't teach it.
At that, it is entirely inferior to the model of salvation already outlined.
Then you will have to concede that "Repentance, loving God and following God's commandments/laws." is in every way superior to vicarious atonement (and any variations of it). In fact "Repentance, loving God and following God's commandments/laws." is so superior that it makes the very idea of any kind of vicarious atonement redundant and worthy of ridicule, given how much of a step backwards it is from the salvific model of the ancient Israelite patriarchs.
Yes! I stopped reading the bible because i was reading it with blocked heads, i began to understand it when i stopped living my life through a lens and please stop complexicating it.I'm sorry you dont understand my post.
It seems like you stopped reading the bible around Genesis 6... is that correct? It's an important chapter but there's more to it.
And God repented orregretted He had made man
I'm paraphrasing there... but a lot of people wonder about this verse. I think it's about TRANSLATION.
There are Hebrew & Greek words that don't translate well into English-- however, Cambridge (study material) says it was anthropothy-- attributing human qualities to God, who is decidedly not human. Perhaps it was...
"... the dread of any expression of... irreverence towards the Almighty, which led to the strange renderings of this verse ... LXX renders “repented” by ἐνεθυμήθη = “considered,” and “grieved” by διενοήθη = “purposed"..."
The Septuagint reads just as it says, above... correctly, I think.
Brenton Septuagint Translation
then God laid it to heart that he had made man upon the earth, and he pondered it deeply.
That makes more sense, imo, because God does not "regret"-- He is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent... He does not change. He certainly doesn't second guess Himself. -.- Anyway-- Genesis 6 is another conversation, altogether.
Your next thought--
And when the end comes we die and go to heaven and praise God forever and that's it?
Are you concerned it might be a ghetto up there? Or worse--> boring?
... as it is written:
“Eye has not seen,
nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into
the heart of man
The things
which God has prepared
for those who love Him.”
In other words---> unfathomable (but spectacular).
---
Wait...The same God gave us instinct and still says our thought is deceitful...
---
Think about that.