Originally posted by @rajk999No. Not even the disciples were aware that Christ would be crudified.
1. No. Not even the disciples were aware that Christ would be crudified.
2. Its not relevant to ones eternal life.
Just wanted to make sure I understand you correctly..
Its not relevant to ones eternal life.
Whether it's called the "redemptive work of Christ’s death", the "atoning sacrifice of Jesus" or what have you, it's not relevant to the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry. It serves no purpose. Yet by and large, it seems to have been elevated to the foundation of the "gospel" of "Christianity". It's mind-boggling.
02 Feb 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleSo I think I see your point... definitely, there are issues with how we execute the Gospel, but at the same time...
I try to not be overly judgmental about that kind of thing. I think it's really difficult to be a good Christian, and there is an active, gravitational pull that can begin to keep us down. So I think I see your point... definitely, there are issues with how we execute the Gospel, but at the same time...
Who am I to judge?
Everyone is really o ...[text shortened]... f others but few people are that charitable towards the Christians. Such has been my experience.
Actually, like usual, you don't see my point. You seem to have lost the thread of our discussion. I am not speaking of "executing the Gospel". I am speaking of how the vast majority of Christians neither "hear nor understand" the gospel that Jesus preached during His ministry in and of itself. They have superseded His gospel with a different "gospel".
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
So what importance did Jesus Himself put concerning His death for redemption ?
He specifically mentioned it as important as "My blood of the covenant" and "the new covenant".
For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:26)
He was speaking about His imminent trip to the cross.
And again, specifically, "the new covenant".
"And similarly the cup after they had dined, saying, This cup is the new covenant established in My blood, which is being poured out for you." (Luke 22:20)
Of course Jesus, while He walked on earth before His death and resurrection, taught the critical nature of His atoning sacrifice.
And while He continued His walk after rising from the dead, He again emphasized the importance of His atonement.
"And He said to them, Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise up from the dead on the third day.
And that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem." (Luke 24:46,47)
This is precisely what happened, no thanks to ThinkofOne of course. At least not yet.
02 Feb 18
Originally posted by @secondsonPresumably you understood the point of my previous post.
Let's say Jesus actually said "My sheep hear my voice,..".
Can you hear God's voice in the scriptures as contained in The Book, or in just the scriptures you cherry pick to believe are authentic?
Let's look at that verse in its entirety:
John 10
27“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;"
Compare this to:
Matthew 7
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
To "evildoers", i.e., those who continue to sin, Jesus says "I never knew you". Clearly Jesus does not "know them" nor do they "hear His voice and follow Him".
Perhaps the most prevalent theme in the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry, is the importance of His word - the word that Jesus spoke in the gospel preached by Him during His ministry. That is His "voice".
There is a wide gulf between the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry and what Christianity, by and large, has made of what Paul had to say. Conceptually they are light years apart.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @thinkofone
I am speaking of how the vast majority of Christians neither "hear nor understand" the gospel that Jesus preached during His ministry in and of itself. They have superseded His gospel with a different "gospel".
Your heretical way of teaching hardly is any remedy to that deficiency.
You come to teach "another Jesus".
This Jesus of your belief is not God incarnate, did not die a redemptive death, did not rise from the dead, does not have a ministry any longer, cannot come into people, is not coming again to establish the world as His kingdom.
You cannot fight deficiency or under appreciation of the full Gospel with a heresy.
You know it says that the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. Focus.
"For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Cor. 1:18)
Originally posted by @sonshipWhy doesn't the awkwardness of your interpretation make you cringe? Perhaps it would if you'd place it in the light of truth.
So what importance did Jesus Himself put concerning His death for redemption ?
He specifically mentioned it as important as [b]"My blood of the covenant" and "the new covenant".For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:26)
He was speaking about H ...[text shortened]... /quote]
This is precisely what happened, no thanks to ThinkofOne of course. At least not yet.[/b]
In Matthew 26:26-28 when Jesus tells them to eat His body (flesh) and drink His blood, He is really speaking of them eating and drinking His words just as He does in John 6. Jesus wants His words to abide in them.
What's also interesting is the meaning of the word translated as 'forgiveness' in Matthew 26:28 literally means 'freedom'.
So what Jesus means in Matthew 26:28 is "for [these are My words] of the covenant, which is poured out for many for [freedom from] sins" which parallels what He said in John 8:31-36 about those who abide in His word being freed of committing sin. It's marvelous how the interrelationships between John 6:26-63, John 8:31-36 and Matthew 26:26-28 line up.
This makes so much more sense than Him making some really awkward reference to His future death. Especially in light of Luke 22:19 where He says "do this in remembrance of Me." He's asking them to do it in remembrance of His words - NOT in "remembrance" of His death which hasn't happened yet.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @thinkofoneWhy doesn't the awkwardness of your interpretation make you cringe? Perhaps it would if you'd place it in the light of truth.
------------------------------------------------------------------
It is REALLY the interpretation of Jesus Himself OF ... His own death. It is not my interpretation. It is my quotation.
In Matthew 26:26-28 when Jesus tells them to eat His body (flesh) and drink His blood, He is really speaking of them eating and drinking His words just as He does in John 6. Jesus wants His words to abide in them.
------------------------------------------------------------------
This parallel between John 6 and His words about His body and blood will not do a thing for your fighting against Christ's redemption.
I will just say that the Gospel in full is not ONLY the matter of His redeeming death. Of course "eating Jesus" is the way to live by Jesus. That is taking Him IN all the time.
But if He is dead and gone, there is no spiritual eating of Him. You cannot pretend to emphasize the eating of the word of Jesus, the word which is "spirit and life" from one side of your mouth and teach that Jesus is dead from the other side of your mouth.
The myth making is coming from YOU.
The legend spinning is coming from YOU.
The embellished fiction surrounding Jesus is being invented by YOU.
The irony is that what you are suspicious of being done to you is precisely what you are doing to yourself and others in your unbelieving manipulation of the New Testament.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
02 Feb 18
Now Christ - TODAY, NOW, PRESENTLY, lives to intercede for His believers. And thus He is able to save them to the uttermost because He lives ALWAYS unto eternity to intercede for us.
Join us in believing.
"But He, because He abides forever, has His priesthood unalterable.
Hence also He is able to save to the uttermost those who come forward to God through Him, since He lives always to intercede for them." (Heb. 7:25)
Yes, He lives in His words. And He is a perpetual High Priest because of an indestructible life.
" [Christ] Who has been appointed not according to the law of a fleshy commandment but according to the power of an indestructible life." (Heb. 7:16)
" Lord Jesus, Lord, I now confess that You are the resurrected Lord and Savior with an indestructible life, living forever, Whose word is spirit and life. Thank you Lord Jesus for living in Your word."
Originally posted by @sonshipIn the OP I applauded the intellectual honesty of those I quoted.
[b] Why doesn't the awkwardness of your interpretation make you cringe? Perhaps it would if you'd place it in the light of truth.
------------------------------------------------------------------
It is REALLY the interpretation of Jesus Himself OF ... His own death. It is not my interpretation. It is my quotation.
In Matthew 26:26-2 ...[text shortened]... what you are doing to yourself and others in your unbelieving manipulation of the New Testament.
If only you were willing to approach with intellectual honesty the points made in the post to which you responded. Instead you chose to ignore them.
The idea that Matthew 26:28 is alluding to His death is nonsensical on so many different levels. Some of which I've already cited.
Here's another:
Following is the definition of "covenant" from dictionary.com:
"In the Bible, an agreement between God and his people, in which God makes promises to his people and, usually, requires certain conduct from them."
A "covenant" consists of words. This is what Jesus delivered in the gospel that He preached during His ministry. It's nonsensical to say that "He was speaking about His imminent trip to the cross." Especially since he wasn't speaking in future tense.
Originally posted by @thinkofoneYes Christianity has largely abandoned the teachings of Christ in favour of what they consider to be a more palatable doctrine and a lifestyle that they think Paul preached. No good works or righteous living is required or necessary for eternal life. Just a profession of faith and belief. However that is not the whole of Pauls teachings. Paul and the Apostles were crystal clear as Jesus was, that without righteousness and good works nobody enters the Kingdom of God.
[b]No. Not even the disciples were aware that Christ would be crudified.
Just wanted to make sure I understand you correctly..
Its not relevant to ones eternal life.
Whether it's called the "redemptive work of Christ’s death", the "atoning sacrifice of Jesus" or what have you, it's not relevant to the gospel preached by Jesus during ...[text shortened]... s to have been elevated to the foundation of the "gospel" of "Christianity". It's mind-boggling.[/b]
There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
03 Feb 18
Salvation is by faith alone, not good works. Good works are an outward manifestation of one who is saved but not a requirement for salvation.
If good works were required for salvation, why would Jesus tell the thief on the cross next to Him that he (the thief) would be in paradise with Jesus after the thief expressed faith in Jesus Christ’s divine nature? The thief was nailed to a cross and had no opportunity to do good works.
If good works were required for salvation, would a just God not say how many good works are needed? What’s the value of one type of good work vs. another? Do good works cancel out bad works?
- Joined
- 31 Jan 18
- Moves
- 3456
03 Feb 18
If my memory’s right, John the Baptist referred to the upcoming redemptive work of Jesus Christ when he referred to Jesus as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” Jews, of course, used to sacrifice lambs to atone for sins before Christ’s redemptive work on the cross.
03 Feb 18
Originally posted by @romans1009You think of it all wrong. To think of it terms of faith vs works, is to not understand the gospel Jesus preached during His ministry.
Salvation is by faith alone, not good works. Good works are an outward manifestation of one who is saved but not a requirement for salvation.
If good works were required for salvation, why would Jesus tell the thief on the cross next to Him that he (the thief) would be in paradise with Jesus after the thief expressed faith in Jesus Christ’s divine nat ...[text shortened]... eded? What’s the value of one type of good work vs. another? Do good works cancel out bad works?
According to the gospel Jesus preached during His ministry, the dividing line is between the righteous and the unrighteous. Jesus preached salvation through righteousness.
Originally posted by @thinkofoneChristians are very well aware of what Jesus said but they do not want to part with their worldly possessions neither give of their time to help others so they rather follow their pastors interpretation of Paul
You think of it all wrong. To think of it terms of faith vs works, is to not understand the gospel Jesus preached during His ministry.
According to the gospel Jesus preached during His ministry, the dividing line is between the righteous and the unrighteous. Jesus preached salvation through righteousness.
Paul and the apostles can be followed but their writings must be read in its entirety
03 Feb 18
Originally posted by @rajk999From what I can tell, they argue the faith vs works line because they think they can defend it. What they seem to fail to grasp is that it's really about righteousness vs unrighteousness. Subsequently they ask nonsensical questions that have nothing to do with the requirements for salvation / eternal life / living in the kingdom.
Christians are very well aware of what Jesus said but they do not want to part with their worldly possessions neither give of their time to help others so they rather follow their pastors interpretation of Paul
Paul and the apostles can be followed but their writings must be read in its entirety