What if God was you

@medullah said
Pretty much.

“Pretty much”?

It is possible for a person to be born of god, rebirth, born again (whichever), saved by grace through faith… but to “pretty much” lose that salvation if they don’t do some good deeds, or some specific deeds, specific quantity or frequency of good deeds?

@divegeester said
“Pretty much”?

It is possible for a person to be born of god, rebirth, born again (whichever), saved by grace through faith… but to “pretty much” lose that salvation if they don’t do some good deeds, or some specific deeds, specific quantity or frequency of good deeds?

Nobody is born of God, nobody is born of the Spirit. Christians who are baptised are born of water. Some may have gifts of the Holy Spirit. Some may have indwelling spirit in them, but they are still flesh and bones. They still have to live righteously and do good works otherwise there is no inheritance in the Kingdom of God. Yes they will be cast out. Paul was clear on that. So was Christ. The Christian church has muddled up the doctrine of Christ by twisting terms like "saved, salvation, born again".

@rajk999 said
Nobody is born of God, nobody is born of the Spirit. Christians who are baptised are born of water. Some may have gifts of the Holy Spirit. Some may have indwelling spirit in them, but they are still flesh and bones. They still have to live righteously and do good works otherwise there is no inheritance in the Kingdom of God. Yes they will be cast out. Paul was clear on th ...[text shortened]... church has muddled up the doctrine of Christ by twisting terms like "saved, salvation, born again".

Thanks; I’m aware what you believe on these matters jajk 😊

@divegeester said
I don’t understand why it’s so complicated for some people. I can understand why it might be unbelievable, but not complicated.

Jesus was flesh and blood, which was grown in his mother’s womb. The body, the flesh and bone of Jesus, therefore came into existence through that process at that time, and didn’t exist beforehand. Can’t have.

The spirit within him was Go ...[text shortened]...

This is what Jesus meant when he said to Philip “when you have seen me you have seen the Father”.

As FMF also pointed out are there not billions of people born of God or born of the Spirit as well according to Christianity? You said that Christians have been ..born of god, rebirth, born again .. Are they all like Christ? This is the logic sonship used some time ago to claim that they are all gods, or like gods. Cant remember the exact terms he used.

@fmf said
Is this any more coherent than the concept of "the Trinity"?

I think Dive might be dodging this question...

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I think Dive might be dodging this question...

It was a rhetorical question. He and I have spent many an hour talking about such things.

@fmf said
It was a rhetorical question. He and I have spent many an hour talking about such things.

I don't think it was intended as rhetorical in the slightest. You fired two quick questions at him. The first (which he sort of answered) ' Have there been billions of people down through human history who had "God's spirit" as well as "human flesh and blood"? and the second he dodged. - "Is this any more coherent than the concept of "the Trinity"?

Can't you be honest about anything?

@fmf said
How convoluted.

But you now accept, for most Christians at least, God didn't die on the cross for the sins of mankind, and that it was Jesus as fully man who atoned for these sins in arguably the greatest expression of altruism in history? indeed, it was this selfless act that put things right between man and God.

(Not a rhetorical question).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I don't think it was intended as rhetorical in the slightest. You fired two quick questions at him. The first (which he sort of answered) ' Have there been billions of people down through human history who had "God's spirit" as well as "human flesh and blood"? and the second he dodged. - "Is this any more coherent than the concept of "the Trinity"?

You are mistaken. It was a rhetorical question, as was the one before it.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
But you now accept, for most Christians at least, God didn't die on the cross for the sins of mankind, and that it was Jesus as fully man who atoned for these sins in arguably the greatest expression of altruism in history? indeed, it was this selfless act that put things right between man and God.

(Not a rhetorical question).

Most Christians can't explain it because it isn't coherent.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
it was this selfless act that put things right between man and God.

This is morally incoherent too.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Can't you be honest about anything?

I am always honest about everything.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
The pesky E word (evolution) has comprehensively squashed the notion that our species originated from an original couple in a distant garden. As we evolved as a species, there couldn't have been an original man, namely Adam.

With this in mind, how am I to understand the notion of Jesus being the last Adam, or Adam himself being the perfect man. How could there be a 'like for like' when Adam couldn't possibly have existed?

This is not so sir as I will now adumbrate (great word).

So apologies if this is a bit long winded, these are my words and not me trying to do a Sonship (come back all is forgiven) on everybody

Evolutionary theory (not fact please note) is shaped. There are several evolutionary theories (The Red Queen being just one). We have this attempt to nicely package the development of man from being maybe Bobo the chimp then up to "Thrug" the Neanderthal and on it goes through several stages until we get to Homo Sapien (that would probably cover you and I, though I'm not sure about Trev?)

Evolutionary theory by design or default effective contests the biblical account of creation, and is portrayed as scientific. Now I mention that the theory is shaped, as there are some inconvenient discoveries that are not widely publicised as they tend to put a spanner in the works. One such discovery is that of 15ft ++ bipedal creatures with six fingers and toes and a double jaw, that have turned up in archaeological digs. .Bit of problem if this turns up in our evolutionary diagrams as we are left with explaining how it fits into the scheme of things turned up. There are other references to be found in the Bible (Gen 6:4; 2 Sam 21:20; 1 Chronicles 20:6-8; Number 13:33). There are also Indian legends around these creatures covering the time period around the 14th century in the USA. On top of that we have the legends of the yetis; Bigfoot; Sasquatch, and much more interesting the account of a US patrol attacked by something similar, whipping out a whole platoon, and killing the man on point in the one that was sent to follow them, as recdently as 2006.

Now as far as the Evolution of man goes, if all of these Neanderthals etc evolved we would expect to see groups of home sapiens evolving all over the place. This takes me to the evolutionary work of a palaeontologist, Dr Roberta Can, whose work broke in 80’s. Her work was catered around human evolution using Mitochondrial as a method of investigation.

Briefly, mitochondria are constant in all reproductive cells. In the male sperm it is located in the tail section and is therefore lost. In the female egg it survives, and so there is a generational link through the female line. It is through worldwide research investigating distant groups of females, that Dr Cann was able to establish common ancestry from a woman who is now identified as “Mitochondrial Eve.” She is placed in Ethiopia around 200K years ago.

Evolutionary theory is far from the certainty that many like to make it out to be.

@fmf said
You are mistaken. It was a rhetorical question, as was the one before it.

Perhaps you are pretending they were rhetorical as an expression of altruism?

But to clarify, you asked two questions which you intended to be rhetorical and Dive ignored the last one because he knew somehow it was rhetorical? Is that your position?

Edit: It sounds a little convoluted.

@fmf said
Most Christians can't explain it because it isn't coherent.

That wasn't the question.