| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 43:45:12 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 175,620 |
Somehow it doesn't seem right to wish anyone "Happy Yom Kippur", but whatever greetings are appropriate, please accept them.
Somehow it doesn't seem right to wish anyone "Happy Yom Kippur", but whatever greetings are appropriate, please accept them.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Following yesterdays tragic event I read about Yom KipperWhat a horrible faux pas, I should have checked the spelling. My apologies.
Jesus was a Jew, and no doubt took part in this Holy day, so how did we
go from that to a short prayer of repentance to be free from the penalty
of sin?
On a slightly different note, does the OT mention what happens to thoseNot really. The worst is Leviticus 23:29, 30 which says that anyone who doesn't take part will be "cut off from among his people" while anyone
not cleansed from sin as part of the yearly atonement?
A meaningful Yom Kippur is probably about right.
Traditionally, you are provisionally inscribed in the book of life on
Rosh Hashanah (the new year) and that is finally sealed on Yom Kippur.
On 03/10/2025 14:01, GB wrote:
A meaningful Yom Kippur is probably about right.
I guess so.
Traditionally, you are provisionally inscribed in the book of life on
Rosh Hashanah (the new year) and that is finally sealed on Yom Kippur.
The trouble with that tradition is that according to the ceremonial set
out in Leviticus 16, Yom Kippur had nothing to do with the people. It
was the sanctuary and the altar of offering which were cleansed.
The sealing in the book of life is part of the oral tradition, which isMe? I follow the written. Oral is too easy to muck up and get wrong.
part of the religion.
On 03/10/2025 08:49, John wrote:
Jesus was a Jew, and no doubt took part in this Holy day, so how did
we go from that to a short prayer of repentance to be free from the
penalty of sin?
I presume that idea is that you repent daily instead of saving it all up
for one big end-of-year repentence fest.
So assuming you do Yom Kippur once a year you are guaranteed heavenlyOn a slightly different note, does the OT mention what happens to
those not cleansed from sin as part of the yearly atonement?
Not really. The worst is Leviticus 23:29, 30 which says that anyone who doesn't take part will be "cut off from among his people" while anyone
who works on that day "I will destroy from among his people". In both
cases it would appear to be God that inflicts the penalty rather than
any human sanctions.
But if you repent daily how can you avoid going to Heaven?-a My understanding (and I'm happy to be corrected) is that you pray the
prayer of repentance and you are saved.
I also understand that you believe that you can be "unsaved" by
repeatedly committing the same sin or not considering that an action is
a sin, but if you repent daily surely this is forgiven in a similar to
the Jewish atonement once a year.
So assuming you do Yom Kippur once-a a year you are guaranteed heavenly status?-a-a Where would the Jewish leaders who railed against Jesus standNo, not even in Jewish Old Testament times. Going through the outward observance of Yom Kippur would do nothing for you if inwardly you were unrepentant. That, I suspect, was the condition of the Jewish leaders,
on that?
On 05/10/2025 15:25, John wrote:
I also understand that you believe that you can be "unsaved" by
repeatedly committing the same sin or not considering that an action
is a sin, but if you repent daily surely this is forgiven in a similar
to the Jewish atonement once a year.
Indeed - assuming that it is genuine repentance.
So assuming you do Yom Kippur once-a a year you are guaranteed heavenly
status?-a-a Where would the Jewish leaders who railed against Jesus
stand on that?
No, not even in Jewish Old Testament times. Going through the outward observance of Yom Kippur would do nothing for you if inwardly you were unrepentant. That, I suspect, was the condition of the Jewish leaders,
who were probably quite proud of how the brought about Jesus' judicial murder.
Until Jesus came and rebuked their interpretation of the law would theyI do not doubt that the Holy Spirit was active in Old Testament times.
even know that?-a You could argue that for Christians there would be a conviction from the Holy Spirit, if someone was sinning but not actually realising they were, but would that apply to OT times as well?
On 06/10/2025 13:16, John wrote:
Until Jesus came and rebuked their interpretation of the law wouldI do not doubt that the Holy Spirit was active in Old Testament times.
they even know that? You could argue that for Christians there
would be a conviction from the Holy Spirit, if someone was sinning
but not actually realising they were, but would that apply to OT
times as well?
C.S. Lewis, in his book "Mere Christianity" argues that we have an
innate sense of right and wrong, and I agree with him. I also agree
with the American who remarked, "If you think the Red Indian doesn't
know right from wrong, you just try wronging him and see what
happens."
I have not the slightest doubt that Caiaphas et al positively knew
that they were doing wrong, but excused themselves by rationalisations
that we still use today. ("It is better for one man to die than that
the people perish", by which they meant that they lose their
privileged positions.)
Whether they understood the theology of salvation by grace as we do
today, I doubt, but that is irrelevant. There are plenty of Christians
today whose grasp on theology is dodgy, but some of them are evil
hypocrites and some are godly disciples of Christ.
I don't believe that we are saved by theology, but God looks for those
who love goodness; they can be fitted for His kingdom of perfection.
They had "Moses and the Prophets." The prophets certainly pointed out
that their interpretation and implementation of the law was wrong.
[The teaching in the local church accords, (though I'm not 100%
convinced). The conscience is taken to be the guide. "Do you feel the
need to hide your action when you got to a [say, in the relevant
cultural context] stripclub? Then it is your conscience convicting you
and you should abstain.
That's what's taught, it's not my persnoal view]
C.S. Lewis, in his book "Mere Christianity" argues that we have anWe are social beings, and as such we need to have an idea of how to
innate sense of right and wrong, and I agree with him.
We are social beings, and as such we need to have an idea of how toI'm not sure that evolution does promote cooperation. The most
treat one another fairly. A Creationist would understand that that is
how God would have to create us, so we could more or less rub along together. An evolutionist would understand that the most successful
genes would belong to the people who were good at cooperating with
others in the clan. Either way, you get to much the same result.
* "Kendall K. Down" <10c13m9$gafq$1@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 6 Oct 2025 20:01:29 +0100:
On 06/10/2025 13:16, John wrote:
Until Jesus came and rebuked their interpretation of the law wouldI do not doubt that the Holy Spirit was active in Old Testament times.
they even know that? You could argue that for Christians there
would be a conviction from the Holy Spirit, if someone was sinning
but not actually realising they were, but would that apply to OT
times as well?
They had "Moses and the Prophets." The prophets certainly pointed out
that their interpretation and implementation of the law was wrong.
C.S. Lewis, in his book "Mere Christianity" argues that we have an
innate sense of right and wrong, and I agree with him. I also agree
with the American who remarked, "If you think the Red Indian doesn't
know right from wrong, you just try wronging him and see what
happens."
[The teaching in the local church accords, (though I'm not 100%
convinced). The conscience is taken to be the guide. "Do you feel the
need to hide your action when you got to a [say, in the relevant
cultural context] stripclub? Then it is your conscience convicting you
and you should abstain.
That's what's taught, it's not my persnoal view]
On 06/10/2025 13:16, John wrote:
Until Jesus came and rebuked their interpretation of the law wouldI do not doubt that the Holy Spirit was active in Old Testament times.
they even know that?-a You could argue that for Christians there would
be a conviction from the Holy Spirit, if someone was sinning but not
actually realising they were, but would that apply to OT times as well?
C.S. Lewis, in his book "Mere Christianity" argues that we have an
innate sense of right and wrong, and I agree with him. I also agree with
the American who remarked, "If you think the Red Indian doesn't know
right from wrong, you just try wronging him and see what happens."
I have not the slightest doubt that Caiaphas et al positively knew that
they were doing wrong, but excused themselves by rationalisations that
we still use today. ("It is better for one man to die than that the
people perish", by which they meant that they lose their privileged positions.)
Whether they understood the theology of salvation by grace as we do
today, I doubt, but that is irrelevant. There are plenty of Christians
today whose grasp on theology is dodgy, but some of them are evil
hypocrites and some are godly disciples of Christ.
I don't believe that we are saved by theology, but God looks for those
who love goodness; they can be fitted for His kingdom of perfection.
But your conscience alters (or does it?) when you become a Christian,
and everybody's conscience will be at different levels of morality.
Woulkd that be more retribution though. The message from Jesus is
different, love your eme,ies, turn the other cheek etc.
Whilst I agree you are not saved by theology, does your second bit not remove the need to be saved. Most people are relatively good people, but then you have your nice people and masty people at opposite ends of the spectrum. Yet even the nicest people have to believe in Jesus don't they?
On 08/10/2025 18:28, John wrote:
Whilst I agree you are not saved by theology, does your second bit not
remove the need to be saved. Most people are relatively good people,
but then you have your nice people and masty people at opposite ends
of the spectrum. Yet even the nicest people have to believe in Jesus
don't they?
Obviously I cannot pontificate about what standard God employs when
deciding who will or will not be saved. However my own understanding is this:
1. God's Spirit is at work at all times and in all places.
2. There are those who respond to God and those who reject Him.
3. Accidents of history or geography may prevent people hearing about
Jesus.
4. Therefore salvation depends on whether we respond to God or not, not
on whether we believe the gospel story of the life and death of Jesus.
Ideally responding to God will lead to accepting Jesus as saviour, but someone in an untouched tribe in the Amazon will probably never hear
about Jesus, someone who has been abused by a Christian may outwardly
reject Jesus and yet still respond to God.
God is the judge and I'm happy to let Him have the final say.Of course, and I accept this is just your view, but if correct then Christianity is not the only way to salvation, wheras Christianity
1. God's Spirit is at work at all times and in all places.
If only that were true, if it was the world would be a much better place.
All Muslims respond to God, and accept Jesus as a major prophet, are
they saved?-a All Jews respond to God, but deny Jesus was the Messiah,
are they saved, or does my thoughts on point 3 apply to those two groups
as well?
3. Accidents of history or geography may prevent people hearing about
Jesus.
Yes, and although the bible doesn't state what happens to them, I
believe they will be judged on the way they've lived their life.
4. Therefore salvation depends on whether we respond to God or not,
not on whether we believe the gospel story of the life and death of
Jesus.
Oh right, so when Jesus said, you must be born again, and that no one
could come to the Father but through Him, what did He mean?
I agree on the untouched tribe but my understanding is if you reject
Jesus you reject God as per Luke 10:16
If you remember I started a thread some time ago on this very issue.
God is the judge and I'm happy to let Him have the final say.
Of course, and I accept this is just your view, but if correct then Christianity is not the only way to salvation, wheras Christianity
claims it is.
What does it mean to "reject Jesus"? I would suggest that there must be knowledge (you know who Jesus is and what He represents) and
intentionality (you deliberately choose the dark side) and perhaps other factors as well.
On 09/10/2025 19:09, John wrote:
1. God's Spirit is at work at all times and in all places.
If only that were true, if it was the world would be a much better place.
Why do you doubt it? I said that the Holy Spirit is at work, not that everyone responds and turns to God.
All Muslims respond to God, and accept Jesus as a major prophet, are
they saved?-a All Jews respond to God, but deny Jesus was the Messiah,
are they saved, or does my thoughts on point 3 apply to those two
groups as well?
No, the majority of people in the world do not respond to God. They may
hold certain beliefs about God, but they do not manifest the fruits of
the Spirit. Curiously, in the list given by St Paul (Galatians 5:22, 23) doctrinal orthodoxy is not one of the fruits of the Spirit.
3. Accidents of history or geography may prevent people hearing about
Jesus.
Yes, and although the bible doesn't state what happens to them, I
believe they will be judged on the way they've lived their life.
Psalm 87 explicitly states that God takes a person's birthplace into
account when deciding whether he or she is one of His people.
4. Therefore salvation depends on whether we respond to God or not,
not on whether we believe the gospel story of the life and death of
Jesus.
Oh right, so when Jesus said, you must be born again, and that no one
could come to the Father but through Him, what did He mean?
He meant that all who are saved must be born again and that no one could come to the Father except through Him ie. through the merits of His sacrfice.
Being born again does not mean that you have waved your arms around in a pentecostal church service. It means that you have responded to God's
Spirit so fully that He transforms your life, giving you new motivations
for righteous behaviour.
I agree on the untouched tribe but my understanding is if you reject
Jesus you reject God as per Luke 10:16
What does it mean to "reject Jesus"? I would suggest that there must be knowledge (you know who Jesus is and what He represents) and
intentionality (you deliberately choose the dark side) and perhaps other factors as well. If you were born in a tribe in the Amazon you could not have the first; if you were abused by a clergyman, you might well view Christianity as the dark side while still desiring the goodness that
should be associated with Christianity.
God is the judge and I'm happy to let Him have the final say.
Of course, and I accept this is just your view, but if correct then
Christianity is not the only way to salvation, wheras Christianity
claims it is.
Jesus is the only way to salvation, not Christianity. Sometimes
Christianity gets in the way of God revealing Himself to people.
So why was Christianity the new way for people to turn to God? Jesus
didn't come for Christians, he came as a Jew for the Jews. If
anything, it should have been Messianic Jews that paved the way (James
et al?) but somehow, mainly through Peter and then Paul, Christianity
came very much to the fore. New believers didn't have to follow the
Law, except for the restrictions made in Acts 15, and it became a
world wide religion, as opposed to the Jewish one, which was pretty
much confined to Israel and surrounding countries.
Would you agree that, at most, only 10% of people turning to God is a failure?
So how does one get the fruit (note singular) if they are not a
Christian?-a My understanding is that when you receive the gift of the
Holy Spirit, the fruit is manifest, or at least it should be.
I read it differently, it suggests God knows where his people already are.
I would wholeheartedly agree with you there. I would also say being born
of the Spirit would also give you the freedom to praise the Lord in the exuberant way you describe.
Oooh, there's hope for me yet-a :-)
So why was Christianity the new way for people to turn to God?-a Jesus didn't come for Christians, he came as a Jew for the Jews.-a If anything,You have answered your own question. Christianity was the new way
it should have been Messianic Jews that paved the way (James et al?) but somehow, mainly through Peter and then Paul, Christianity came very much
to the fore.-a New believers didn't have to follow the Law, except for
the restrictions made in Acts 15, and it became a world wide religion,
as opposed to the Jewish one, which was pretty much confined to Israel
and surrounding countries.
Given that the plan of salvation of Israel was going to be through the Messiah (Christ), the references to the [people] "called by name" in the
OT seem to make sense only when applied to "Christians."
On 12/10/2025 14:31, John wrote:
Would you agree that, at most, only 10% of people turning to God is a
failure?
We simply do not know how rigorously God applies the selection criteria.
If He is as rigorous as some Christians, 10% is probably an optimistic figure. But certainly we expect that as the end of time approaches, true Christians will become an ever smaller minority.
Is it a failure (on God's part, I presume you mean)? That is a more difficult question.
Suppose you have a machine stamping out widgets. At first virtually all
the widgets are perfect, but as time goes by the dies start to wear and eventually very few of the widgets are of acceptable quality. Who is to blame? Is the manufacturer at fault for continuing the run, even though
the re-tooling costs are high and he only needs a few more to complete
the order?
We are told that the genome is constantly undergoing mutation and the accumulation of "bad" genes. Presumably the Tree of Life could have corrected these, but God deprived us of that - for which I am thankful.
An immortal Hitler doesn't bear thinking about! We know that God will eventually put an end to the corrupted human race, really all you are
asking is whether He should have taken that step sooner.
So how does one get the fruit (note singular) if they are not a
Christian?-a My understanding is that when you receive the gift of the
Holy Spirit, the fruit is manifest, or at least it should be.
Singular noted. If you respond to the Spirit of God, you will develop
the fruit. I am sure that God would like for you to be a Christian, but
as I have already pointed out, there are valid reasons why that may not
be possible, but none of those reasons prevent you responding to the
Spirit.
I read it differently, it suggests God knows where his people already
are.
I don't see a problem. God knows where His people are, even though they
are in Philistia or Nubia - ie. they are not Jews.
I would wholeheartedly agree with you there. I would also say being
born of the Spirit would also give you the freedom to praise the Lord
in the exuberant way you describe.
So what are we arguing about?
Oooh, there's hope for me yet-a :-)
I would always recommend that you become a church-going, Bible-reading Christian.
So why was Christianity the new way for people to turn to God?-a Jesus
didn't come for Christians, he came as a Jew for the Jews.-a If
anything, it should have been Messianic Jews that paved the way (James
et al?) but somehow, mainly through Peter and then Paul, Christianity
came very much to the fore.-a New believers didn't have to follow the
Law, except for the restrictions made in Acts 15, and it became a
world wide religion, as opposed to the Jewish one, which was pretty
much confined to Israel and surrounding countries.
You have answered your own question. Christianity was the new way
because God wished to reach out beyond the Jewish race.
That's fine, but means God isn't perfect. God has attempted to reset the process twice, once at the flood and once at the cross.-a Both failed, ok you can blame the fall or mans free will but I am of the strong opinion
that it was at the cross where it should have been completed, Jesus even stated it was finished, and 1 John 3 tells us that Jesus came to destroy
the works of the devil, so what went wrong?
Using Christian belief, had Adam and Eve not disobeyed God, there
wouldn't have been a Hitler, or any evil people.
I'm sure you would, and don't get me wrong, if Christianity and the
bible (more specifically the NT) is true, then I have no doubt as to my eventual destination, but at the moment I'm not convinced either is fundamentally true, based on my reading of it and my experience as a (charismatic) Christian.
To temper that somewhat, I believe that the bible has been written by different people with different understandings, so you'll have differing views.