Theology IV

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Ah, well it clarifies things a lot for me that you identify yourself as a 'small letter' jew who believes in Jesus as the Fullfillment of prophecy.

thanks.

Jews are christians, a real "jew" more accurately an Israelite, is in modern times a christian.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Jews are christians, a real "jew" more accurately an Israelite, is in modern times a christian.

That's nonsense, El Tel. It's gibberish. The Jewish people, despite enormous persecution, world-wide, have maintained certain continuity and traditions, and they don't, as a religious group, believe Jesus was the foredained saviour of mankind.

When you have this mishmosh of a-historical jargon, I know that reasonable people can achieve no common ground for discussion.

[katya]

Ok sorry, not trying to change the subject, but it we could discuss this also... I have to write an essay on this and I was wondering if you had any input. Here's the question, verbatim:
We have seen in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity a distrust of mysticism by orthodoxy. Why is there this distrust? Why is a mystical religion appealing and what dangers might mysticism pose for the religion from which it grows?

And a definition of mysticism:
1: the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics2: the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)3 a: vague speculation : a belief without sound basis b: a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power

This, unlike most of the discussions here, this isn't meant to be about proving something is right or wrong, I'm just looking for some ideas. I already have an idea what to write, but I was wondering if anyone else had anything I hadn't thought of to contribute.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Well, I would be interested in a discussion of how "Gnostic Christians" materially differ from present day Pentacostalistic movements, like the Third Wave, but that's partly because I'm difficult.

As far as posing a danger to the original religion, I'd choose to discuss Kabbalah and monotheism.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

That's nonsense, El Tel. It's gibberish. The Jewish people, despite enormous persecution, world-wide, have maintained certain continuity and traditions, and they don't, as a religious group, believe Jesus was the foredained saviour of mankind.

When you have this mishmosh of a-historical jargon, I know that reasonable people can achieve no common ground for discussion.

I think you have no idea who the "jewish" people are. Those people in israel are not jews they are khazars; more accuratetly they are the edomites.

The true jews are the black people who were taken into slavery. The prophesies pertaining to the nation of israel in deuteronomy clearly proves that and here is a documentary on the issue.

The bible clearly tells you that we the Israelites will not know who we are so what are those people saying they are jews for. Why are they in Israel when the bible says we will not be there until the lord comes back and gather us up and place us there. It says we will be powerless against our enemies and flee 7 ways before them yet Israel has already beaten the combined force of egypt, Iraq and Iran. All this hubbub about Iran possibly getting a nuke in the next 10 years and Israel already has 300 warheads. That does not sound helpless to me. The prophecies also say we will be among many different people and in many different religions, that definately is not these people who call themselves jews.

Revelation 3:9
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Who are the edomites today, they are the descendants of the romans, here is a video on it. Even the "jews" call the romans, the edomites. These people are the descendants of Esau Jacobs twin brother who was supplanted. What these edomites are doing are trying to reclaim that heritage unrighteously (against the law, which is hate) rewriting history, repainting the icons which were originally black, coveting that which is not fit for them. It is a conspiracy, that is clearly in the bible.

Psalms 83:2-6
2 For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head. 3 They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones. 4 They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from [being] a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance. 5 For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee: 6 The tabernacles of EDOM, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes; 12 Who said, Let us take to ourselves the houses of God in possession.

See, it says no longer in remeberance; we do not know because it was taken away during slavery.

Job 9:24 The earth is given into the hand of the wicked: he covereth the faces of the judges thereof; if not, where, and who is he?

Who rules the world eh? They covered up our faces...

Isaiah 29:16
Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? Or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

Black people are not all from Africa, biblically the sons Ham are the africans. The sons of Shem also were black and so was Noah.

The africans were not capturing and selling into slavery other africans, they were selling the refugees of Israel after it was sacked in 70AD. Over a period of about 1500 years we kept migrating from the east coast of africa to the west coast. Leaving behind as we went stragglers ie. the falashas etc. The greater part settled in west africa and there our enemies eventually rounded us up and put us into bondage.

Many of us were living in Europe at the time and 1000s of Israelite slaves were taken from europe into slavery. In fact, we are the original kings and queens of those lands. We founded those countries. That was what the rennaissance was about. After our downfall it was meant to revise all things, history and the images which is merely a by product of the original rulers (us, Israelites) being brought down and there enemies now coming into full power.

What you think the crusades was about. Why were europians going to Jerusalem with such religious ferver to "save" the holy land yet later persecuted the jews. If they cared so much, that does not make sense. The crusades were so important to the rulers of europe because they were Israelites/"jews," and that was their homeland and they wanted to go defend it, Simple.

This is the truth of the world we are living in. I have been studying for a long time. finding out as an athiest that the original paintings of jesus were black and simply not caring. Then finding out that the jews had to be black because the egyptians were most definatley black; I learned that in history art class - I saw an image of St. Maurice who is an egyptian. Then I started coming across scriptures like these:

Revelation 1:14-15 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

He had woolly hair, which has ever been how the hair of a negro was described. Feet of burned brass means he was a very dark skin man; burned brass is incredibly black.

Isaiah 2922
22Therefore thus saith the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale.

That is plane.

Amos 9:7
Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel?

It planely says we are like the ethiopians.

Now this is the killer for me.

Lamentations 5:10
Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine.

Wow. Now when black people are suffering due to a famine/starving their skin gets darker and darker. A white person becomes paler and paler. so this is another cut tothose people who are claiming to be Israelites. They are not but do lie as the scriptures say.

As most here already know from my many threads, I was, an aethiest. So I came into this through my love of research of history and my never ending search for knowledge and understanding (well it has finally, ended). This is the truth and the entire world has been lied to. Esau's name means "wasted away is he," and his name was later changed to Edom. Edom means red, the Rothchilds are his heirs today; their name means red sheild or red child.

Genesis 25:25
And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.

They are behind all the wickedness in the world today, 911, aids, mercury in your vaccines, fake moon landing, causing their culture to take credit for inventions that they and their people had nothing to do with etc. Even their people believe theses lies.

2 Timothy 3:13
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

Judgment comes...so:

Matthew 10:26
Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by katya

Ok sorry, not trying to change the subject, but it we could discuss this also... I have to write an essay on this and I was wondering if you had any input. Here's the question, verbatim:
We have seen in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity a distrust of mysticism by orthodoxy. Why is there this distrust? Why is a mystical religion appealing and what dangers might mysticism pose for the religion from which it grows?

And a definition of mysticism:
1: the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics2: the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)3 a: vague speculation : a belief without sound basis b: a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power

This, unlike most of the discussions here, this isn't meant to be about proving something is right or wrong, I'm just looking for some ideas. I already have an idea what to write, but I was wondering if anyone else had anything I hadn't thought of to contribute.

Well mysticism is usually about self empowerment and pride. While the gnostic religions are about the weaknesses of the flesh, the folly of pride and our dependancy on god, our true strength.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

So, El Tel, your belief is that Europe was ruled by black-skinned people, the true descendents of the Original chosen people of the old testament, and that there is a vast conspiracy, helmed by the people who call themselves Jews, today, that includes a fake moon landing, AIDS and 9-11 to promote wickedness in the world, as part of the End Times.

Is that correct?

And I thought it might be helpful to discuss this "wooly" hair business. Sheep come in a variety of breeds, with different characteristics for weather tolerance, length of fleece, milk production, etc. The sheep variety of the old testament area and most of the Middle East since is an Awassi sheep. Here's a picture.



It's really not racially conclusive...most hair looks like that, with infrequent combing.

[The Telcontarion]

accidental double post...discard

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

So, El Tel, your belief is that Europe was ruled by black-skinned people, the true descendents of the Original chosen people of the old testament, and that there is a vast conspiracy, helmed by the people who call themselves Jews, today, that includes a fake moon landing, AIDS and 9-11 to promote wickedness in the world, as part of the End Times.

Is that correct?

And I thought it might be helpful to discuss this "wooly" hair business. Sheep come in a variety of breeds, with different characteristics for weather tolerance, length of fleece, milk production, etc. The sheep variety of the old testament area and most of the Middle East since is an Awassi sheep. Here's a picture.



It's really not racially conclusive...most hair looks like that, with infrequent combing.

I have heard this BS explanation before and it a load of garbage. What are you saying, woolly hair is not a characteric of black people?

Here (Although this person had the nerve to say that woolly hair should have never been).

And here

Shakespaeres Othello!!!

What about the scriptures I presented too, blacks skin becoming darker with famine.

Come on, it's clear....it's cleeeaaaar.

[Tessar]

Those who are posting in this thread need to be more mindful of how they express their views and some of the words they choose to use during the expression of their opinion.

And if I ever see anyone use the word 'fag', or any other equivalent involving race/sex/creed/etc. meant in a negative connotation, in a debate thread again that's going to be a problem.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

I have heard this BS explanation before and it a load of garbage. What are you saying, woolly hair is not a characteric of black people?

I'm saying that your notion of what the expression "like wool" represents doesn't have conclusive evidence. I know sheep, and wool, and most people have very limited understanding of the variations.

I actually thought it would be helpful, but I was incorrect on that.

Was my first paragraph in that post reasonably accurate, as a statement of your POV?

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Was my first paragraph in that post reasonably accurate, as a statement of your POV?

Yes actually, summed it up pretty nicely.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Lief - I would just disagree with the underlined portion. It is not that there are parts that deserve mercy - but God chooses to grant mercy.

Hmm. You see, I disagree with John Calvin's thesis of "total depravity," the idea that we are so completely sinful that there isn't any goodness whatsoever within any of us, here on Earth. I believe more in a "partial depravity," concept, the idea that there is both good and evil in everyone while they are here on Earth. If we are totally depraved, then even our seemingly "good" acts are bad, and therefore should not be loved, and all our thoughts and words are at their root "bad," and so should be rightfully despised by anyone truly righteous. I doubt that you honestly believe in Calvin's "total depravity" thesis, either. The Psalms say, "hate what is evil, love what is good." If there were no parts within us that were good (and anything good is deserving of mercy) then God could only hate us completely, and logically we would be called to hate everyone completely too because it is totally depraved.

If there is anything good within a person, then that part (considered separately from all the evil parts) deserves good treatment, or "mercy." If I am generous and spiteful, my generosity deserves to be spared and nourished, and my spitefulness deserves to be condemned.

The person who has that good in him does not "deserve" mercy, because what is bad always deserves judgment, and the person chooses the bad and so chooses separation from God. Therefore God doesn't "owe" us mercy, for even though some parts of us may deserve it, the guiding and controlling faculty of our beings, the soul, which represents the whole, has chosen separation from God. So God didn't "owe" us Jesus' sacrifice, but he gave us his Son anyway.

But on the matter at hand, if we were completely depraved, God would not have sent Jesus for us. The damned in Hell are in the state of "total depravity," lacking in any sort of virtue whatsoever, and that is what we would be if we were in "total depravity."

God loves what is evil and hates what is good, as he encourages us to do in the Psalms, and so he loves us because some good remains in us that he can nourish and fully perfect in his own righteousness through Jesus Christ, the mediator.

So while we have some virtues, there are other parts of us, evil elements of our personalities, that deserve condemnation. God, in his mercy, destroys the parts that are bad through the sacrifice of Jesus and builds up the parts of us that are good so that we will be made completely good, totally united with him in Paradise.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by katya

Ok sorry, not trying to change the subject, but it we could discuss this also... I have to write an essay on this and I was wondering if you had any input. Here's the question, verbatim:
We have seen in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity a distrust of mysticism by orthodoxy. Why is there this distrust? Why is a mystical religion appealing and what dangers might mysticism pose for the religion from which it grows?

And a definition of mysticism:
1: the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics2: the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)3 a: vague speculation : a belief without sound basis b: a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power

This, unlike most of the discussions here, this isn't meant to be about proving something is right or wrong, I'm just looking for some ideas. I already have an idea what to write, but I was wondering if anyone else had anything I hadn't thought of to contribute.

In Orthodox Christianity, we love and encourage mysticism. However, we don't rely exclusively on it because it is based on subjective experience, and Satan can appear as an "angel of light" to deceive many. Consider Joseph Kony, for instance, who thinks he is led by the Holy Spirit and so tortures and rapes his way all over Uganda with his so-called, "Lord's Resistance Army." Or consider Adolf Hitler's mystical experiences and beliefs that guided him to believe that he was a reincarnated Norwegian god assigned to create a new millennium, without the Jews.

Mystical experiences, therefore, can guide people in good ways or in evil ways. How we interpret which experience is good and which is bad is subjective. We are limited by our own human fallibility in making these interpretations, so we might go terribly wrong. Therefore mystical experiences cannot be taken as our final guide. We need absolute truth as the guide of our faith, and mystical experience can nourish us in our growth in that truth.

This is Orthodox Christians believe why mystical experiences should be compared to what has been revealed by infallible sources of information from God. These sources are God's Word (the Bible), Sacred and infallible Traditions of the Church, and the great Church councils. The Church councils, we believe, are necessarily infallible because without their infallibility, we would be forced to rely on our own fallibility to interpret Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture (plus the guidance of a spirit we think is the Holy Spirit, though here again, we can make mistakes when we think we're hearing God, so this is not good enough on its own). Therefore there must be an infallible interpreter of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, and the Church councils fill that role.

We have seen too much evil in history, as a result of people following evil spiritual guides and incorrectly believing them to be God, or angels, for us to rest on subjectivity alone. So we believe mystical experience should rightfully nourish our unity with God, but should not be relied on to set up all the rules for it. Rather, absolute truth should be the final rules. Absolute truth does not involve trusting in faith what we know to be fallible (our own subjective experiences), but rather trusting in faith in what we believe to be infallible, the system of authority Jesus Christ set up for his Church to dwell in.

This does not negate the value of mystical experiences. In fact, the Church encourages them as valuable for nourishing the spiritual lives of members of Orthodoxy. However, we know that we can't rely on these sources alone, as they have led many people into terrible decisions in the past, and it would be foolhardy to advance in the same certainty they had, that we're smart enough to figure out on our own what spirits to trust.

The spiritual realm is a big and powerful place, with beings in it that have lived millions of years. We are not as smart as they are. Many of us have been falsely led by spirits in the past, to the destruction or spiritual harm of many. That is why we find mystical experiences valuable as a personal guide and spiritual nourishment, but we believe they can only be trusted insofar as they correspond to the teachings Jesus taught us are infallible. So our spiritual lives fundamentally come down to faith in Jesus, rather than faith in ourselves.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Wrong, he did not die for everyone, he died for the elect only.

That was a counter-scriptural belief invented by John Calvin.

Originally Posted by 1 John 2:2

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

Originally Posted by Hebrews 10:10

By this "will," we have been consecrated through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Originally Posted by 2 Corinthians 5:15

And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Originally Posted by 1 Tim. 2:4-6

who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.

Originally Posted by 1 Tim. 4:10

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

The false belief that Jesus died only for the Elect rather than for the world has caused people of my acquaintance to turn away from Christianity, incredulous that God could be so unjust. Where true beliefs do this, it is sad but necessary for the preservation of the truth. Where false claims about Christianity do this, it is simply perverse. The idea that Jesus died only for the Elect rather than for everyone (though not everyone accepts the sacrifice that was made for them) is a dark human addition to the Scriptural faith.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Hmm. You see, I disagree with John Calvin's thesis of "total depravity,"...
:
:

Lief - I'm not a whit Calvinistic myself. But one need not believe in man's "total depravity" to take the view that God chooses to have mercy on us when we do not believe it - rather than that He, in all justice, shows mercy to those good things in us that deserve mercy. The first (God's choosing) is totally based on scripture. The second is not. God's choice to extend mercy is what Grace is all about.

As for your response to Katya, please be more cautious in the future. We do try not to write people's papers for them here at Entmoot.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

So, El Tel, your belief is that Europe was ruled by black-skinned people, the true descendents of the Original chosen people of the old testament, and that there is a vast conspiracy, helmed by the people who call themselves Jews, today, that includes a fake moon landing, AIDS and 9-11 to promote wickedness in the world, as part of the End Times.

Is that correct?
:
:

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

:
:
Was my first paragraph in that post reasonably accurate, as a statement of your POV?

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Yes actually, summed it up pretty nicely.

Wow - sounds like a " 'Black' Christian Identity Group"! I didn't even know...

[inked]

Originally Posted by katya

Ok sorry, not trying to change the subject, but it we could discuss this also... I have to write an essay on this and I was wondering if you had any input. Here's the question, verbatim:
We have seen in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity a distrust of mysticism by orthodoxy. Why is there this distrust? Why is a mystical religion appealing and what dangers might mysticism pose for the religion from which it grows?

And a definition of mysticism:
1: the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate reality reported by mystics2: the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight)3 a: vague speculation : a belief without sound basis b: a theory postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of ineffable knowledge or power

This, unlike most of the discussions here, this isn't meant to be about proving something is right or wrong, I'm just looking for some ideas. I already have an idea what to write, but I was wondering if anyone else had anything I hadn't thought of to contribute.

K, most orthodox believers in revealed traditions have a healthy suspicion of mysticism because (not original to me,btw)
it begins in MIST
centers in I
and ends in Schism.

You might want to check out a copy of Evelyn Underhill's MYSTICISM which is an excellent introduction and study of the matter even nearly one hundred years later.

The mystical experience - as opposed to the numinous (see Rudolph Otto's THE IDEA OF THE HOLY) - is so easily capable of deception. This deception is usually self-centered but can be a manipulation by spiritual forces of wickedness. There is some good evidential material from various traditions that what the "seeker" contacts is the underlying substratum of basic creational energy which the "seeker" then supposes to be God, but which - as grand as the experience is reported to be - remains a created thing rather than the Creator and thus becomes an idol.

But you must write your own paper!

[katya]

Thanks for the responses so me everyone. Please understand, I'm not trying to get you to write the paper for me. I'm just kind of seeing what everyone thinks. My professor specifically said that it was ok to "share sources and seek advice", and that "healthy discussion of intellectual topics is not cheating". It's just that he's a really hard grader on essays, and I want to do really well on it. I'll post it when it's done, if you like. And of course, paper aside, I think it's an interesting topic. It's the one question out of 5 that I picked for the paper.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Hmm. You see, I disagree with John Calvin's thesis of "total depravity," the idea that we are so completely sinful that there isn't any goodness whatsoever within any of us, here on Earth. I believe more in a "partial depravity," concept, the idea that there is both good and evil in everyone while they are here on Earth.

Listen your Liefiness, to this verse:

Isaiah 28:13
But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

What this verse means is that you have to translate the bible using scripture to backup scripture to clarify the meaning of any scripture, eg:

Revelation 1:14-15 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.

Reading this for the first time one might think it means that his eyes were actually flames of fire. But it does not mean that:

Genesis 49:12 His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk.

You see how that works. The flaming eyes only pertain to the fact that he was a "winebibber," so his eyes were red as in bloodshot (red vains) from drinking wine. So the flaming eyes bit was a parabolic description, not literal.

Now the point here is, you keep saying what you believe as appose to what the scriptures say and to explain why one should not do that goes hand in hand with the proper break down of the quote of yours above.

The bible clearly tells you that the flesh is week:

Romans 7:18-19
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

So:

Proverbs 14:12
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Jesus even said:

Luke 18:18-19
18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

So even jesus knew his flesh was weak and of no good. Your strength is in the spirit not in flesh, in god not man; this is what the bible teaches. Further and this helps to re-establish my earlier points about love, Luke 18 continues:

20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

Again, that is showing love is the law/commandments, the way to heaven, that is why we were given them. And anything against the law is hate/evil. Further still:

Luke 24
34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. 35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. 36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

Hahahaahahaaaaaaaaa...wow, so classic:

Matthew 11:19
The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

lol...one of the first things the brother does after being resurrected is ask for food..hahaaa, hmmmmmmmmm.

Is that not a good illustration of the weakness of the flesh, this thing is practical man. If you take that appraoch all things will be revealed to you. No faerie tales just keep it real, be truthful to yourself:

John 14:17
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Eccle. (Apoc) 27:9 The birds will resort unto their like; so will truth return unto them that practise in her.

I can't wait to drink with him in the kingdom. Notice he did not ask for wine. That is because he made an oath not drink wine again during the last supper until they were all in them kingdom of heaven. So you know he is real thirsty right now. We will drink together and have a merry old time.

Now:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Telcontarion View Post
Wrong, he did not die for everyone, he died for the elect only.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That was a counter-scriptural belief invented by John Calvin.

The false belief that Jesus died only for the Elect rather than for the world has caused people of my acquaintance to turn away from Christianity, incredulous that God could be so unjust. Where true beliefs do this, it is sad but necessary for the preservation of the truth. Where false claims about Christianity do this, it is simply perverse. The idea that Jesus died only for the Elect rather than for everyone (though not everyone accepts the sacrifice that was made for them) is a dark human addition to the Scriptural faith.

Really, well let me put you on to something my friend. Those that he came to save, are members of an even more exclusive group than I had previously let on:

The Gentiles to be Saved That are Mentioned in The Bible are The Lost Sheep of Israel That are Scattered Amongst True Gentiles

Matthew 10:5-6
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

How can it be said that gentiles can be saved given what is said above; Jesus i does not change (Hebrews 13:8 - Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever/Malachi 3:6 - For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed):

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

He was sent for Israel only, that is plane!!!

Amos 3:2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your * iniquities *.

* Iniquities, which means sin. What is sin, transgression of the law:

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Who were the only people given the law and the only people that can break it, Israel; Moses brought the commandments from Mount Sinai. Thus only Israelites can be saved from sin:

Psalm 147
19 He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. 20 He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.

So when it says gentiles to be saved, it can't be talking about gentiles as in the goyim/the nations. But the lost sheep of Israel living as and among gentiles, as you and I are today. We are not living as Israelites but as gentiles: eating pork, fornicating, uncircumcised, not observing the high holy days. So we are for all intents and purposes, gentiles. You see, the bible shows you how to understand this perfectly (or any topic in the bible) by telling you how to translate the bible with this verse:

Isaiah 28:13
But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

So if you don't go line upon line, precept upon precept as you translate/decipher the word, you will get lost and confused (snared and taken) and not get the true meaning. Here follows some of the precepts (for they are many) to understand the meaning of gentiles.

John 7:35
Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?

Ephesians 2:11-12
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands

1 Corinthians 12:2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

Israel consisted of 2 kingdoms, the kingdom of Israel in the north and the kingdom of Judah in the south. Since the Assyrian army took away the north kingdom into slavery and dispersed them, the kingdom of Judah was the only one that remained and began to call them israelite foreigners, or Gentiles!!! So in the eyes of the kingdom of Judah (later called jews) they were no longer worthy of the promise and were considered unclean. But Jesus changed all that when he commanded Peter to give the word to the Gentiles, saying:

Acts 11:9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common (unclean).

So now the way was open for the diaspora, the scattered Israelites, the gentiles to return to The Most High because the most high promised Jacob that all his children would be saved. That is why it was important for the Israelite foreigners to receive the word also, they could not be forgotten.

APOCRYPHA- II Esdras 6:55
55) All this have i spoken before thee, O Lord, because thou madest the world for our sakes. 56) As for the other people, which came from Adam, thou hast said that they are NOTHING, but be like unto spittle (spite): and hast likened the abundance of them unto a drop that falleth from a vessel. 57) And behold, these heathen, which have ever been reputed as NOTHING, have begun to be lords over us, and to devour us.

You really think God would send his son to die for spit?

Matthew 13:9
Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.