• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dan56

  1. I think the 'greater works' Jesus had in mind were not greater miracles in terms of signs and wonders, but that greater works would be done in reference to the work of the Spirit in people's hearts.
  2. Mankind has never created anything. We have invented things from what already exist, we have started things from material around us, and we have produced more of what we have. But everything we've discovered, invented, or produced, already existed. For example; We may have invented gunpowder, but we didn't create the sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate. I agree that repentance and forgiving others is part of the process of gaining forgiveness for ourselves, but I disagree that our sins are not washed-away and blotted-out via the cross. Take for example, the Book of Revelation, what exactly did the holy Roman fathers transform or change in Revelation that could have possibly promoted their hierarchy of control? The anti-Christ is Satan himself, not Rome. I don't look at the bible as being my own 'belief system' per se, but rather God's Word to all who will hear (read) it. Believing in Jesus isn't a system, but a reality. There is clearly deception in the world, but I don't believe its the bible.
  3. I don't believe that we are co-creators, at least I don't recall creating anything. I don't believe that's possible? If your ignorant of something, your unaware, uninformed, and lack knowledge of it. How can a person be disobedient to what is unknown to them? Not at all..... the fact that Jesus asked the Father to forgive them is evidence that they were responsible for what they did, but mercy was sought because they knew not what they did. I didn't mean that we physically crucified Jesus. We are all ignorant and guilty of sin, we are guilty of sin even when we aren't ignorant. The crucifixion was for our transgressions, so unless a person has never sinned, Christ crucified was caused by everyone, and for everyone that commits sin. Your obviously convinced that the bible was altered for Roman control, but I believe God preserved his Word. So its highly unlikely that we will have any meeting-of-the-minds since you dismiss the texts that I hold sacred. I don't think God would sacrifice his only begotten son only to allow the Living Word to be contaminated later.
  4. My mistake....... I was responding to the statement you made saying, "As for understanding, I do not see people getting healed in large numbers by any church (no matter what their faith) and this despite Jesus reported to have said they would do this and more." I thought you were referring to Matthew 10;1 where Jesus gave the disciples the power to heal. Miracles of healing weren't mentioned in John 14;12-14.
  5. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:16-20). For me, these verses are directed to those who hold the truth, but continue to remain ungodly and unrighteous. God revealed the invisible things to show them the truth. Once the invisible things of God are clearly seen by a person, the visible things are understood, along with the power that created all that is. Everyone may physically see the 'lilies of the field, how they toil not', but they do not automatically attribute what is seen to be of God, but rather a miracle of nature. When I see scripture which appears to be contradictory, I search for clarification to clear-up what generally turns-out to be my own confusion. Jesus was talking to his disciples when he said they would 'do this and more'. And the Apostles did do more. I believe that the miracles of healing were given to the Apostles to establish the Gospel, and not to the church itself. Churches can pray for the sick and anoint the sick, but I've never seen them heal anyone. If churches had that power, no one would ever die!
  6. I don't know, what do you think? Everyone's situation with God is determined by God. Sin crucified Jesus, in that sense, we all crucified him. We sin unknowingly in ignorance, but we also sin knowingly in disobedience. Jesus was making intercession for sinners who didn't know what they had done, and I believe he still does. But I also think the Gospel has been published in all nations, and those who knowingly reject it for a different belief will be accountable."That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world" (John 1;9). Jesus always exist... The revelation was revealed to John, but it was; "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" (Rev 1;1) I don't see a contradiction here. God winks (overlooks) ignorance, but once people have knowledge of God and are shown the Truth, they are accountable and without excuse. I think it means exactly what it says, I accept it as face value, and not just a concept. Belief is accepting the teachings of Jesus, and his sacrifice for our transgressions. Its accepting who he said he was, what he did, and what he promised. The 'Word' was with us, accepting it is having the Word (his Truth) dwell within us.
  7. Jesus often referred to scripture, saying; 'Haven't you read?' So I think its imperative not to dismiss the collection of books which compose the old and new testaments. Just a thought; If the old testament was a collection of imaginary stories, then the prophesies of Christ wouldn't hold much weight. I completely agree that religion has misconstrued much of the bible and have emphasize parts which suite themselves while dismissing parts they find inconvenient. Certain denominations undoubtedly add to the Word, or twist it towards their own purpose, its organized 'spin'. Remember that Christ only found 2 of the 7 churches in Revelation to be acceptable. Most people have trouble believing everything in the bible, partly because they don't understand or because they don't like what it says. But that's where faith comes in, by believing and trusting what we can't always comprehend. The only difference between you and I Pete, is that I believe that Jesus was the living manifestation of God in the flesh and I interpret the bible as the inspired Word of God, while you have trouble swallowing what the bible says and prefer to try and spiritually discern the Truth.
  8. No doubt that Jesus offered himself for the world, but a world of individuals, who will be judged independently of one another. I agree that Jesus was not a scapegoat who provided a free pass to everyone, but he did say that 'Whosoever believes on Him and repents of their sins, will not perish'. I believe the forgiveness was for their ignorance of what they were doing. Like innocent children who are incapable of understanding and haven't the knowledge to distinguish right from wrong. Since they sinned in ignorance of the truth, Jesus did not hold them accountable. If they had known better and willingly killed the Son of God, then I believe there would be consequences unless they repented
  9. A Christian is a person who believes in and follows Jesus Christ, Christianity is the state or fact of being a Christian, it doesn't necessarily equate to religiosity. Your making an assumption that the bible was altered by Rome for the purpose of political influence and control, but there is no evidence that suggest this to be so. I believe the bible was accurately preserved and I fail to see an altercation within its pages that would benefit some Roman agenda? Stamping out all other ideas or fake Gnostic works was probably done to preserve the truly inspired writings, and to eliminate confusion over what was real from what was phony. The New Testament is confirmed by the Old Testament and vice versa, so any attempts to tamper with scripture would be obvious. Even your 'Gospel of Twelve' replicates much of what the bible says, some verses are word for word. The Strong's concordance defines Emmanuel as God with us. Doesn't your 'original' Gospel suggest a Divine blood sacrifice; "Lo, I have given my body and my blood to be offered on the Cross, for the redemption of the world from the sin against love, and from the bloody sacrifices and feasts of the past" (Lection 87;9). I agree that God protects his Holy Word in spite of anything Rome could do.
  10. I have no problem with anyone quoting the bible, in fact I'm happy they do. My model of things is the bible. I'm not calling anyone a hypocrite, I just don't understand why a person who does not believe that Christ was Emmanuel (God with us), or who does not believe that we are redeemed through His sacrifice, would refer to themselves as Christian? Its like saying I'm a Democrat, but I always vote straight Republican? I just assume that agreeing with some of the things that you believe Jesus may have said, is what constitutes a liberal Christian. This is fine with me, but I just personally think that belief in Christ ought to include accepting him as my personal savior, otherwise it seems I would just be partially agreeing with a philosophy. But that's me, I'm not the type to dabble in belief, I'm either in on all four, or I'm not in at all. The bible is either false or true, and I've chose the latter. I guess that's the difference between the Liberal and Fundamental perspectives.
  11. I kinda agree, that if a persons faith makes them a better person, that is a good thing. But since the bible teaches us of Christ, it just seems hypocritical for a person to say "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe the bible". But I also understand that many prefer the Gnostic gospels, and are turned-off by religious dogma and the traditions of men. As you mentioned, the liberal outlook is a self-serving choice which allows a person to pick and choose their own standards while avoiding the particulars. Being a fundamentalist, I obviously belief that the particulars matter, otherwise we are all taking our own way, and our own way doesn't lead to salvation.
  12. I don't think Ken was condemned by God in this life, because he chose what he chose and did what he did. Only God knows and judges the heart, but assuming Ken never sought, prayed, or called upon Jesus, his future afterlife would appear grim. If Ken never had the chance to hear the Truth, then I believe he would be given that opportunity in the millennium when God's Word will be taught. I believe we are sanctified by Christ, and not the prayers of others. Why pray for the dead? Once the race is run, its over.
  13. That makes sense to me. I believe everyone will have an opportunity to accept salvation through Christ, especially the good Samaritans among us.
  14. I understand what your saying. I happen to read the bible because I believe its true and I want to know the meaning. If I didn't think it was true, I wouldn't read it, nor would I care what it said. I suppose others read it for the meaning, with hopes of finding some truths. So I guess we are all motivated in seeking answers, but go about it in different ways. I just need to believe that what I'm reading is true, otherwise I lose interest.
  15. Nice testimony RR... I had a similar experience being Catholic and going to a Catholic grade school, but I also prayed directly to Jesus and bypassed the repetitious prayers I was taught to use. My only question is related to the paragraph above. If only those who trust in God go to heaven through Christ, how would a non-Christian go to heaven?
  16. This is what I mean by contradictory. You quote Christ while simultaneously denying the authenticity of the book you quote him from? I don't get it... If the bible is a collection of fraudulent records, then the Samaritan story should be nothing more than a fairytale to you. Again, as you guys suggest, the book of Acts was written by Apostles who didn't even know Christ. Since you don't believe Acts is the inspired Word of God, how can you assign any credibility that followers of Christ waited or received any Spirit 2000 years ago? Assuming 'HIM' is Christ, and you reject the accuracy of the books which tell you about 'HIM', then isn't trying to become 'like Him' based on a fictional man-made character?I'm not attacking anyone here, just trying to understand why you take the Samaritan parable to heart, seek the same Holy Spirit revealed in Acts, and long to become Christlike while rejecting the Gospels that describe Christ? It just seems like double-talk because you seem to appreciate and learn from the bible while simultaneously claiming its an errant collection of fables concocted by a bunch of confused sheep herders? Why give any weight or credibility to books you don't believe? I suspect your not as unbelieving of the bible as you profess, and since it speaks to you, a bit of faith might exist?
  17. Nothing wrong with quoting material, but doesn't calling oneself a Christian imply a belief in Christ? If I thought the bible was a collection of fables, then I would not be a Christian because I would not believe the bible. People quote Shakespeare knowing he was a fictional writer, its an appreciation of fiction and not a confirmation of faith. Infallibility has nothing to do with it. Of course not.. But it just seems illogical to refer to oneself as Christian when they don't believe the words they quote from the bible. You can be inspired by a philosophy that you embrace, but does that equate to belief? I'm not questioning what you believe or your right to quote anything, I just have trouble grasping how someone can be Christian while simultaneously denying that everything written about Jesus is true? If you presume the bible is false, isn't Liberal Christianity based on a lie? Or is it referred to as 'Liberal' because its a partial belief in Christ? How can anyone validate what they themselves don't believe? The liberal view rejects Christ as the Son of God, and their salvation is not reliant on Christ. How can you validate and embrace that position without undermining what you believe? We can surely respect each others beliefs, but to find validity in what another person thinks requires a degree of agreement. Doesn't it? If I believe the bible and someone else doesn't believe it, then I can't very well expect them to validate what I think.
  18. If the bible is fallible, why do Liberals quote it at all? It seems to me that they believe what appeals to them and reject what doesn't suit them. The bible is where we learn about Christ, therefore, how does a person reject the bible as being the inspired Word of God while simultaneously professing to be Christian? It seems illogical and contradictory since a Christian by definition is a follower of Christ. How do you have faith in Christ when you doubt the authenticity of the Gospels which reveal who Christ was and what he taught?
  19. Assuming that gamma knife radio surgery deadens the nerve, I wonder how anesthesia dolorosa could be a result from having GKRS? A second opinion might help? If your condition worsens and it gets unbearable, I think I'd consider GKRS as a treatment. Since surgery and medications didn't help, it just seems that killing the nerve which causes the pain would be a logical step. But of course the risks are yours to weigh. God's speed.
  20. Well, it seems to be a mysterious illness. I can understand your frustration from living with constant pain. Its also understandable why you would consider putting an end to it. If an an animal (pet) were in constant pain, the humane answer would be to stop the suffering and put them down, but such is not the case with people. I'd only suggest that as long as you can tolerate it, life is worth fighting for, and hope is a good thing, along with prayer to see you thru it. No prescription pain relievers help? (Demerol, Vicodin, Oxycontin, Percodan, Fentanyl, Morphine, Dilaudid, etc?)
  21. Just curious whether or not you've tried Gamma Knife radio surgery? I read that approximately 85 to 90 percent of patients who have had GKRS experience excellent or good pain relief.
  22. I doubt anyone can give sound advise without knowing the details. Perhaps your friends anger is justified? Just listening to a grievance does not rectify the problem. Cooler heads don't always prevail. Did anyone apologize for the injustice committed? People have a right to be mad when they are wronged, and cursing the guilty party might help relieve some anxiety.
  23. Death has no victory because a Savior was born, that's worth celebrating. Its understandable to be reminded and saddened at the loss of someone close who may have passed-away around Christmas, but the hope is that in Christ they live, and you'll see them again. That's the peace and joy this Season brings.
  24. What do you worry about? Work to alleviate those worries yourself, and leave what you can't control to God. jmo
  25. My sympathy to the families of the victims at Ft Hood, and my sincere hope that Major Malik Nadal Hasan recuperates so that we can hang him from the nearest tree.