I don’t think that autobiographies have to be forms of boasting. Sometimes honest people will include details about their lives which were quite embaressing to them. The glory goes not to them but to Christ who changed them.
Anyway, there is a time to keep silent. And there is a time to speak up that others may learn. The Christian life is not so individualistic and isolated. It is good that some older ones would pass on to younger ones experiences which they have learned.
I understand what you say about anonymous good deeds. But I would not take so far as to decree that no Christian should ever pass on some of their precious experiences to others in the way.
Perhaps if others speak about your life (biography) that is better. But every giving of thanks in our worship is a public declaration. Every testimony of experience is a public declaration. The Bible does not teach that Christians should lock themselves in a prayer closet and never publically acknowledge what they have received or learned before God.
Each of the 150 some Psalms is a public declaration. Many hymns and spiritual songs have come out of the personal experiences of the believers.
Not all talk is cheap. Some talk comes because a great price has been paid. This kind of talk can be useful and should not be dispised.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't think it was me, because being born again in my opinion is
I think I might have discussed this in greater detail with you in the past (if not you, then certainly with someone on this forum some months back). Anyhow, the point is simply this: the "born again/above of water and Spirit" line is part of Jesus's dialogue with Nicodemus in John's Gospel (ch.3). This is evidently a reference back to Jesus's o ...[text shortened]... is disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.
much more than someone being dunked in water in baptism. I am
amazed that now that my time is so limited I want to jump into a
couple of discussions that require a lot of effort looking up scripture
to make my points. Lord willing if I can get the time, and it does't
look good that I will have the time, but if I do I'll give you my
reasons why I disagree with you.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBaptism is a fitting and all-incompassing symbol of the essence of the Christian life. We are in a life long process of dying to the old Adamic nature and entering into resurrection with the new nature.
I don't think it was me, because being born again in my opinion is
much more than someone being dunked in water in baptism. I am
amazed that now that my time is so limited I want to jump into a
couple of discussions that require a lot of effort looking up scripture
to make my points. Lord willing if I can get the time, and it does't
look good that I will have the time, but if I do I'll give you my
reasons why I disagree with you.
Kelly
Even to invite Jesus into your heart is a dying to the old. But people shutter to do so because they fail to see that it is also rising to newness of life in God.
There is no resurrection without death. And there is no transformation without the old being out down. This life long process of the breaking down of the Adamic nature and the development of the new divine nature is out entrance into the next age and the eternal kingdom of Christ.
All we can take from this age into the next age is the Christ nature that has been wrought into our beings. Just like the tea bag disperses the essence of tea into the water, transforming the water into tea water, so God imparts Christ into the born again to change thier flavor from Adam into Christ.
We must undergo "Christification." We must pass through divinization. We must let God bring us through sanctification, transformation, conformation and deification.
Burial in water and lifting up out of water is a symbol popinting to this process of dying and being risen with Christ.
Originally posted by jaywillI suppose I shall try one more time:
===========================
Which "snippet" of Scripture did I quote out of context?
Any time you quote a verse or two of a text 2000 years old written to a specific group of people with a culture completely removed from ours translated from a foreign language.
===========================
I don’t think that quoting ancient writings is in and of its uch an experience strikes me as contrary to Jesus's teachings, who see.....
What distinguishing characteristics (that is unique) does a person with Christ in his/her heart
have that someone who lacks Christ doesn't have?
Even the two quotations you give are barren without their context. What did the author mean
(and who was his audience) when he said 'consummation of the age?' This would have had a
completely different meaning in the 1st century than the 21st. Without understanding the profound
sense of longing and expectation of the parousia, this quotation is just propaganda.
You write that we see God's faithfulness, love, power, glory, righteousness, and holiness in the
lives of His people. I'll ask again: are you suggesting that Christian people are luckier than say
Buddhists? What objective, measurable outward signs of this love, power, glory and whatever do
you see in His people that you don't see in Buddhists?
You write that the passage of time has gone to demonstrate the trustworthiness of the Gospel
message. And, yet, St Luke reports the following:
[Jesus said:]There will be signs in the sun, the moon and the stars, and on earth nations will be in
dismay, perplexed by the roaring of the sea and the waves. People will die of fright in anticipation
of what is coming upon the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And they will see
the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. But when these signs begin to happen,
stand erect and raise your heads because your redemption is at hand. He taught them a lesson.
"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees. When their buds burst open, you see for yourselves
and know that summer is now near; in the same way, when you see these things happening, know
that the kingdom of God is near. Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until
all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass
away." (21:25-33)
Speaking to His audience, Jesus tells them that there will be great signs and that His audience
ought to stand erect and raise their heads, that this generation will not pass away until all
these things take place. Earlier in St Luke's account, Jesus says:
Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes
in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. Truly I say to you, there are
some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God. (9:26-27)
These pose some very serious problems for the literalist, as (this portrayal of) Jesus is unequivocal
in His assertion that the Parousia is coming in the lifetime of the Disciples (and indeed, St Paul
clearly believed this, too). I'm sure that so-called literalists (who interpret these inconvenient
passages non-literally) have some other-worldly explanation for these passages (you know, where
a word like 'generation' means something else, or the 'kingdom of God' means something else here
than in Revelation, or 'taste death' means something else, or whatever), but this hardly inspires
the 'trustworthiness' you attribute to the Gospel message.
Regarding your admirable example of the book theft, I applaud that something (and I don't care
if it was Jesus, Santa Claus, an epiphany into the definitions of 'right' and 'wrong) moved you to
return the book. However, I dare say that this experience is hardly unique to a Christian. I'm sure
that many atheists, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians could report the exact same story. It hardly inspires
a special confidence in what you call Christianity as distinct from any other faith or even a non-faith;
that is, any person of integrity is going to say you need to make amends for stealing.
I will quote one thing:
Originally posted by jaywill
I said that being a normal Christian is being in the process of being
transformed into the image of Christ.
I would imagine that being transformed in the image of Christ would inspire the believe to act like
Him, right -- you know, reach out to the sick and needy, right? Why isn't tolerance one of the
very Christ-like characteristics on your list?
You write that 'only by abiding in Christ...can [one] live the standard of morality that...God requires.'
Are you saying that Buddhists and Jews are intrinsically immoral? If you aren't, I think you need to
rethink and rephrase your thoughts some.
Your lengthy posts continue to avoid answering pretty direct and simple questions. I will remind you
that my question is: What unique distinguishing characteristics will a Christian show that a non-
Christian will not show? This seems pretty essential to me as providing a compelling argument for
a simple way to understanding Christ (that is, by observing how His people are markedly different
from others).
Nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJayThis very sentence indicates to me that you do not know much about the Sacrament of Baptism
...being born again in my opinion is much more than someone being dunked in water in baptism.
as the Roman Catholics understand it. The RCC certainly does not think that it's just someone's
being dunked in water.
And, it was very clear that the early Church didn't think it was just a dunking either, as I have cited.
Nemesio
Edit: I was reading up for another post, but the end of the Gospel of St Mark is pretty explicit
in verse 16: Whoever believes and is baptized [in Greek: Baptistheis] will be saved... That is,
it's not obliquely talking about being born from above or born of water. The word is baptize.
I see no reasonable way around this for any orthodox Christian that holds the Bible in any sort of
esteem.
Originally posted by NemesioI'm not Roman Catholic or any other type of Catholic for that matter,
This very sentence indicates to me that you do not know much about the Sacrament of Baptism
as the Roman Catholics understand it. The RCC certainly does not think that it's just someone's
being dunked in water.
And, it was very clear that the early Church didn't think it was just a dunking either, as I have cited.
Nemesio
and saying that I do believe that we should be baptized too, but it
isn't the act of being dunked do I believe is being 'born again.' That
in my opinion is having a new life in Christ, where one actually invites
God into your life, and your body becomes a temple of the Living
God, you become new through this relationship with God in you. Being
baptized is symbolic yes of the new life, but that is just that, the
symbol for what Jesus makes a reality by making us new creatures in
Christ.
Kelly
=================
What distinguishing characteristics (that is unique) does a person with Christ in his/her heart
have that someone who lacks Christ doesn't have?
=================
I think I have replied to this line of questions.
====================
Even the two quotations you give are barren without their context. What did the author mean
(and who was his audience) when he said 'consummation of the age?'
=====================
Go back and read chapter 24 and 25 to understand what consummation of the age would mean in the context of Matthew.
===========================
This would have had a
completely different meaning in the 1st century than the 21st. Without understanding the profound
sense of longing and expectation of the parousia, this quotation is just propaganda.
==========================
Chapters 24 and 25 are the prophecies of Christ about the consummation of the church age and the initiation of the age following the church age.
There is propoganda which is false and propoganda which is true. As followers of Christ we of course regard Christ’s prophecies as true. And we regard Matthew’s publishing of them as propoganda of the true type.
Your dismissal of Christ’s prophecies as untrue propoganda I regard as simply your disbelief. Probably you haven’t the slightest idea of how the age will consummate or what really constitutes “the age” to begin with.
I suspect that you’re just hoping for the best.
======================
I'll ask again: are you suggesting that Christian people are luckier than say
Buddhists? What objective, measurable outward signs of this love, power, glory and whatever do you see in His people that you don't see in Buddhists?
=====================
I don’t think luck is envolved.
I do regard the Christian as more fortunate than the Buddhist. But I think as long as Christ’s eyes are upon you there is hope.
I see professing Christians to have idols. And I see Buddhists to have idols. So it is not a matter of how are all Christians distiguishable from all Buddhists. The Christians which inspire me display Christ’s love even for their enemies.
If you have testimonies about howw Buddhists are the same, I am happy to accept that as there are some morally high Buddhists. But I am most familiar with the thousands of Christian communities on the five continents where I could go and be received as a brother in the Agape love of selfless Christian brotherhood.
There are probably a number of Buddhists places where I would enjoy hospitality also. Regardless of which you may find more impressive I am more impressed with that which is inspired by Christ. There is no comparison with divine love and the manufactured human love, even that aroused through meditation or releasing latent soulical forces.
================
You write that the passage of time has gone to demonstrate the trustworthiness of the Gospel
message. And, yet, St Luke reports the following:
[Jesus said:]There will be signs in the sun, the moon and the stars, and on earth nations will be in dismay, perplexed by the roaring of the sea and the waves. People will die of fright in anticipation
of what is coming upon the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. But when these signs begin to happen,
stand erect and raise your heads because your redemption is at hand. He taught them a lesson.
"Consider the fig tree and all the other trees. When their buds burst open, you see for yourselves
and know that summer is now near; in the same way, when you see these things happening, know
that the kingdom of God is near. Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until
all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass
away." (21:25-33)
Speaking to His audience, Jesus tells them that there will be great signs and that His audience ought to stand erect and raise their heads, that this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Earlier in St Luke's account, Jesus says:
======================
This hinges on how you understand the phrase “This generation.”
But I will have to continue latter for time’s sake.
====================
Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes
in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. Truly I say to you, there are
some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God. (9:26-27)
====================
Here you are reading “the kingdom of God” but you are inserting mentally “the second coming of Christ.”
The disciples witnessing the transfiguration of Christ on the mountain in the next section was a preview of the kingdom of God. And they were standing there and did not taste death until they had witnessed the preview of the kingdom of God in its stage of God’s divinity being expressed from within Christ’s humanity.
But I am short on time this morning and will probably elaborate more latter.
================
These pose some very serious problems for the literalist, as (this portrayal of) Jesus is unequivocal in His assertion that the Parousia is coming in the lifetime of the Disciples (and indeed, St Paul
clearly believed this, too). I'm sure that so-called literalists (who interpret these inconvenient passages non-literally) have some other-worldly explanation for these passages (you know, where
a word like 'generation' means something else, or the 'kingdom of God' means something else here than in Revelation, or 'taste death' means something else, or whatever), but this hardly inspires
the 'trustworthiness' you attribute to the Gospel message.
=================================
Judging from both Peter’s epistles and Paul’s epistles there seems to be no offense or stumbling by either that Christ had not return yet. And Peter knew he was about to die. Still he indicates no depression or dejection that his Lord has not yet physically returned.
So supposed dejection that the Lord had not consummated the second coming in the first century is greatly exgerated by skeptics.
Peter, Paul, and John both display a very upbeat and responsible attitude in spite of the fact that they realize the probably will expire before Jesus physically returns.
Have to go now.
Originally posted by KellyJayI'll combine a few of your posts:
I don't think it was me, because being born again in my opinion is
much more than someone being dunked in water in baptism. I am
amazed that now that my time is so limited I want to jump into a
couple of discussions that require a lot of effort looking up scripture
to make my points. Lord willing if I can get the time, and it does't
look good that I will have the time, but if I do I'll give you my
reasons why I disagree with you.
Kelly
I don't think it was me, because being born again in my opinion is
much more than someone being dunked in water in baptism.
In Catholic (and Orthodox) sacramental theology, being baptised is being born again (as we say in the liturgy, "In Baptism, we died with Christ"; i.e. our 'sinful nature' dies with Christ). It's not just a "dunking" -- it's a washing.
... but if I do I'll give you my reasons why I disagree with you.
Please do. Take your time.
... but it isn't the act of being dunked do I believe is being 'born again.' That in my opinion is having a new life in Christ, where one actually invites God into your life, and your body becomes a temple of the Living God, you become new through this relationship with God in you.
That's precisely what happens at Baptism. With infant baptism the invitation to God is made by the child's parents on his/her behalf, but it's made nevertheless.
Originally posted by lucifershammerFrankly, infant baptism has always been confusing for me. I know that this is not how the Church
That's precisely what happens at Baptism. With infant baptism the invitation to God is made by the child's parents on his/her behalf, but it's made nevertheless.
started out. When did it become the norm?
I understand KellyJay's objection: an infant cannot do anything on its own behalf, much less accept
the invitation into God's Kingdom. Perhaps a broader explanation might do well for both of us.
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammerI think infant baptism (perhaps) began with good intentions, attempting to illustrate physically a spiritual truth. Namely, a person is saved by virtue of their ignorance until such time as they can make their own decision.
I'll combine a few of your posts:
[b]I don't think it was me, because being born again in my opinion is
much more than someone being dunked in water in baptism.
In Catholic (and Orthodox) sacramental theology, being baptised is being born again (as we say in the liturgy, "In Baptism, we died with Christ"; i.e. our 'sinful nat ...[text shortened]... d is made by the child's parents on his/her behalf, but it's made nevertheless.[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillYes, you offered me 'Deepening Love, Forgiveness...' and so on.
I think I have replied to this line of questions.
Then you told me that a Buddhist and Hitler might also display these traits.
So, you have not replied to my question, because my question was about
unique distinguishing characteristics.
Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywillAH HA! You are proving my point. The understanding of the consummation of an age is
Go back and read chapter 24 and 25 to understand what consummation of the age would mean in the context of Matthew.
a complicated one, entailing the reading of two (long) chapters of Scripture. Can you
now understand why selecting just single, highly charged verses from Scripture might then
pose a problem of context?
Nemesio
Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes
in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. Truly I say to you, there are
some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God. (St Luke 9:26-27)
Originally posted by jaywill
Here you are reading “the kingdom of God” but you are inserting mentally “the second coming of Christ.”
Er. I'm not mentally inserting anything. The sentence before the one with 'Kingdom of God' speaks
explicitly about Jesus's coming in glory with the Father and the holy angels. Do you really think
the Jesus was switching gears from His second coming? Don't you think the 'Truly I say to you'
indicates a continuation of the ideas of the previous sentence? It does semantically and in every
other example of this turn of phrase used by Jesus in the Gospels.
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour rituals are your rituals, they can mean whatever you want them
I'll combine a few of your posts:
[b]I don't think it was me, because being born again in my opinion is
much more than someone being dunked in water in baptism.
In Catholic (and Orthodox) sacramental theology, being baptised is being born again (as we say in the liturgy, "In Baptism, we died with Christ"; i.e. our 'sinful nat ...[text shortened]... d is made by the child's parents on his/her behalf, but it's made nevertheless.[/b]
to. You can call it whatever you want, you can claim the water washes
you, that the act cleans you of sin, and if you think someone in the
Catholic church can wash your sins away with water that is between
you, and your church, and God.
What happens in baptism isn't Jesus moving into your life, that is
done by Jesus moving into your life, the act of being washed in water
during your baptism, is the act of being washed in water during your
baptism. If you think God requires that your child as an infant go
through baptism, than by all means do it, that isn't may faith, it is
yours, and if you do not do it while it is your faith, it will be sin for you.
Kelly