"No true Christian would ______________."

Originally posted by skeyey
look at it this way, I would rather go through my whole life being a Christian and then die, find out I was wrong about the whole thing; than to go through my whole life being an atheist and then die and find out I was wrong about the whole thing. Put that thought process to any theorist or scientist, put it to any formula or equation that you can think of an ...[text shortened]... my invisible friend. I hope that one day you can experience this faith and salvation as I have.

Im with you skeyey !!

God bless....🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
This reminds me of a Zen story—

Hakuin was a famous Zen master and Buddhist priest who lived in a hermitage in the hills above a fishing village. He was well-respected by everyone, as a wise and holy man.

One day, a girl of a poor family in the village discovered she was pregnant. The father was a lowly fishmonger, with whom she was in love, but who ...[text shortened]... his commissions were finally completed, he threw away all his paint brushes and became a monk...

vistesd,

Could you please tell me what the story about Hakuin means or what lessons I should take from it?

I can come up with a couple of different meanings and a few lessons (not the least of which being patience/self-control), but I'm curious what you think about it.

Also, could you recommend a book which contains other similar stories?

Originally posted by TheSkipper
vistesd,

Could you please tell me what the story about Hakuin means or what lessons I should take from it?

I can come up with a couple of different meanings and a few lessons (not the least of which being patience/self-control), but I'm curious what you think about it.

Also, could you recommend a book which contains other similar stories?

In the context of this thread, and in response to extreme’s post, it has to do with being concerned about what other people think. There are numerous possibilities, however, and I let you find your own as you engage the story from your own life’s perspective.

The story is found in Paul Reps’ [i]Zen Flesh, Zen Bones[i], a little compendium of such tales. I re-wrote it from memory, and probably fleshed some of it out a bit for my purpose here...

Originally posted by vistesd
Just to close out this failed thread—

A few years ago, in my ignorance of such things, I bought what I thought was a peach tree—partly because that’s what the tag on the tree said it was. After I had planted it, a friend of mine came to visit. I showed him the tree. He said, “That’s a plum tree.”

"No, no,” I said. “It’s a peach tree. See there’s t ...[text shortened]... ve, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, and self-control.

Know them by their fruits, and not by what they claim to be. 'A good tree cannot bear bad fruit.' Those are humbling words. I suppose 'bad fruit' might be: selfishness, despair, hostility, impatience, meanness, infidelity, cruelty, and indiscipline (among the others mentioned in Galatians 5:19-21). It can be argued that all men, whether they claim to be Christian or not, in themselves bear mixed fruit (both good and bad), however, Paul is contrasting the sinful nature and its bad fruit with the law of the Spirit of Christ, which is the opposite of the sinful nature and manifests the characteristics of Christ Himself, rather than the various immoralities of a selfish, sinful life. A man in himself cannot bear the fruit of the Spirit even though his deeds may be outwardly conspicuous 'good' deeds, because they are still selfishly motivated. All his fruit is 'bad' because the tree is bad (he remains a slave to his sinful nature). A spirit-filled man, born from above, given freedom in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit, and made a 'new creature in Christ', cannot bear bad fruit because the tree (his nature) has been made 'good'. His motivations are now Spirit-motivated. (Not that sin is absent from a believer's life, but even repentence is obedience to the Spirit.) I would say that your question is impossible to answer without God's insight into a person's heart. What is his or her motivation(s)? Motivations shift from moment to moment; weakness prevails one moment, the Spirit prevails the next, so it's hard to say. Character isn't formed overnight. I believe the mark of a true believer is whether or not he or she is an 'overcomer'; one who overcomes the flesh through obedience to the Spirit; one dedicated to overcoming. The true 'good fruit' of the Spirit is procured within an individual's character throughout a lifetime of obedience to the Spirit amid and despite weakness, with the end result being the overcoming of weakness. A true Christian would never give up.

Originally posted by vistesd

I’m interested in what people (especially Christians) on here think are the minimum requirements for one to be a “true Christian.”

Stupid and a pain in the arse.

And if they're creationists or pro-lifers the minimum requirement is the death penatly.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Know them by their fruits, and not by what they claim to be. 'A good tree cannot bear bad fruit.' Those are humbling words. I suppose 'bad fruit' might be: selfishness, despair, hostility, impatience, meanness, infidelity, cruelty, and indiscipline (among the others mentioned in Galatians 5:19-21). It can be argued that all men, whether they c ...[text shortened]... the overcoming of weakness. A true Christian would never give up.

'A good tree cannot bear bad fruit.'

I wonder how many times I have glossed over that “cannot” without thinking about it? Good catch.

It can be argued that all men, whether they claim to be Christian or not, in themselves bear mixed fruit...

Precisely what many of the earlier fathers and the Eastern Church in general (based on my reading so far) do in fact claim. Further, I now suggest that the two kinds of trees parallel the “wheat and the tares” and the “sheep and the goats.”

In which vein, again, Orthodox theologian Olivier Clement comments as follows—

“We must pray, however, that the fire of judgment—which is the fire of God’s love—will not consume the wicked, but only that part in each one which is evil. The division into ‘sheep’ and ‘goats’ of which the Last Judgment scene speaks would thus be made, not between Two crowds of human beings, but between two kinds of character within each individual. In practice, other parables of a similar kind like that of the ‘good seed’ and the ‘tares’ cannot be interpreted in any other way. Jesus explains that the ‘good seed means the sons of the Kingdom; the weeds are the sons of the evil one’, and that at the end these latter will be cast into the blazing furnace (Matthew 13:36). Only Gnostics and Manicheans can hold that it is a question here of people. All human beings are creatures of God. What is ‘sown by the devil’ is destructive suggestions, the seeds of idolatry and folly. Good seeds and tares are human dispositions. To destroy the thoughts sown by the evil one is not to destroy the person but to cauterize him. What Gregory of Nyssa suggests is precisely this divine surgery.

“‘The body is subject to various forms of illness. Some are easy to treat, others are not, and for the latter recourse is had to incisions, cauterizations, bitter medicine... We are told something of the same sort about the judgment in the next world, the healing of the soul’s infirmities. If we are superficial people, that amounts to a threat and a process of severe correction... But the faith of deeper minds regards it as a process of healing and therapy applied by God in such a way as to bring back the being he created to its original grace.’ (Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechetical Oration)”

Clement quotes Ambrose of Milan (4th century, as is Nyssa): “The same individual is at the same time saved and condemned.” [I think this statement here is to be understood in the foregoing context, in which Clement quotes it, and not as a statement that no one can avoid hell in the afterlife—that undoubtedly would be heretical.]

Originally posted by vistesd
Zen Flesh, Zen Bones

Zen bones, Zen bones, Zen dry bones.....................

(ducking)

Originally posted by Nemesio
Zen bones, Zen bones, Zen dry bones.....................

(ducking)

(throwing...)

Originally posted by shavixmir
Stupid and a pain in the arse.

And if they're creationists or pro-lifers the minimum requirement is the death penatly.

A truly enlightened, unbiased opinion.

Originally posted by vistesd
Just to close out this failed thread—

A few years ago, in my ignorance of such things, I bought what I thought was a peach tree—partly because that’s what the tag on the tree said it was. After I had planted it, a friend of mine came to visit. I showed him the tree. He said, “That’s a plum tree.”

"No, no,” I said. “It’s a peach tree. See there’s t ...[text shortened]... ve, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, and self-control.

This is nicely put. I'm not sure I'm a "true Christian" though I try, but these attributes are certainly some chief ones that I strive to develop in my life, mind, and soul.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]'A good tree cannot bear bad fruit.'

I wonder how many times I have glossed over that “cannot” without thinking about it? Good catch.

It can be argued that all men, whether they claim to be Christian or not, in themselves bear mixed fruit...

Precisely what many of the earlier fathers and the Eastern Church in general (based on my read ...[text shortened]... a statement that no one can avoid hell in the afterlife—that undoubtedly would be heretical.][/b]

I would say Mr. Clement is relying too heavily on Christ's parable, as if it were an exact description of the reality of the kingdom of heaven. Of parables Christ Himself said, "You shall indeed hear and hear but never grasp and understand; and you shall indeed look and look but never see and perceive" (Matthew 13:14). That being said, Christ does give a precise explanation of His parable in verses 37-43:

"He answered, He Who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed means the children of the kingdom; the darnel is the children of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed it is the devil. The harvest is the close and consummation of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the darnel (weeds resembling wheat) is gathered and burned with fire, so it will be at the close of the age. The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all causes of offense [persons by whom others are drawn into error or sin] and all who do iniquity and act wickedly, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; there will be weeping and wailing and grinding of teeth. Then will the righteous (those who are upright and in right standing with God) shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let him who has ears [to hear] be listening, and let him consider and perceive and understand by hearing."

It's hard to understand why Mr. Clement would interpret Christ's explanation of His parable as if it were itself another parable. 'Only Gnostics and Manicheans can hold that it is a question here of people'? If that is the case, then Jesus was both. Not only that, but it's interesting how Mr. Clement replaces Christ's explanation of the parable with his own. Christ says plainly that the seeds sown by the devil are 'children of the evil one'. Mr. Clement replies, in effect, "No, Jesus, that's not true; the seeds sown by the evil one are 'destructive suggestions' not children, as you mistakenly claim.' Oh, really?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I would say Mr. Clement is relying too heavily on Christ's parable, as if it were an exact description of the reality of the kingdom of heaven. Of parables Christ Himself said, "You shall indeed hear and hear but never grasp and understand; and you shall indeed look and look but never see and perceive" (Matthew 13:14). That being said, Christ do ctive suggestions' not children, as you mistakenly claim.' Oh, really?

It depends on what you take as symbol or metaphor, and what you don’t. As a trivial example, such anthropomorphisms as “face,” “nostrils,” “hand,” etc. as applied to God.

To take “children” here as literal, you have to assume that the evil one can actually “sow” people—that the evil one actually engenders or begets actual whole people, actual children. That would give him very godlike characteristics—of the sort found in the dualism of Manicheism, and among the so-called Gnostics. If you’re comfortable with that, fine. (Interestingly, the son of man—taking that as a self-reference to Jesus—would also be sowing/engendering/begetting actual children.)

I personally see no problem with Jesus giving an interpretation that itself contains metaphor or symbolic or idiomatic language, to explicate the denser imagery of the parable itself. For example, “furnace” (unless you take that as a literal, material furnace, made of clay or steel or whatever).

Originally posted by vistesd
It depends on what you take as symbol or metaphor, and what you don’t. As a trivial example, such anthropomorphisms as “face,” “nostrils,” “hand,” etc. as applied to God.

To take “children” here as literal, you have to assume that the evil one can actually “sow” people—that the evil one actually engenders or begets actual whole people, actual children rnace” (unless you take that as a literal, material furnace, made of clay or steel or whatever).

It is God who created people, though He did not cause them to disobey. Satan did not sow people, but he sowed disobedience into their hearts. Likewise, Jesus Christ sows the 'seed' of God's word (an earlier parable deals with that) into men's hearts. Both seeds flourish where they will. One towards destruction, and the other toward eternal life. This is consistent with the rest of scripture. If both wheat and tare existed in the same person, why would Jesus delineate them according to their standing with Him: "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all causes of offense [persons by whom others are drawn into error or sin] and all who do iniquity and act wickedly... Then will the righteous (those who are upright and in right standing with God) shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father."

It is clear: there are children of disobedience, and also children of the kingdom.

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;wWherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others" (Ephesians 2:1-3).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It is God who created people, though He did not cause them to disobey. Satan did not sow people, but he sowed disobedience into their hearts. Likewise, Jesus Christ sows the 'seed' of God's word (an earlier parable deals with that) into men's hearts. Both seeds flourish where they will. One towards destruction, and the other toward eternal life. Thi f the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others" (Ephesians 2:1-3).

Good! We are at least in agreement that the evil one does not sow actual children—and so children becomes metaphorical for what the evil one sows... “disobedience in their hearts” perhaps—is that a Biblical phrase? If so, can you reference it?

Now, let’s look at verse 13:41, which you quoted. I’ll start with Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), since I know that we both look at that one—

>> YLT Matthew 13:41 the Son of Man shall send forth his messengers, and they shall gather up out of his kingdom all the stumbling-blocks, and those doing the unlawlessness...

Well, “unlawlessness” is an unnecessarily difficult expression, and a bad translation which would technically mean those who are doing “lawfulness” (i.e., “un-lawless-ness” ).

From the Greek—

“...and collect from the kingdom all the skandala (scandals, stumbling-blocks, offenses, snares) and those (tous) making the lawlessness (anomia).”

It is no more clear here that “those” refers to whole persons (or persons at all), as it was in the parable itself. tous here is the definite article, masculine plural. It isn’t anything else. The kingdom (basileia) will have not skandalon nor anomia--whoever is in it...

(I could ask: “What were such things doing in the kingdom to begin with?” But I suspect that you and I would agree on an answer... Especially as the kingdom is inside us...)

_________________________

With regard to your quote from Ephesians—

NRS Ephesians 2:1 You were dead through the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once lived, following the course of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work among those who are disobedient. 3 All of us once lived among them in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of flesh and senses, and we were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us 5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-- by grace you have been saved-- 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God-- 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast.

Who is “the ruler of the power of the air?” (Don’t simply say, the evil one—there is a deeper metaphor here.) Who is the spirit at work in those who are disobedient? Why would you think that “children” here is less metaphorical than in Matthew?

“But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses made us alive together with Christ...” While we were still dead? You mean before we saw the truth, believed and repented?

With regard to verse 9, I will only say—even works of the head! Even the work of “belief.” Whose faith—or faithfulness—is referenced in verse 8? (Hint: “and this is not of you;” YLT.)

___________________________________

As an aside—

You are aware that all sarx unanimated by pneuma is “dead” (i.e., inanimate, unenlivened) material, right?

You are also aware that soterias (salvation) means making well or whole, preserving, healing? That it is not a juridical term?

Originally posted by vistesd
Good! We are at least in agreement that the evil one does not sow actual children—and so children becomes metaphorical for what the evil one sows... “disobedience in their hearts” perhaps—is that a Biblical phrase? If so, can you reference it?

Now, let’s look at verse 13:41, which you quoted. I’ll start with Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), since I k ...[text shortened]... (salvation) means making well or whole, preserving, healing? That it is not a juridical term?

I'm about to go to bed, so I'll write more tomorrow, but I can already see we're going to pick up where we left off a while back... Yes, we're in agreement that Satan does not have the power to 'sow' human beings. That would be an over-literal reading of the parable, which isn't meant to be an exact representation to begin with. A better word might be 'hijack' instead of 'sow'. 'Children' does indeed refer to whole persons, not as literal satanic creations, but as they have, in effect, become. God creates; Satan hijacks. Only as a person is obedient to the word is he given the power to become a child of God; namely, through believing in the saving power of the shed blood of Jesus Christ and thereby being 'born from above'. Salvation is 'making well or whole, preserving, healing,' yet also so much more than just that! Salvation entails one has become a 'new creation' entirely. With this in mind, it's easy to see that the Devil has 'children' and so does the Lord. It is what we are in effect which makes us either children of disobedience or children of the kingdom. We cannot be both at the same time.

More later...