The Sikh has no promise from God to have reconciliation with God. So it does not matter how much so-called rejection of one's sin, there is nothing apart from the blood of Christ through the promises of God that can save that Sikh from perishing in his sins.
God's grace to forgive and transform is not conditioned to recognizing Jesus' deity, blood atonement or physical resurrection
- Thread starter Pancho Frijoles
- Start date
civic
Well-known member
The Bible as you know teaches a real physical bodily resurrection.
Jesus has real flesh, real bones, real scars in His side, hands and feet that the disciples saw and touched.
To deny this is the deny the Faith once and for all delivered to the saints. Gospel 101 @Pancho Frijoles
Actually, whoever justifies the torture or destruction of all non-Christians in the afterlife denies Rom 2:12-16. So stop with to your ad-nauseum Strawman.
As for the Cross, The Quran denies and loathes the Cross. As such, the Quran should be promptly disposed of in the most convenient way.
The topic is the Cross. Let's see, is the Cross an integral part of every religion you mentioned? Ahhh...Nope. Sorry, none of those religions offer a path towards salvation. Sorry.
And neither do I for authentic Prophets. If you think that cut-throat Jewish-hating Quran-loving Muhammad is an authentic Prophet, then we are both definitely on a matter anti-matter collision course here.
Rom 2:12-16 proves that certain non-Christians can still be saved. So please stop with to your ad-nauseum Strawman.
Peter voiced a very similar opinion as you're forwarding here. That happened when Peter heard from Jesus that Jesus must suffer and die. Peter was angry of that possibility and wanted to prevent that from happening but Jesus rebuked Peter because of his ignorance. Jesus would do the same thing concerning your comments. Read Matt 16:21-23.
21 From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”
23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
Last edited:
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Hi synergy
The cross is not the topic as it lacks any salvific value on itself. The topic is and will be the love and mercy of God, which is the meaning behind all symbols of salvation.
Well, then you recognize as authentic those prophets who ordered military actions against peoples in the context of war, such as Moses and Samuel. You have eliminated your own barrier to recognize Prophet Muhammad as authentic.
Please help me wih this. What is your position in regards to Roman 2:12-16 as I haven’t been able to locate your post
What is the position of @civic?
Johann
Well-known member
Incorrect-
The Cross as Central to Salvation (1 Corinthians 1:18):
Paul explicitly states, "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." This demonstrates that the cross is not just a symbol but embodies the power of God’s salvific act. The cross is central to the message of the Gospel and God's method of bringing salvation.
The Cross as the Means of Reconciliation (Colossians 1:19–20):
"For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell, and having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself." This passage highlights that through the cross, God accomplished the reconciliation of creation to Himself. It is not just a representation of God’s love but the actual mechanism of peace and restoration.
Jesus' Teaching on the Necessity of the Cross (Matthew 16:24):
Jesus said, "If anyone will come after Me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me." Here, Jesus emphasizes the significance of the cross in the life of a disciple, signifying not only personal sacrifice but alignment with His redemptive work.
Prophetic Fulfillment and the Cross (Isaiah 53:5):
"But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and with His stripes we are healed." The prophecy anticipates the suffering of the Messiah, fulfilled in the crucifixion, as the necessary atonement for humanity's sin.
The Cross as the Act of Redemption (Galatians 3:13):
"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.'" This verse emphasizes that the act of hanging on the cross was the means by which Jesus bore the curse of sin, accomplishing our redemption.
The Cross as the Demonstration of God’s Love (Romans 5:8):
"But God commends His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." The cross is the ultimate demonstration of God's love and mercy, as it is where Jesus bore the penalty of sin on humanity’s behalf.
The Cross and the Blood of the Covenant (Hebrews 9:22):
"Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins." The cross was the place where Christ's blood was shed, fulfilling the requirements of the Mosaic covenant and establishing the New Covenant. This sacrificial act is not only symbolic but also the effective means of atonement.
The Cross as the Ground of Boasting (Galatians 6:14):
"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." For Paul, the cross was not just a symbol of God's love but the ultimate object of his boasting because of its salvific significance.
J.
The title of this thread contains the words "Jesus'... blood atonement". Therefore, the Cross is definitely the topic here.
Johann has done an excellent job of proving that the Cross is the only means of salvation offered by God to man.
All authentic Prophets have had their history given a seal of approval by Jesus and Paul. There are even future Prophets mentioned in the Book of Revelations but no mention of Muhammad and his cut-throat Jews-hating Quran.
Jesus already abrogated violence with the Cross and for someone to spit on all that, as Muhammad did, is the greatest of apostacies that man has ever seen.
Non-Christians will be judged according to their Good Works, the Law in their Hearts, their Conscience, their Heart, their Mindfulness, their Mercy, etc... according to each individual's specific case. The model remains the Gospel (Cross, Resurrection, Ascension, etc...). Read Rom 2:12-16.
12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law
13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)
16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
I thank you and value very much your words about how non Christians are judged.
It was not my intention to use a strawman fallacy. I apologize to you sincerely. I am just confused: I have read different views from other Christians.
I held the same view that you have presented during my spiritual journey as a Catholic, Seventh-Day Adventist and Mormon.
So, It was shocking for me to hear for Evangelical Christians, for the first time in my life, that all non Christians deserved to burn in hell. That started my crusade in Internet, about 4 years ago.
So do you accept that people like El Volka, my teacher of Chemistry in High School, could have been rescued by God and transformed by the Holy Spirit, despite believing all kind of Mormon doctrines that you and I find mistaken?
Last edited:
civic
Well-known member
Mohammed was the opposite of Jesus and taught it was ok to rape women , kill the infidels/unbelievers instead of loving your enemies and pray for them, and Mohammad stones those caught in adultery just to name a few and there are many more differences. Jesus taught one man one woman in marriage not many wives. Many wives is list not love. Huge difference between the two.
hope this helps !!!
It is the BIBLE that says the Jesus "of the Bible" is the Mediator between God and man. It is the Jesus "of the Bible" that says HE doesn't know those who live in transgression of His Father's commandments, and I believe Him. Your preaching and judgments notwithstanding.
I respectfully disagree. "how can Jesus mediate on behalf of a man HE doesn't even know". And HE says of men who call Him Lord, Lord, but live in transgression of God's Laws, that He doesn't know them."
Had those "Christians" in Matt. 7 asked it, perhaps they would have repented and turned away from this world's religions who called Jesus Lord, Lord but reject God's judgments and laws, and would have "Yielded themselves" to God as Jesus and Paul teach. And God would have given them to Jesus, and Jesus would then have known them, and HE would have healed them, and spoken on their behalf to His Father, the One True God, as opposed to telling them to depart from Him, even though they called Him Lord, Lord.
I don't believe Jesus is a Liar. Therefore, when I repeat His Words, and believe what HE teaches, I am not repeating or believing a Lie, your preaching notwithstanding.
John 2: 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many "believed in his name", when they saw the miracles which he did. 24 But Jesus did not commit himself "unto them", because "he knew all men",
Yes, He knows all men, having lived as one for over 30 years. And for those who would believe in Him, HE tells them about all men.
John. 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, "because" their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that "doeth evil" hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Sadly, this is where your religion stops, in order to justify their open rebellion to much of God's Judgments and Commandments. Because to consider all of God's Inspired Word would expose their deeds as Evil, and therefore you would have to consider changing your own works. Just as they do with Paul's words in Roman's 3 in which he described the children of disobedience. But if I read the very next sentence, Jesus defines for me another type of man.
21 But "he that doeth truth" cometh to the light, that his deeds may "be made manifest", that they are wrought in God. ( Or not, which ever the case may be)
I find this teaching of God fascinating and hopeful. I can come to the Light God sent, and have my transgressions revealed so that I no longer "yield my members as instruments of unrighteousness unto them: but can instead, yield myself unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and my members as instruments of righteousness unto God. In this way I become "the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness", have repented of and turned away from, "the religions of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience".
And my Lord and Savior is there, the Jesus "of the Bible", showing me the only way, having given Himself to God for this very purpose.
And I believe in "This Jesus". Whether or not you believe, is irrelevant as I am to be judged by "my deeds", not yours.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
You ignored his words.
You said He didn't know and now you admit that He does. The problem is not with what Jesus said but how you're dealing with it. In other words, your problem.
Mediation includes longsuffering, mercy and grace toward those that reject Him.
There is an odd connection you have with this Universalist you've chosen to support here. You at least attempt to reconcile what the Scriptures declare to some degree. However, he could care less. At one point he tries to use the Scriptures are evidence and the next he clearly rejects any sense of Scriptural context.
At least admit the realties of these facts. Don't live in fake world of your own making where you're always right and the only person serving God. (BTW, which is contrary to what this Universalist you're embracing teaches).
In all things be real and consistent. You can't. Change. God knows we all need to some degree or another.
Actually, the symbol of the cross existed long before Israel became slaves in Egypt, and was popular in the pagan religions of the world which surrounded Jerusalem long before Jesus was even born. Along with the Goddess "Venus" and the Sun God that Constantine worshipped, and the Greek gods and symbols, etc.
In fact, the Greek word for cross is "stauros" which means a stake or pole, often used in ancient cultures to tie or nail a malefactor to for the purpose of punishment and torture. The "T" symbol, introduced into Christianity by Constantine era Priests, originated in Pagan worship, in exactly the same way as Sunday worship, Winter Solstice, pagan celebrations of the vernal equinox, and other ancient Pagan symbols and high days introduced into what we know as "Christianity", some 300 plus years after Jesus ascended to His Father and my Father.
These religious symbols and celebrations plagued Israel throughout their journey in that they adopted them into a religion they created in rebellion to God and His Way. Paul mentions this is 1 Cor. 10, as practices we should not lust after, as they did. The reference to the stake or pole on which Jesus was crucified, was used by the Apostles to represent the "flesh" which is crucified, replaced with a NEW Man that can no longer die, sin or suffer, as was the body Jesus was raised with.
1 John 3: 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it "doth not yet appear what we shall be": but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
There are "many" who have transformed themselves into apostles of Christ, who claim to know what this "Body" shall be. But Jesus and Paul warned not to be deceived by them.
In this matter, Pancho is right. There is no instruction, commandment or promise of God to give this New Life, that HE gave to His Son Jesus, only to those who partake of idolatry, ancient pagan symbolism, high days or observations promoted by the many differing religious businesses and sects of this world since before the Tower of Babel. This would include religoiuns who called Jesus Lord, Lord.
So to say the image of the
isn't or hasn't been an intragyral part of this world's religious sects and businesses long before Jesus was murdered, is foolishness and ignores history that can be easily examined by our own eyes.I do find it fascinating that the most important symbols, high days, and judgments promoted by this world's religions, who come in Christ's Name, are never spoken of, practiced, observed or otherwise prophesied about, except to warn not to partake of them.
For me, I believe I can be saved by following the Christ's instruction, without following these religious practices, traditions and philosophies the religious sects of this world promote.
And this because of what is written about Him in the Holy Scriptures.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
So to say the image of the
Are you a Universalist or not? You're all over the place. If you're a Universalist, then why in the world are you arguing about details? Universalists do care about details. Details destroy Universalism.
For example, your utterly preposterous response to @synergy here.......
The promise of the cross was given to the world that perished in the flood. The symbolism of the cross comes from a single ancestor of all mankind. The fact you don't know this shows just how ignorant you are concerning the details of faith.
It is why you and your friend are so clumsy in your defenses. You have no knowledge of the details. Your comments prove it. I recommend you stop embarrassing yourself in your feeble attempts to "prove your points".
You're at a crossroads in your life. Choose wisely. Admit it. You don't know enough about God to even form an opinion.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Good morning civic
What you say is not correct.
Muhammed did not teach that it was OK to rape women or to stone those caught in adultery. He did not teach to kill infidels who were at peace with Muslims, in the same way that Moses did not teach to kill pagans who were at peace with Israel.
- The Quran indicates flogging as punishment of adultery, which applies to both man and woman: "The fornicating woman and the fornicating man, flog each one of them with one hundred stripes" (24:2) Stoning came as a later development from the hadiths, which we Baha'is do not take as authoritative works. We Baha'i believe although some hadiths may be inspiring and convey truths, they are man-made stories and norms. Remember: I am not a Muslim. I don't defend all beliefs and practices of Muslims, as I don't defend all beliefs and practices of Jews or Christians or Hindus or Buddhists. I believe in the divine origin, purpose and essential message of all those religions.
- The punishment for crimes corresponds to the political authority in place. When a theocracy is in place, punishments for crimes are described within the sacred texts. That is what happened in the Torah. Moses and Muhammed had political authority. If Jesus or his apostles had had political authority, then they would have issued appropriate punishments for different crimes.
- The nature of the punishments corresponds to local capacity and culture and it is not fair to judge them as per the standards of this wonderful, illuminated, baha'i age. For example, in a world that lacked the ability to respect the human rights of prisoners (provide proper nutrition, medical and psychological support, education and rehabilitation for years), flogging a person and letting him go was the most practical thing to do and the most respectful for the criminal.
- Jesus did not invalidate any legal code in Israel, regardless of its imperfections. He reminded everyone of the spiritual principles that should underpin any legal code.... but when he had an opportunity to condemn or at least criticize taxation from the Romans, or the imprisonment of a person until the last cent of a debt had been paid, He didn't do it.
- When Jesus addressed the case of the woman caught in adultery, Jesus did not challenge the legal procedure or the law against adultery. Jesus never said Moses was wrong nor abrogated the penalty. Jesus did not order his disciples to go around preventing these punishments to be applied. The story of Jesus focuses on the hypocrisy of the persons executing laws, and triggers an important reflection on the principle of mercy that should be present in those who make and apply laws.
- Adultery was not a sexual or private issue as seen today by society. It was a crime against property. It was theft of the worst kind, because a wife was the most precious property of the husband. In addition, it was a crime against family structure and social reputation of the children, the spouse, and the families of the spouses, with long-term, often permanent consequences.
- The early Christians were not in charge of civil laws during the first 2 centuries. That's why you don't find orders to kill criminals in the letters of Paul. However, you find Paul approving the judicial system of his days. Now, what happened when Christianism got the opportunity to rule? Christians leaders also ordered penalties that we find unacceptable today. For example, homosexuality could be punished by death in Europe and even colonial America.
Last edited:
I believe what HE teaches, He knows the heart of men who do evil, knowing it is evil. But HE doesn't know them in the capacity of being given to Him by His God for cleansing.
I don't believe God's mercy and Grace is reserved for those who Reject Him and work so hard to persuade others to reject Him or demean and discourage those who would "yield themselves" to Him. You are free to adopt whatever religious philosophy you desire.
Showing kindness to someone who is willing to discuss what the Scriptures actually say, is not evil PY. Your preaching notwithstanding.
You have exalted yourself as my judge PY, and you also judge many others. I choose not to join you in your judgments.
Are you directing this statement to me, or to yourself? Perhaps you should take your own advice.
It's intellectually dishonest to purposely ignore what I have discussed with Pancho, and then say that I am embracing his teaching. I tried to tell you once, and you ignored me, but I will try again. It's not admitting you have a beam in your eye, which you do all the time, that causes blindness. It is the actual Beam that causes the blindness. The Jesus "of the Bible" says to "FIRST" remove the beam from your own eye. Until you "DO" this, it is impossible for you to see anything clearly.
This is an extremely important truth that you seem to have either never been taught or refuse to accept. You will suffer nothing from God for a speck that might be in Pancho's eye, or one that may be in my eye. The danger is, while you are blindly judging many others, you live your whole life blinded, just as those "Christians" in Matt. 7.
I don't wish that on myself, or anyone else, your constant judgment of me notwithstanding.
According to you, I "can't" obey or please God. I don't follow Jesus. Now I "can't" be real or consistent. Adopting your religious philosophy about myself would be spiritual suicide. And if I did, I would become a bitter, resentful, angry and judgmental man, who called Jesus Lord, Lord, convinced that I cannot ever be a "Doer" of His Sayings.
Why would adopt such a philosophy?
Again, wonderful advice. You should trust in it for yourself.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
I invite you and all our readers to ask yourselves:
- In your day-to-day, what would I stop doing... or start doing... if I knew that Jesus does not have a physical body? Would I stop loving Jesus? Would I start bullying people or cheating on your wife?
- Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus does not have a physical body. How would you prove that such belief makes them better or worse than me in living the life of the spirit? Are the crime rates among JW significantly higher than among Evangelical Christians? What about divorce rate or suicide rate?
- If Jesus and an impostor appeared to me, physically, in this moment, in my room, would I be able to tell who is who based on any physical feature? Would I choose to obey one and reject the another on the basis of physical appearance?
What was important for all apostles was to preach a Jesus that had not been eliminated, defeated, forgotten, or proven wrong in his claims to be the Messiah. The Christ was alive, victorious, and would return soon. His Message was in force. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away" (Matthew 24.35). Although invisible, He was always with us spiritually, crucified with us, resurrected with us, seated in the throne with us (Ephesians 2:5-7).
The resurrection Paul was particularly concerned about was our spiritual resurrection, and not the debates on the implications of a physical one.
So, what Paul says " If Christ is not raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins" Paul means: "If you don't believe that Christ is alive and victorious, and that God can also make you alive and victorious with Him... you are still spiritually dead in your sins"
Do you see how now Paul makes sense with all the 21 passages on the Bible about forgiveness of sins, in which no belief on a physical resurrection was demanded from any sinner as a condition to be the object of God's mercy?
Last edited:
civic
Well-known member
JWs are not Christian’s and follow a false Christ and false gospel. They deny the essential doctrines of the Bible that are salvific
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
That is different than where you began this conversation. Be honest and recognize this fact.
He doesn't care what the Bible says. It means nothing to him. It is only a means to a end for him. He doesn't believe it at all. If he did, he would rightfully recognize where it contradicts what he says. He doesn't care at all.
He is a Universalist and you have repeatedly made statements that contradict this position yourself.
BTW. He has me on ignore.
No true at all. You can please God at times. At times, you can not. You can not please God all the time. Get it right if you're going to reference my position.
Like most people, you ignore your own inabilities while insisting you have none. That is a trait common to all of humanity.
I have. Many many times. You're still young. Wait till life humbles you over and over again. Wait till you can't help yourself and you might just recognize your inabilities. Young men like yourself think your invincible. My own children do too. They haven't experienced failure yet. Not in any meaningful way. Living will change your mind. If it doesn't, then you're living in your imagination. There is no scenario where this life doesn't humble you. Greater men than yourself have all experienced it themselves. Just wait for it.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
You obviously don't know the Quran. Like most Universalists, you don't really know the details of most anything. Just another pretender. The internet is full of them.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
If they followed a false Christ, they wouldn't live the life of Christ. Would they?
But if their crime rate, divorce rate, suicide rate are similar to those of Evangelicals, you should at least start challenging your own views.
If the way they assist the needy and humble themselves to God is similar to that of Evangelicals, you should challenge your views even more.
My mother was a JW for more than 10 years... so I can testify she was following the true Jesus, as some of her fellows, DESPITE being mistaken in her understanding of some doctrines.
The first view you must challenges is that there are "salvific doctrines". Doctrines do NOT save anyone!
That's why God has never demanded from anyone to first pass a quiz on doctrinal knowledge in order to be healed or forgiven or saved. "Faith" does not meen a creed or set of doctrines. To have faith in Christ is to do what He asked us to do... first repent, and then be born to a life of love to God and our neighbor.
All Jehovah Witnesses who live as Christ asked us to live are, by definition, disciples of the only and true Jesus.
Be careful with denying reality for the sake of Theology!
I would appreciate if you retracted your statement above, that involves my dear mother and many of her friends.
You should say that they are MISTAKEN about some doctrines about Christ and his gospel. That's a very different story.
Please consider my petition. I do it with due respect to you and to them.
Last edited:
