No one can see the Kingdom of God unless...

[DNB]

I am glad to hear something positive from you. Be more careful about speaking the negative... or your own sake.

Remember that the negative words you speak about anyone else's testimony without a clear direction from God to open your mouth your words may be the basis for your own negative judgment. We are judged based on our own ways without regard to whether the other guy's words spoken are right or not. God does always know right or wrong of every issue, and He also knows when we do not. Right or wrong on an issue, belief or doctrine God is looking to see how merciful and charitable we are... especially toward those with whom we disagree.

I'm allowed to discern between spirits. God will judge me accordingly, I am prepared for that.
But I will rebuke someone when, in my opinion, they're talking nonsense, and I expect, and hope, that others will do the same to me.
I am not fearful amadeus, of the repercussions of being wrong, not in the context that I'm speaking. God knows that I'm defending him when I'm being 'negative'. That's always been my position, don't mock God.

 

[DNB]

John said it. I believe it. Many verses support John. I don't expect you to take me seriously. But I didn't make it up from my mind. I just believe John And He actually walked with Jesus when He took on flesh.

You've interpreted John that way.
And yet, you can't even find that terminology, or anything close, anywhere throughout the Bible.
Thus, how dogmatic can you afford to be on such a radical conclusion, without the radical testimony?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

You've interpreted John that way.
And yet, you can't even find that terminology, or anything close, anywhere throughout the Bible.
Thus, how dogmatic can you afford to be on such a radical conclusion, without the radical testimony?

Isaiah said a virgin would have a son and he would be called Immanuel/ God with us.

Isaiah also said a child would be born and he would be called Mighty God, everlasting Father.

So John and Isaiah also agree.

 

[amadeus]

So if we are having dreams and vision we are doing just as god Jesus promised in the bible, the more limits you place on God the more you will shut Him out.

Amen!

 

[amadeus]

No one is denying the salvific works of Christ. But, I profoundly deny the implausible nonsense about him. In other words, his alleged eternality is not requisite for salvation, ...it actually denies it. For, one cannot even find such a phrase in scripture, especially when Paul expounds on the principle of the atonement i.e. man for man.
I use only my wits just like the atheists, the difference is, because of my belief in Christ, God willing, he may enlighten me depending on the level of my faith and humility. But, i do not profess that I am entitled to his intervention simply due to my currently redeemed status, like everyone else believes.

Your words are good ones even though they are likely Not what I would say and also may not equal what I believe. Your seeming emphasis on salvation as a goal is one I have moved away from... in a sense and in a degree.

Quite recently really, the topic of salvation itself has been changed a bit more for me. To me it has long been secondary but of late it has moved to even less than that. The idea of one pursuing salvation or of people doing things primarily to be saved is so often such a selfish one. God is not selfish. Jesus, walking on planet earth as we walk it, was not selfish. He was tempted but as he never yielded to those temptations, selfishness was never allowed to move to in front of first things first so... in him, no selfishness and no sin.

Yet so often I have seen people on this forum as well as elsewhere presenting salvation as if it were at least almost if not The most important thing.

Initially, of course, God receives selfish people so long as their hearts are pointed in the right direction.

Babies are very selfish in one way of looking at it... but early on it is a necessary survival mechanism so they really are not selfish, or not purposely so. But in time they very often learn or even are taught to be quite selfish. A mature adult in the flesh will not be quite so selfish.

But... Jesus was not selfish at all. Who can attain to that? ... Yet...?

"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." I John 3:2

 

[Jane_Doe22]

What is this discussion about?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

you keep questioning me on why I have reservations about people's dreams & visions.

No I don't...

 

[DNB]

Isaiah said a virgin would have a son and he would be called Immanuel/ God with us.

Isaiah also said a child would be born and he would be called Mighty God, everlasting Father.

So John and Isaiah also agree.

SBG, you're misinterpreting you scripture, in a very naive way.
Many names throughout the Bible are theophoric, that is, they use the name of God 'El', as part of their name.
Michael = Who is like God, Gabriel = Strength of God, Daniel = God's Judgement, many more...
Not to mention, the first thought that should've come to your head is that Israel was abandoned for almost 600 yrs. The covenantal promises were not fulfilled as of yet, it was the 'silent period in Israel's history. But finally, God has intervened in their favour, and supplied the Davidic king (Messiah) as prophesied. God was now with the Israelites again.

As far as Isaiah goes, Moses was called god in Exo 4:16 and 7:1, Elohim, Isaiah use El, same derivative as spoken above. El, and it derivatives, are not reserved for the Almighty God.
And, there is not a single trinitarian in the world that would ever call the Son, the Father. For, that is the only thing that differentiates them, that is, their names (yes, how stupid in and of itself).
Thus, this is not a viably, a god-man passage, it is superlative or hyperbole speech.

 

[DNB]

Your words are good ones even though they are likely Not what I would say and also may not equal what I believe. Your seeming emphasis on salvation as a goal is one I have moved away from... in a sense and in a degree.

Quite recently really, the topic of salvation itself has been changed a bit more for me. To me it has long been secondary but of late it has moved to even less than that. The idea of one pursuing salvation or of people doing things primarily to be saved is so often such a selfish one. God is not selfish. Jesus, walking on planet earth as we walk it, was not selfish. He was tempted but as he never yielded to those temptations, selfishness was never allowed to move to in front of first things first so... in him, no selfishness and no sin.

Yet so often I have seen people on this forum as well as elsewhere presenting salvation as if it were at least almost if not The most important thing.

Initially, of course, God receives selfish people so long as their hearts are pointed in the right direction.

Babies are very selfish in one way of looking at it... but early on it is a necessary survival mechanism so they really are not selfish, or not purposely so. But in time they very often learn or even are taught to be quite selfish. A mature adult in the flesh will not be quite so selfish.

But... Jesus was not selfish at all. Who can attain to that? ... Yet...?

"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." I John 3:2

But, he died for what reason? This is the critical aspect, separating the goats from the sheep? Yes, God receives selfish people, ....and all sinners, provided that they repent and accept Christ as their saviour. What is more prioritizing than that?
And, I think that the god-man theory denies Christ's salvific work.
Sorry amadeus, I'm not sure what your emphasis on selfishness has to do with salvation, or how you relegate salvation to a secondary or tertiary degree?

 

[DNB]

What is this discussion about?

I can't remember...?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I dont even know what you just said. Literally.

 

[DNB]

No I don't...

But you do, I feel that I have to keep re-explaining myself. Justifying that I don't discredit everyone's inspiration, and equally, refuse to accept everyone's dreams as God inspired.
You have yet to say, 'Yes DNB, you have a point, you don't discredit them all, you just wait until you see the wisdom and glory of God behind it. Good for you!'

 

[DNB]

I dont even know what you just said. Literally.

Are you referring to me, about my explanation of Immanuel and 'Mighty God, everlasting Father'?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

SBG, you're misinterpreting you scripture, in a very naive way.
Many names throughout the Bible are theophoric, that is, they use the name of God 'El', as part of their name.
Michael = Who is like God, Gabriel = Strength of God, Daniel = God's Judgement, many more...
Not to mention, the first thought that should've come to your head is that Israel was abandoned for almost 600 yrs. The covenantal promises were not fulfilled as of yet, it was the 'silent period in Israel's history. But finally, God has intervened in their favour, and supplied the Davidic king (Messiah) as prophesied. God was now with the Israelites again.

As far as Isaiah goes, Moses was called god in Exo 4:16 and 7:1, Elohim, Isaiah use El, same derivative as spoken above. El, and it derivatives, are not reserved for the Almighty God.
And, there is not a single trinitarian in the world that would ever call the Son, the Father. For, that is the only thing that differentiates them, that is, their names (yes, how stupid in and of itself).
Thus, this is not a viably, a god-man passage, it is superlative or hyperbole speech.

Jesus said, I and the Father are one. So I'm not sure exactly how they came up with the trinitarian model, but Jesus Himself said He and the Father are one, so if their model says different than that, yeah, they probably would not agree with me, Isaiah, John OR Jesus.

 

[bbyrd009]

Because of our limitations, limited words were used to explain things beyond the human mind.

i suggest that one of our limitations is our proclivity for accepting magic formulas that might make us immortal, as Emperors, Pharaohs, and Caesars have all sought to do

 

[amadeus]

But, he died for what reason? This is the critical aspect, separating the goats from the sheep? Yes, God receives selfish people, ....and all sinners, provided that they repent and accept Christ as their saviour. What is more prioritizing than that?
And, I think that the god-man theory denies Christ's salvific work.
Sorry amadeus, I'm not sure what your emphasis on selfishness has to do with salvation, or how you relegate salvation to a secondary or tertiary degree?

I am not disagreeing with God's purpose. What I am saying is that we should come to the place where we love God for who He is rather than only for the gifts He is able to and even wants to provide... which include salvation and never dying. Do we love our natural parents only because they happen to be wealthy in material things they are able to give us? Did we marry our spouse for material riches?

Yes, God love His children and will give them many gifts... including salvation and never ending Life. What do we give Him? All that we have and all that we are!

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service" Rom 12:1

If we do this only because of the gifts and not because we love Him, is not something important missing in us?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

But you do, I feel that I have to keep re-explaining myself. Justifying that I don't discredit everyone's inspiration, and equally, refuse to accept everyone's dreams as God inspired.
You have yet to say, 'Yes DNB, you have a point, you don't discredit them all, you just wait until you see the wisdom and glory of God behind it. Good for you!'

No. I did not question why you are skeptical of anyone's dream, vision or whatever. I literally did not do that.

 

[DNB]

Jesus said, I and the Father are one. So I'm not sure exactly how they came up with the trinitarian model, but Jesus Himself said He and the Father are one, so if their model says different than that, yeah, they probably would not agree with me, Isaiah, John OR Jesus.

SBG, everyone is one in the Bible. It is a spiritual relationship. Man & Wife are to become one. King David & Jonathan became one. The Three Musketeers were one, you know what I mean? Jesus said that believers will become one, just as they were one (God & Jesus, as in the passage that you quoted).
Do you not know what becoming one means, in the Christian sense?

John 17:20-22
17:20. "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21. that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:

 

[DNB]

I am not disagreeing with God's purpose. What I am saying is that we should come to the place where we love God for who He is rather than only for the gifts He is able to and even wants to provide... which include salvation and never dying. Do we love our natural parents only because they happen to be wealthy in material things they are able to give us? Did we marry our spouse for material riches?

Yes, God love His children and will give them many gifts... including salvation and never ending Life. What do we give Him? All that we have and all that we are!

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service" Rom 12:1

If we do this only because of the gifts and not because we love Him, is not something important missing in us?

Sorry, you're absolutely correct, that was very well said, I agree emphatically.
The life and love that he has offered us, should overwhelm us with gratitude and humility, ....especially when we realize that we don't deserve it!

 

[DNB]

No. I did not question why you are skeptical of anyone's dream, vision or whatever. I literally did not do that.

Ok, my mistake, I thought that was the nature of our dialogue. Thanks for clarifying.