path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
Thanks for the clarification, FS. This, of course, is not the only definition of cult and, like defining idolatry, it rests on others' judgements. No one would call themselves an idolator (worshipper of false gods) and no one would say they are in a cult by this definition (a person who believes something that prevents them from being saved). It is a judgement that is passed on other groups.
I think the word cult is very problematic to use because we all will think of different things in reference to the word.
From religioustolerance.org:
I do not pass judgement on other groups and the state of their salvation. This is a job reserved for God alone, in my opinion.
I think the word cult is very problematic to use because we all will think of different things in reference to the word.
From religioustolerance.org:
That pretty much sums up the definitions I've seen float around. Note that Silas' use of the word is just one among many, and it is a relatively recent re-definition of the term, which has long been used in social science, psychology, and religious studies.
I do not pass judgement on other groups and the state of their salvation. This is a job reserved for God alone, in my opinion.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
I thinks its in error to use the term passing of judgement as in condemnation... I believe the intent and purpose is to judge as in identify the fruit of one that we label a cult.. most of us arent labeling to condemn we are labeling to identify the same way we do in labeling antichrist or apostate teachings..we are told to do this.. hope that helps.
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
I think Wil's just shaking it up a little. Him/Her/It/Them/Whatever. The point being that Wil doesn't believe God is gendered (as do I).
I agree with you that God doesn't need our praise, but we need to praise Him (Her/It/Them
). Worship is good for us, both for our spiritual growth and simply for our day-to-day mental and emotional health.
path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
I think we can see what the fruit is of a belief for a particular person by their attitude and actions. We are told that those in the Spirit will bear the fruit of the Spirit, and that good fruit cannot come from a bad tree.
So I think the discernment about a person's spirituality is a very individual thing- it has to do with that individual's spiritual fruit that is evident to us.
To put out a blanket statement for an entire religion/faith, like saying "Buddhism is a cult. What they believe will not lead to their salvation," is condemning all Buddhists to hell, and to me is a big judgement. Now, to say... "Hmmm... this particular Buddhist person I know does/does not show the fruits of the Spirit" is something different- it is discernment.
We are given discernment to know who and what is good for our own spiritual growth, not to determine whether or not those people are or will be saved by God. I maintain that it is not my place to judge others' journey toward (or away from) salvation. It is only my place to discern whether others' companionship, teachings, and actions are right for my own spiritual path and are in alignment with the guidance I receive from the Spirit.
Labeling a teaching as against what the Spirit tells me is right for me is different from labeling an entire group of people and saying that they will not be saved.
I hope this helps to clarify what I meant.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
I think Wil's just shaking it up a little. Him/Her/It/Them/Whatever. The point being that Wil doesn't believe God is gendered (as do I).
I agree with you that God doesn't need our praise, but we need to praise Him (Her/It/Them
Lets see if you can get my point then... dont you think it would be helpful to establish that we have something common inn our beliefs?? rather than bring up differences? So wil pointing out the her... is not about having a respectful discussion about beliefs.. hes trying to stir up crap.. its passive aggressive behavior with the intent of causing drama.. this is why we have so many problems between liberal and conservative Christianity.. the conservative did not go onto the liberal board and start problems like that.. its disrespectful.
People need to grow up. Im serious.
Namaste FS,
My bad. It wasn't to stir anything up...I just don't like writing Him or He it is disengenuous to me. I don't believe G-d is a woman or any anthropomorphic sexed being. I don't believe you do either, but I may be wrong on that count. Despite that I have been developing personal issues with referring to spirit as He, Her doesn't to me specify the gender, just negates a few thousand years of warping society into this masculine dominated world. We could use a bit of the divine femine, I don't believe we'd have as many wars or issues calling each other cults. Say what one will the OP and title refers to cult in derogatory way.
I also have issues calling G-d it. So pardon me for leaving my baggage at your doorstep and you having to pick it up. I don't know exactly where I heard it but it is said that spirit doesn't care whether we refer to G-d as She, He or It, just don't blend them all together. I think the important note is that we do refer to G-d...
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
I was going to respond to this but it would totally derail this thread.. lol
I believe our genders have roles and purposes.. I believe men have been given authority for a reason.. I believe women are just as powerful because we are the manifestation of Gods desire for personal relationships.. man and woman in marriage are one flesh.. I believe as a whole we are in the likeness of God.. seperate we are only half of a whole...incomplete.
Oops wasnt going to derail I just wanted to state it
anyways.. I love you wil.. no harm done I was more or less venting and you were my target. Peace hun
I believe our genders have roles and purposes.. I believe men have been given authority for a reason.. I believe women are just as powerful because we are the manifestation of Gods desire for personal relationships.. man and woman in marriage are one flesh.. I believe as a whole we are in the likeness of God.. seperate we are only half of a whole...incomplete.
Oops wasnt going to derail I just wanted to state it
anyways.. I love you wil.. no harm done I was more or less venting and you were my target.
Peace hun
S
Silas
Guest
Very rarely do we see cults who acknowledge that they are cults. I'm not sure that most are aware of their hersy? Then again, the word of God is able to open eyes to whom God wills sight be given, so Im pleased to speak freely in the hopes that God may use what I say to His glory and to the readers (whoever may read) benefit. This incidentally leads me to your responce, sir. I am sure that you readily read your bible and affirm all that is therein. Yet, I am also sure of your version's gross twisting of scripture. And since it is not my intent to now speak of the errors of the JW's bible (perhaps I will later?), I will only ask you to read a widely respected version, the KJV, in the hopes that you will have your eyes open to the truths written therein. My hopes is that you will see what all need to see to be saved: God's Holiness in contrast to your sin problem. The aim then is to see your need for repentace and faith - true faith, in Jesus Christ. Not the Angel Michael, or a created being, but the Eternal Son of God and 2nd beloved member in the Godhead. If you confess with your mouth and bleieve in your heart that Jesus is Lord, you will be saved. But, if your Christology is wrong, then Jesus' words remain true..."For if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins." (John 8:25)
bupanishad2007
Andrew
..."For if you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins." (John 8:25)
Sorry, but "I Am" is not capitalized or emphasized in the original Greek which had no capitals or even any punctuation. That is a Christian interpolation. It is dishonest to capitalize it in translation.
S
Silas
Guest
OK, I'll buy that. Take the caps out. What do you have? You have "Ego Eimi" the presence tense for "I am", the same name God gave to himself in Exodus 3:14 which means from Everylasting to Everylasting (Psa. 90:2). In context of John 8:24 its easy to see who Jesus is making Himself out to be. Why dont you read the text and tell us.
bupanishad2007
Andrew
Silas, for God's sake (and ours), quote the entire conversation of Jesus with His disciples before and after this verse. He was trying to explain a concept about His Kingdom in relationship to Himself and they were about as stupid as men can be. Jesus was not declaring "Godhood" ("I AM," or any other) here. If you and others would read the Bible in context and for real content, you would see a whole new world! You're reading for "proof-texts" just like the cults (Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance). Taking out just the verses you like best and stringing them together does not make a Bible or the truth.
S
Silas
Guest
I see you havent read it as I asked. You speak about context and yet I'm finding it hard to believe you understand its meaning. I suppose it would be good of me to give an expostion on John 8, but I feel lazy to do so. In any regard, I can prove that Jesus was declearing Godhood in verse 24 just by juxtaposing that with verse 58 & 59. In v58 Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I am." And, in v59 they pick up stones to kill Him. If Jesus was just saying "Before Abraham was I was born," as the cults maintain, the ones hearing Him speak wouldnt have sought to kill Him.
S
Silas
Guest
Oh yeah, I should also add for clearity, that it would be good for every believer in the Bible and Christ to get into systematic theology. In the subject you and I are discussing now, namely, Jesus' Godhood, every scripture that has to do with it would be catorigized within a system where which we can understand in context who Jesus is. All of the "I am" statements of Jesus are used to valadate his Godhood.
bupanishad2007
Andrew
I read the whole chapter over and over again in a "new" Bible (I wish to avoid the use of "modern" here) and in a Greek/English polyglott version, and I just can't see that Jesus was declaring "Godhood." He was trying to get those stony-hearted people, including the disciples, to believe in Him as subordinate to the Father and that He was doing His (the Father's) will, but He was not claiming to be YHVH, or the Father, because that's what "I AM" means ("Ehyeh asher Ehyeh," in Hebrew---what we call "I Am that I Am"-- at Ex.3:14, 15). As you have already said before, the Jews tried to kill Him about 10 times for a lot less than that. Even Muslims get upset today if you misuse Abraham's name, because they feel themselves to be "children of Abraham" through Ishmael.
BlaznFattyz
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
point well made.
JosephM
Well-Known Member
Silas,
If you research you will see Peter and Paul used the same greek words to say "I am" many times and it had nothing to do with them validating themselves as God.
Also Jesus never said that they seeked to kill him because he said he was God.....
John 8:37-40
I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. [38] I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. [39] They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. [40] But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
John 10:36
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
John 14:28
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Peace,
JM
S
Silas
Guest
Ohh..I think see your hang up? I never said Jesus is the Father. Jesus is not the Father, but nontheless God. Remember, God is Trinue (as far as Scriptures reveal). Read my Godhead post for more on that. As for what you said though. YES! Jesus, our elder brother was sobordiate to the Father. It was His reason for coming: To fulfill the Law we broke, thus living a perfect life, and dying a perfect sacrifice that those who trust in Him may have their law breaking (sins) imputed to Jesus as well as have Jesus' righteousness imputed to them, making them justified before God. The fathe is greater than Jesus in relationship, likewise is the Spirit only doing the will of Jesus, but they are all still one in essence. A good way to understand Jesus' divnity is understand the Old Testament in relation to the New and by noticing all the theophanies of the preincarnate Christ in the OT as well as in juxtaposing the OT with the NT, especially the book of Lev. with Hebrews.
BlaznFattyz
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
"I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins."
And so they were saying to Him, "Who are You?" Jesus said to them, "What have I been saying to you from the beginning?
"I have many things to speak and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I speak to the world."
They did not realize that He had been speaking to them about the Father.
Jesus therefore said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.
"And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him."
As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him.
S
Silas
Guest
I suppose I can go into a whole spill about this (most likely I'll have to), but this is so easy to understand. Why are the Jews trying to kill Jesus for saying "I am" in presence tense in context with Him existing before their supposed Father Abraham? How do you suppose they understood Jesus' words? From context, it seems they knew Him to make Himself out to be God. And yes, you're right...the Father is greater than Jesus in relationship!