Question abt Christianity as a monotheist religion

[Dondi]

I have no knowledge of any adoption or redemption for any flesh. I think Paul invented a bit of his understanding. I have no knowledge of choosing this set of genes, and neither do my parents. I do not consider the flesh worthy of heaven and I will be elated to jettison it someday just like everyone else... regardless of my fate and God's judgement. I like the body like I do a car... the driver is far more important and the car is going to get scrapped. In the air a car is worthless. Under the sea an aircraft is worthless. On land a submarine is worthless. In the same way, as I read Jesus in John, flesh is useless in heaven. A different set of physics altogether. It might be necessary in hell though... so careful what you wish for. Whether it is the driver or the car that needs the cleaning... probably both. The flesh is on fire and is continually burning.

As shown with Job... it is not skin for skin. So lets not judge the driver by the car or the person by the flesh. I don't give a rip what genes Jesus had... it is irrelevant. If he were a girl, a half-midget, with birth defects, born from a prostitute who didn't know who the father was... it doesn't really matter to me and I'm certain it is not what mattered to him.

Jesus was resurrected in a physical body, according to the scriptures. He evidently aquired certain abilities with this resurrected body, for example he could appear and reappear at will, rise through the air and into the clouds. Yet He was also able to eat fish and honeycomb, both physical substances.

Paul talked an incorruptable spiritual body in I Corinthians 15, one that will not decay like the nones we have now. In Genesis 18, when Abraham entertained the Lord and two of His angels, they ate the meal prepared for them. It isn't going to be a flesh and blood body, but one that will have some sort of substance to it. I don't think we will be floating around like some ghostly etheral spirit, but it will be something that we won't feel pain or sorrow, according to Revelation 22. The curse will be lifted.

 

[Dondi]

So Dondi, God adopted us from Darkness, who was our original parent? Interesting...

The darkness is our sin. Adam and Eve had a relationship with God in Paradise and would have maintain that relationship forever had they not eaten of the wrong tree. When Man fell, our relationship collased and we were darkened into sin, which the light of God could not penetrate because of the sin. We were basically disowned, orphaned as it were. But Jesus took the sin and darkness away as the Light that is come into the world (see John 1). Jesus redeemed our souls and made us righteous before God. We are adopted into His Family (John 1:12-13).

 

[Quahom1]

That kind of makes you wonder: who were we adopted from?

Gentiles were not originally the chosen people of God. That is where the adoption comes from. Jesus told the priests that some of they would not sit around His table, but the gentiles would because they accepted Him and His message and gift.

 

[Quahom1]

I have no knowledge of any adoption or redemption for any flesh. I think Paul invented a bit of his understanding. I have no knowledge of choosing this set of genes, and neither do my parents. I do not consider the flesh worthy of heaven and I will be elated to jettison it someday just like everyone else... regardless of my fate and God's judgement. I like the body like I do a car... the driver is far more important and the car is going to get scrapped. In the air a car is worthless. Under the sea an aircraft is worthless. On land a submarine is worthless. In the same way, as I read Jesus in John, flesh is useless in heaven. A different set of physics altogether. It might be necessary in hell though... so careful what you wish for. Whether it is the driver or the car that needs the cleaning... probably both. The flesh is on fire and is continually burning.

As shown with Job... it is not skin for skin. So lets not judge the driver by the car or the person by the flesh. I don't give a rip what genes Jesus had... it is irrelevant. If he were a girl, a half-midget, with birth defects, born from a prostitute who didn't know who the father was... it doesn't really matter to me and I'm certain it is not what mattered to him.

You must not have read the parable about the branches being grafted onto the tree of life while others that were originally part of the tree are pruned and cast off as chaff into the fire.

 

[cyberpi]

You must not have read the parable about the branches being grafted onto the tree of life while others that were originally part of the tree are pruned and cast off as chaff into the fire.

No, I don't recognize it. I try not to confuse Paul's words (Romans 11) with words from Jesus (John 15). The author's intended audience is different and it can lead to new innovative interpretations that stray and reverse the meaning of the original. For example the word 'prune' seems a bit different to me in scripture where it means removing fruit so that a branch can produce more, versus a branch that withers for not producing fruit. When someone combines, comments, or adds to a parable with something it provides insight about what that person thinks, but it may not be the meaning of the original parable. For example: obtaining a lamb skin, or hobbling, stealing, shearing, or cloning a sheep... the extensions are interesting but I note that they were NOT something that Jesus spoke of in the gospels.

 

[Quahom1]

No, I don't recognize it. I try not to confuse Paul's words (Romans 11) with words from Jesus (John 15). The author's intended audience is different and it can lead to new innovative interpretations that stray and reverse the meaning of the original. For example the word 'prune' seems a bit different to me in scripture where it means removing fruit so that a branch can produce more, versus a branch that withers for not producing fruit. When someone combines, comments, or adds to a parable with something it provides insight about what that person thinks, but it may not be the meaning of the original parable. For example: obtaining a lamb skin, or hobbling, stealing, shearing, or cloning a sheep... the extensions are interesting but I note that they were NOT something that Jesus spoke of in the gospels.

Obviously you do. Since you knew exactly what I was talking about. And the audience is the same, as John was not the Gospel for the Jews but for all people. Romans was also for all people not just the Jews. And Jesus was specific to the Pharasees about who would sit at His table, and some of them would be replaced by gentiles. This stuff isn't even in the Hebrew scriptures since it is New Testament material, so who do you think the audience was?

Finally all three are about those who are supposed to be part of salvation, and those who are originally not part of the salvation plan. Those who do not believe bear no fruit, and are cut away. Those that do believe and act on their belief are gathered and grafted for the greater Glory of God.

There are several other statements that repeat this theme over again: the Wise and foolish maidens waiting for the bridegroom, the famous and the poor being invited to dine with the master, immediately come to mind.

But anyone not seeing or accepting the obvious correlation between all of the themes, is not my problem.

v/r

Joshua

 

[cyberpi]

Obviously you do. Since you knew exactly what I was talking about. And the audience is the same, as John was not the Gospel for the Jews but for all people. Romans was also for all people not just the Jews. And Jesus was specific to the Pharasees about who would sit at His table, and some of them would be replaced by gentiles. This stuff isn't even in the Hebrew scriptures since it is New Testament material, so who do you think the audience was?

Finally all three are about those who are supposed to be part of salvation, and those who are originally not part of the salvation plan. Those who do not believe bear no fruit, and are cut away. Those that do believe and act on their belief are gathered and grafted for the greater Glory of God.

There are several other statements that repeat this theme over again: the Wise and foolish maidens waiting for the bridegroom, the famous and the poor being invited to dine with the master, immediately come to mind.

But anyone not seeing or accepting the obvious correlation between all of the themes, is not my problem.

v/r

Joshua

Romans 1:7 To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul didn't address the world... the Roman Catholic church did. The word 'prune' is in the OT. I find the word 'graft' nowhere except in Romans 11. In the parable of the two trees, one which produces good fruit and one which produces evil fruit, I find no mention of grafting.

Matthew 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

The concept of grafting is Paul's. I think flesh is to be worn like a garment... I don't think it has any place in heaven. The flesh is not the good tree. Jesus pre-dated his flesh and per John 3:13, anyone who is going to heaven did too. I operate with the assumption that everyone has a soul that pre-dates their birth here.

 

[Quahom1]

Romans 1:7 To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul didn't address the world... the Roman Catholic church did. The word 'prune' is in the OT. I find the word 'graft' nowhere except in Romans 11. In the parable of the two trees, one which produces good fruit and one which produces evil fruit, I find no mention of grafting.

Matthew 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

The concept of grafting is Paul's. I think flesh is to be worn like a garment... I don't think it has any place in heaven. The flesh is not the good tree. Jesus pre-dated his flesh and per John 3:13, anyone who is going to heaven did too. I operate with the assumption that everyone has a soul that pre-dates their birth here.

In Paul's time, "Rome" was the world. Rome meant "the world". Paul's writings are part of the Bible. They are accepted by most Christians. The stories and themes all go hand in hand. You forget that the NT writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit and so as such, added variations on the themes of the OT as the Holy Spirit of God directed them to, for the people of the times, and future readers. And, I will point out, to deny the work of the Holy Spirit of God is a Blasphemous act that is unforgivable. In fact it is the only sin that is unforgivable. That too is Biblical...

 

[BlaznFattyz]

The concept of grafting is Paul's...

no no.. the gift of being adopted/grafted into god's kingdom is god's gift thru christ and the spirit.

"And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.'"

"And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, 'It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.'"

"While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

"Then Peter answered, 'Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?'
"And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."

and furthermore:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

 

[Correction]

What part of you is you? Your body, your mind or your spirit? Answer I presume would be all three...

There are three parts to you, but all belong to one that is you. Without all three parts of you working together it is said that one is not whole. One whole yet three distinct parts of that whole.

We instinctively understand this as we apply it with every relationship we have. First we are attracted to the physical, then we get to know the mental, and finally we become accustomed to the spiritual of an individual. Or, we learn about the mental through writings or other media, then meet the physical and then learn about the spiritual.

The point is, there are three parts to each of us, which are unique to us as a whole. Each part is us, but the combination of the three is also us.

Hence God the Father is God, God the Holy Spirit is God and Jesus the Son of God is God. And they all combine to form God.

Ironically the "split" of the three personages to form God is strictly for man's benefit. To the rest of the universe there is but one, that is God. But the difference is what that God did for man (put on the mantle of humanity, suffered and allowed death to claim His coporial form, but not Him).

Of all the religions, only one has a representation of God on earth and in heaven and throughout the universe all at the same time (omnipresent).

As revered as Mohummad is, he can not lay claim to that, as he is not God, and his bones lie in the dust somewhere. Neither can Abraham, or Moses.

Only Jesus lays claim to defeating death, and showing the way to life everlasting within proximity to God the Father. No other religion claims that man can be with the Father, none. Paradise is about as close as anyone can get without Jesus (my opinion). Paradise and Heaven are two different Ball Parks...

I personally do not want first, second or third base. I'm batting for the bleacher seats in deep center field.

These are my own thoughts, and not subject to doctrinal scrutiny.

v/r

Joshua

p.s. welcome to CR

AMEN!...well said.

 

[pattimax]

AMEN!...well said.

My thoughts exactly.