Adam to Jesus 4000 years?

[Silas]

yes but thats not what TULIP is teaching.. The Five Points of Calvinism, TULIP

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).

So God creates this world and because He is kind He will only let a few be His elect..? God LOVES His creation.. This is warped.. He LOVES us.. He didnt create us for the heck of it He created us to WANT Him and NEED Him..He creates us so we could know what its like to be loved by Him... wow Id never read this before.. this is horrible. God so LOVED the WORLD that He gave His ONLY son that WHOSOEVER believes in Him should not perish... the world means ALL.. Of course Jesus shed His blood for all those that believe in Him to cover thier sins..but He wants ALL to be saved.. Jesus wept because of what sin did to this world.. His creation.

This is making me feel queasy


Perseverance of the Saints:
You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return.

My only issue with this is that I agree you cannot lose your salvation but I believe you can choose to LEAVE your salvation. All the warnings Paul gave to the believers..

Sorry if I had you waiting for a reply. I was actually on the phone - sorry! Umm. Yes, back to the convo. Hey, would you do me a favor though? Lets take this one step at a time. You're jumping ahead and assuming wrong. Calvinist affairm that "whosoever wills let the come," and all the scriptures that say to come. We just believe those that come and made willing by God and therefore come. But again, thats another topic. Now, we're talking about limted atonment and more specifically 1Joh. 2:2. Jesus is the [SIZE=-1]propitiation for our sins. Propitiation means that because of Jesus' attonment we who have repented and trust in the Lord are now free from the Law of God and His wrath. In essence "there is now therefore no condemnation for those in Christ - but alone grace. Thank God for that! Anyway, here's my question: If Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, i.e. everyone indivisually, why are there still people paying for their sins in hell? Christ paid their debt - not so? [/SIZE]

 

[pattimax]

See now that is truly a shame. I don't think Taoists or Hindis or Buddhists think of Christians in that light. Do you really think it is Christian to simply denigrate and disregard the believes of others in such a manner. The do unto others concept comes to mind, would you think it acceptable for others to say the same about our belief system?

That is so funny. I used to say the same thing before I started truly studying the Bible.

The reason buddhists do not say anything is because they have no God (aside from the temples, buddhism is actually a mental discipline.) Instead of transforming your mind (as in Christianity) buddihsm urges you to empty it. Taoism is focused on the balance of Ying and Yang (opposites) and the harmonizing the human life force. I know they acknowledge a creator, but Shag-di, their principal heavenly deity is barely acknowledged and he doesn't know or care about your existence. Now the hindi's have lots and lots of gods. But their main one is Krishna. (If you happen to go to a temple, he's the big blue statue.) Then the trimuti (triad) which forms Brahman (essence of the world spirit): vishnu (creator and wisdom), shiva (destroyer), and brahma (protector).Then they have all of their little gods and that is where they are trying to put my lord and savior, Jesus Christ.


But rest assured, Jesus Christ is Lord and while the other stuff may be interesting for a season, it is pure fiction. And I will not hesitate to tell them, nor should you. Our Lord is a gentleman, but he is not a doormat. "Political correctness" gives that impression.

So "do unto others..." means saving souls, not hurting feelings. Maybe one day you will understand.

 

[pattimax]

oh, and btw Christianity can be confirmed with archaeological data.

 

[Dondi]

How in the world did we get from the OP of "From Adam to Jesus: 4000 years" to Predestination? Where is the relevance to this discussion?

 

[pattimax]

Were you speaking to me? Showing why political correctness is offensive is relevant.

 

[Dondi]

Were you speaking to me? Showing why political correctness is offensive is relevant.

No, I wasn't directly speaking to you. It's just we already have several Predestination threads ongoing and I was wondering why this one devolved into one as well.

 

[pattimax]

OK... I guess wil went elsewhere.

 

[wil]

oh, and btw Christianity can be confirmed with archaeological data.

Which part and which data and which archeologists?

How in the world did we get from the OP of "From Adam to Jesus: 4000 years" to Predestination? Where is the relevance to this discussion?

I think it meandered there slowly.

Were you speaking to me? Showing why political correctness is offensive is relevant.

Being tolerant of others belief systems is politically correct?

OK... I guess wil went elsewhere.

No, I's here, when the literalists and the fundamentalists and the calvinists and start thumpin back and forth, I just dance to the beat, until it slows down again...

 

[pattimax]

Which part and which data and which archeologists?

Right now, I am talking about Jesus Christ. I am referring to a textbook, Archaeology and The New Testament by: John Mcray, phd. I realize that spiritual truths are not proven by archaeology, but history is. Compare eastern religions. I have. There is quite a bit of data, but it is all based on myths.

Being tolerant of others belief systems is politically correct?
When you are asked by Him "How well did you tell about me?", you do not want to say "I let them believe what people felt comfortable with, but hey, I looked out for me and I know you". To God saving people from eternal damnation and stepping on toes is a no-brainer.

Welcome back to the slow lane. I'm busy for the rest of the day... I'll talk to you tomorrow.

(I don't know how to do quotes within quotes.)

 

[moseslmpg]

oh, and btw Christianity can be confirmed with archaeological data.

So can Buddhism, I believe.

Considering that other religions have the same mindset of them being the only true way to God, do you feel it is justified that they tell you that your religion is wrong instead of letting you believe what you want?

 

[Quahom1]

So can Buddhism, I believe.

Considering that other religions have the same mindset of them being the only true way to God, do you feel it is justified that they tell you that your religion is wrong instead of letting you believe what you want?

No. Not a one of them (other religions) lays claim to the fact that they are saved, by grace, and Jesus. Only followers of Jesus make that claim (Christians make it clear we can't do it on our own, no matter how much we want to, or how hard we try).

Now Christians should not tell others they are wrong, only that theirs is their own choice. But Christians believe there is only one way to the Father. Let the others of different faith think about that on their own...

See, we go for the gold. We go for it all, the source of all. We settle for nothing less.

 

[moseslmpg]

Well, considering that many other religions don't see man in need of salvation, there is no reason to claim that they are saved by Jesus. But other religions have different goals, and variously claim that they are the only way to achieve such goals. For instance, Buddhism and enlightenment, Hinduism and moksha.

What about Judaism and Islam? Don't they each claim that the two other Abrahmic religions are wrong, and theirs is right?

 

[Quahom1]

Well, considering that many other religions don't see man in need of salvation, there is no reason to claim that they are saved by Jesus. But other religions have different goals, and variously claim that they are the only way to achieve such goals. For instance, Buddhism and enlightenment, Hinduism and moksha.

What about Judaism and Islam? Don't they each claim that the two other Abrahmic religions are wrong, and theirs is right?

Like I said, many are called, few are chosen (few choose). Judeasm has anger issues, and Islam is an interesting point all their own. But Judeasm dosn't speak but for one tribe (or maybe two and a half, Levites and part of the Benjamites), of the orginal twelve, and frankly, could care less about who does or believes what. They aren't out to win converts, because the religious belief goes with the ethnic status, but not neccessarily the other way around. Islam was invented by the Arab, who want's everyone to do exactly as they say, because they are right, regardless of what it is. And they will push their point until you do accept what they think.

Christians simply state their belief. Take it or leave it. But they talk about it, alot.

The old ways of "conversion" were a joke (albeit a sick one), for greed and land and money, and power, on all sides. I can't answer for the past.

But today, we know:

If you were in Israel and talking about Jesus, people listen or they do not.
If you were in the US and talking about Jesus, people listen or they do not.
If you were in an Arab land and talking about Jesus, people listen then have you arrested, and/or killed.

Muhammed supercedes Jesus, and Jews are mucked up and should be re-educated, or erradicated, that is the Arab Muslim way (according to the media).

So, who's fault is it? Jews? Christians? Arab Muslims? or the media? damn, tough call...

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Silas!

Adam to Jesus 4000 years? I'd like to know how people came up with the answer. Anyone know?

Has anyone yet offered the name Archbishop Usshur (alt. spelling Ushur)? He is the Irish priest who did the calculations about 400 years ago +/-. There is plenty to be found on the net about him and his work.

 

[Silas]

Thanks a lot Juantoo!!

 

[cyberpi]

But today, we know:

If you were in Israel and talking about Jesus, people listen or they do not.
If you were in the US and talking about Jesus, people listen or they do not.
If you were in an Arab land and talking about Jesus, people listen then have you arrested, and/or killed.

Please keep these racist comments in your name. I/O solo... right? You don't speak for me, any of the Christians I know, the people in the USA, and none of the Arabs that I know. I know absolutely nothing of what you've said there. The Qur'an states that all prophets are considered equal and the disciples of Christ are called Muslim. It is a requirement to talk about Jesus in Islam... a requirement. Within mosques you will often hear his name (Isa, pbuh) and even discussion of his teaching. But when someone starts pointing to a race, then this is no longer about religion... it is comparative-race and I submit that is not what people are interested in here. If it is, please keep it in your own private name and jettison that 'WE'.

 

[Prober]

Kindest Regards, Silas!


Has anyone yet offered the name Archbishop Usshur (alt. spelling Ushur)? He is the Irish priest who did the calculations about 400 years ago +/-. There is plenty to be found on the net about him and his work.

Got it - post 51.

 

[pattimax]

So can Buddhism, I believe.

Considering that other religions have the same mindset of them being the only true way to God, do you feel it is justified that they tell you that your religion is wrong instead of letting you believe what you want?

Buddhism began as a reaction to the hindu caste system and they do NOT feel that their way is the only way to God. They don't believe in any type of god. Although that could have changed. I studied it a few years ago. Their ultimate goal is to reach Nirvana. (no thoughts whatsoever)

 

[Quahom1]

Please keep these racist comments in your name. I/O solo... right? You don't speak for me, any of the Christians I know, the people in the USA, and none of the Arabs that I know. I know absolutely nothing of what you've said there. The Qur'an states that all prophets are considered equal and the disciples of Christ are called Muslim. It is a requirement to talk about Jesus in Islam... a requirement. Within mosques you will often hear his name (Isa, pbuh) and even discussion of his teaching. But when someone starts pointing to a race, then this is no longer about religion... it is comparative-race and I submit that is not what people are interested in here. If it is, please keep it in your own private name and jettison that 'WE'.

Cyberpi. There is nothing racist in my body. You on the other hand have alot to learn about discussions and debates. You speak your mind and I speak mine. You and I are not even in the same ball park. I do not even pretend to speak for you, but I do speak for mainstream Christianity, which you have clearly expressed you are not part of.

If you can prove I'm racist, I suggest you do so now. Otherwise your statements in and of themselves are slanderous and full of libel.

I wouldn't dream of calling anyone oh say, and idiot, so I chalk it off to a mistake in terminology.

Your Qu'ran has no place here, since it means nothing to the Christian world. I grew up in an Arab community for the first 20 years of my life, and 95% of them are Muslim. I also served in non Arabic countries that are also Muslim. So I know exactly what I'm talking about. It's called observation, experience and the school of hard knocks.

All prophets are not considered equal (some are not even considered prophets by others).

"We Christians" do not accept Islam, nor Muhammad, nor Imams nor clerics. That is a fact. Paying "lip service" to Jesus is not the same as Worshipping Him and following His ways and depending upon His promise for salvation.

I don't know who you think you are, but you've erred by thinking you can shut a Christian up in the Christian forum, on Christian concepts.

I suggest you calm down and be more respectful...

v/r

Joshua

btw it is "Io solo" for proper vernacular in Latin grammar.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Cyberpi. There is nothing racist in my body. You on the other hand have alot to learn about discussions and debates. You speak your mind and I speak mine. You and I are not even in the same ball park. I do not even pretend to speak for you, but I do speak for mainstream Christianity, which you have clearly expressed you are not part of.

If you can prove I'm racist, I suggest you do so now. Otherwise your statements in and of themselves are slanderous and full of libel.

I wouldn't dream of calling anyone oh say, and idiot, so I chalk it off to a mistake in terminology.

Your Qu'ran has no place here, since it means nothing to the Christian world. I grew up in an Arab community for the first 20 years of my life, and 95% of them are Muslim. I also served in non Arabic countries that are also Muslim. So I know exactly what I'm talking about. It's called observation, experience and the school of hard knocks.

All prophets are not considered equal (some are not even considered prophets by others).

"We Christians" do not accept Islam, nor Muhammad, nor Imams nor clerics. That is a fact. Paying "lip service" to Jesus is not the same as Worshipping Him and following His ways and depending upon His promise for salvation.

I don't know who you think you are, but you've erred by thinking you can shut a Christian up in the Christian forum, on Christian concepts.

I suggest you calm down and be more respectful...

v/r

Joshua

btw it is "Io solo" for proper vernacular in Latin grammar.

That's a keeper!

Chris