What does it mean...

[Elijah John]

I have heard Christian Evangelicals and Fundamentalists use the phrase that to be saved, one must have a "personal relationship with Jesus" or is one to have a "personal relationship with God THROUGH Jesus" and they say that is what it means to be a Christian.

But it seems to me that ANYONE who prays on their own, (as opposed to only in a congregation) has a personal relationship with God.

Questions for debate,

a) Which is necessary to be a Christian, a "personal relationship with Jesus"? or is it a "personal relationship with God THROUGH Jesus"? Clarification requested here.

and

b) must one be a go through Christ to have a "personal relationship with God" or is a relationship with God available to ALL who pray sincerely,directly and individually to Him? WITHOUT a mediator? Isn't prayer and embracing God's will, (in and of itself) "relationship"?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 20 by Choir Loft]

I think that is religious bigotry, preaching and personal attack, pure and simple.

And since you mostly failed to address the content in my posts, I don't think we have anything more to talk about.

But one last try, if Christ is necessary to salvation and the personal saving relationship that you hold as essential, then why does the the prophet Ezekiel, in the very verse you quote( 33.11 ) mention only repentance and nothing about faith in the coming Messiah as essential to the forgiveness of sins? Evangelicals love to point out that Jesus was in the OT too, if so why doesn't Ezekiel seem to realize his necessity for a saving, personal relationship with God?

And if you had questions about my distinction between the prophetic and the personal, you could have simply asked in a civil way for clarification from me, intstead of the nonsense about the supposedly analogous human sexual relationship.

All you needed to say is that you believe Christ was essential for a personal saving relationship with God, in a non-preaching tone, without the personal attacks, and nonsense.

Then I would simply disagree and show you more examples of why I believe your interpretation of Christ is not necessary for that kind of saving relationship.

And I did not slander and insult Jesus, as you accuse me of. You need to be careful you don't bear false witness, especially with such a serious charge. I may be guilty of unbelief in your interpretation and Paul's interpretation of the theological significance of Jesus life and death on the cross, but that is not slander. Unbelief is not slander or insulting as you seem to suggest. I hold Jesus in very high regard, like the Muslims do, but neither I nor the Muslims believe that he is God incarnate.

And if you think I am uncivil simply because someone does not agree with me, please review posts 12 and 13 my exchange with Overcomer. He was civil, so was I. But we simply disagreed.

If you believe that your uncivil tone, and your admitted preaching is leading anyone to your interpretation of "Christ", well I doubt it is. It certainly isn't working with me.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 18 by Elijah John]

Since when is preaching either wrong or an illegitimate method of transmitting knowledge? I submit that your accusatory tone demonstrates a level of religious and logical bigotry on your part that refuses to acknowledge any position but your own. At this level no common ground can be found except that of continued insult proceeding from your keyboard.

Additionally I attempted to illustrate the difference between prophetic and personal by equating it to human intimacy. You responded with a rant about the trinity and insults about Christ which were never part of the argument - revealing to the reader a bias on your part and a logical inconsistency that extends beyond the scope of the discussion.

In other words, since you cannot offer a suitable rebuttal you have attempted to redirect the debate by means of feigned misunderstanding, accusation and insult supported by the moderator's own bias(*). Nice try, but you still lose.

According to your own admission you do not understand human intimacy as opposed to mental appreciation - between poetry and intercourse. The parallel I attempted to illustrate is equal to the difference between scriptural meditation and the second birth. One is a real relationship, the other is not.

When you reject an argument at the outset the only possible extension of it is constant frustrating reiterations of tradition and supposition - things which God rejected in the Jew when the Jew rejected God at the cross.

These are people who "pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith."
- Timothy 1:4

I say it again and I quote Christ as well. Without a real relationship with Almighty God NO ONE can be saved.

"Unless you are born again you cannot see the Kingdom of God."
- Jesus

The second birth enables a true relationship with God. Everything else is empty godless religion. It may look good to another man, but it means nothing to God.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft

(*)
I note also the moderator's knee jerk reaction to the phrase double minded, which is used in the Bible to describe a man who accepts two mutually exclusive arguments at the same time. Suddenly its wrong to point out that a man's argument is inconsistent? Mr. John has proven it true in his own words. Pointing it out does not make me a rule breaker.

But there is something else in play here I think.

I also note that the sacrilegious insults exhibited by Mr. John regarding the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Christ seem to have somehow slipped through the cracks of the moderator's rule book of values. To slander a sacred point in another man's religion is of great insult.

There is a double standard here.

Is it ok for Mr. John to vomit lies and insults about the Holiest figures in human history but a violation for me to point out John's inconsistent argument? One thing is quite certain. The moderator is twisting the rules to the advantage of one who hides in the midst of insults, lies, confusion and bigotry.

This is the nature of a double standard and with all these doubles going on the discussion seems to have completely jumped the shark (a Hollywood term meaning that a production or work has degenerated into a worthless effort).

Moderator Warning


- your accusatory tone demonstrates a level of religious and logical bigotry on your part (please don't accuse people of bigotry)

- I note also the moderator's knee jerk reaction to the phrase double minded
(please don't discuss moderation posts - PM the moderator if you want to discuss the issue).


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Elijah John]

Something I forgot, that I wish I had included in the OP.

Jesus taught us how to pray in the Lord's prayer, that is a prayer of relationship. When he teaches us to address JHVH as "Father" that title by it's very nature implies relationship. I believe it is traslated as "Abba", a closer term of endearment. He doesn't teach us to pray to HIS Father alone, but to OUR Father.

And it seems open to anyone who wants to approach God. He mentions NOTHING about any imperative for anyone to believe in his impending "atoning, substitionary" death on the cross.

Why is that, if supposedly only those who believe in his impending blood atonement are children of God and among the saved?

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

You are correct. Anyone who prays and makes contact with a deity that exists has crossed into something far greater than just earthly existence.

To correct your claim, though: most Christians claim (as Jesus taught) that you MUST be born again to be saved. We do not believe that you can merely pray.

You have to take that one more step by asking God to renew you, and this is where Jesus of Nazareth comes into the picture. If you don't ask God to renew you and give you the gift of "the comforter", God will comply and not give it to you.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 24 by The Me's]

Then why does Jesus teach us to pray and address God as "Our Father" "Father" is a term of relationship. In the Sermon on the Mount, which represents the essence and best summary of Jesus teaching, He says NOTHING about the necessity of being "born again". Only in John does he supposedly use that language.

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 25 by Elijah John]

Congratulations, you found a story in the gospels that does not specifically address being born again.

Now read John 3.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 25 by Elijah John]

Congratulations, you found a story in the gospels that does not specifically address being born again.

Now read John 3.

There are many, only John talks about being "born again" and Paul only implies it.
Funny how three out of four Gospels Evangelists don't mention it at all.

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 27 by Elijah John]

The fact that "only John" talks about it is irrelevant.

(And it was Jesus who said it, not John. Nicodemus misunderstood, too. He said, "How can a man go back into his mother's womb and be born again?")

I see no reason to alter the text, nor do I see reason to disbelieve that Jesus said it.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 27 by Elijah John]

The fact that "only John" talks about it is irrelevant.

(And it was Jesus who said it, not John. Nicodemus misunderstood, too. He said, "How can a man go back into his mother's womb and be born again?")

I see no reason to alter the text, nor do I see reason to disbelieve that Jesus said it.

And you're sure the Evangelist John is not attributing to Jesus things he may not have said? Many scholars think this is the least reliable of the Gospels, as it is the furthest removed from the actual events, and contradicts the synoptics on several narrative issues. Also, rhetorically, John has Jesus speaking in long discourses, claiming glory for himself, in stark contrast to the Synoptics where Jesus speaks in short aphorisms, and parables. Also, in the Synoptics Jesus seems totally focused on glorifying the Father, not himself.

Remember, the Bible was written and compiled over time, and most probably subject to human tendencies to embellish and mythologize event and people in the process. It did not drop out of Heaven, complete and intact.

[The Me's]

And you're sure the Evangelist John is not attributing to Jesus things he may not have said? Many scholars think this is the least reliable of the Gospels, as it is the furthest removed from the actual events, and contradicts the synoptics on several narrative issues. Also, rhetorically, John has Jesus speaking in long discourses, claiming glory for himself, in stark contrast to the Synoptics where Jesus speaks in short aphorisms, and parables. Also, in the Synoptics Jesus seems totally focused on glorifying the Father, not himself.

Remember, the Bible was written and compiled over time, and most probably subject to human tendencies to embellish and mythologize event and people in the process. It did not drop out of Heaven, complete and intact.

Again, there's no reason to alter the text.

Your assumption that John is lying has to be supported, or your claim falls flat.

It's far more likely that you're seeking to alter scripture to support your claim since scripture (unaltered) is no help to you.