Simple repentance...

[Elijah John]

Isaiah 55.6,7

"Isaiah 55:6-7Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

6 Seek Adonai while he is available,
call on him while he is still nearby.
7 Let the wicked person abandon his way
and the evil person his thoughts;
let him return to Adonai,
and he will have mercy on him;
let him return to our God,
for he will FREELY forgive."

(caps my emphasis)


No need for blood here, animal OR human...Just simple repentance and forgiveness FREELY given!

Question for debate, how significant is the word FREELY in this passage?

Note that this is a JEWISH version, (i.e. closer to the original) The KJV renders the word as "abundantly". Is this change by the KJV an example of Christian revisionism in progress?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]
Do you understand that different people have different names for the same God?

Allah, for example is THE GOD...in Arabic.

I understand that religions use names of God to create divisiveness to provide an excuse to belittle others for believing in the "wrong God".

YHVH is the Hebrew name for the same God.

So in other words, you worship Allah. You could then call yourself a Muslim too.

It is not an attempt to "copyright"

In the Abrahamic tradition it certainly has been.

And if we worship the same God, the Creator of the universe, I try to worship him according to the teachings of Jesus...and that is what makes me a Christian.

You seem to follow the teachings of the Buddha, who didn't seem to have a god at all...or the Tao..Which is similar to many of the ways of Christianity, but with different traditions, and somewhat different concepts. Or Wicca, which is even more different...

So what? Why should the one true God care how you worship him?

Are you suggesting that the one true God demands that people worship him only as Jesus taught?

If so, why? What makes Jesus so "Special"?

So I do believe that by trying to follow what Jesus taught, AS Jesus taught it..that makes me a Christian. We may untimately believe int he the same Divine reality, but our approaches are VASTLY different.

What make you think they are VASTLY different?

And isn't this once again an attempt to claim a copyright on the correct procedure or traditions for worshiping God?

In short, I try to do it Jesus way, you try to do it other ways.

I say baloney.

I say that what Jesus actually taught is precisely the same things that Buddha taught. And I can back that up using the New Testament scriptures by "cherry-picking" just like you do.

If Orthodoxy is a departure from what Jesus taught, should we let revisionists claime the exclsive rights to the name "Christian"?

Why should anyone care about the label "Christian"?

Do you think God gives a hoot about the label of "Christian"?

Do you REALLY think that was Jesus intention, to have HIMSELF the object of worship?

I have no clue what Jesus might have intended. We can only guess. According to the Gospel Rumors Jesus placed himself BEFORE YHVH:

John.14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me

So yes, "Christianity" has Jesus placing himself before YHVH.

Whether Jesus actually said this or intended to say it I have no clue, and neither do you.

Or do you think it is more likely that Jesus purpose was to teach people the way to worship and serve the one true LIVING God (as opposed to Pagan idols) whom the Hebrews and Jesus knew as YHVH?

Why should I speculate on what some rumored Jesus might have intended?

And if I do so, why should I call my speculations "Christianity"?

According to you I could call myself a "Christian" using the very same tactics that you use.

My guess is that Jesus was actually a Jewish mystic who learned of the ways of Mahayana Buddhism and tried to incorporate those higher moral values into the immoral religion of his home culture.

Therefore "My Jesus" is actually a disciple of Buddha.

I can imagine a Jesus who is in perfect harmony with the teachings of Buddha. And I can support those teachings by "cherry-picking" from the New Testament just like you do. Especially if I'm allowed to toss out things I disagree with just like you do.

If you can call yourself a "Christian" then by playing your very same game I could call myself a "Christian" too.

Apparently the only real difference between us is it that for you it's important to be identified as a "Christian" whereas for me it's not the slightest bit important.

I don't need to claim to be a "Christian". But using your cherry-picking tactics I certainly could go down that road if I chose to do so. I just don't see any point to doing that.

[bluethread]

Repentance in the Tanakh "Old Testament" consists of recognition, restitution and reformation. That is what is being spoken of when the word is used in the Apostolic Writings "New Testament" also. Really, I don't think an atheist would expect anything less. In fact, that is the basis of equity judgments in the court systems of these United States.

[Divine Insight]

Repentance in the Tanakh "Old Testament" consists of recognition, restitution and reformation. That is what is being spoken of when the word is used in the Apostolic Writings "New Testament" also. Really, I don't think an atheist would expect anything less. In fact, that is the basis of equity judgments in the court systems of these United States.

And none of that is in harmony with "Everlasting Punishment" as Jesus taught.

Everlasting punishment would not constitute restitution or reformation.

Therefore Jesus is not in harmony with the teaching of the Old Testament.

[bluethread]

Repentance in the Tanakh "Old Testament" consists of recognition, restitution and reformation. That is what is being spoken of when the word is used in the Apostolic Writings "New Testament" also. Really, I don't think an atheist would expect anything less. In fact, that is the basis of equity judgments in the court systems of these United States.

And none of that is in harmony with "Everlasting Punishment" as Jesus taught.

Everlasting punishment would not constitute restitution or reformation.

Therefore Jesus is not in harmony with the teaching of the Old Testament.

However, He are not talking about repentance there. He is talking about the one who refuses to repent.

[beeswax]

I was walking through Manchester, England for those who are not UK here..And saw JW stands with people trying to give the Watch Tower to us and most just walked by as I did. I really wanted to engage with them but had a train to catch..

No, I wanted to ask them why THEY believe in THEIR cult against all the other Christian denominations and ALL the other religious faiths and what I really wanted to say is my version LOL. That our Creator is above anything and everything mankind has created and claimed that THEY speak for him. I wanted to say that IF everyone could think of just ONE Creator or God and not sure I really want to keep using that term as most people associate him with the Abrahamic Religions and I am way past that myself. I wanted to tell them that each of us should abandon ALL organised religion and try to worship God in our own way and not be influenced by anyone else. Forget the Church, the Mosque and the Synagogue and yes probably like the Quakers do and just contemplate spiritual things and wait upon the spirit of God.

None of us know God at all, not really, some think they know the mind of God and put words into his mouth the whole time in the OT and then try to take ownership of him and then USE him for their own selfish ends and ALL religious faith do this, not least these Abrahamic faiths. We should all be appalled at any single person dying for their faith and that includes Jesus and his disciples and thousands, nay millions since and all because of tribal and religious bigotry where even they claim God told them to kill all the men, women and children. Six thousand years of OT history and 2000 years of NT history and 1500 years of Muslim history and we are still killing in the name of religion and their version of who God is.

We really don't know what Jesus said or did and nobody wrote anything down at the time but that wouldn't make any difference anyway as they would just tell things as they wanted to and not because they were factual events. This is what religions do. They distort the whole picture to increase their numbers and its been very successful.

At least Judaism has never done that and don't proselytise and their belief in a monotheistic God is at least a step in the right direction and God indeed MAY have favoured them for doing that. At least in part but there's the rub..

The leaders and there are always leaders with the biggest mouth and probably Charisma who can do wonders with the gullible who wait on every word. Its not restricted to Religious Leaders. Politicians know how to do this in spades. Our own Tony Blair had more of this that any political and even religious figure in living memory, even that of Churchill and yet he was an empty vessel full of nothing and no principles and would sell his own Mother to get elected. The British people hate him more than anyone for taking us into an illegal war in Iraq along with your dimwit President Bush. Why does the the good people of the USA and here elect such morons anyway?

That has resulted in complete and utter turmoil in the middle east and still no end to it...Religion, tribalism and power mad nut cases are at the centre of most conflicts we have ever had in the world and yet, God seems ambivalent to it all and maybe thinks...Get on with it and blow yourselves to Kingdom come if you must!

I think we should not treat Jesus or Muhammad or anyone any different to ancient philosophers who may have a few good words to say like the golden rule but nobody should put them on a pedestal or treat them as God or thinking they had the keys to the Kingdom and eternal life. Its amazing obvious...

IF there is a judgement and an afterlife, then logic, reason and common sense should tell us that each one of us will get the rewards or punishment we deserve and that won't depend on what religion we followed...I don't know but that is the case I would argue with God anyway. Its time we put all religions and their claims in the dustbin of history. And allow God to do his work within each one of us now and in the future. The past is past and all the hero's and villains are dead and are dust. Even Jesus.

ATB

Mike

[Elijah John]

[Replying to ttruscott]

Do you agree? How would that work...seems like it would be ignoring the plain meaning using theological gymnastics.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 11 by Divine Insight]

Yes, the God that Arab Christains and Muslims call YHVH, I call YVHV. Same God different names, imo.

OK PROVE that Jesus and Bhudda taught the exact same thing! Prove that Buddha understood the Divine as personal, as Jesus did.

And can you actually tell me that Jesus saw himself as not just a mediatior (I wouldn
't even go that far) but actaually CLEARLY taught people that he was God himself? Where did Jesus TEACH people to:

a) Pray to him and not to YHVH, not the Father
b) Worship no god but himself.
c) Or even TELL People "I am God" ..

If Jesus actually went around telling people "I am God, I am God...." he would not have had a following consisting of "multitudes"...nor would his ministry have lasted 3 days, never mind 3 years.

They would have put him in a first century version of the looney bin, or worse. Or maybe they would have just ignored him completely. And he would have been remembered only in the footnotes of history as a "crackpot".

His audience was Jewish, and they were throughly trained in Sh'ma, that GOD IS ONE....and he is not, nor ever could be a human being!.

Do you deny this? Does cultural and historical context mean NOTHING to you?

You buy the fundamentalist definition of Christianity then reject it completely.

So tell me, with a straight face...and for the record. Do you honestly believe that Jesus set out to get people to worship him as God?

Or do you think it is more likely that he came to teach people how to worship and please the Father? (and I will repeat this until you give me a non-evasive answer.)

If not, why let orthodoxy define Christianity if Jesus had something COMPLETELY different in mind?

Why surrender Jesus to Fundamentalists?

[Divine Insight]

OK PROVE that Jesus and Bhudda taught the exact same thing! Prove that Buddha understood the Divine as personal, as Jesus did.

That is an absolutely absurd demand coming from someone who rejects major tenets of Christianity wholesale only to proclaim a Jesus that you have clearly "Cherry-picked" yourself via tons of scriptural denials, and personal reinterpretations of what you've kept.

PROVE your own "Jesus" first.

Moreover, I've already told you that I would use precisely the very same tactics that you are already using. All I need to do is reject everything in scriptures that doesn't support my views, and cherry-pick the verses that do support my views.

Nothing can be "PROVED" when it comes to these absurdly archaic religions. So your demand that I "prove" that Jesus taught the same things as Buddha is an absurd demand.

All I need to do is the very same thing you are doing and simply proclaim, "Well, that's the way it appears to me".

Moreover, I would probably disagree with you on many things you you think the Buddha might have taught. There's a lot of ambiguity in that religion as well.

So your demand for "PROOF" here is an absolutely absurd demand.

So tell me, with a straight face...and for the record. Do you honestly believe that Jesus set out to get people to worship him as God?

What I might believe about Jesus is absolutely irrelevant to Christianity.

If not, why let orthodoxy define Christianity if Jesus had something COMPLETELY different in mind?

Why surrender Jesus to Fundamentalists?

Surrender Jesus to Fundamentalists?

I didn't realize that I owned Jesus in the first place.

Why should I need to even consider attempting to even defend Jesus against Fundamentalists. Am I Jesus' keeper?

Let Jesus defend himself. If he did have some message from God, then he's the one who screwed up the delivery of that message BIG TIME. He would have no one to blame but himself.

It's not my responsibility to try to fix up the failings of inept prophets.

~~~~~

As far as I'm concerned, I suspect that people who are so obsessed with "saving Jesus" are actually only out to obtain the "religious authority" that has historically become associated with his name.

It's not about "Saving Private Jesus". It's about proclaiming to know the TRUTH of Divine knowledge by proclaiming that a person has a better handle on Jesus than anyone else.

This is actually one of the greatest problems with Christianity. It causes people to become "vested" in proclaiming that they know what Jesus was all about whilst everyone else has it all wrong, (including the major mainstream Christianities)

It's like "Internal Warfare" going on within the cult itself.

This is why I always point out that if everyone converted to Christianity tomorrow that would only be the beginning of the "Real Holy Wars" because at that point all they would be doing is pointing fingers at each other proclaiming that each other is "Not a Real Christian" because they aren't understanding the message of Jesus correctly.

So I don't see where your approach is any different from the millions of other people out there who have similar personal opinions of what they would like Jesus and Christianity to stand for.

They all jump on the "Jesus Bandwagon" in an effort to take a ride on the "Authority of Jesus". Each one proclaiming that only they have the "True Jesus".

I say, let the Fundamentalists have the "Jesus Marionette Doll". Let them put whatever words they want in that puppet's mouth. Instead of trying to take the doll away from them just renounce the authority of the doll.

What's the point in trying to "Save Jesus"?

All that does is create more problems than good in any case.

Let Jesus die. Poor guy has been dead for over 2000 years and no one will let him rest in peace.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 2 by Paprika]

The rich bought goats, rams, bulls etc to sacrifice at the Temple...

The poor bought doves...

Either way, forgiveness that has to be bought is not free.

The problem is in the English use of free, not the doctrine of abundant forgiveness.

Indeed. It is clear from the Hebrew that the sense of 'abundantly' or 'without restraint' is intended, and 'lack of monetary or other costs'.

[dianaiad]

Question for debate, how significant is the word FREELY in this passage?

This is a perfect example of "Cherry picking".

Why are you focusing on the concept of "free forgiveness" in this passage?

Well, clearly you are focusing on it to further you religious agenda.

Moderator Warning


Do not make assumptions about the poster's agenda or motives. Address the content of a post, not the character of the writer.

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.