"Here's the deal: It was impossible for anyone to be born-again until Yeshua did it. You're mistaken that he was not in need of that experience. It was necessary for him because he was born a human and it would never have been possible for us if he had not done it first. (The latter being the reason he was born as a human in the first place.)
You,re thinking of the born-again experience through the lens of religion. Sin was the cause of the problem but it's not the problem itself."
Digital Cowboy
Lets go through this again because I think we just walked right on past each other here. My statement about Yeshua not needing spiritual rebirth is correct. While he was 100% man he is also 100% G_d and he had no sin in His life. We need a rebirth because of our sin, as I said Yeshua has none. Did He need to make the sacrifice? Yes He did, because it was the way that Jehovah had set forth for us to be reconciled to Him, as was shown in the Levitical sacrificial requirements. Yeshua Himself had no need to be rescued from His sin, because He had none, that is why He has no reason to be reborn.
As to your statement that it was impossible to be born-again before Yeshua sacrificed Himself for us, it is simply not true. All one has to do is look at the story of Abraham in that he was specifically told that his faith was counted as righteousness. What was that faith in? It was in the fact that he knew Jehovah would send that sacrifice to atone for our sins. Job was even before the time of Abraham and was counted as right before G_d. I could name others such as Enoch, but I am getting redundant. Jehovah is not bound by time and neither is His sacrifice.
Cowboy, you have danced around long enough. You have made some bold statements here and over at Heidi's. For the most part nobody has challenged you on those statements. I think mostly out of respect, but I think there is a deeper level as well. So I am going to give you the opportunity to put up or shut up. I have tried to show your error in a gentle manner in the last post. I will make no claim on being gentle in the future. You have made the claims so the onus is on you to back them up. You have made the claim that you have the special knowledge that we have gotten it wrong over the last 2000 years. You claim that your job is to destroy religion so lets see you make your case. Ambiguities will be called out and shown for what they are. So far I have withheld judgement because it could be a simple misunderstanding on my part of what you have said, but you have danced around that line without actually crossing it. I am now calling on you to show your hand. I am not afraid to challenge what I believe, I have been doing it for years since He called me to be one of His prophets. I have been challenged a number of times, even called a heretic. So bring both barrels and let me have it, I promise you I will be standing in the end.
9 comments:
Without even having to look at scripture, it's obvious that our Saviour, to BE our Saviour, had to be a Lamb without spot or blemish, sin-wise. Only God Himself, come as a man, could possibly do this. And it had to be from birth that he was both God and man - there's no other way He could live a sinless life up until He began His ministry at 30 yrs old - the spirit was upon Him 100% from the beginning.
Eaglewood, I have great respect for you.
But this isn't a shootout.
I'll fire some things anyway.
Please understand that I am being technical and going into some things I have studied with others. I am not trying to be snotty. I am just showing you what I have learned.
Getting technical.
Abraham was promised. Not saved at that time. But promised that it would come.
Ever hear of 'Abraham's bosom'? (Its where Abraham and all who died before Jesus came went)
Wonder where all the ones who believed went when they died?
Wonder whether or not Jesus addresses this issue? (Luke 16 - If this is 'only' a parable, show me which other parable Jesus uses where he addresses someone in the parable by name.)
Wonder what it means when Jesus descended into hell and took captivity captive?
Wonder where paradise was? (Luke 16 again)
Wonder why that 'spot' in hell is empty now and will never be again?
I'll wait to reload. ;)
To be honest, this is what I've learned. Will you agree? I have no idea. But I think Cowboy went on a rant about something. To put it succinctly:
Is it better to let people know God loves them?
or
Is it better to remind them that if they don't He will destroy them?
Roland,
Why do you think that the dead no longer go to Abraham's Bosom when they die? I don't think I know the Scriptures that say that has changed... I know a Scripture that states that some of the righteous were raised at Jesus' resurrection - not all but some. If only some, that means the rest were left behind.
Anyway, just thought I would ask.... ;)
Roland,
Yes, I have heard of Abraham's Bosom. Rather than my own words I will quote a couple of sources.
The first is my MacArthur Study Bible:
“16:22 Abraham's bosom: This same expression (found only here in Scripture) was used in the Talmud as a figure for heaven. The idea was that Lazarus was given a place of honor, reclining next to Abraham at the heavenly banquetâ€
The second from JewishEncyclopedia.com:
“In the New Testament and in Jewish writings a term signifying the abodeof bliss in the other world. According to IV Macc. xiii. 17, the righteous who die for their faith are received by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in paradise (compare Matt. viii. 11: "Many shall come from the east and the west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven"). In Ḳid. 72b, Adda bar Ahaba, a rabbi of the third century, is said to be "sitting in the bosom of Abraham," which means that he has entered paradise. With this should be compared the statement of R. Levi (Gen. R. xlviii.): "In the world to come Abraham sits at the gate of Gehenna, permitting none to enter who bears the seal of the covenant"
The idea here is to look at what the Hebrew people thought Abraham's bosom was. To be fair I looked at your theory and the places I looked only made their conclusion on conjecture without looking into all of the facts. Because Yeshua was talking to Hebrews it would make sense He would use a term for heaven they were familiar with.
As to my statements to Cowboy they have nothing to do with his post on his blog. If that was all then so be it, I would have left this alone along time ago. As I recall I agreed with him that the approach he was complaining about was all wrong. I am challenging him on the statements he has made that have come right up to a certain line in the sand so to speak. They were not made on his blog but on mine and Heidi's. If I had wanted to characterize his statements at this time I would have done so already. I want Cowboy to make his cryptic and elusive statements clear and unambiguous. He has claimed special knowledge. I want him to be forthright and open about this knowledge. That is all.
Good thought, Geppy.
To be honest, I haven't studied it in a while.
But the pasotr I had, gave good arguments (at least at the time) for what I proposed.
And I believe he compared it to firstfruits. Some of them got bodies (resurrected ones) then. Of course it could have been those only recently dead just got up as well.
But some are waiting for their new bodies. They are no longer there though.
Your point is good. I will say thanks for making me look into what I believe to test it further.
Who knows how wrong I may be? Other than the Big Guy, of course. :)
I understand Eaglewood.
I'll check back later to see what he has written.
We all tend to go overboard sometimes.
Maybe that's what he did.
Either way, it will be good to hear it from him.
And thanks for the stuff on Abraham's bosom. I still like my opinion, right now. But who knows, maybe I'll have to get a new one. ;)
Grasshopper no longer grasshopper. Grasshopper now master!
Gee whiz. I thought we was having a friendly discussion around the camp fire. Now I get around to checking back and I see that apparently I've "claimed special knowledge" and I'm being "cryptic" and "elusive." (I'd like a cite on the former, by the way. There's nothing special about me or my knowledge. I can't imagine what I could have said that you misunderstood that badly.)
We must have a failure to communicate, eaglewood, because I think you're the one being "cryptic." If you have a specific question, ask it and I'll answer it. I honestly don't know what you're talking about with your accusations. You seem a little touchy.
On the "born again" thing - Paul said that "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature. Old things are passed away and behold all things become new." (I typed that from memory but I'm sure it's pretty close. I don't feel like looking it up right now.) If you check that in the Greek you'll find that "new creature" actually indicates a type of being that has never before existed. A "born again" Christian is no longer human and no longer mortal. "It is appointed unto man once to die..."
We do not yet have the redeemed bodies that come with the resurrection, but our spirits are reborn and just like the one in Yeshua. After his resurrection, his name changed, by the way. Were you aware of that? Because he was the first-born among many brethren. He was the first of a completely new species of being that never existed until he was resurrected. He was "given a Name that is above every name" after his resurrection. That's also when he said, "All power has been given unto me in heaven and earth." He didn't have all power in heaven and earth until after his resurrection.
All of that stuff about the old testament folks - I get that. I'm not sure you fully do. Romans 4 talks a bit about Abraham and the fact that you and I are his seed. We are partakers of HIS covenant and now have a better one. As Roland pointed out, they were all looking forward to the sacrifice just as we all look backwards to it. In either case, we are "saved by grace through faith."
If there's anything in there that seems cryptic or ambiguous to you, ask me direct questions and I'll be glad to answer. I don't have all the answers but I've learned a lot in the last few years that has brought me to my total disrespect of religion and its traditions.
(Speaking of which, you have to be aware when studying Judaism, too. I'm currently on that pursuit myself, but you need to root out the religious tendencies first because if you don't you're just trading one dead religion for another.)
I need to add...
I love you, eaglewood. I only continue these discussions because I believe they are important to sharpen us both. If I sometimes come across as harsh, sarcastic or obnoxious I apologize for that. He and I are working on that. My personality leans towards the blunt and direct. That's no excuse because I believe that we all should be modeling His Love as outlined in I Corinthians 13.
However, excuse or not, it's still a fact while I work on it.
Post a Comment