But we do. Every time we dismiss someone else’sbeliefs and claim ours as superior or even exclusive.
If Jesus is (part of) God then any declaration about Him and rthe Father becomes atruism. We are not supposed to divide them or claim one is a path to the other. There is hyperbolae in Scriptrue , especialy in the teaching of jesus. We need to be able to spearate pragmatism and function from dogma and exclusvty. Jesus could not claim any other route to God, it would be self defeating.Jesus could not give any exceptions for people who, to all intents and purposes did not exist. The world was Israel and surrounds. There is no thought thqt there could be anything further. America? Asia? evne most of Europe. Did not exist in the minds of the Israelites or those who heard Jesus.
It is so easy just to take Scripture at face value.
Sorry, I am a simple man and trust Jesus more than your opinions. Salvation is a serious matter. If Jesus did not tell the truth about salvation, whom should we believe?
With all scripture, interpretation matters much. We may agree or disagree about interpretations but if you downplay the words of Jesus simply because the message does not agree with your opinions, you are standing on a very soft bottom.
Okay, I was thinking of some of the earliest chapters (relating to sin in general). 16:7 is different from those, and yes, I would agree that 16:7 is odd, and suspect that that is one of the (relatively few) parts of the confession with which I would disagree.
As it should be! It is also a rejection that anyone or anything but Yahweh is God – no avatars, no divine sparks, no emanations. And in fact that is more core to Hinduism than reincarnation!
And that’s true even if those gods are considered to be real beings. That was the OT view; the gods of the nations were actual elohim, but in relation to YHWH-Elohim they were just made things, created beings in rebellion to YHWH-Elohim. I met a missionary who’d worked in India for over twenty years who due to experience recognized that many Hindu gods were real spiritual beings, they were all just in rebellion – and not just against Yahweh but against Satan/Lucifer as well, being committed to deciding for themselves what counted as good and what as evil; definitely a ‘kingdom divided against itself’. When one of his congregations broke ground for their own church building they walked seven times around the property singing and then poured a line of holy water around on an eighth passage, commanding all gods and spirits to depart before they closed that circuit.
That’s something that missionary commented on: he was certain that many Hindu deities were real entities, but also that many were just made-up.
Acts 17:22 So Paul, standing in the middle of the Are-op′agus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, 28 for ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we are indeed his offspring.’
It is not about having the correct name. Nor do I think it is about having the correct dogmas. I would agree with C.S. Lewis in Narnia “The Last Battle,” that what signifies the most is the character of the deity we worship. For the virtues in that character are what we value, hold up, and aim for ourselves.
Well, that’s the scriptural position – it’s why Jesus is called “Redeemer”.
So you think a large part of scripture is wrong.
Sin is in essence a declaration of “F U” to God, so how can it not matter?
In the early church some called that a heresy because it implied that Jesus wasn’t really human. Scripture, to qualify as the Word of God, has to be both human and divine.
Which says nothing about all the rest of it.
What does the geography have to do with it? Ancient Jewish religion started with the Law given for Israel at Sinai. Hinduism definitely predates that.
Nicely explained. I think Aquinas made the distinction between meritorious good and societal good, the one qualifying as good in terms of being righteous before God and the other being useful or beneficial among humans, a point sort of foundational here.
Yeah, the was the error in St. Thomas’ classification: if actions can be meritorious before God, you end up with the whole “treasury of merits” business where the good works of some Christians can be applied to the accounts of other Christians to bail them out, which led inexorably to “As soon as the gold in the casket rings; the rescued soul to heaven springs”.
3Therefore I inform you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. 4There are different gifts, but the same Spirit. 5There are different ministries, but the same Lord. 6There are different ways of working, but the same God works all things in all people.
7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in various tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, who apportions them to each one as He determines.
To address the second point you make…
Once again…St Roymonds “where is that word in the bible”.
You don’t even follow that principle in doing science, why demand it in this conversation? You are simply playing games.
Heres the passage of scripture…
3As Saul drew near to Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?”
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” He replied.a6“Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”
7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless. They heard the voice but did not see anyone. 8Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could not see a thing.b So they led him by the hand into Damascus.
10In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord spoke to him in a vision, “Ananias!”
“Here I am, Lord,” he answered.
11“Get up!” the Lord told him. “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”
The above is the biblical account in the book of Acts of Saul/Pauls transformation from “pharisee of Pharisees” to champion for Christ!
Richard, we must resist the temptation to insert our own moral reasoning into the study of biblical theology and belief.
If we choose to insist on claims that supposedly support are own views that arent biblical then we are going to fall down rabbit warrens over and over again.
To address your third theological error
Id suggest its important to ensure that in the future, we at least check biblical references first and then cross-check these alongside other biblical references to ensure our interpretation through a normal reading of language is adequate and accurate.
The above highlights how easy it is to insert human reasoning and develop heresy from it. It seems that you have been led to believe that the apparent barbarism of the Old Testament is grounds for largely excluding the law from the gospel of the New Testament. That is a miscalculation that you are not the first person to make. See another example below:
Acts 5
1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife’s full knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds for himself, but brought a portion and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and withhold some of the proceeds from the land? 4Did it not belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How could you conceive such a deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God!”
5On hearing these words, Ananias fell down and died. And great fear came over all who heard what had happened…
you know the rest of the story.
I will now remind you of what the apostle John write in Revelation 14:12 here is the patience of the saints: here are those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus
Getting back to the OP
So can one be both Hindu and Christian? I would say that fundamentally that would be like asking an individual to be both republican and democrat.
I really wish that updated-language versions of the 16th and 17th century confessions were easier to find, given how often people misunderstand them because of shifts in usage (the most frequent issue seems to be “total” in “total depravity”). There are a few parts of the Westminster Confession where I’m not sure what the intended nuance was, because of those shifts in meaning and usage.
Hmmm – how does that fit with “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling”?
No kidding. One of my professors worked at translating some of the important related material on the Lutheran side, such as some of the works of Martin Chemnitz, because the most recent translations were from the mid-nineteenth century at best.
“it would make God a demon” Read Acts 5 - the story of Ananias and Saphira…clearly we must accept that God can be whatever he chooses to be…if he wishes to strike down humans who shame Him or lie to Him, then if that is demonic, then absolutely God can be like a demon!
Your statement “God has no parts”…i understand what you really mean there but i think the brevity leads to a misleading explanation St Roymond…we should include that God is three persons. One of whom is Christ, another the Holy Spirit, and the Father.
I’m not sure whether i really need to explain this again as it appears you have not read the post enough to recognise the relevance.
To summarise…
compare the phrases “evolution of humanity out of Africa” and “the Ark settled on the mountains of Ararat” (Modern Turkey)
Your statement about the law - i have already explained this on these forums before…if you cannot reconcile why it was that Adam and his sons offered sacrifices (note the story of Cain and Abel), then I’m talking with an individual that needs to go and study before involving himself in these kinds of discussions.
I will add to that “sin is the transgression of the law”. If you don’t believe Adam sinned (Romans 5:12-21)…well you have clearly already written your own bible and are reading from it.
Taking over people and treating them like puppets? No – God does not do that.
Two totally unrelated statements.
As I have pointed out before, that is one definition given, it is not the entire definition. It is the definition WRT the Law, but it is not the only definition given in scripture.
Of course he sinned – but the only “law” was to not eat from one specific tree.
i didnt make that claim…that was Richard and your explanation of Sauls blindness on the road to damascus.
My statement was, “Saul/Paul was given a choice”, God confronted him on the road (because Saul was intent on persecuting Christians)…God was drawing a line in the sand, either go and see Ananias to be cured of blindness and become a champion for Christ or, who was going to cure his blindness?
given your scientific mind, what do YOU think the following suggests? I think its rather obvious!
What? You don’t think his god could be a demon? Sounds possible to me.
But could the creator of the world be a demon? That is pretty much what the Gnostics believed, wasn’t it? I see a great deal of Gnosticism in many of those who claim to be Christian.
But it is my faith, my choice to believe, that the creator of the universe is no demon. I think it hardly matters if I am wrong because I will serve no demon, no matter what my refusal may cost me.
that is not what i said…what i said was, if God wants to kill someone (such as Ananias and Saphira in the New Testament), then he is perfectly entitled to do that. If Richard wants to grumble that is God being like a demon…then so be it!
It still makes absolutely no difference to my original point. which i shall remind you of below
First, the intrinsic claim is that the Bible is THE WORD OF GOD not the writings of humans?
Take the 10 commandments, they were written by THE FINGER OF GOD onto the tablets of stone…twice.
The bible is Gods revelation, humans didnt simply cunjur it up. There is a big difference there.
Second, I can falsify your statement without even reading scripture…
How can you even know what the perfection and universality of God is without reading the words in the bible writen by the “writings of humans”?
Anyway, in support of my first defense above, I can think of three biblical examples where God physically wrote something Himself. These are: 10 commandments Exodus On the wall of Belshazzars palace in the book of Daniel 5 (an argument God be made that an angel did this…does it really make any difference though as an angel isnt human?) Christ writing the sins of the accusers of the women taken in adultery in the dust in John 7 and 8.
you are mixing up words…sin is transgression of the law. Adam and Eve were arraigned because of disobedience.
Therefore, transgression of the law is disobedience.
To disbey is to reject the wishes of the creator who made those laws in the first place. This means that it is through our disobedience that we become separate (or separate ourselves) from God.
That is the point of freewill…the outcome of choosing unwisely remains the same… God doesnt give us two rose coloured equal value options, he gives us a binary choice between good (God and love) and evil (Satan and sin)
Option A (God) = eternal life,
Option B (Sin and Satan) = eternal death
I mean even with our own children, we can give them an option…place their hand on a hot cooktop hotplate or don’t. Its a binary choice between two opposites.
If one is a liar, then both could make an offer of eternal life. How will you tell which is which?
My guess is that you will choose whichever one agrees with you and your interpretation of the Bible. So any demon will have you on his side just by telling you he agrees with your understanding of things.
