Does the golden rule save without the cross?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You are just trolling again. I think there's a chance you can talk, and then you pull these stunts.

I'm done for good now.

Let me leave you with this footstomping bug killing note, to show your thoughts up for the unbelieving nonsense they really are.

John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;


Jesus prayed for everyone to believe on Him THROUGH THE APOSTLES' WORD. He would not have said that if looking solely at what He said was sufficient.

You obviously have something against the cross (you won't even share it with muslims), and those who preach it, THAT much that Paul's emphasis on it would offend you to this extent.

>>Mic drop<<

yes, i do have something against what you think is the Cross, that being that strong men have taken hold of it, and seek to define it for their own ends, as we were warned. While i'm not prepared to go quite as far as Antipas in discounting Scripture, i don't believe Christ was at all vague or mistaken--i think this is just more stumbling at the Cross, personally--and after all, Paul was saved just fine without a New Testament, and apparently saw fit to purposely avoid meeting up with the Apostles to compare notes.

Strictly as an aside, i doubt you would give the same weight to, say, the Gospel of Judas, would you? Can you explain why Christ would pick Judas as an Apostle? Maybe since God is unable to impart the Gospel to us without help, maybe He just made a mistake picking Apostles, too? My guess is that Judas served a purpose, and Paul also serves a purpose--that i wonder if Antipas might agree with--that being to provide a snare? Which i'm sure you will disagree with, but this is not my first conversation with someone who worships Paul--so to speak--and rejects Christ, whenever He is quoted.

And by "share" you might come to see that you really mean "preach, from on high," and not really share, as examining how you would react to...well, me, telling you that you are lost, and then sharing how you might come to the Cross with genuine understanding would make you feel. I share the Cross with Muslims every day, or at least every time i interact with one, and i gotta tell you it is in a language that virtually everyone understands and responds to, usually for the good; most everyone agrees with "Love your neighbor," and the only place i find any laws against that are in the US, sad to say.

And i'm pretty sure this is the result of UD, and They Are All Lost, and Mike Drops--i mean, again with that? The reason i even responded to They Are All Lost was to suggest some overweening pride; are you sure you want to finish with Mike Drop? ok

i notice you're at 15 to 0 on your poll, wow, that's better than even despots get in elections! i mean please, man, read the signs, ok?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, you are obviously trying to make me into a Muslim, or somehow else suggest that i am doing it wrong, reading the Bible wrong or whatever. I don't mean to keep bringing your statements up to rub your nose in them--or be called a liar for it--but these are statements that you cannot defend--at least not with Scripture imo--and you know they are back there, whether i misunderstood "i extend the Golden Rule to those who demonstrate they will extend it to me" or not.

So you end up in these dead end conundrums, wherein you cannot even show that you believe what you say you believe, so then i must be made into a liar, etc, so that you can be right? I didn't start this conversation by calling you a liar, did i? But i am pretty sure "All Catholics Are Lost" is a lie, and it seems that about 2/3 of readers agree. Why not read to John 17:20 in that context?

I already showed you blatant lies you stated about what I believe. I clarified things like your mistaken idea of my thoughts on the golden rule, and you don't acknowledge you read my explanation, and you say I cannot defend my statements. I can back up all I say with scripture. But by the time I get these responses from you after those statements, I am not sure which ones you're referring to, because you're so general with them, and you march away thinking you left me with inability to defend what I said.

ANd for the hundredth time I said PEOPLE ARE NOT THE ISSUE, BUT DOCTRINE IS, when you asked about catholics. And you refuse to heed that note. Now, read John 17:20 for what it says.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

yes, i do have something against what you think is the Cross,

I've always noted the cross is the only way of salvation, and we must believe Christ's death on that cross, followed by His burial and resurrection, is the ONLY avenue to heave and salvation. And it is so in the sense that we are considered by God to have died, been buried and risen with Christ when we believe it was for that reason and we get baptized into that death. And everyone who is not baptized into that death is lost. That's what Jesus meant about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John 6, which he clarified in Matt 26.

And since you are against THAT, then at least you finally admitted it.

You don't believe Jesus' own words about need to believe on Him through the apostles' word in John 17:20.

And you lie when you imply I believe Christ was mistaken.

Paul did not avoid keeping up with the apostles. lol. He took time to do that very thing, and ensure he was not running in vain, according to Galatians. Got any more scripture to twist?

this is not my first conversation with someone who worships Paul--so to speak--and rejects Christ, whenever He is quoted.

More lies. I don't worship Paul. lol. I reject nothing Christ says. These whoppers are getting worse. But you cannot talk and sustain your view without lying, so...

And by "share" you might come to see that you really mean "preach, from on high," and not really share, as examining how you would react to...well, me, telling you that you are lost, and then sharing how you might come to the Cross with genuine understanding would make you feel. I share the Cross with Muslims every day, or at least every time i interact with one, and i gotta tell you it is in a language that virtually everyone understands and responds to, usually for the good; most everyone agrees with "Love your neighbor," and the only place i find any laws against that are in the US, sad to say.

Love your neighbour is God's will, and I agree many agree with it. But it does not save. ANd you flatly said YOU DO NOT share the cross with muslims.

Originally Posted by shazeep

God forgive me, but no, i would not tell a Muslim that he needs Christ, because the Qur'an already tells them that,

The koran denies Jesus died on the cross, so when it mentions to follow Christ is inadvertently teaches to not carry your cross to follow him because they don't see him carrying a cross to begin with that we can follow. So the Christ the koran mentions is ANOTHER JESUS who never died on a cross. And sadly you agree with the serpent who doesn't mind another Jesus without the cross when he says to follow that kind of Jesus.

So you lied when you said you show muslims the cross. You have NEVER told a muslim Jesus died on the cross and they must believe that. You teach another Jesus. Who cares about these other crossless Jesus'? God doesn't.

And i'm pretty sure this is the result of UD, and They Are All Lost, and Mike Drops--i mean, again with that? The reason i even responded to They Are All Lost was to suggest some overweening pride; are you sure you want to finish with Mike Drop? ok

i notice you're at 15 to 0 on your poll, wow, that's better than even despots get in elections! i mean please, man, read the signs, ok?

Just stop your lying and accept the cross for what the bible says it is, despite your aversion to the entire bible.

Thanks for the chance to talk about the cross again and what it means.

[mfblume]

The work of the cross is often referred to as the blood of Jesus. The term "BLOOD OF JESUS" is an encapsulation of the death of Christ in our places so that baptism into that death counts it as our deaths, so we can say we died to sin. Death was demanded as the penalty for sin. And that penalty is considered to have been paid for by the work of the cross for our account, only if we've been baptized into that death, though.

There is no following Jesus correctly without this understanding.

[mfblume]

It's like the time God demanded for nothing but lamb's blood splattered on the doorways in Goshen before He would come and personally stand against the destroyer and disallow him from entering the Hebrew's homes to take the first born. it was not loving each other as each would have other love them that would incite God to save the firstborn of Israel that night. It was NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD. That is how faith in the cross of Christ works for our salvation. And it's a stumblingblock to those of a false religion and twisted christianity who espouse another Jesus

[mfblume]

The benefits of the cross of Christ in facing struggles is shown in the crossing of the Jordan in the Exodus journey. The Israelites feared the giants and the walls after having journeyed from Egypt in just about a year. But when they crossed 39 years later they had faith and upheld the ark that had sprinkled blood of atonement on it once a year for for 39 years. This is like trying to face battles in our natural energy as opposed to relying on our inclusion in Christ's death for God to not only have saved us, but to work with us when we face battles after we're saved.

[CC1]

Universal reconciliation is such an absurd concept so apart from what the word of God says it does not deserve serious debate.

[shazeep]

that does not mean that you are qualified to determine who is saved or lost, however, and, that should not alter how a believer approaches other souls, anyway. See, it's all a neat package. "We have figured out who the saved are, and it is us, and since everyone else is lost the Golden Rule may also be applied as we see fit."

Like i said, i would be seeking my own salvation were i you.

[shazeep]

not even considering that i could give you prolly 100 verses that suggest Universal Reconciliation. That i agree with you there becomes irrelevant also. We are not God.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by CC1

Universal reconciliation is such an absurd concept so apart from what the word of God says it does not deserve serious debate.

Agreed. Romans 6:3 disproves that doctrine in one fell swoop.

The simple fact of that matter is that one is lost without having believed in the death of Christ for our sins, and all this conjecture about what God will do with those who never heard it to begin with only hinders us from actually telling them about it. God will do what he will do with the unreached. I cannot say what he will or won't do with them. But our business is to tell everyone who doesn't know. Simple enough.