what is the Christian vision?

duendy

Registered Senior Member
Something a poster said in this forum has inspired me to ask this question.

what IS the Christian vision.


for example, do you still believe in heaven and hell? if not whay not

and also, what about 'Christ's Second Coming'...what does this mean? isit te equivalent of St Augustines description of te 'City of God'?

what does it mean? do you believe it? how will it affect nature_as_we_know_it. please give details?

te poster said someting like the pursuitof fleshy interests will be curtailed...or words to that effect. what does THAT mean?

how would things change.....?
 
duendy said:
what IS the Christian vision.
I'm honestly not looking forward to living in some ancient city paved with gold streets and what not.

What follows is speculation some of it very wild.

I think the Christian vision has evolved from a time when man believed differently about how nature functioned... or just didn't bother to look into it.
for example, do you still believe in heaven and hell?
I do.
and also, what about 'Christ's Second Coming'...what does this mean? isit te equivalent of St Augustines description of te 'City of God'?
See previous. My way of looking at it, as a Christian, is this: we (those who choose to be) will be reunited with Christ (God).
what does it mean? do you believe it? how will it affect nature_as_we_know_it. please give details?
Scripture would seem to indicate that how nature currently functions, or our perception of it, will change.

This may be due to scripture implying that we'll lose these physical bodies, being changed into "something" more in line with what God might "have".

Looking at if from a physical perspective one'd think we might be given the ability to exist in multiple dimensions (supposing there are more), and naturally, gain more knowledge and functionality and be less limited in our abilities (whoo haah) - obviously my fantasy which I hope to become reality.
te poster said someting like the pursuitof fleshy interests will be curtailed...or words to that effect. what does THAT mean?
Possibly we'd lose all the "animal instinct, pheremone hunting" type behaviour and get in line with something more concerning love (not "love"), knowledge (not just belief) and morality.
how would things change.....?
No, death and associated emotions, decreased cinicysm etc etc...

I wonder though, if we'll still have free will. The ones who choose to go with God might then choose to go against God after they think they've "made it".

We might end up in a similar type of existence with just enhanced abilities and knowledge (more dimensions)... and then some would choose to stay with God... some go against... and we keep gettin' elevated and elevated in status... ad inifinitum...

Or maybe not. :)

All the above would of course be my "vision" for Christians...

After the ones who choose not to go with God get the single possible alternative not much else is stated except they'll be headed that way for a long while... heh... maybe if they have free will, wherever they head, they might get a second chance to go with God or continue wayward... maybe they'll end up in a 2D existence... and have to go (3+1)D again... or maybe they'll continue to 1D and point particle existence...

Strange stuff... starting to sound like Hyper-Hinduism... yikes...

Anyway... :D... forgive me for any offences my fellows...
 
Last edited:
I believe that hell is either the eternal seperation from God or ceasing to exist. Hell isn't a place where the devil stands over people with a pitchfork while tormenting them for eternity. The devil himself will be done away with on the day of judgement.
 
Last edited:
duendy said:
Something a poster said in this forum has inspired me to ask this question.

what IS the Christian vision.

To vague. It sounds like a motherhood statement anybody can make anything out of it.



for example, do you still believe in heaven and hell? if not whay not

Yes.



and also, what about 'Christ's Second Coming'...what does this mean? isit te equivalent of St Augustines description of te 'City of God'?

The second coming is the literal return of the Messiah Jesus to earth. As for augustines description of the city of god i would not trust that. The Book of revelation gives a description of the City.



what does it mean? do you believe it? how will it affect nature_as_we_know_it. please give details?

The City is called the New Jerusalem and it will come down from the heavens upon the renewed earth. It will be for us a heaven on earth. Nature will be perfect there will be no more carnivores all animals will be herbivores and we are told that there will be no more sea. This may mean that the oceans will cease to exist.. But this City will come down 1000 years after the return of the Messiah Jesus. After the final satanic rebellion is destroyed and the final judgement is held.



te poster said someting like the pursuitof fleshy interests will be curtailed...or words to that effect. what does THAT mean?

Well in eternity we will not be married, we will be like angels, non-sexual, no more reproduction. Our flesh shall be changed into eternal bodies.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
"The second coming is the literal return of the Messiah Jesus to earth. As for augustines description of the city of god i would not trust that. The Book of revelation gives a description of the City."

* Will he get a better reception this time around? Why?
 
Well the first time around he offered an invitation that was rejected by most. That invitation is still open today but it is still being rejected by most.

Jesus will not be offering any invitation upon His Second Coming. He will destroy all opposition and establish a kingdom for all those who accepted His former invitation.

So your question is irrelevant.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Quote Adstar:
“Well the first time around he offered an invitation that was rejected by most. That invitation is still open today but it is still being rejected by most.”

* To whom did he offer this invitation? What exactly did he offer? Lets not forget he was a Jew talking to Jews.

“Jesus will not be offering any invitation upon His Second Coming. He will destroy all opposition and establish a kingdom for all those who accepted His former invitation.”

* Why is/has he waited so long? If it all hinges on the FIRST acceptance of the invitation, what is the point of the second coming? Why did he not destroy all opposition 2000 years ago?

“So your question is irrelevant.”

* Is it more relevant now? All I want is simple answers.
 
stretched said:
Quote Adstar:
“Well the first time around he offered an invitation that was rejected by most. That invitation is still open today but it is still being rejected by most.”

* To whom did he offer this invitation? What exactly did he offer? Lets not forget he was a Jew talking to Jews.

“Jesus will not be offering any invitation upon His Second Coming. He will destroy all opposition and establish a kingdom for all those who accepted His former invitation.”

* Why is/has he waited so long? If it all hinges on the FIRST acceptance of the invitation, what is the point of the second coming? Why did he not destroy all opposition 2000 years ago?

“So your question is irrelevant.”

* Is it more relevant now? All I want is simple answers.

Yes your questions are more relevant now.

* To whom did he offer this invitation? What exactly did he offer? Lets not forget he was a Jew talking to Jews.

He offered reconciliation for mankind to God. A way for man to be acceptable to God in eternity. Not through acts or deeds but through faith and forgiveness. That offer is to Jews and non-Jews alike. To say that Jesus was a Jew tells me that you see Jesus as a product of a human father and mother. Of course Christians do not believe that. Jesus came into physical existence via the intervention of the Holy Spirit.


* Why is/has he waited so long? If it all hinges on the FIRST acceptance of the invitation, what is the point of the second coming? Why did he not destroy all opposition 2000 years ago?

What God is waiting for is what is called "the fullness of the gentiles to come in" That being God is waiting for a number (i have no idea what that number is) of non-Jewish believers to be reached before The Messiah will come again. If Jesus had destroyed all opposition the first time He came then no one would have been able to embrace the love of the truth from their own free will. That’s what God wants, people who will embrace the love of the truth (Jesus) of their own free will. The reason i suspect that it has it is taking so long is because the generational crops of true believers have been so small.

Romans 11:25
For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Isaiah 11:10
“ And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse, Who shall stand as a banner to the people; For the Gentiles shall seek Him, And His resting place shall be glorious.”

Isaiah 42:1
“Behold! My Servant whom I uphold,My Elect One in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.

Isaiah 42:6
“ I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness, And will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Quote Adstar:
“Well the first time around he offered an invitation that was rejected by most. That invitation is still open today but it is still being rejected by most.”

* To whom did he offer this invitation? What exactly did he offer? Lets not forget he was a Jew talking to Jews.

“Jesus will not be offering any invitation upon His Second Coming. He will destroy all opposition and establish a kingdom for all those who accepted His former invitation.”

* Why is/has he waited so long? If it all hinges on the FIRST acceptance of the invitation, what is the point of the second coming? Why did he not destroy all opposition 2000 years ago?
The First Offer is best viewed as an Amnesty. Over the millenia various theological layers of interpretation have turned the clarity and sharpness of the original offer into mush.

But everybody understands the concept of an amnesty: Cease hostilities, come out of the forest, and lay down your weapons, and return to your homes and villages. No charges will be laid, nobody will be arrested. A ceasefire is declared, and restoration to pre-war conditions can be achieved in the most efficient way possible.

It's value and effectiveness are based upon the fact that it's a one-time offer: there will be no second offer. Those who refuse to stop and surrender but continue stubbornly fighting, will be destroyed.

The threat of destruction must also be real, and the power of the party offering the amnesty to destroy must be believed, or else the rebels ignore the amnesty as unnecessary.

The honesty or at least reliability of the party offering the amnesty must also be believed in, or else the rebels cannot surrender. No one would knowingly fall into enemy hands only to die.

In the New Testament, we have the ideal Amnesty. The Offerer is God, who is presumed to be honest, or at least above corruption, influence, or cheap tricks. His power by definition is undisputed, both in His authority to offer the amnesty and power to grant it, and his authority and power to destroy those who refuse to accept it.

Finally, it has a simple twofold condition:
STOP : Stop sinning, stop committing the crimes against your fellow citizens of the world, and offences against God. Stop lying, stealing, murdering, blaspheming etc.

START: Doing good, helping your neighbour, building and rebuilding, providing food, clothing, shelter, medical aid and education to those in need. Be useful, rather than a burden. Bear the burden God has set for you, which is light, and gives abundance and quality of life to all.

PUNISHMENT: Utter and final destruction or torment, without appeal. There is no higher authority, no alternate power to call for aid.

All that remains is: Is the offer real? Did God make the offer? Do those who presented the offer really represent God? Are we able to meet the conditions? Are the ones referred to in the offer? (rebels, backsliders, criminals).

One can see from this that the Second Coming is utterly necessary. It cannot be a bluff. The period of the Offering of the Amnesty can appear to be quite long, but for individuals it is not. Your lifetime has already been fixed to be quite short.

So the EFFECTIVE period of the Amnesty Offer is only one lifetime. The circumstance of man's lifespan fixes the Amnesty for individuals to be quite short, allowing God to extend the Age or Period of Acceptable time to be quite long.

If the Offerer of the Amnesty were merely human, than in theory you could escape judgement, wrath, or punishment by simply dying. Obviously you cannot punish someone for commiting suicide if you are a mere human judge.

But since the Offerer of the Amnesty is God, there is no escape possible, even through death. Although the earth may be given a few thousand years for the gospel to penetrate the far reaches of the planet, individuals only have one short lifetime to hear the message, understand the essential details of the offer, and accept or reject it.

Whether you die now or later, or happen to be alive upon the Second Coming, i.e., the Return of the Christ (King) to earth, it makes no difference. You only have one hand to play, one life to live, and one judgement to follow.


Danger Number 1:
It is important not to fall into the nonsensical Calvinist/Protestant trap of thinking you only need to 'believe in Jesus' or recite a few prayers, or that your salvation is assured or predestined. This garbage theology is worthless, and simply makes a mockery out of the very act of God stating His own view of things, and demanding your response.

The New Testament (as opposed to Calvin and Luther) makes it clear that the amnesty offered by God is CONDITIONAL: What are the actual conditions demanded by God?

In a word: REPENTANCE. you have to stop the crimes you are committing, or no amnesty.

Danger Number 2:
Another error would be thinking that since Jesus isn't returning today, or next week, you have plenty of time to ponder the offer, and decide if you want to stop. This also is complete nonsense.

God deals with each individual on an individual basis. While you are a child learning to read and write etc., there is obviously a grace period under God's and man's instruction.

As an adult you will be confronted with the offer, at a time that God thinks is appropriate, not a time that you think would be convenient to you. You will be given an appropriate amount of time to consider God's offer of amnesty, and accept or reject it. You will not be given *more* time than you need. You must hand in your answer in time. You won't have a second more.
God destroys people every day. Don't doddle.
 
Last edited:
Hello Einstuck

You posted conditions on the "amnisty"

Finally, it has a simple twofold condition:
STOP : Stop sinning, stop committing the crimes against your fellow citizens of the world, and offences against God. Stop lying, stealing, murdering, blaspheming etc.

START: Doing good, helping your neighbour, building and rebuilding, providing food, clothing, shelter, medical aid and education to those in need. Be useful, rather than a burden. Bear the burden God has set for you, which is light, and gives abundance and quality of life to all.

If Stopping oneself from sinning is a condition of recieving the amnisty then no human being will be able to forfill that condition. Therefore your interpritiation of the offer is false. Unless you believe that some humans have ceased sinning?

All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
adstar said:
To say that Jesus was a Jew tells me that you see Jesus as a product of a human father and mother.
jewish blood is passed through the mother it only matters if mother is jewish you are of jewish blood.
 
If Stopping oneself from sinning is a condition of recieving the amnisty then no human being will be able to forfill that condition. Therefore your interpritiation of the offer is false. Unless you believe that some humans have ceased sinning?
Your expression here reflects a late post Reformation (=Protestant) viewpoint of sin. Which is still a minority position, even in Christianity.
This comes from Lutherism and finally the full development and inevitable result, CALVINISM, and Extreme/Ultra Calvinism. In fact, when Luther's thesis is followed to its conclusion, it does indeed lead to Calvinism.

However, Calvinism with its doctrines of predestination and pre-election actually turn the true gospel inside-out and make a mockery of the New Testament and the teachings of all its authors.

In a nutshell,

(1) the New Testament DOESN'T teach that man can do nothing to save himself. In fact the NT repeats over and over that man MUST do something to save himself: accept the AMNESTY offered, and change his behaviour accordingly.

(2) There is no pre-destination, except for large scale events and trends, such as national prophecies, or the appearance of special leaders. All other prophecy is CONDITIONAL, and based upon the response of those who hear the WARNING. Jonah's prophecy is a perfect example.

(3) The standing Amnesty is an open invitation for any individual to save himself. All are invited if they are still alive, whatever sin(s) they have committed. But there is NO SECOND OFFER. The wrong response or a non-response eventually causes the door to close.

Protestantism was a naive movement akin to a knee-jerk reaction to corrupt practices in the Roman Church. However, it never really reformed the Church (which was the original goal), and the new heresies is spawned were largely flakey and false cartoonish caracitures of the real gospel.

Luther died an unrepentant anti-Semite, spewing out hate-literature against the Jews. Calvin and his followers became stubborn pharisees who imagined they were predestined to be saved, and immortal.

The Catholics cleaned up a lot of their practices, but work always needs to be done. The church of England was formed essentially so that the King could get a divorce. There are few real heroes in the story of the Reformation, except a handful of men who were burned at the stake for their beliefs.

jewish blood is passed through the mother it only matters if mother is jewish you are of jewish blood.
This is a modern (post Christian era) tradition having no relation to Judaism proper or historical reality.
 
If Stopping oneself from sinning is a condition of recieving the amnisty then no human being will be able to forfill that condition. Therefore your interpritiation of the offer is false. Unless you believe that some humans have ceased sinning?

PART II:

The basic answer is that unlike the Protestant spin on grace, salvation, and repentance, the real world is not so black and white, and there is a whole rainbow of degrees of sin.

Historically, ancient Judasim (pre-Jesus) had already fallen into a kind of black-and-white outlook, which was unhealthy, although thankfully, the laws were simplified.

One of the key teachings of Jesus was that there were different kinds and degrees of sin, and that men did not have a proper perspective on these things. People were wandering through life in a daze, thinking in a sin/no sin box, and Jesus showed that SOME sins were relatively harmless, like forgetting to wash your hands, while others were fatal spiritually and physically, like excluding others and failing to help people in need.

From this new perspective, Christianity was able to offer a system whereby those who had committed sins, in some cases even deadly sins (like the man crucified beside Jesus) could receive Amnesty and have hope in the next world at least.

Nonetheless, there was NO permission granted to commit deadly sins, or continue in sins that lead to death. This category of sins was and still is OFF LIMITS to all men. There is no hope in the teachings of Jesus or the power of the church to forgive and save a man who PLANS to commit a deadly sin and then 'REPENT' afterward. That man will most certainly be destroyed. God cannot be deceived in such a way.

So in answer to your question, not only CAN men stop committing deadly sins, THEY MUST, if they are in the process of doing them when called to repentance.

And not only is it true that Christians DON'T commit deadly sins, they must never begin to do so, or they risk certain destruction AND may forfeit the valuable gift of Eternal Life.

Whether this individual or that one is forgiven for a specific 'deadly' sin, is ultimately up to God, but we have been taught and warned beforehand of God's stated public position.

Christians are clearly told NOT to sin, specifically deadly sins, repeatedly in the New Testament. They are even warned not to indulge in lesser sins that may become a slippery slope leading into deadly sins.

There is no compromise over crime and sin in the New Testament. It is the offer of an AMNESTY, not the permission or freedom to commit deadly sins, as some idiotic Protestants would have you believe.

So in personal answer to your question, I avoid deadly sins, like murder, robbery, adultery, and dishonour of parents, and I am quite capable of doing so. Moreover, God knows men can do this, and expects them to.

On the other hand, I (like all people) occasionally commit minor sins of selfishness or neglect, as do all men who struggle to be good but are often discouraged by the oppression of evil forces in the world.

It is a struggle, but according to God it is a struggle that all men can achieve at least a 'passing grade' in. If I had not found it so, I would not believe God, but in fact so far, God has shown His claim to be true concerning deadly sins.

I have not yet found that I could not fulfill God's requests, other than with minor slipups, for the most part of which I can trace to my own selfishness or laziness.

I can also claim progress in this area, since others also have to admit that my behaviour over the years has improved, steadily if somewhat unevenly. "He's a lot better than he used to be." many could say.

The important thing from this I think is that it doesn't matter where on the road you are, but only this: That you are alive, facing the right way round, and moving. Only if these three things are true can you be ultimately saved.
 
Einstuck said:
Your expression here reflects a late post Reformation (=Protestant) viewpoint of sin. Which is still a minority position, even in Christianity.
This comes from Lutherism and finally the full development and inevitable result, CALVINISM, and Extreme/Ultra Calvinism. In fact, when Luther's thesis is followed to its conclusion, it does indeed lead to Calvinism.

However, Calvinism with its doctrines of predestination and pre-election actually turn the true gospel inside-out and make a mockery of the New Testament and the teachings of all its authors.

In a nutshell,

(1) the New Testament DOESN'T teach that man can do nothing to save himself. In fact the NT repeats over and over that man MUST do something to save himself: accept the AMNESTY offered, and change his behaviour accordingly.

(2) There is no pre-destination, except for large scale events and trends, such as national prophecies, or the appearance of special leaders. All other prophecy is CONDITIONAL, and based upon the response of those who hear the WARNING. Jonah's prophecy is a perfect example.

(3) The standing Amnesty is an open invitation for any individual to save himself. All are invited if they are still alive, whatever sin(s) they have committed. But there is NO SECOND OFFER. The wrong response or a non-response eventually causes the door to close.

Protestantism was a naive movement akin to a knee-jerk reaction to corrupt practices in the Roman Church. However, it never really reformed the Church (which was the original goal), and the new heresies is spawned were largely flakey and false cartoonish caracitures of the real gospel.

Luther died an unrepentant anti-Semite, spewing out hate-literature against the Jews. Calvin and his followers became stubborn pharisees who imagined they were predestined to be saved, and immortal.

The Catholics cleaned up a lot of their practices, but work always needs to be done. The church of England was formed essentially so that the King could get a divorce. There are few real heroes in the story of the Reformation, except a handful of men who were burned at the stake for their beliefs.

This is a modern (post Christian era) tradition having no relation to Judaism proper or historical reality.

Why do you keep on talking about calvanisin. :confused: I am not a calvanist. I do not believe in the 5 points of calvanisin TULIP. we are not talking about calvanisim here we are talking grace and works.

In fact the NT repeats over and over that man MUST do something to save himself: accept the AMNESTY offered, and change his behaviour accordingly.

Your wrong. Salvation is obtained by believing Jesus. Not through works performance either good works or the cession of bad works.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Einstuck
So in personal answer to your question, I avoid deadly sins, like murder, robbery, adultery, and dishonour of parents, and I am quite capable of doing so. Moreover, God knows men can do this, and expects them to.

Murder.

1 John 3
15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

You have never Hated anyone Einstuck? I bet you have.


adultery.

Matthew 5
27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old,[a] ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

You have never looked upon a person of the opposite sex and had thoughts of lust for them Einstuck? i bet you have.


I think you have been deceived Einstuck.


1 Timothy 1
15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.


See how he said i am chief, present tense. Not i was chief but i am chief.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
(1) I hate no one that I know of. But I do hate the actions of many. I can tell the difference.

(2) Matthew's Sermon on the Mount is a rewrite of Luke's Sermon on the Plain, with some alterations and a heavy blending in of the teachings of the Letter of James. James and Paul were opposing factions within early Christianity. I have always been on the side of Luke, not Matthew. I view Matthew as a poor attempt at unification through syncretism. Luke is purer and a superior gospel to Matthew's late modifications. Matthew's exaggerations of Jesus' teachings are among the most annoying, however, his watering down of the clear condemnation of the rich in Luke is appalling.

(3) 1st Timothy is a pseudonymous letter attributed to Paul but not written in his style. The vocabulary and syntax is inferior and the content shows doctrinal differences irreconcilable with Paul's authentic letters.

Sorry, but my version of Christianity is an educated and informed one, based upon 30 years of personal careful research.

To sum up, 1st John is a Johannine community document written by a different John than the gospel author. Matthew is a later heavily edited version of Luke, and 1 Timothy is a forgery.

----------------
part II:

Although you think you are free from Lutheran and Calvinist influence, your blather about grace clearly indicates that like the rest of mainstream Protestantism, you have hardly escaped them at all. Your entire version of Christianity and your view of grace and salvation has been heavily coloured by Luther who was a heretic.
 
REVIEW OF PRECEEDINGS AND SYCHRONISTIC EVENT WHILST READING IT

up to now i read te vision is like some fascist corporate take over night mare. where 'all opposition' shall be crushed.......people ill have abslutely no mercy IF they dont obey....no sex, no carnivores..........uuuugggghhh!

we have two TVs, whilst reading it i went to make a drink. on oter TV is a Nature programme. a womn has a snakecoiled around her arm and is talkin to the presenter

She shows him the snakes skin it has sloughed off
this is the first time i have seen this though i VERY much am aware of it in prepatriarchal myth

the sloughed skin loos like white and kind of see-through. Woman says that even eyes are sloughed off

OK, in prepatriarchal myth the Serpnt is honoured an central representing both Goddess nd he ever living ever dying ever regenerating Son......there are many associations to do wit Seprpent and a major one is tat te sloughing of its skin represns immortality.....Now please note this is NOT the 'immortality' he patriarchs concotd--see above. of ridiculous efvents 'makin Nature 'spiritual' and sexless etc, oh no. in the prepatriarchal originary INSIGHT, immortality is INCLUDING changes, is including Nature eating itself, is including life and death, and complimentary polar related extremes

The Christian vision as explained above, where even the 'Cristians' cant agree! does not.....it is a grim dualstic vision of dictator god comin down from abov and talkin hypocritically about 'loe' then makes sure everyone fkin loves him or fkin else, and then everlastin fascism

Horrible. IF it were tru i wouod gladly...gladly choose H E L L
 
Hell is a free choice for some: it is possible to commit a deadly sin.
But I don't recommend it.
The penalty may be greater than death, and greater than you can bear.

I would prefer you didn't smoke pot,
but I would rather you smoked pot all day than commit a murder or some other deadly sin.

Please be stupid if you must, but don't become a monster.
 
Last edited:
Einstuck : Why did Jesus have to die? What does his blood mean?

Thanks

c20
 
Back
Top