dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (10/29/84)
Here are a few more Ken Nichols quotes, carefully selected: > You will never be brought to a saving knowledge of God unless you > are first drawn by the Holy Spirit. You do not have to realize you are being > drawn, and you don't need to know who is drawing you. But you do have to be > drawn. > Faith is not a virtue, it is a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8-9). You will not > have any faith unless the Holy Spirit gives it to you. > You can't do anything to make yourself > understand the plan of salvation. I said, 'if you had been shown by the Holy > Spirit'. The Spirit is the one doing all the action. You can't help yourself. > That is one of the major points of Christianity. There is nothing that a man > can do to save himself. Sounds pretty hopeless, eh? If you haven't been saved, tough luck, Jack. On the other hand... > If you choose to > beleive in "scientific and other intellectual progress" as Tim does, and not > by faith, that is fine with God. He has given the evidence, the rest is up to > you to make the choice. That is why God designed the plan of salvation with > free choice. Ie. if you choose *not* to do as Tim does, you can be saved. It seems that you *can* help yourself, after all. > However, in order to become justified in God's sight, we must first > accept the gift that God gave in the form of Jesus. Doing this involves: ...and Ken goes on to list 5 things you can do to be saved, once again showing that there is something you can do, and so it is not *entirely* up to the God. Make up your mind, Ken. Either there is nothing we can do to save ourselves, or there is. If the first case is true, you should shut up, because you are not helping anybody, either the damned or the saved. If the second case is true, you should stop insisting on the total helplessness of mankind to save themselves. Or is admitting that you have played some part in your salvation a form of the sin of pride? > 1. [Admit] you are a sinner by birth and by choice, and that you can nothing > to get rid of your sin. If I am a sinner by birth, then I have had no *choice* in the matter. Make up your mind: are we sinners by birth, or are we sinners by choice? David Canzi
ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (10/31/84)
>> 1. [Admit] you are a sinner by birth and by choice, and that you can nothing >> to get rid of your sin. > > If I am a sinner by birth, then I have had no *choice* in the matter. > Make up your mind: are we sinners by birth, or are we sinners by choice? > > David Canzi This is a very difficult concept to explain, but let me give it a shot. You are a sinner by birth by the original sin of Adam which caused all men to have a nature contrary to God's will. However, you still choose to sin. If you are tempted to commit a sin, you make the choice whether to do so or not. There is no such thing as 'The devil made me do it.' The same kind of thing applies when speaking of salvation. A man can chose to try and find God, the God of the Bible. Chances are, the Holy Spirit will reward a man in this search by opening his eyes to the scriptures so that he might see the truth of Jesus Christ's redemptive work on the cross. Without the Holy Spirit, no man can fully see how to be saved. What I meant when I said that there is nothing that we can do to be saved was that doing 'good works' and the like can't save you. Even seeking after God can't save you, but it is the best way to start if you wish to know the truth about the Bible. Even after the Holy Spirit shows a man the truth of the Bible, a man still has to make a choice about whether to believe it or not. -- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken ----------------
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (11/07/84)
> >> 1. [Admit] you are a sinner by birth and by choice, and that you can nothing > >> to get rid of your sin. > > > > If I am a sinner by birth, then I have had no *choice* in the matter. > > Make up your mind: are we sinners by birth, or are we sinners by choice? > > > > David Canzi > > This is a very difficult concept to explain, but let me give it a shot. You > are a sinner by birth by the original sin of Adam which caused all men to have > a nature contrary to God's will. However, you still choose to sin. If you are > tempted to commit a sin, you make the choice whether to do so or not. There > is no such thing as 'The devil made me do it.' > > The same kind of thing applies when speaking of salvation. A man can chose to > try and find God, the God of the Bible. Chances are, the Holy Spirit will > reward a man in this search by opening his eyes to the scriptures so that he > might see the truth of Jesus Christ's redemptive work on the cross. Without > the Holy Spirit, no man can fully see how to be saved. > > What I meant when I said that there is nothing that we can do to be saved was > that doing 'good works' and the like can't save you. Even seeking after God > can't save you, but it is the best way to start if you wish to know the truth > about the Bible. > > Even after the Holy Spirit shows a man the truth of the Bible, a man still has > to make a choice about whether to believe it or not. > -- > > "...holding forth the Ken Nichols > word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken > ---------------- I am new to net.religion and have been amused by the ongoing discussion about salvation etc. Being an orthodox Jew, my background in other religions is weak, so if I say something horrible do not get too upset, just answer me as kindly as possible. I have no malice at heart but rather just an interest in other people's beliefs. Now for my questions. 1. If the only way to salvation is through jesus, what did everyone before him do? Are they to be damned for something they didn't even know would event- ually exist? If not, then how can someone today who never found out about christianity be damned? He should be no worse than someone who preceeded the whole thing. 2. I would feel like an utterly useless, helpless person if the only way I could atone for my sins was to get someone else's help ( even jesus ). Why can't I approach G-D by myself and ask for myself. Why the intermediary?Also if my nature is inherently evil, why punish me for it? On the day of judge- ment, I would feel very comfortable going to G-D and saying,'How could you punish me for acting in the way You created me? After all You creaed me evil so how can I be punished for living that way?'. There are other questions I have but they will wait for a future article. Please do not answer me if you will say that I must accept jesus in order to understand because that isn't an answer. And don't call me a heretic or other , nastier names because I am human and have feeling that get hurt. Just be kind and considerate to me and all others in this group and the world will be a much nicer place to live. I'll believe what I want, you believe what you want, and I'm sure that if we are sincere in our own beliefs, and tolerant of other beliefs, that I7ll be meeting you some time in the future, in heated discussion,and not in a heated climate. eliyahu teitz. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (11/13/84)
In article <909@aecom.UUCP> teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) writes: > I am new to net.religion and have been amused by the ongoing discussion >about salvation etc. Being an orthodox Jew, my background in other religions >is weak, so if I say something horrible do not get too upset, just answer me as >kindly as possible. I have no malice at heart but rather just an interest in >other people's beliefs. > > Now for my questions. > > 1. If the only way to salvation is through jesus, what did everyone before >him do? Are they to be damned for something they didn't even know would event- >ually exist? If not, then how can someone today who never found out about >christianity be damned? He should be no worse than someone who preceeded the >whole thing. In the very beginning (Adam through Moses) men spoke directly to God. When they were walking close with God, His Spirit would indwell them from time to time enabling then to perform certain tasks. During the time of Moses, prophecy concerning the Messiah began to arise. The Jews of the old Testament could look forward to this comming Messiah, and in this "their faith was counted as righteousness". The Gentiles at this time were all damned, sorry to say. God had not yet included then in His plan. Isreal was the chosen nation of God. Most Jews knew enough about the comming Messiah to put their faith in the work He would accomplish on the cross. Their basis for righteousness at this time was in obeying the laws of Moses. They did not need to have a full knowledge of Christ during this time in history. About your third question. God has placed within every man an inward knowledge about Himself. This is known as conscience. Man can also see the evidences that nature gives about God. If a man recognizes that their must be something more to life than just this earth and himself, he has begun his quest, shall we say, for God. God, being omnipotent, can recognize the search that has begun in this man's heart. God can then send someone his way to tell him of the plan of salvation. Yes, I really believe that He can do this. > > 2. I would feel like an utterly useless, helpless person if the only way >I could atone for my sins was to get someone else's help ( even jesus ). Why >can't I approach G-D by myself and ask for myself. Why the intermediary?Also >if my nature is inherently evil, why punish me for it? On the day of judge- >ment, I would feel very comfortable going to G-D and saying,'How could you >punish me for acting in the way You created me? After all You creaed me evil >so how can I be punished for living that way?'. Anything you attempt to do to atone for your sins would be utterly useless. No offense intended. Nothing you can do will atone for your sins. Jesus is now the Great High Priest of the order of Melchizedech (sp?). All men need to come through Him. There is no need for any sacrifices because His was the ultimate sacrifice. I don't think you could say that to God very comfortably. God did not create evil, as I hear more and more people say. Evil is not a thing, it's a state of being. Men's minds are filled with evil. The evil is the rebellious attitude against God that we acquired, not from God, but from Satan and Adam. God created man and the world. Sin entered after He was finished. I hope this helps a bit. I didn't go into detail, as you can see. I will be happy to tell you anything about Christianity that you wish to hear. I enjoy the spirit of searching that I sensed in your posting. Please post again.--- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken -----------------
teitz@aecom.UUCP (11/15/84)
> In article <909@aecom.UUCP> teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) writes: > > > > > Now for my questions. > > > > 1. If the only way to salvation is through jesus, what did everyone before > >him do? Are they to be damned for something they didn't even know would event- > >ually exist? If not, then how can someone today who never found out about > >christianity be damned? He should be no worse than someone who preceeded the > >whole thing. > > In the very beginning (Adam through Moses) men spoke directly to God. When they > were walking close with God, His Spirit would indwell them from time to time > enabling then to perform certain tasks. During the time of Moses, prophecy > concerning the Messiah began to arise. The Jews of the old Testament could look > forward to this comming Messiah, and in this "their faith was counted as > righteousness". The Gentiles at this time were all damned, sorry to say. God > had not yet included then in His plan. Isreal was the chosen nation of God. > > Most Jews knew enough about the comming Messiah to put their faith in the work > He would accomplish on the cross. Their basis for righteousness at this time > was in obeying the laws of Moses. They did not need to have a full knowledge of > Christ during this time in history. > Sorry to disagree with you, but unless I wasn't taught very much about my own religion, and I have been studying it intensively for 10 years, then there was no mention of the coming of a messiah, especially in the time of Moses. Moses was a great leader who took the Children of Israel from Egypt, brought them before Mt. Sinai where they received the Torah, and became Jews. The Jews were supposed to enter the land of Canaan, take it over and dwell there a an autonomous state under the leadership of G-D. In fact, in the book of Samuel ( 12th & 14Th chaps, I think ), when the Jews asked for a king, they were rebuked for no realizing hat G-D was their only king. Why then would G-D want to sent a messiah? To make problems for Him- self? Only after the destruction of the Temples was it necessary to have a messiah to gather the Jews together for the Third Eternal Temple. > About your third question. God has placed within every man an inward knowledge > about Himself. This is known as conscience. Man can also see the evidences > that nature gives about God. If a man recognizes that their must be something > more to life than just this earth and himself, he has begun his quest, shall we > say, for God. God, being omnipotent, can recognize the search that has begun > in this man's heart. God can then send someone his way to tell him of the > plan of salvation. Yes, I really believe that He can do this. > To this I agree, and it is a concept in the Talmud, 'If one starts on the path to repentance, G-D will assist him'. However, this doesn't mean that the salvation will come only with someone else to speak for me. I will do it on my own. Why do I need an intermediary. If Jesus is God then why do I have to ask him to speak to G-D for me. Am I not talking to God directly by talking to Jesus ? > > > > 2. I would feel like an utterly useless, helpless person if the only way > >I could atone for my sins was to get someone else's help ( even jesus ). Why > >can't I approach G-D by myself and ask for myself. Why the intermediary?Also > >if my nature is inherently evil, why punish me for it? On the day of judge- > >ment, I would feel very comfortable going to G-D and saying,'How could you > >punish me for acting in the way You created me? After all You creaed me evil > >so how can I be punished for living that way?'. > > Anything you attempt to do to atone for your sins would be utterly useless. > No offense intended. Nothing you can do will atone for your sins. Jesus is > now the Great High Priest of the order of Melchizedech (sp?). All men need > to come through Him. There is no need for any sacrifices because His was the > ultimate sacrifice. Even in the times of the Temple, the High Priest only worked one day a year ( only on Yom Kippur was he required to do the service ). And, the Bible says 'Because this day will atone for your sins'( here I paraphrase, as usual I don't have the exact qoute at hand, sorry ). The day itself atones for our sins, not all of them. Those between man and his fellow man aren't taken care of. Those, the person must approach the man against whom he transgressed directly and beg his forgiveness. If the second man forgives, then G-D accepts this as enough. Back to my main point. We do not need the High Priest in order to have our sins atoned for. If we did, we'd all be in big trouble( again this is the Jewish belief [ as I see it ]).So , again, why Jesus? Also, G-D abhorred child sacrifice. Molech was worshipped by child sacrifiece ( see Biblical Archeology Review - an article last year about child sacrifice at Carthage. [ BTW, BAR is a Christian magazine, so they aren't trying to defend any religion ]). G-D warns in the Bible not to worship Molech. If G-D is so against child sacrifice, why did He kill His 'only son'? The prophets ( latter prophets, I don't remember which one, again sorry no source ) ask, 'Does G-D want thousands of sacrifices ... G-D only wants that man should listen to His word and that man walk humble in His ways'. So G-d does not want sacrifices. He wants people to listen to Him. Would He then go and kill His 'son'. I believe that we are all G-D's children, each and every one of us. Does that elevate me above you or anyone else ? No. We each must strive for what we believe is the truth and if we abide by what we think is G-D's word, none of us will burn. > > I don't think you could say that to God very comfortably. God did not create > evil, as I hear more and more people say. Evil is not a thing, it's a state of > being. Men's minds are filled with evil. The evil is the rebellious attitude > against God that we acquired, not from God, but from Satan and Adam. > > God created man and the world. Sin entered after He was finished. > Sorry to disagree again. I don't believe G-D finished anything. He's still hard at work making sure the world runs according to His plan. If G-D created, instilled in us, a conscience, then why not say He gave us an evil inclination too. Our job is to try and keep the evil at bay by using our conscience. The Talmud (you guessed, no source )states, 'G-D created the evil inclination and He created the Bible as a medication to it ( to combat the evil ). Man was and is not in any way more inclined to evil or good, except maybe by social adjustment. But, man whrn he is born, has a clean slate. He will be called to judgement, at the end of his days, to see how he fared in this world. > "...holding forth the Ken Nichols > word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken > ----------------- Thanks for the pleasant reply. It's good to see that people on the net have manners. The problem we must avoid is responding virulently to a person who attacks us. If we respond with harsh words, the antagonist won't bother to listen. If we treat everyone with respect then everyone will gain. As the Talmud says, 'The words of the wise are heard with gentleness', only when they are spoken gently will your words be heeded. Eliyahu Teitz. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (11/20/84)
A response to one point in Eliyahu Teitz's first article on this topic: > 2. I would feel like an utterly useless, helpless person if the only way > I could atone for my sins was to get someone else's help ( even jesus ). Why > can't I approach G-D by myself and ask for myself. Why the intermediary? I know so little about Judaism as practiced nowadays that it's hard for me to answer in appropriate terms. But, beginning at the time of Moses, the high priest served in some sense as an intermediary between God and the people, bringing the blood of animals as an atonement. Jesus, as both High Priest and sacrifice, fulfilled this once and for all, removing the necessity for the periodic sacrifices of animals. Another nifty way to look at this is that under the old covenant, the people sacrificed -- completely gave up to God -- healthy animals, without blemish or spot, which were then killed. Under the new covenant, we are called to similarly completely give our blemished selves to God -- but the "death" of our munged selves brings new life in us; we are called to present ourselves as living sacrifices. Under the new covenant, God shows Himself as so much more accepting than under the old -- perhaps because of my previous paragraph, i.e. that since the ultimate unblemished sacrifice has been given, tearing the curtain hiding the Holy of Holies, no one is unacceptable; we may all boldly approach the throne of grace. But note that I did mention the sacrifice, the death, of our selves. This does mean admitting that you can't help yourself, you can't save yourself, you can't make yourself keep God's law 100%. Helplessness, powerlessness, is one of the least attractive feelings there is. But if, rather than avoiding it, we accept it, we will be reborn to a new life of growing abundance and power. If you want to be resurrected, you have to die first -- by definition. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "I'm not asking for anyone's bleeding charity." "Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity."
teitz@aecom.UUCP (11/27/84)
> A response to one point in Eliyahu Teitz's first article on this topic: > > > 2. I would feel like an utterly useless, helpless person if the only way > > I could atone for my sins was to get someone else's help ( even jesus ). Why > > can't I approach G-D by myself and ask for myself. Why the intermediary? > > I know so little about Judaism as practiced nowadays that it's hard for me to > answer in appropriate terms. But, beginning at the time of Moses, the high > priest served in some sense as an intermediary between God and the people, > bringing the blood of animals as an atonement. Jesus, as both High Priest > and sacrifice, fulfilled this once and for all, removing the necessity for > the periodic sacrifices of animals. The Bible, in the beginning of Leviticus ( first 5 or 6 chapters ) lists many sacrifices that were brought by the Children of Israel. One of those listed was a sacrifice to atone for sin ( chatas ). The idea behind the sacrifice was that in reality the one bringing the animal should be killed, but G-D in His mercy said to bring an animal instead. The transgressor, when he brought the animal to the Temple, had to place his hands on the animal's head and say, publicly, that he regretted his actions, and that he wouldn't repeat them. The repentance process wasn't simply 'oops, I goofed, forgive me'. A person had ( and still has ) to realize his mistake, be genuinely sorry for having done it, admit to havig done it, and promise not to do it again. Then he takes the animal and brings it as a sacrifice. This process was not done once a year, on the Day of Atonement. It was a daily procedure. The High Priest didn't have to bring the sacrifice, any priest could. The Day of Atonement was a once a year process for sins not covered by the sacrifice. And there were those sins that the Day of Atonement didn't help either ( as I wrote in a previous article, sins between man and his fellow man ). In a previous article I already answered my feelings about Jesus as the high priest. Having a High Priest is not an integral part in repentance. In the Temple it was needed, but nowadays, the day itself, is the forgiveness, without High Priest or sacrifices. Knowing this can be dangerous, though. One could say, ' fine, I'll live my life as I choose and the Day of Atonement will take care of my problems'. To this the Talmud ( Tractate Yoma 8th chapter ) answers, if one says I will sin and the Day will absolve it then the Day ( of Atonement ) will not help him. Likewise, if he says, I will sin and the nrepent, his repentance is worthless. > > Another nifty way to look at this is that under the old covenant, the people > sacrificed -- completely gave up to God -- healthy animals, without blemish > or spot, which were then killed. Under the new covenant, we are called to > similarly completely give our blemished selves to God -- but the "death" of > our munged selves brings new life in us; we are called to present ourselves > as living sacrifices. Under the new covenant, God shows Himself as so much > more accepting than under the old -- perhaps because of my previous paragraph, > i.e. that since the ultimate unblemished sacrifice has been given, tearing > the curtain hiding the Holy of Holies, no one is unacceptable; we may all > boldly approach the throne of grace. I think I covered this point too. The sacrifice was instead of us. We are not called up to sacrifice ourselves. Actually we are and the animal takes our place. Why is this any less accepting than your method ? Also in my previous article I talked about human sacrifice and the idea the Jesus was a sacrifice. Even when the Temple stood there was no concept of a person being unacceptable. Entrance to the Holy of Holies was not the yardstick of accept- ance. Every person, not only Jews, could come to the Temple to offer sacrifices to G-D ( not every type of sacrifice but certain ones were permitted ). The Temple was open to everyone. The Holy of Holies was a sacred place where no one could enter, except the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. The burning of the Temple did not change that. The physical structure of a curtain or wall is not important ( I know you were talking metaphorically too ). One person dying, no matter how pure you think him dosn't change the picture either. The Talmud (Tractate Makkot, I think ) lists 7 people who dies without sin. Does this make them saviors too ? No. They died because their time had come. They all lived before the Temple. Their death did not negate the purpose or the need for the Temple. > > But note that I did mention the sacrifice, the death, of our selves. This > does mean admitting that you can't help yourself, you can't save yourself, > you can't make yourself keep God's law 100%. Helplessness, powerlessness, > is one of the least attractive feelings there is. But if, rather than > avoiding it, we accept it, we will be reborn to a new life of growing > abundance and power. If you want to be resurrected, you have to die first -- > by definition. Why does sacrifice mean I can't help myself? I think just the opposite. I bring a sacrifice exactly because I can help myself and the bringing of the sacrifice is how I help myself. The sacrifice I refer to is animal in nature and not human. My not being able to keep G-D'S laws 100% has no bearing on the matter. G=D Himself realized this. And not being perfect does not in any way hinder our ability to approach Him. We need no intermediaries. > > -- > -- Jeff Sargent > {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq > "I'm not asking for anyone's bleeding charity." > "Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity." If you did not see my original article I will repost it or sent it to you upon request. Thanks for the answers, even though I disagree. It's good to see another point of view. Eliyahu.