Apr 28, 2012 -- 9:16AM, lulu2 wrote:

And here are the two differences. between the last two answers. ..some need to feed the egos need of knowledge, by questioning ad inifinitum the craving of the intellectual mind. Which can be used to slay the real, or feed the untruth..seeking more fulfilment in asking the questions, than in wanting to come to know, Christs ABSOLUTE TRUTH. And those who can accept GOD,  because of their personal experience, which for many who have been saved in this way, is more enlighten in His truth, than that of the intellect of man.

What a self-aggrandizing post.

Hmm, you were saying about feeding egos....

Apr 28, 2012 -- 12:21AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

I actually admire the persistence of Kwinters, Blu and some of the others here concerning pressing Christians to demonstrate the truth and consistency of scripture. But this attitude seems to be saying, if only you can show me from a rational standpoint why I should believe the scriptures will I believe in the Jesus the Christ of the Church, and by this means come to a saving knowledge of Christ. Is this not a sincere quest for truth? Then why does not God, AKA Jesus the Christ (from the orthodox Christian standpoint), or the Holy Spirit (just covering all the bases) reward the search for truth with the gift of the saving knowledge of Christ?

How does one come to a saving knowledge of Christ?

It seems that with our ordinary rational mind, we cannot bridge the gap between unbelief and belief. So to me the real question seems to be, not who said what in scripture, what's authentic and what's not, but how does one cross the gap, make the leap of faith from not-having a saving knowledge of Christ to having a saving knowledge of Christ?

Throughout scripture, both OT and NT, this thing called faith seems to be what one has to have to come to a saving knowledge of Christ. IOW, faith is the key to the kingdom, not rational knowledge.

So the real question seems to be, how does one come to faith? And the next question is, how, by what means, can one know that their faith is real, and not just imaginary belief in a made-made myth? or false-(non-saving)believe in the truth? (showing the view from each side of the fence). Jesus indicates there are some who actually have this imaginary belief, and that it is not a saving knowledge of Christ (Not everyone who cries, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom, but only those who do the will of my Father in heaven. Matt. 7:21).

So, on the one hand we have some who seem to have a sincere quest for truth but do not have a saving knowledge of Christ, and OTOH there are some who have a false belief in a (non)saving knowledge of Christ, both in the same boat of not-actually being saved.

But on the third hand we have the true Church of Christ, those who have a correct saving faith in Christ, members of the Church invisible (so to speak, invisible because no man can see the actual [ontological change] in one's being. Some are deliberate hypocrites, good actors, good at pretending, for whatever reasons. Some have this false-belief and fool themselves, not just others).

We are left with two questions. How does an unbeliever (Kwinters, Blu, Paladinsf) come to an actual saving faith in Christ? And how does a "believer" with non-saving imaginary, false "belief" come to see they are in the category described by Jesus (not everyone who cries Lord, Lord)?

So this brings us back to the 'Type' of Kw and Blu, how do we keep them from coming to the category of false-belief and thus not really saved? (As in [only] saying the Jesus prayer or walking the isle of a church, or putting their hands on the TV or something such). How does one come to a (true and actual) saving knowledge of Christ?

stardustpilgrim             
  

I have come to believe our being right with God, being in Christ, being spiritually alive, has nothing, repeat, nothing to do with knowlege.  Ezekeil says the righteous shall live and not die, nothing about knowing what is right or what the nature of God is or who Jesus was.  Jesus taught in Matt 25:31 and following both the sheep and the goats did not understand that we love Jesus by loving others.  They were divided not on any knowledge, but on their loving or unloving actions.

Apr 28, 2012 -- 8:09AM, Adelphe wrote:

Apr 28, 2012 -- 12:21AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

How does one come to a (true and actual) saving knowledge of Christ?

stardustpilgrim             
  

Again, repent... and be baptized in the name (authority) of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sins...then...you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

OK.........I'm not asking for knowledge. Back up one step. How would Blu, for example, come to understand the need for repentance?

How does one break through the circle of self to see something greater?

I didn't think the OP was so complicated..........

sdp 

Ed

Or why you feel you are not treated as an adult, or why you feel that you are not "left alone" to pursue your own ideas and values.

The point is addressed to stardust, who wants to know how KW and I can be saved and put in a right relationship to Jesus.

Apr 28, 2012 -- 8:33AM, Kwinters wrote:

Apr 28, 2012 -- 12:21AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

I actually admire the persistence of Kwinters, Blu and some of the others here concerning pressing Christians to demonstrate the truth and consistency of scripture. But this attitude seems to be saying, if only you can show me from a rational standpoint why I should believe the scriptures will I believe in the Jesus the Christ of the Church, and by this means come to a saving knowledge of Christ. Is this not a sincere quest for truth? 

In full disclosure, my interests lie in comparing the theological construct of Jesus as it evolved in the centuries to the evidence that demonstrates it changed and evolved over time.

I think that the earliest gospel preached by the apostles was of a human man who devoted himself to god, and for this god made him his instrument, they preached that he did miracles and taught people how to be right with God.  And after his death, which God foreordained and saw, God rewarded Jesus for his devoted existence by raising him from the dead and transforming him into God's agent to the Jews.  A king and a messiah who would enact the promises of God in the coming Kingdom of God, a man who would rule in righteousness and oversee a golden age for all believers.

That is what my investigations into the texts and historical facts have led me to conclude.  But this evidence based view stands in stark contradiction to the theological Jesus and the theological selective reading of texts which mixes and matches different gospels, forged letters and anonymous writings used to construct a wholly different theological Jesus.

Thanks Kw. I'm in the middle of reading a new book by Daniel Boyarin called The Jewish Gospels, the Story of the Jewish Jesus, 2012. I posted a few quotes on I think it was the Trinity thread. He's "one of the two or three greates rabbinic scholars in the world". From scolarship old and new, he completely demolishes your view. I have no time now, but I'll quote some more later. He says at the time of Jesus and even previously, there was a Jewish understanding of the coming Messiah as both man who would become God and God who would become man (two views), but IOW, a divine Messiah, not new.

sdp