Either build new heaven in place of the old we have destroyed, or suicide.

[stephen goswami]

An educated Hindu family had fled from riot ravaged east Bengal . The educated and powerful section of people there was divided communally. Soon in power struggle, the strong Muslim faction rose up and drove out the Hindus.
This family settled in an Indian backward town after getting primary teacher’s job. The illiterate locals expected much of them. By their encouragement they entered panchayet, the local administrative body. They got honorary posts.
At first they were honest remembering their tragic selfish past. The panchayet was fund-starved and due to their and others sacrifices, it won a good name. Soon world health organization granted much money for development. Now they have become head of it. But people unconnected to Christ, the communion of saints, can’t resist temptation. They saw other officers’ misappropriation and were tempted. They built home and bought properties.
Soon law turned against them and they were indicted. Sure of jail sentence, the couple committed suicide at the night before the verdict day.
Like that family we all are fallen in this world after destroying our part of heaven. (Rev.12-7) by pride-power fight. This destructive pride is still working in unrepentant us. By our own effort we can neither repent properly nor atone, but only in Christ, the communion of repentant saints. Then we can rise up to the cross to build new heaven.

[Country Preacher]

By our own effort we can neither repent properly nor atone, but only in Christ, the communion of repentant saints. Then we can rise up to the cross to build new heaven.

Or, forgetting those things which are behind, and encouraging one another. we can faithfully press on, trusting Christ to guide us. :shrug:

[UrbanMonk]

Then we can rise up to the cross to build new heaven.

Why raise up the cross when we can raise up the Christ? Why build a new heaven when the original heaven is still intact, perfect, and unchanged? Why not just return back to from where we left? Are you aware that the "cross" is a symbol of the beginning and existing of the world? And are you aware that the resurrection is a symbol of the end of the world? There was never a utopia in the beginning of the world. That's a lie. The world begins with an attack on God/Truth.

[headheart]

The world begins with an attack on God/Truth.

Perhaps in the sense that you intepret the word, 'world'. Yet it is quite possible that the concept was conceptualized a long time before any record, or theory even postulated such.

Sincerely,
HH

[UrbanMonk]

Perhaps in the sense that you intepret the word, 'world'. Yet it is quite possible that the concept was conceptualized a long time before any record, or theory even postulated such.

Sincerely,
HH

The world is like a controversy against the World of God. It can't really afford to be exposed for what it is, as what it is. So 'world' is defined differently to suit the agenda's of those who are "friends of the world". Some think, for example, that God made time and mass and the "devil" came and corrupted it. That serves the purpose of those who are friends of the world, and the separate, unique differences it expresses. But if it can be corrupted, it is not of God, who creates only the perfect, and the incorruptible. As such, 'the world' is a concept in which it seems that what God is or has accomplished...can be destroyed, broken, torn down. This makes 'the world' a grand deception...a self-deception...a strong delusion.

[headheart]

The world is like a controversy against the World of God. It can't really afford to be exposed for what it is, as what it is. So 'world' is defined differently to suit the agenda's of those who are "friends of the world". Some think, for example, that God made time and mass and the "devil" came and corrupted it. That serves the purpose of those who are friends of the world, and the separate, unique differences it expresses. But if it can be corrupted, it is not of God, who creates only the perfect, and the incorruptible. As such, 'the world' is a concept in which it seems that what God is or has accomplished...can be destroyed, broken, torn down. This makes 'the world' a grand deception...a self-deception...a strong delusion.

This invisible perfection, and incorruptible part of us is our spirit and even ones our bodies return to dust, and even the trees and elements come to and end, the glory fo them will return to the one who is all glorious. The only aspect to the world which is a 'grand deception' would be organized evil energized by the demonic, or darkness. In the next world, there will be light (and everything and more that light represents in our physical world.)

[UrbanMonk]

This invisible perfection, and incorruptible part of us is our spirit and even ones our bodies return to dust, and even the trees and elements come to and end, the glory fo them will return to the one who is all glorious.

So you are saying there is perfect incorruptible part of us, and also an imperfecf corruptible part of us? How can this be of a perfect, incorruptible Father?

The only aspect to the world which is a 'grand deception' would be organized evil energized by the demonic, or darkness. In the next world, there will be light (and everything and more that light represents in our physical world.)

The only aspect of a perfect and incorruptible Being that is a grand deception is the imperfect and corruptible part...which includes what wants to combine the perfect and incorruptible with what is imperfect and corruptible in an effort to save the imperfect and corruptible.

[headheart]

So you are saying there is perfect incorruptible part of us, and also an imperfecf corruptible part of us? How can this be of a perfect, incorruptible Father?


Look at Jesus and you see how our perfect, loving and holy heavenly Father made a plan to change the corruptible into incorruptible, by the seed of truth.


The only aspect of a perfect and incorruptible Being that is a grand deception is the imperfect and corruptible part...which includes what wants to combine the perfect and incorruptible with what is imperfect and corruptible in an effort to save the imperfect and corruptible.

Corruptible must be swallowed by Incorruptible.

Sincerely,
HH

[UrbanMonk]

Look at Jesus and you see how our perfect, loving and holy heavenly Father made a plan to change the corruptible into incorruptible, by the seed of truth.

You are still implying that what God has created is corruptible by implying that God is in process of fixing what became corrupted. I'm saying that what God created - the Son of God - is not corruptible...never as been corrupted. The Son of God is being saved from a concept in his mind that says he can be corrupted and made to be a guilty sinner. This is not true, never was, isn't and never shall be true. What says the Son of God is a guilty, killable, corruptible sinner is a mad idea given the power of faith...and so, our faith in it is it's only apparent reality.



Corruptible must be swallowed by Incorruptible.

This is a metaphor. Unless it is understood correctly, it's just a dead metaphor.

[headheart]

Corruptible must be swallowed by Incorruptible.

:teeth:

[stephen goswami]

Or, forgetting those things which are behind, and encouraging one another. we can faithfully press on, trusting Christ to guide us. :shrug:


You can’t erase anything from memory as like a computer. The memory is needed to prod us forward. This gives us the required emotional energy to press on and to cling to Christ.

[stephen goswami]

Corruptible must be swallowed by Incorruptible.

:teeth:

Unless we talk in relative terms instead of absolute terms our talks would be meaningless. Absolutes are impossible.
Yes! more corruptible is survived by less corruptible and so on. Paradises are less corruptible than hells and worlds. But the best of them is changing as Being is constantly becoming (Hegel).

[FreezBee]

Corruptible must be swallowed by Incorruptible.

Would it be possible for you to elaborate on this?

Jesus associated with sinners, yet did not become tainted by that -- rather he cleansed the sinners and the regave them life. Is it along that line you are thinking?


- FreezBee

[headheart]

Would it be possible for you to elaborate on this?

Jesus associated with sinners, yet did not become tainted by that -- rather he cleansed the sinners and the regave them life. Is it along that line you are thinking?


- FreezBee

I am only thinking about matter ie. the physical world, including our bodies and this passage...

He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true." ( Revelations 2:15 ) ...actually just simply the idea of matter being either changed, or going to dust and being reconstituted.

How to you intepret this verse ?

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. ( 2 Corinthians 5:21 )

Sincerley,
HH.

[FreezBee]

How to you intepret this verse ?


Let's have a bit more:

16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21 God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

If anyone is in christ, he is a new creation -- being cleansed of sin. Where did sin go? Jesus took sin upon him, but did not become a sinner. Yet he was a sin offering, an offering for atonement, reconciling us all with God.

That's what it says -- to me, at least :smile:

What does it mean to you?


- FreezBee

[headheart]

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. ( 2 Corinthians 5:21 )



Jesus took sin upon him, but did not become a sinner. Yet he was a sin offering, an offering for atonement, reconciling us all with God.



The Message

How? you ask. In Christ. God put the wrong on him who never did anything wrong, so we could be put right with God.



The Amplified

For our sake He made Christ [virtually] to be sin Who knew no sin, so that in and through Him we might become [endued with, viewed as being in, and examples of] the righteousness of God [what we ought to be, approved and acceptable and in right relationship with Him, by His goodness].


We may not dare to probe too far into the mystery of Christ’s suffering on the Cross – Roberston’s Word Pictures. -- God “treated as sin” the one “who knew no sin.”


John Gill states : ‘but through his Father's act of imputation, to which he agreed; for it was "he" that made him sin:’



Just as Christ is made sin, or a sinner, by the imputation of the sins of others to him; so they are made righteousness, or righteous persons, through the imputation of his righteousness to them; and in no other way can the one be made sin, or the other righteousness.’


These are the views of others, my own view is not that focussed.

God took something of mine and gave it to Jesus and if one looks at Isaiah 53 you can see what that did to Jesus. Because of that God took something that belonged to Jesus and gave it to me. If you want to find out what that looks like, ...come and visit me sometime.

As far as the rest of the people in the world, I cannot vouch for them.

Do the meek inherit the earth, and 144 000 go to heaven ?

:lol:

[FreezBee]

Do the meek inherit the earth,

Maybe they do -- but what are they going to do with it?

and 144 000 go to heaven ?

Only if they belong to the tribes of Israel and are virgins.


- FreezBee

[headheart]

Maybe they do -- but what are they going to do with it?


Start all over again ?

Only if they belong to the tribes of Israel and are virgins.

That's somewhere in Revelation, right ?

-headheart

[FreezBee]

Start all over again ?

:lol: And make the same mistakes?

That's somewhere in Revelation, right ?

Yes.


- FreezBee

[headheart]

:lol: And make the same mistakes?


All they need is the primary building blocks and it should take a few milion years. :teeth:

[stephen goswami]

Why raise up the cross when we can raise up the Christ? Why build a new heaven when the original heaven is still intact, perfect, and unchanged?

Is a warring and divided heaven perfect and intact? (Rev.12-7) But there must be a highest heaven of pefect love very far from us. The only way to get near it is trying to imitate it. That is building a new heaven.


Why not just return back to from where we left?

To do the same mistake of pride-power fight?

Are you aware that the "cross" is a symbol of the beginning and existing of the world? And are you aware that the resurrection is a symbol of the end of the world? There was never a utopia in the beginning of the world. That's a lie. The world begins with an attack on God/Truth.

I fully agree in these.

[stephen goswami]

Start all over again ?

Meek will inherit the earth by Heavenly Father's design as He wants the world to be our correction center. The bullies will be automatically eliminated.



That's somewhere in Revelation, right ?



-headheart

Revelation is not written by apostle John, as his greek and Love-God message in gospel is very different from the faulty greek and hellfire- God in revelation. it was made up by the Catholic church to terrorise people to subjection.
If one makes hell or heaven here, he is certainly headed for acordingly

[FreezBee]

Revelation is not written by apostle John, as his greek and Love-God message in gospel is very different from the faulty greek and hellfire- God in revelation. it was made up by the Catholic church to terrorise people to subjection.
If one makes hell or heaven here, he is certainly headed for acordingly

Maybe Revelation wasn'r written by the Apostle John, but that doesn't on its own entail that it was made up by the Catholic Church. Do you have any specific evidence for your claim?

- FreezBee

[stephen goswami]

Maybe Revelation wasn'r written by the Apostle John, but that doesn't on its own entail that it was made up by the Catholic Church. Do you have any specific evidence for your claim?

- FreezBee

Inference is also our main source of knowledge. Even if catholic church people did not write it, as I have neither time nor strength to search for evidence, the fact that catholic church accepted it among many such rejected papers, is as good as authorship.

[UrbanMonk]

Jesus associated with sinners, yet did not become tainted by that -- rather he cleansed the sinners and the regave them life. Is it along that line you are thinking?


- FreezBee

This would be an example of the corruptible not prevailing over the incorruptible. But also, Jesus did not necessarily think of anyone as a sinner. That is, whatever were the appearances, Jesus did not believe what was appearing as "sin" or "sinner". In fact, he learned to overlook this appearance...and saw his Self in his neighbor instead. What kills are the viral memes that motivate the minds of men. Jesus learned to shed these, and not pick them up again...remaining vigilant all along the way. When Peter tried to spread viral memes, Jesus would say something about "get behind me Satan". This does not necessarily mean Peter was a sinner. It just meant that sin is a state of mind he called "Satan". It means that it is something that tempts all of us. It is NOT TRUE...therefore, there is no sin. There is only the Son of God...the Truth.

[stephen goswami]

This would be an example of the corruptible not prevailing over the incorruptible. But also, Jesus did not necessarily think of anyone as a sinner. That is, whatever were the appearances, Jesus did not believe what was appearing as "sin" or "sinner". In fact, he learned to overlook this appearance...and saw his Self in his neighbor instead. What kills are the viral memes that motivate the minds of men. Jesus learned to shed these, and not pick them up again...remaining vigilant all along the way. When Peter tried to spread viral memes, Jesus would say something about "get behind me Satan". This does not necessarily mean Peter was a sinner. It just meant that sin is a state of mind he called "Satan". It means that it is something that tempts all of us. It is NOT TRUE...therefore, there is no sin. There is only the Son of God...the Truth.

Indian philosophy also states that God (Bramha) only exists other things are illusions. Aristotle also says that only being exists and other things are its limitations. In the material world light only exists. Darkness is its graded absence. In computer too only 1 exists. 0 is its absence. So sin is graded absence or distance of us from Christ

[FreezBee]

This would be an example of the corruptible not prevailing over the incorruptible. But also, Jesus did not necessarily think of anyone as a sinner. That is, whatever were the appearances, Jesus did not believe what was appearing as "sin" or "sinner". In fact, he learned to overlook this appearance...and saw his Self in his neighbor instead. What kills are the viral memes that motivate the minds of men. Jesus learned to shed these, and not pick them up again...remaining vigilant all along the way. When Peter tried to spread viral memes, Jesus would say something about "get behind me Satan". This does not necessarily mean Peter was a sinner. It just meant that sin is a state of mind he called "Satan". It means that it is something that tempts all of us. It is NOT TRUE...therefore, there is no sin. There is only the Son of God...the Truth.

Well, yes and no, I think.

Sin, by definition, is going against the will of God, and Jesus didn't change that. But Jesus certainly was against reification of sin -- as in identifying someone as a sinner.

Where the Sadducees and Pharisees wouls have a 'sinner' stoned or excommunicated, Jesus removed the sin.

So we agree as for this :smile:


- FreezBee

[FreezBee]

Indian philosophy also states that God (Bramha) only exists other things are illusions. Aristotle also says that only being exists and other things are its limitations. In the material world light only exists. Darkness is its graded absence. In computer too only 1 exists. 0 is its absence. So sin is graded absence or distance of us from Christ

Yes, Christianity isn't a dualism in the sense that God and Satan are equal powers, not even in the sense that they have identical ontological status.

But I don't think that we can say that Satan is only absence of God; he is presence of God as well, since it is a dichotomy in God himself.


- FreezBee

[stephen goswami]

Yes, Christianity isn't a dualism in the sense that God and Satan are equal powers, not even in the sense that they have identical ontological status.

But I don't think that we can say that Satan is only absence of God; he is presence of God as well, since it is a dichotomy in God himself.


- FreezBee

Certainly! A rebel and wayward child is also a tainted image of the father.