Are you hung-up with guilt?

[Butterbean]

Some bible verses regarding forgiveness for those who have trusted Christ as Savior:


Romans 8:1
There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Romans 3:23, 24
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Romans 8:30
And having chosen us, he called us to come to him; and when we came, he declared us "not guilty," filled us with Christ's goodness, gave us right standing with himself, and promised us glory.

Acts 13:39
Everyone who trusts in him is freed from all guilt and declared righteous-something the law could never do.

Romans 5:1
Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 8:34
Who then will condemn us?  Will Christ?  No!  For he is the one who died for us and came back to life again for us and is sitting at the place of highest honor next to God

Romans 5:9
Being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him

Isaiah 43:22
"I even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for my own sake; and I will not remember our sins."

Isaiah 44:22
"I've blotted out your sins; they are gone like morning mist at noon!  Oh return to me, for I have paid the price to set you free.

Hebrews 10:17
"Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."

[Decker]

My guilt is one of the things that makes me who I am.  Why would I sacrifice that?

[calmus]

Hahahaha, what's the point of this thread?  Most Christians have no problems not feeling guilty.
It's those damn libs fault.

[MCWAY]

Some bible verses regarding forgiveness for those who have trusted Christ as Savior:


Romans 8:1
There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Romans 3:23, 24
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Romans 8:30
And having chosen us, he called us to come to him; and when we came, he declared us "not guilty," filled us with Christ's goodness, gave us right standing with himself, and promised us glory.

Acts 13:39
Everyone who trusts in him is freed from all guilt and declared righteous-something the law could never do.

Romans 5:1
Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 8:34
Who then will condemn us?  Will Christ?  No!  For he is the one who died for us and came back to life again for us and is sitting at the place of highest honor next to God

Romans 5:9
Being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him

Isaiah 43:22
"I even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for my own sake; and I will not remember our sins."

Isaiah 44:22
"I've blotted out your sins; they are gone like morning mist at noon!  Oh return to me, for I have paid the price to set you free.

Hebrews 10:17
"Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."

Hahahaha, what's the point of this thread?  Most Christians have no problems not feeling guilty.
It's those damn libs fault.

 

Actually, there are many people who have done wrong and have asked the Lord for forgiveness and repented. Yet, they still feel as if they are not forgiven of their transgressions. Worse yet, other people will use the guilt of the past to manipulate people and make them feel bad about themselves.

Based on that, Stella's mentioning these verses is a great reminder that, whether we "feel" forgiven or not, we ARE forgiven when we confess our sins and repent.

As a famous pastor once said, "If God has forgiven and forgotten your past, why don't you?"

More importantly, Jesus stated that "If you forgive men of their trespasses, then you heavenly Father will forgive you. But, if you forgive NOT men of their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

[Decker]

Actually, there are many people who have done wrong and have asked the Lord for forgiveness and repented. Yet, they still feel as if they are not forgiven of their transgressions. Worse yet, other people will use the guilt of the past to manipulate people and make them feel bad about themselves.

Based on that, Stella's mentioning these verses is a great reminder that, whether we "feel" forgiven or not, we ARE forgiven when we confess our sins and repent.

As a famous pastor once said, "If God has forgiven and forgotten your past, why don't you?"

More importantly, Jesus stated that "If you forgive men of their trespasses, then you heavenly Father will forgive you. But, if you forgive NOT men of their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

It's hard for me to envision any act of repentance eliminating guilt from the transgressor's psychology entirely.

To me, that's borderline pathological.

[MCWAY]

It's hard for me to envision any act of repentance eliminating guilt from the transgressor's psychology entirely.

I agree, especially when you have people in your life, dredging up your past sins, in an attempt to manipulate and/or humiliate you.

[Decker]

I agree, especially when you have people in your life, dredging up your past sins, in an attempt to manipulate and/or humiliate you.

It's interesting that you phrased your point in that manner.  I'm not referring to manipulative exterior forces affecting my state of mind or well-being.  I'm referring to guilt as a benchmark in my psychological landscape that informs my current way of seeing things b/c it's based on what I have done and have thought in my past experiences. 

Removing guilt from one's psychological profile likely results in a brainwashed effect...like the Moonies.  It's a deflection of sorts...a denial.

[w8m8]

My guilt is one of the things that makes me who I am.  Why would I sacrifice that?

However much it's self inflicted I think an exhorbitant amount of guilt is psychologically damaging , so to be able to sacrifice the burden has an advantage that can only help people who believe

[Deicide]

Guilt? No...

Existential worries yes....

[Hedgehog]

None of the Bible was written during the actual life of Jesus.

How many would accept a biography as absolute truth written today about F D Roosevelt that was based on hearsay as the only source?

Without the use of any photographies, any soundbites, any video clips or any previous books?

That's the exact same situation which the story of Jesus is based on.

It's written down many years after he died.

None of the authors actually met Jesus.

And no, Paulus never did.

[Butterbean]

None of the authors actually met Jesus.

So are you saying that Matthew and John were not Jesus' apostles?  Or that some other Matthew and John wrote Matthew and John?

And are you saying that James that wrote James was not Jesus' brother?

And no, Paulus never did.

Is Paulus Paul?  I think you could be right that Paul didn't meet Jesus when He was in human form but they did "meet" so to speak.  Acts 9 indicates they did converse subsequent to Jesus' resurrection.

[Deicide]

None of the Bible was written during the actual life of Jesus.

How many would accept a biography as absolute truth written today about F D Roosevelt that was based on hearsay as the only source?

Without the use of any photographies, any soundbites, any video clips or any previous books?

That's the exact same situation which the story of Jesus is based on.

It's written down many years after he died.

None of the authors actually met Jesus.

And no, Paulus never did.

This is an exercise in futility Northman as evidenced by the fact that it was shown mutiple times here that leading Bibiblical scholars from some of the most respected institutions of the world ALL say that the synoptic gospels were anonymous compositions and that the names, Mathew, Mark, John and Luke are later additions; you can show them all in the evidence in the world that runs counter to their beliefs and that is the problem as faith is belief without evidence, no amount of evidence to the contrary of said belief will convince them otherwise.

True knowledge is subject to change, by dint of new understanding and discovery. Faith on the other hand experiences no revision; why should it? Evidence was not what got the faithful there in the first place; it won't change their minds in likewise fashion.

[MCWAY]

None of the Bible was written during the actual life of Jesus.

How many would accept a biography as absolute truth written today about F D Roosevelt that was based on hearsay as the only source?

Without the use of any photographies, any soundbites, any video clips or any previous books?

That's the exact same situation which the story of Jesus is based on.

It's written down many years after he died.

None of the authors actually met Jesus.

And no, Paulus never did.

In that case, you may as well chuck out the lion's share of every ancient historical document that has ever existed, because our world's history is LOADED with people, whose lives and deeds are recorded in works that date long after their reported lifetimes.
Today's news is "hearsay", as well. Unless YOU saw the events yourself, you are taking the words of other people who may or may not have been eyewitnesses. Cameras can't be everywhere; so, you have to rely on the accounts of others.

It's strange that nobody has a problem with that, as it relates to ancient figures, UNLESS it's Jesus Christ.

As for the Gospels, basically we have two eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) and two non-eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke).

Even in the 20th/21st century, there have been examples of biographies of people that have appeared after the subject's lifetime. With the modern devices to speed up production, the time lag isn't as great, though.

[Hedgehog]

So are you saying that Matthew and John were not Jesus' apostles?  Or that some other Matthew and John wrote Matthew and John?

And are you saying that James that wrote James was not Jesus' brother?


Is Paulus Paul?  I think you could be right that Paul didn't meet Jesus when He was in human form but they did "meet" so to speak.  Acts 9 indicates they did converse subsequent to Jesus' resurrection.

James- Jacobi wasn't accepted as a part of the bible until sometime close to the 5th or 6th century I believe.

Jacobi is a very good example of an author that is challenged, one of the best examples along with Marcus.

And yes, Paulus is the real name for Paul. Just like Marcus - Mark, Matthaeus - Matthew and Lucas - Luke.

In that case, you may as well chuck out the lion's share of every ancient historical document that has ever existed, because our world's history is LOADED with people, whose lives and deeds are recorded in works that date long after their reported lifetimes.
Today's news is "hearsay", as well. Unless YOU saw the events yourself, you are taking the words of other people who may or may not have been eyewitnesses. Cameras can't be everywhere; so, you have to rely on the accounts of others.

It's strange that nobody has a problem with that, as it relates to ancient figures, UNLESS it's Jesus Christ.

As for the Gospels, basically we have two eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) and two non-eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke).

Even in the 20th/21st century, there have been examples of biographies of people that have appeared after the subject's lifetime. With the modern devices to speed up production, the time lag isn't as great, though.

I don't think it does us any good to lower our standards when we are asking the most important question of all - Why are we here?

Do you?


There is not one person who would not believe in a certain God if that Deity showed up and once and for all made certain it existed.

All Buddhists, Hinduists, Atheists, Satanists, Muslims, Christians...

Everyone would instantly drop their old faiths if a God from another religion showed up and there was absolutely no doubt that all other religions were just hoaxes.

My point is that I will definitely become a Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/whatever, the day that religion shows any kind of evidence supporting their case.

Right now, all religions in the world is faith-based.

And to look at the Bible as some kind of holy document, which is even challenged for being written at the time of the events, is not reasonable.

If we don't know who wrote the Bible, how can we know if it's Holy?


BTW, this claim of yours is false:

It's strange that nobody has a problem with that, as it relates to ancient figures, UNLESS it's Jesus Christ.

Socrates is one of the most controversial figures in ancient Greece. A lot of people challenge his existance, and claim he is just the brain child of Plato. Despite being mentioned in many texts by Plato.

[Deicide]

James- Jacobi wasn't accepted as a part of the bible until sometime close to the 5th or 6th century I believe.

Jacobi is a very good example of an author that is challenged, one of the best examples along with Marcus.

And yes, Paulus is the real name for Paul. Just like Marcus - Mark, Matthaeus - Matthew and Lucas - Luke.

I don't think it does us any good to lower our standards when we are asking the most important question of all - Why are we here?

Do you?


There is not one person who would not believe in a certain God if that Deity showed up and once and for all made certain it existed.

All Buddhists, Hinduists, Atheists, Satanists, Muslims, Christians...

Everyone would instantly drop their old faiths if a God from another religion showed up and there was absolutely no doubt that all other religions were just hoaxes.

My point is that I will definitely become a Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/whatever, the day that religion shows any kind of evidence supporting their case.

Right now, all religions in the world is faith-based.

And to look at the Bible as some kind of holy document, which is even challenged for being written at the time of the events, is not reasonable.

If we don't know who wrote the Bible, how can we know if it's Holy?


BTW, this claim of yours is false:

It's strange that nobody has a problem with that, as it relates to ancient figures, UNLESS it's Jesus Christ.

Socrates is one of the most controversial figures in ancient Greece. A lot of people challenge his existance, and claim he is just the brain child of Plato. Despite being mentioned in many texts by Plato.

Doesn't matter. He probably is a fictional figure but his symbolism is important. But for Jesus freaks like MCWAY, their whole lives would disintegrate if it were discovered his godman in a loincloth were just a symbol.

[MCWAY]

Doesn't matter. He probably is a fictional figure but his symbolism is important. But for Jesus freaks like MCWAY, their whole lives would disintegrate if it were discovered his godman in a loincloth were just a symbol.

The "Jesus-myth" freaks, like yourself, have been yanking your hair about this guy for the better part of two centuries. All to no avail, as Jesus' historical existence is well-established.

Why all this wailing and gnashing of teeth over someone who allegedly doesn't exist? Perhaps, you should seek some couch time!!!!

[MCWAY]

James- Jacobi wasn't accepted as a part of the bible until sometime close to the 5th or 6th century I believe.

Jacobi is a very good example of an author that is challenged, one of the best examples along with Marcus.

And yes, Paulus is the real name for Paul. Just like Marcus - Mark, Matthaeus - Matthew and Lucas - Luke.

I don't think it does us any good to lower our standards when we are asking the most important question of all - Why are we here?

Do you?


There is not one person who would not believe in a certain God if that Deity showed up and once and for all made certain it existed.

All Buddhists, Hinduists, Atheists, Satanists, Muslims, Christians...

Everyone would instantly drop their old faiths if a God from another religion showed up and there was absolutely no doubt that all other religions were just hoaxes.

My point is that I will definitely become a Christian/Hindu/Buddhist/whatever, the day that religion shows any kind of evidence supporting their case.

Right now, all religions in the world is faith-based.

And to look at the Bible as some kind of holy document, which is even challenged for being written at the time of the events, is not reasonable.

If we don't know who wrote the Bible, how can we know if it's Holy?

Who said we don't know who wrote the Bible?

The Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy): Moses
The prophets of the Old Testament have authored books with their names: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel (though some don't consider Daniel a prophet, because he wasn't tasked with calling Israel to repentance), etc.

As for the New Testament:

The Gospels have their authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Luke also wrote Acts, while John penned 1,2, and 3 John, as well as Revelation.

Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, 1&2 Thessilonians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, Titus, Philemon: all authored by Paul.

Peter has two books: 1&2 Peter.

BTW, this claim of yours is false:

It's strange that nobody has a problem with that, as it relates to ancient figures, UNLESS it's Jesus Christ.

Socrates is one of the most controversial figures in ancient Greece. A lot of people challenge his existance, and claim he is just the brain child of Plato. Despite being mentioned in many texts by Plato.

If that is true, perhaps, these challengers seek to find references to Socrates outside of those, belonging to Plato. Lack of such doesn't mean that Plato crafted the man or character; but some may be making such an assumption, based on that.

We do, however, have extra-Biblical references to Jesus Christ. So, establishing Him as an historical figure is hardly a problem.

[Hedgehog]

Who said we don't know who wrote the Bible?

The Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy): Moses
The prophets of the Old Testament have authored books with their names: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel (though some don't consider Daniel a prophet, because he wasn't tasked with calling Israel to repentance), etc.

As for the New Testament:

The Gospels have their authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Luke also wrote Acts, while John penned 1,2, and 3 John, as well as Revelation.

Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, 1&2 Thessilonians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, Titus, Philemon: all authored by Paul.

Peter has two books: 1&2 Peter.

If that is true, perhaps, these challengers seek to find references to Socrates outside of those, belonging to Plato. Lack of such doesn't mean that Plato crafted the man or character; but some may be making such an assumption, based on that.

We do, however, have extra-Biblical references to Jesus Christ. So, establishing Him as an historical figure is hardly a problem.

Perhaps I'm not being clear.

Let me try one more time:

The book of Jacobi, what makes you think it was written by Jesus brother?

And please don't just give me some automatic response, I'm actually interested to hear what you got on your mind on this one.



As far as Socrates, I just brought him up as one example of a historic person that people challenge the existance of. You claim Jesus is the only one that gets put under that scrutiny.

This is what is relevant. Not whether Socrates existed or not.

Other examples are Midas and King Arthur, both legends that have some historical source, but are also heavily challenged and rightfully debated.

It is simply not true to claim that Jesus Christ is the only one getting scrutinized.

If he were, we would still believe in Trolls and Elves.

[Colossus_500]

The "Jesus-myth" freaks, like yourself, have been yanking your hair about this guy for the better part of two centuries. All to no avail, as Jesus' historical existence is well-established.

Why all this wailing and gnashing of teeth over someone who allegedly doesn't exist?

Well said, MCWAY. 

[Butterbean]

The "Jesus-myth" freaks, like yourself, have been yanking your hair about this guy for the better part of two centuries. All to no avail, as Jesus' historical existence is well-established.

Why all this wailing and gnashing of teeth over someone who allegedly doesn't exist?

Excellent question

[Deicide]

Who said we don't know who wrote the Bible?

The Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy): Moses
The prophets of the Old Testament have authored books with their names: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel (though some don't consider Daniel a prophet, because he wasn't tasked with calling Israel to repentance), etc.

As for the New Testament:

The Gospels have their authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Luke also wrote Acts, while John penned 1,2, and 3 John, as well as Revelation.

Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, 1&2 Thessilonians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, Titus, Philemon: all authored by Paul.

Peter has two books: 1&2 Peter.

If that is true, perhaps, these challengers seek to find references to Socrates outside of those, belonging to Plato. Lack of such doesn't mean that Plato crafted the man or character; but some may be making such an assumption, based on that.

We do, however, have extra-Biblical references to Jesus Christ. So, establishing Him as an historical figure is hardly a problem.

Moses wrote the Pentateuch? Where di you get that 'fact' from?

Parts of the Torah are written after he has 'died'. I guess when you have a magic fertility deity, anything is possible.

[MCWAY]

Moses wrote the Pentateuch? Where di you get that 'fact' from?

The same place that these folks got it:

The Written Law consists of the books of the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh. The term "Bible" is more commonly used by non-Jews, as are the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament." The appropriate term for Jews to use for the Hebrew Bible is "Tanakh." Tanakh is an acronym for Torah, Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings).

The Torah is also known as the Chumash, Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses. The word "Torah" has the following meanings:

1. A scroll made from kosher animal parchment, with the entire text of the Five Books of Moses written in it by a sofer [ritual scribe]. This is the most limited definition.

2. More often, this term means the text of the Five Books of Moses, written in any format, whether Torah scroll, paperback book, CD­ROM, sky­writing or any other media. Any printed version of the Torah (with or without commentary) can be called a Chumash or Pentateuch; however, one never refers to a Torah Scroll as a Chumash.

3. The term "Torah" can mean the entire corpus of Jewish law. This includes the Written and the Oral Law, which includes the Mishna, the Midrash, the Talmud and even later day legal commentaries. This definition of Torah is probably the most common among Orthodox Jews. Usually you can figure out which definition is being used by the context.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/The_Written_Law.html

Then, there's that guy named Josephus, who mentions the "holy books of Moses" in his Antiquities.

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. – Against Apion, Book 1, part 8

But when he was now in the eighteenth year of his reign, he sent to Eliakim the high priest, and gave order, that out of what money was overplus, he should cast cups, and dishes, and vials, for ministration [in the temple]; and besides, that they should bring all the gold or silver which was among the treasures, and expend that also in making cups and the like vessels. But as the high priest was bringing out the gold, he lighted upon the holy books of Moses that were laid up in the temple; and when he had brought them out, he gave them to Shaphan the scribe, who, when he had read them, came to the king, and informed him that all was finished which he had ordered to be done. – Antiquties Book 18, chapter 4, part 2


This was the form of political government which was left us by Moses. Moreover, he had already delivered laws in writing in the fortieth year [after they came out of Egypt], concerning which we will discourse in another book. But now on the following days (for he called them to assemble continually) he delivered blessings to them, and curses upon those that should not live according to the laws, but should transgress the duties that were determined for them to observe. After this, he read to them a poetic song, which was composed in hexameter verse, and left it to them in the holy book: it contained a prediction of what was to come to pass afterward; agreeably whereto all things have happened all along, and do still happen to us; and wherein he has not at all deviated from the truth. Accordingly, he delivered these books to the priest, with the ark; into which he also put the Ten Commandments, written on two tables. – Antiquities Book 4, chapter 8, part 44

Parts of the Torah are written after he has 'died'. I guess when you have a magic fertility deity, anything is possible.

Nice try!!! But, the old "late-date" trick don't wash!!!