So many Christians today teach that the way to salvation is by Faith alone. That by having faith in Jesus and accepting Jesus as one’s Lord and personal savior one is saved. They go further to say that sin must continue, that man can never be sinless, and that by being born again, they are justified before God. They say that the laws are no longer applicable to them because they now live in the grace of God. They teach that Jesus, by his crucification had paid for all their sins and that one only need to believe and have faith in-order to be saved.
But is this doctrine of justification by faith alone in accord with Jesus’s teachings? Even in the bible there are verses that are contrary to this doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Let us look at a few verses:
"You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is Perfect." (Matt 5:48)
Here according to the gospel writer, Jesus urges us to strive to be righteous (perfect) because our Father is perfect.

“For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20)
Here according to the gospel, Jesus made it clear unless we are very righteous, we will not enter the kingdom of God. Thus, in my own interpretation-- unless we are without sin, we cannot make it to paradise.

"But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves." (James 1:22)
Here we are told to be doers(workers) of the word and not only hearers. Thus we need to work on ourselves; we need to adjust all our thoughts, words and action to the word of the Lord, and not by faith alone.

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. (11) For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," said also, "Do not kill." If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law. (12) So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. (13) For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment." (James 2:10-13)

Here we are told that we need to keep all the laws, thus we are not freed from the law by faith alone.

It is my opinion that the only thing that can save us is by living according to the words of Jesus (laws of God) irrespective of our religious orientation. We should work on ourselves in-order to overcome all our faults and become righteous, only this will make us justified. Faith alone will not justify us and we will never be freed or above the laws of God which Jesus Himself was subjected to. The law is unchangeable and we must all live in it, i.e. the law of reciprocal action, (what a man sows, so shall he reap). This is the law of God and we can never be above it. Faith alone does not justify us because we must reap what we have sown in the past. But genuine repentance can bring us forgiveness which does not mean that we have been placed above the laws. The crucification of Jesus did not bring us salvation; only by living according to His words shall we be saved. Jesus brought us salvation in His words, which is the grace that God gave us.

This is how I see it. Please shear your own opinion.

Very interesting!
Why has everybody kept quiet about this issue.  Where are the Christian advocates --4him, cgift, nwando etc.
Where are the a great one advocates -- olabowale, babs 787, frizy etc.
I need you opinions on this issue.

You must keep the laws of God. What are they? They are summarised in two - Love GOD, Love man.
But that does not take you to heaven because by saying it takes you to heaven, you are saying every free thinker who does not believe in God and yet do righteous works will be found in heaven. This is not true.
To be saved you need two things -
1) believe that Jesus died for your sins and
2) Confess that he is your LORD.
This cannot be done without faith cos when you do this, nothing changes physically but a lot changes in the spirit realm. You are now born of God. That is why salvation is by faith in the son of God who loved us and gave his life for us.
As much as we are saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus, we are to live righteously.

TYPOP:

You must keep the laws of God. What are they? They are summarised in two - Love GOD, Love man.

I agree with you that the laws are summarized into two. (1)Love God  with all your heart, might and strength; and (2) Love your neighbor as yourself. In these two lies all the laws of God.
Any body who fulfills these two laws is sure of salvation irrespective of his religious orientation.

TYPOP:

But that does not take you to heaven because by saying it takes you to heaven, you are saying every free thinker who does not believe in God and yet do righteous works will be found in heaven. This is not true.
To be saved you need two things -
1) believe that Jesus died for your sins and
2) Confess that he is your LORD.

Here I totally disagree with you. First of all, a free thinker who does not believe in God cannot fulfill those two laws because he doesn't believe that God exists. How can you love something that you don't believe exist.
But even this free think will definitely reap the rewards for his good works. If he truly love his fellow man then this love will lead him to the love of God. In loving and serving his fellow man, experiences will come to him that will lead him to the recognition of the existence of God.

TYPOP:

1) believe that Jesus died for your sins and
2) Confess that he is your LORD.

I totally disagree with you here. If you(*) have those two things and still commit allsorts of sins, will not be granted salvation. Infact you(*) worst than a person who doesn't believe because he has not heard about Jesus. If you have those two things that you listed above and still does not have love in your heart you(*) will not be granted salvation.

(*) this is a figure of speech I don't mean you personally.

Thanks, and I wish you well.

justcool:

So many Christians today teach that the way to salvation is by Faith alone. That by having faith in Jesus and accepting Jesus as one’s Lord and personal savior one is saved. They go further to say that sin must continue, that man can never be sinless, and that by being born again, they are justified before God.

Well, as long as it is "so many Christians today" saying such, we may safely conclude that is quite a strange position indeed. That sin must continue - and at the same time be justified before God - that is strange indeed.

syrup:

Well, as long as it is "so many Christians today" saying such, we may safely conclude that is quite a strange position indeed. That sin must continue - and at the same time be justified before God - that is strange indeed.

@syrup
Well said!!!

Couldnt agree more with your post dear justcool. See James 2:17-20; Romans 6
I do enjoy your posts.

feelgood:

Couldnt agree more with your post dear justcool. See James 2:17-20; Romans 6
I do enjoy your posts.

Hi @ feelgood,
I think you missed the main thrust of justcool's post, otherwise you wouldn't have agreed with him (at least IMO), him being a follower of the GM.
Perhaps you should look at his last paragraph; that is definitely another gospel (see Galatians).
Cheers.

ricadelide:

Perhaps you should look at his last paragraph; that is definitely another gospel (see Galatians).
Cheers.

I was a bit concerned as well, but didn't want to be too forward at the risk of misreading the OP. The following were bits that caught my attention initially:

(1)

justcool:

It is my opinion that the only thing that can save us is by living according to the words of Jesus (laws of God) irrespective of our religious orientation. We should work on ourselves in-order to overcome all our faults and become righteous, only this will make us justified.

(2)

justcool:
Faith alone does not justify us because we must reap what we have sown in the past.

(3)

justcool:

The crucification of Jesus did not bring us salvation; only by living according to His words shall we be saved.

What seriously touches on the core of Biblical salvation are the highlighted parts; and since I did not want to draw hasty conclusions, it was helpful that I went back to check them up again from the Bible - just to be doubly sure.

(1) to work on ourselves as the means of overcoming our own faults in order to become "righteous" is directly contradicting the very reality of why Jesus gave His life for us. This is clear from Galatians 3 -

(v.3) Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
(v.5) He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you,
doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?


(2) If faith does not justify the believer, he/she is still under the wrath of God - and what then would be the meaning of divine forgiveness? If I must still be punished for my sins, what then was the meaning of Christ giving Himself up for us? Ephesians 1:7 -

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,
according to the riches of his grace"


(3) If Jesus' death did not bring us salvation, then we are still in our sins - the result of which is that there is no hope of the resurrection, and the devil would still have power. That is expressly declared in Hebrews 2:14-15 -

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood,
he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death
he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime
subject to bondage.

We have a glorious salvation in trusting Christ. Self-effort (aka 'salvation by works') is futile and painful - it never saves anyone.

More contributions please.

My perception of justcools submission is that salvation lies in the WORDS of Jesus, not in his death or his blood. The body of Jesus including his blood is not God and therefore cannot wash away sins. Jesus is not the same as the physical body of Jesus. What is Jesus or rather what makes Jesus God is not his physical body. It is his divine essence that made him God. His physical body is just an instrument, a garment he used to bring the TRUTH to mankind on earth. How then can his blood, an earthly substance wash our sins or bring salvation. The physical body of Jesus is neither divine nor a part of the essence that makes Jesus God and to attribute washing of sins to it is equivalent to ascribing divine powers to earthly substance. In addition no body have yet come up with an explanation of why God requires the blood of the physical body of his son to save mankind.

m_nwankwo:

The body of Jesus including his blood is not God and therefore cannot wash away sins.

Denials are easy to make; but of what benefit would that be to you personally if you lack the experience of the reality of what one denies?

Reality is dependent on ones experience and I will not question anybodies experience. They are entitled to whatever they percieve as reality. In this case if people have experienced the blood of Jesus as a reality for there salvation, I will not dispute or question it. If however, they say that the blood of Jesus as a necessity for salvation is the Truth, then I will question and dispute it.

You are occupying a very contradictory position.

The blood of Jesus Christ, which you will not question in someone's experience (of course, on the basis of what the NT teaches), becomes "questionable" on a broader scale. It definitely reveals that the basis of your questioning it is not because you know the TRUTH, but you assume a "sectarian truth" that would be based on your doctrinal position.

The experience of reality is personal. Therefore there is no point questioning a personal experience. If however that personal experience is postulated as truth, then it has to be questioned. My point is that people can believe that they have experienced the blood of Jeusus as salvation. That is there own experience. If however they state that that personal experience is the Truth, then it moves from a reality for the individual to the Truth. In this later case, I will question and dispute it and give my reasons why I do not sense it to be the truth.

m_nwankwo:

The experience of reality is personal. Therefore there is no point questioning a personal experience. If however that personal experience is postulated as truth, then it has to be questioned.

I agree. And by extension, one would be naive to reject the testimony of the experiences of those who actually know what they are talking about - especially when the questioner has no experience of the subject.

In just about the same way, if you question someone's experience with the aim of rejecting it, there should be a working framework by which your alternative assumptions are made. WHY would you reject what the NT teaches on the subject of the Blood of Jesus Christ and assume that your own hypothesis then substitutes as the "truth"?

m_nwankwo:

My point is that people can believe that they have experienced the blood of Jeusus as salvation. That is there own experience. If however they state that that personal experience is the Truth, then it moves from a reality for the individual to the Truth.

I agree with you to the extent that personal experiences are not to be taken as doctrine. In other words, one should not build a doctrine around personal experiences.

However, it would be a graver mistake to assume that the fundamental doctrines the NT are flawed - for the one who says he or she knows by experience that the Bllod of Christ cleanses from sin is not stating a personal experience as doctrine; rather, they are stating the reality of the doctrine as the outworking they have come to experience.

Let me use another example. Suppose we read in the NT that Jesus gives peace to those who trust in Him. If one should trust in Him and then experience that peace, would it not be naive to then take the position that such could not be "truth" as based in what he/she found in the NT? There, you would not be challenging the personal testimony; rather, in the broader scope, you would be saying that the doctrine is not to be regarded as "truth" - a very strange position to assume, especially when you lack the experience of that teaching.

m_nwankwo:

In this later case, I will question and dispute it and give my reasons why I do not sense it to be the truth.

Which again would be passing your own "sectarian truth" based on what you "sense" the truth to be.

Hi @ justcool,
I decided to take the time to reply to your post in detail. I had already typed this out before further posts after mine were made. In your OP, you have grossly misunderstood and mischaracterized a lot of doctrines taught in the bible; whilst raising a number of issues all at once. Thus it’s not a surprise that you’ve not gotten a lot of detailed responses.

justcool:

So many Christians today teach that the way to salvation is by Faith alone. That by having faith in Jesus and accepting Jesus as one’s Lord and personal savior one is saved. They go further to say that sin must continue, that man can never be sinless, and that by being born again, they are justified before God.

Sincerely I don’t know which Christian ever taught that "sin must continue". If there are, that is very unfortunate as that must be one of the greatest distortions of biblical truth. The scriptures are very clear:
IJn 3:9
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.

They say that the laws are no longer applicable to them because they now live in the grace of God. They teach that Jesus, by his crucification had paid for all their sins and that one only need to believe and have faith in-order to be saved.
But is this doctrine of justification by faith alone in accord with Jesus’s teachings? Even in the bible there are verses that are contrary to this doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Jesus words did not disagree with the doctrine of justification by faith. If you understand what true faith is, you would know that true faith is not isolated from practice. True faith is made manifest in practice; however, at the root of that work lies faith.

Let us look at a few verses:
"You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is Perfect." (Matt 5:48)
Here according to the gospel writer, Jesus urges us to strive to be righteous (perfect) because our Father is perfect.

You really don't need to try to change the word of God because it is correct as it is. The bible (and certainly Jesus) NEVER said we should "strive to be righteous". They are two different words. The Greek word for perfect there refers to completeness or maturity NOT righteousness.
That said, the question is not IF we should be perfect, or since you're interested in talking about righteousness, IF we should be righteous. That's a given; the real issue is HOW do we attain righteousness. On what basis are we made righteous? The answer to that question is what makes being a Christian different from any other religious profession. I’d get into that later.

“For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20)
Here according to the gospel, Jesus made it clear unless we are very righteous, we will not enter the kingdom of God. Thus, in my own interpretation-- unless we are without sin, we cannot make it to paradise.

Again, no sir, that's not what Jesus referred to in this verse although your latter interpretation is not opposed to scripture. Here He describes two kinds of righteousness; the righteousness of the Pharisees, which is a 'righteousness' that comes by obeying the law and another kind of righteousness. Paul differentiates them well in his writings;
Romans 3:21
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify
And again Rom. 10:3
Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness

Effectively, Jesus describes that kind of righteousness which Paul refers to in Philippians as legalistic righteousness (Phil 3;6 NIV) as being insufficient and inadequate for entering into the kingdom of God. Elsewhere the bible calls it ‘filthy rags’. That is why when the Pharisee Nicodemus came to see Jesus to inquire about the way of salvation, Jesus told him:
John 3:14-15
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life

"But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves." (James 1:22)
Here we are told to be doers(workers) of the word and not only hearers. Thus we need to work on ourselves; we need to adjust all our thoughts, words and action to the word of the Lord, and not by faith alone.

Here again you keep misunderstanding God’s word. What do you think is the basis of/for faith? Is it not the word of God?
Rom 10.14
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
Eph1:13
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit
Faith simply involves reckoning what God has spoken to be true and then ACTING on it. True faith is not isolated from practice; the only way you can show you have faith is by obeying what you have believed in faith. That is why the same James later in that chapter distinguished between true faith and mere mental assent. (see James 2:14-28 earlier mentioned by feelgood). However, the difference between Christianity and all other religions is that WE are not the source of our righteousness; CHRIST is our righteousness. We have received this as a free GIFT and as a result we have no reason to boast but to rejoice in the Lord’s mercy.

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. (11) For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," said also, "Do not kill." If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law. (12) So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. (13) For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment." (James 2:10-13)

Here we are told that we need to keep all the laws, thus we are not freed from the law by faith alone.

Your conclusion is yet again wrong because you’ve dabbled into things you probably don’t understand. I won’t go into too much detail here. The righteous requirements of the law stand, but like I said earlier, the real question is “how do we meet that requirement?” James here talked about the “law of liberty”. That is different from the Mosaic Law which leads to death. The law of the Spirit gives us freedom and it is on that basis that we would be judged.

It is my opinion that the only thing that can save us is by living according to the words of Jesus (laws of God) irrespective of our religious orientation. We should work on ourselves in-order to overcome all our faults and become righteous, only this will make us justified. Faith alone will not justify us and we will never be freed or above the laws of God which Jesus Himself was subjected to. The law is unchangeable and we must all live in it, i.e. the law of reciprocal action, (what a man sows, so shall he reap). This is the law of God and we can never be above it. Faith alone does not justify us because we must reap what we have sown in the past. But genuine repentance can bring us forgiveness which does not mean that we have been placed above the laws. The crucification of Jesus did not bring us salvation; only by living according to His words shall we be saved. Jesus brought us salvation in His words, which is the grace that God gave us.

This is how I see it. Please shear your own opinion.

Where the grail message falls short and ultimately fails is in its inability to understand the nature of man and the requirement of God. If you understood the nature of man, you would understand that the “the heart is deceitful above all things” and “all our righteousness is like filthy rags”. You would also understand that there is no remedy for man that can come from the man himself – it has to be from God for no man is sinless. Furthermore, the righteous judgment of God requires that “the soul that sins must die”. What all these add up to is the basis for what Christ did on the cross.

Your statement; “living according to the words of Jesus irrespective of religious orientation” is faulty. Yes, Jesus spoke words. However, you miss the whole purpose of Christ. If the reason Jesus came was merely to bring words for us men to live by, then his coming was irrelevant as there was already a number of words and admonitions given to the people by Moses. Jesus did not come merely to give us commandments, he came to give us HIMSELF because He is the only One that can and has met God’s requirement. The Words Jesus spoke are the basis of our faith and the means of our inclusion in Him via his ultimate sacrifice on the cross. However, without believing in Him and receiving Him, the words would be useless to us because we would be powerless to live by them. That’s why John explains: “to as many as received HIM he gave power to become SONS of God” Jesus showed by His words the inadequacy of legalism, that is why the Pharisees who were outwardly ‘righteous’ had a problem with Him.

Furthermore, your statement: “we should work on ourselves” is totally baseless in Christianity and in Truth; there is no amount of working on oneself that a man can do in order to gain the approval of God. Even if the man was successful in obeying all of God’s laws, it would still be inadequate because the nature of the man remains unchanged. Furthermore, such a man would have a basis for boasting before God, which ultimately negates the essence of our dependence of God for salvation. That in essence was the inadequacy of the Old Testament.

The purpose of the Law and laws is to make us conscious of our sinful nature so that we can trust God for deliverance. Obeying the law can never make one righteous because the nature of man remains unchanged. It is only via the Cross that we can partake of the new nature of Christ and by the Spirit meet the righteous requirements of the law. The distinctions are very clear:
Do you depend on yourself or do you depend on God?
Do you work in order to attain your own righteousness or do you accept the free gift of righteousness from God by faith and then work on that basis?
Cheers .

syrup:

However, it would be a graver mistake to assume that the fundamental doctrines the NT are flawed - for the one who says he or she knows by experience that the Bllod of Christ cleanses from sin is not stating a personal experience as doctrine; rather, they are stating the reality of the doctrine as the outworking they have come to experience.

I think this sums up the problems adherents of the grail message have with the bible. They believe that the teachings of Abd-rushin constitute truth, we believe that the teachings of Christ and indeed Christ Himself is Truth. With us it is what he began to DO and to TEACH. And while they may make a provision for some of the teachings of Christ, they fail to acknowledge the work of reconciliation that Christ Himself brought about as embodied in his death, burial, ressurection and ascension. However, the people who have experienced the outworking of Christ's work in their lives can attest to the power of the gospel to save.
Cheers.

syrup:

I agree. And by extension, one would be naive to reject the testimony of the experiences of those who actually know what they are talking about - especially when the questioner has no experience of the subject.



I agree with you to the extent that personal experiences are not to be taken as doctrine. In other words, one should not build a doctrine around personal experiences.

However, it would be a graver mistake to assume that the fundamental doctrines the NT are flawed - for the one who says he or she knows by eIn just about the same way, if you question someone's experience with the aim of rejecting it, there should be a working framework by which your alternative assumptions are made. WHY would you reject what the NT teaches on the subject of the Blood of Jesus Christ and assume that your own hypothesis then substitutes as the "truth"?xperience that the Bllod of Christ cleanses from sin is not stating a personal experience as doctrine; rather, they are stating the reality of the doctrine as the outworking they have come to experience.

Let me use another example. Suppose we read in the NT that Jesus gives peace to those who trust in Him. If one should trust in Him and then experience that peace, would it not be naive to then take the position that such could not be "truth" as based in what he/she found in the NT? There, you would not be challenging the personal testimony; rather, in the broader scope, you would be saying that the doctrine is not to be regarded as "truth" - a very strange position to assume, especially when you lack the experience of that teaching.

Which again would be passing your own "sectarian truth" based on what you "sense" the truth to be.

The same verification that I demand on what others hold as Truth should also apply to what I hold as Truth. Others should question what I state as the Truth and give reasons why the disagree. I do not go into personal experiences because that will divert attention from the topic to the person of the discussants. That is why I did not comment when you suggested that I may not have experience of the thing I am denying. That something is written in the bible or any other book does not in itself constitute a proof of the Truth of what was stated therein. Neither does it also constitute a proof of its falsity. That is why it has to be questioned and examined. The NT was not written by Jesus himself and that is the point that is very important. It was WRITTEN BY HIS FOLLOWERS and the followers of Jesus are not Jesus. Thus they do not have his powers nor possess the divine wisdom and omniscience which only Jesus have. That is why I have to weigh and examine whatever they report. In this very instance, I do not sense that there rendering of the the mission of christ as corresponding to the truth. I will just give some reasons why I do not agree with the belief that the blood of Jesus washes away our sins and is required for salvation. I may go into detail if it becomes necessary

1. Why will a physical blood have the powers of God or the son of God. The power of God like the forgiveness of sins belong only to God or his son Jesus.

2. If it is the will of God that the blood of his son is required for the salvation of mankind, then it follows that Judas, the High Priest and all those who conspired to crucify christ were fufilling the WILL of God. Thus instead of condemnation and woe, Judas should have recieved special grace
3. If the crucifition of Jesus was the will of God, why then did Jesus ask his father to forgive those who crucified him since they know not what they are doing. Do you ask for people to be forgiven when they do the correct thing. Why will he even pray for the cup to pass away. Jesus and his father are one and there is no point that Jesus is unawre of the WILL of his father.
4. Is crucifixtion of Jesus a sin or no sin. If it is a sin, how can blood shed through sin wash away sin. If however the crucifiction of Jesus is not a sin, then all those that conspired and nailed him to the cross were fufilling the will of God
5. God admonished man not to shed the blood of his fellow men. How can the same God now require the shedding of the blood of his own son to wash away the sins of men.
6. Why will God need a physical blood to reconcile mankind with himself.

Stay blessed

ricadelide:

Hi @ feelgood,
I think you missed the main thrust of justcool's post, otherwise you wouldn't have agreed with him (at least IMO), him being a follower of the GM.
Perhaps you should look at his last paragraph; that is definitely another gospel (see Galatians).
Cheers.

@ricadelide
Thanks for your long posts, however I don't wish to reply to your points. The Truth speaks for itself, your posts and mine are there for anybody to read, and anybody who agrees with you after reading your posts is beyond my help. I leave everybody to chose what he/she wants to accept as Truth. In the end we will all answer for what we chose to believe.
That said, I only wish to reply to your advice to feelgood. You adviced him against agreeing with me just because I "being a follower of the GM."  This has already revealed your frame of mind and even if my post speak a very obvious Truth you will refuse to listen. Your enmity is against the "GM." Now I have questions for you:
1) What is the GM?
2) Have you read The Grail Message? (If by the "GM" you mean The Grail Message)
3) Why do you fight against the "GM"?
4) Why judge the "GM" based on my opinion?
In my post I did not mention the "GM" but I raised an issue to be discussed, Why can't we let facts speak against facts? Why must we make up our minds based on our bias for the source. Gold is Gold irrespective where it's gotten.
Also to clarify somethings for you: There is nothing like a follower of the Grail Message. The Grail Message speaks the TRUTH, and whoever follows IT follows the TRUTH. The Grail massage is not a religion neither did it bring any religion. Research on me and you will find out that I don't belong to any organization. I will give you a little hint on myself: born a catholic, I was trained to be a Rev. Father, after which I rebelled and became a bone again. I went as far as becoming a pastor untill God granted me to recognise the Truth in The Grail Message. You see why I don't want to go into scripture quoteing with you. You be suprized how much of it I know. 

@feelgood
Weigh and examine everything you hear with your God's given conscience. Do not let people coarse into, judging, hating and condemning what they don't understand. Please don't join the masses shouting "crucify HIM!" to Pilate.

@justcool
Please just cool down
Perhaps I was too forward. I know feelgood (at least we've had interactions on this motherboard in the past) and i know that if he had read the last paragraph of your post, there's no way he'd agree with you, except i'm strongly mistaken. Syrup corroborated that notion in her post, so there's no harm there. My mention of your being a "follower of the GM" was peripheral, what I was mainly interested in was the essential nullification of Christs's work in your post. I did not advice feelgood based on the fact that you are a "follower of the grail message" I did so based on what you said about what Christ did. You can read your last paragraph if you so please. If you were a christian, there is no way you would have written that last paragraph, that's why i mentioned the grail message. However, If my offence was shortening the grail message to GM, i apologize.

However that said,

1) What is the GM?
2) Have you read The Grail Message? (If by the "GM" you mean The Grail Message)
3) Why do you fight against the "GM"?
4) Why judge the "GM" based on my opinion?

1. Grail message
2. No
3. I don't fight against the grail message; i disagree with its contents, just in the same way you disagree with the contents of the bible. No harm done.
4. I'm sorry if you think I did that - i judged it based on the bible, NOT on what you said.

In my post I did not mention the "GM" but I raised an issue to be discussed, Why can't we let facts speak against facts? Why must we make up our minds based on our bias for the source. Gold is Gold irrespective where it's gotten.

You did not bring up the grail message but you did bring up the bible. Why can't you hold yourself to the same standard you demand? If one cannot criticize or find fault with the grail message then what makes you think you can criticize the bible? I had no problem with what you said about the teachings of Christ, that's why i took the time to respond to the issues you raised. I see no reason why you refuse to do likewise. Except of course you assume that I have no grounds for disagreeing with the grail message.

Also to clarify somethings for you: There is nothing like a follower of the Grail Message. The Grail Message speaks the TRUTH, and whoever follows IT follows the TRUTH. The Grail massage is not a religion neither did it bring any religion. Research me on me and you will find out that I don't belong to any organization.

Ok I hear. I wont drag that too much. However, I disagree that the grail message speaks the TRUTH and i think there is every reason to debate that notion. Thus it would be absurd of me to say "him being a follower of the truth" when i disagree that the grail message IS the Truth. Sincerely I wouldn't have taken offence if you called me a 'follower of the bible'.
Cheers .

Hi ricadelide,

I have enjoyed the salient points you made to help the gist presented by justcool. I hope this would not risk being viewed as a back-patting exercise, but I just could not resist acknowledging some very fundamental eye-openers in yours. Much appreciated, thank you so much.


@justcool,
Among others, I'd also like to say that you gave us some good exercise. Often, I'm of the view that if we all are agreed with something challening to stimulate our thinking, we soon enter a very bored routine of head-assent. So, don't feel put down by the contributions - rather, I'm quite grateful that you opened thi thread.

@syrup
According to the gospel writers, Jesus also said to His disciples "This is my blood, " when He handed them wine.  If we take this litral, then Jesus blood is actually wine and not human blood. You and I know that this is not so. Therefore the expresion "blood of Jesus" does not literally mean the blood that flows through His physical body. The expression, "blood of Jesus" is not the physical blood but the WILL OF GOD or the Divine Truth, which lies in the words of Jesus. God Himself is the Truth which is the same with His Words, Laws and Will. Since Jesus is a part of the God, Jesus is also the Truth and his real essence is the Truth. Therefore the Truth is to Jesus what blood is to the physical body of man. The physical body is made up of flesh and blood, while Jesus is made up of the Truth, which he brought and which is also is words.
When a prophet(a man) tells you the Truth from God. He is only giving what he received from God who is the Truth Himself. The prophet can only give as much as he can receive from the Truth, and therefore cannot give you the whole Truth. But in the case of Jesus it is different. Being from the Truth and being the Truth Himself, when Jesus tells you the Truth, He is giving you something that belongs to Him, something that He is or something that is a part of Him. This is like giving you His own blood.
The relationship between Jesus and Truth, is like the relationship between the physical body and blood. The blood makes the physical body, both are inseparable. Once the physical body is rid of blood it dies. The same thing is applicable with Jesus and the Truth. Jesus and the Truth are inseparable. Thefore the blood that was shed for the forgiveness of sins for many is the Truth which Jesus freely gave to mankind which will lead those that live in accordance with IT to forgiveness.
In the revelation, it says:
THESE ARE THEY WHICH COME OUT OF GREAT TRIBULATION, AND HAVE WASHED THEIR ROBES,AND MADE THEM WHITE IN THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB.
Here once again we see that the saved ones are those that have washed their robes with the blood of the lamb. This means: Those who have purified themselves with the words of Jesus, i.e those who lived according to wording of Jesus and made themselves clean by living it. (Made them white in the blood of the lamb.) You see that the blood is a metaphor for the words of Jesus. The fact that they washed their robes themselves tell use that we must purify ourselves form sin by living according to the words of Jesus. Not his physical blood.

@ricadelide

I have been following this nice thread for a long time and I have to say this to you:
no matter how much one tries to nice, there will always be people like you who will "shout crucify him" just beacuse he is of a divergent opinion.

ricadelide:

@justcool
Please just cool down
Perhaps I was too forward. I know feelgood (at least we've had interactions on this motherboard in the past) and i know that if he had read the last paragraph of your post, there's no way he'd agree with you, except i'm strongly mistaken. Syrup corroborated that notion in her post, so there's no harm there. My mention of your being a "follower of the GM" was peripheral, what I was mainly interested in was the essential nullification of Christs's work in your post. I did not advice feelgood based on the fact that you are a "follower of the grail message" I did so based on what you said about what Christ did. You can read your last paragraph if you so please. If you were a christian, there is no way you would have written that last paragraph, that's why i mentioned the grail message. However, If my offence was shortening the grail message to GM, i apologize.

How can you tell what feelgood saw and what he did not. Are you God? Are you a mind reader?
This is very uncivilised of you and the fact that you defend your bad actions speaks volume of you.  We all know what you implied by your advice,

ricadelide:

However that said,
1. Grail message
2. No
3. I don't fight against the grail message; i disagree with its contents, just in the same way you disagree with the contents of the bible. No harm done.

If you havent read the book how can you disagree with it's contents? How do you know what it actualy contains, if not that you are biased.
Believe me you are terible liar. Where in this post did justcool diagree with the containts of the bible? Just because he has a different interpretation doent make him disagree. How do you know your own view is correct.

ricadelide:

You did not bring up the grail message but you did bring up the bible. Why can't you hold yourself to the same standard you demand? If one cannot criticize or find fault with the grail message then what makes you think you can criticize the bible? I had no problem with what you said about the teachings of Christ, that's why i took the time to respond to the issues you raised. I see no reason why you refuse to do likewise. Except of course you assume that I have no grounds for disagreeing with the grail message.

Please show me in this thread where just cool criticized the bible. Why do you bear false witness against your neighbor? You are trying to make Christians against him. Wel, I am a Christain too and it is people like you who give us a bad name. Just because he is a folower of GM does not make him the devil.

syrup:

Hi ricadelide,
I have enjoyed the salient points you made to help the gist presented by justcool. I hope this would not risk being viewed as a back-patting exercise, but I just could not resist acknowledging some very fundamental eye-openers in yours. Much appreciated, thank you so much.

@ syrup
Dont tell me you humour this guy(ricadelide) action. Read his last post and tell me if it is beffiting of a christian to make false acusations.

@m_nwankwo,

Thank you again for being simple and honest - values which I prize so much. However, here are my thoughts to your reposte:

m_nwankwo:

The same verification that I demand on what others hold as Truth should also apply to what I hold as Truth. Others should question what I state as the Truth and give reasons why the disagree. I do not go into personal experiences because that will divert attention from the topic to the person of the discussants.

Fair enough, I'll not belabour that point.

m_nwankwo:

That is why I did not comment when you suggested that I may not have experience of the thing I am denying. That something is written in the bible or any other book does not in itself constitute a proof of the Truth of what was stated therein. Neither does it also constitute a proof of its falsity. That is why it has to be questioned and examined.

I see where you're coming from. I just wish that you could subject Abdru-shin and his Grail Message to the same scrutiny you require of the Bible.

m_nwankwo:

The NT was not written by Jesus himself and that is the point that is very important. It was WRITTEN BY HIS FOLLOWERS and the followers of Jesus are not Jesus.

When I read objections like this, my simple response is: you have just given me a bigger reason why I should have no confidence in what your own trusted source has to say. If it is okay to be suspicious at all of those who were closest to Jesus Christ and experienced Him firsthand, then it is absolutely useless and quite dishonest to assume that another author who knew nothing of Him could have anything of value to offer.

By extension, the followers of Jesus Christ who knew Him firsthand should be trusted far more than someone far removed from Him in age, culture, event and experience. Why should I have the slightest confidence in Abd-ru-Shin's personal opinion of Christ when the same Abd-ru-Shin fails the following qualifications:

* Mr Shin was not Jewish and had no experience of raw Jewish life in Jesus' day
* he was far removed in place, time, and events surrounding the Gospel accounts
* he had no understanding of Biblical doctrines to make any informed exegesis

Would it not be naive to assume that the one who is the late-comer many centuries later could be more trusted than the disciples of Jesus who knew Him firsthand and gave their very lives to testify to what they knew? On the contrary, Mr Shin could only pass for an arm-chair philosophizer who had nothing to risk other than criticize the accounts of those who knew Jesus Christ.

I am not trying to place an unfair spotlight on Mr Shin; but like I hinted earlier, fairness only requires us to be as rigorous as those who query the Bible.

m_nwankwo:

Thus they do not have his powers nor possess the divine wisdom and omniscience which only Jesus have.

Did Mr Shin have these qualifications?

m_nwankwo:

That is why I have to weigh and examine whatever they report. In this very instance, I do not sense that there rendering of the the mission of christ as corresponding to the truth. I will just give some reasons why I do not agree with the belief that the blood of Jesus washes away our sins and is required for salvation. I may go into detail if it becomes necessary

It depends on what you do with something very central to the Biblical faith - prophecies. HOW you handle that subject will show how much you really weigh on the scales.

However, I'll take my time to examine your objections.

m_nwankwo:

1. Why will a physical blood have the powers of God or the son of God. The power of God like the forgiveness of sins belong only to God or his son Jesus.

Interesting. If God demonstrated His power by ratifying the Old Covenant by the blood of animals, was it unthinkable then that His own Blood could do far much more in the case of the NT (new covenant)? The power of God is not to be understood as an abstract quality or virtue (forgiveness, mercy, love, etc). His power is demonstrated on His own terms - and since He says the Blood carries such efficacy, it would make no sense to assume otherwise.

m_nwankwo:

2. If it is the will of God that the blood of his son is required for the salvation of mankind, then it follows that Judas, the High Priest and all those who conspired to crucify christ were fufilling the WILL of God. Thus instead of condemnation and woe, Judas should have recieved special grace

In a sense, yes - the the heinous betrayal by both Judas and the priests of the day is said to be in fulfillment of God's predeterminate counsel (see Acts 4:26-28). But did God's grace stop their at the betrayal? This is what people always miss out!

Judas was indeed offered grace - he outrightly rejected it! What then? The logical outworking of a heart given over to wickedness leads to death, for which Judas was known to have taken his own life. The protests some thinkers offer here to favour Judas as a "hero" is only because they have no clue as to what that "betrayal" entails. I recommend you study it in detail.

What about the priests who did not commit suicide along with Judas but were as guilty? Isn't it remarkable that the same people were offer the grace you queried after Jesus rose from the dead? Here is what Peter said to them:

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,
ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain . . .Now when
they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to
the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said
unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off,
even as many as the Lord our God shall call.(Acts 2:23, 37-39)

These same men who by wicked hands had murdered the Son of God are the same people Peter proclaims the Gospel with such concrete invitation as to state that: "the promise is unto you[/b]"!! How could God forgive such people - and yet grant them to partake of His wonderful promises?

The answer is simple: the grace of God. That is the vital thing people often miss when they assume a scholarship against the NT. It often turns out that such "scholarship" have not travelled the road at all.

m_nwankwo:

3. If the crucifition of Jesus was the will of God, why then did Jesus ask his father to forgive those who crucified him since they know not what they are doing.

Let me first ask you: if you were the one hanging on that Cross, would you have prayed for destruction upon those who bitterly condemned you?

It was necessary for Christ to go to the Cross - and this would come by the hands of sinful men. But the glorious mystery of that work is to defeat Satan on his very presumption (Heb. 2:14-15). Of course, those who condemned Him did not have a clue what they were doing - and so Christ prayed for their forgiveness. The redemption is not a minus - it is a plus! It did not end on the Cross - the Resurrection dignifies it! That is why Peter could make this pivotal statement:

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made
that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)

m_nwankwo:

Do you ask for people to be forgiven when they do the correct thing.

If they did not know what they were doing, by what measure would you be assuming they were doing the "correct" thing?

m_nwankwo:

Why will he even pray for the cup to pass away.

Not because He was unwilling - rather, the mystery of iniquity is beyond our arguments. You and I may argue back and forth about it, but the arguments prove absolutely nothing and does not remove from the fact that He went to the Cross.

m_nwankwo:

Jesus and his father are one and there is no point that Jesus is unawre of the WILL of his father.

No one has argued to the contrary. What I see here are huge problems arising from presumptions you hold to discredit the NT accounts.

m_nwankwo:

4. Is crucifixtion of Jesus a sin or no sin. If it is a sin, how can blood shed through sin wash away sin.

Let's be clear about two huge points here: (a) the condemnation; and (b) the crucifixion itself.

Those who condemned Christ knew in their hearts they were guilty of their act - such was the guilt that drove Judas to suicide. However, the Crucifixion itself was God's mercy for the salvation of humanity. You will never be able to see this until you humbly go back to the significance of the Crucifixion in the prophecies!

Isaiah 53:6 states that "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" - may I ask you, dear m_nwankwo if it was a sin that the LORD was showing mercy to you in sending His Son to bear your own iniquity? Of course, you do not believe in this divine exchange, so I propose another: what would you say if God had to put you on that Cross to bear your own iniquity by yourself (knowing fully well that you will NEVER survive its grievious consequence) - would that be a sin or a mercy?

It is quite easy to sit aloof and propound questions against what you don't want to believe in the NT - we can do this with more devastating effect on your cherished beliefs as well if we cared to do just that. However, there are two sides to asking intelligent questions - when you force your presumptions to the fore, take a moment as ask the consequences upon yourself if you applied your objections in your own case.

Christ was not the guilty one - so, would it be a sin that He willingly took our iniquity upon Himself?

m_nwankwo:

If however the crucifiction of Jesus is not a sin, then all those that conspired and nailed him to the cross were fufilling the will of God

As above. However, a small subscript here: have you asked yourself if it was God's will for you to REJECT the offer of redemption as prophesied in the OT and fulfilled in the NT in Jesus Christ? have you ever sat down and asked yourself if by rejecting His offer of grace, you are fulfilling "HIS WILL" for your life?

Questions may sometimes pretend to make us "comfortable" - especially when we call the shots. But hey, you're on spot now, and it is time you faced up to your own machinery: did God ever will that you reject the prophecies and fulfillment of His offer of redemption in Jesus Christ?

m_nwankwo:

5. God admonished man not to shed the blood of his fellow men. How can the same God now require the shedding of the blood of his own son to wash away the sins of men.

Let me quote you a verse: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" (Gen. 9:6). This was a principle that was established long before the Mosaic law was given. But it is interesting to note Lamech's cry earlier in Genesis 4:23 - "I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt". I have often asked those who like those who are adept at proposing objections with an air of superiority to explicate this verse, since it does not appear that Lamech murdered anyone.

I could go into detail here if you are prepared to delve into this with seasoned contributions as well. But suffice to say that the prophets knew that their is no redemption nor remission of sin without the shedding of blood (Heb. 9:22). It is not just that blood is involved - but the value of the life is what makes the Blood precious. This is why the Psalmist stated that: "None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever" (Psalm 49:7-.

Redemption is a vital subject that you will not find satisfactorily explicated by those who deny the value and significance of the Blood. Out of curiosity, let me ask: did Mr Abd-ru-Shin anywhere give an insight into what redemption actually is as set forth in the Bible?

m_nwankwo:

6. Why will God need a physical blood to reconcile mankind with himself.

Already answered, and I'd consider that a repetition.

Cheers.

@seeklove,

seeklove:

@ syrup
Dont tell me you humour this guy(ricadelide) action. Read his last post and tell me if it is beffiting of a christian to make false acusations.

First, it would be quite irrational of me to condemn someone outrightly just because you or anyone happens to disagree with him/her. I have been there, and you can be sure that is not a very good spot to place your bet.

Second, a better way would be to take a moment or two and calm down before putting your points across. Even when you may disagree with someone else, it would be more helpful to simply show them how, where and why you disagree. Could I ask in a friendly way what exactly it is that got you so miffed?

Lastly, I often try to take my own advice - it's a good medicine anyday. I and m_nwankwo so far do not agree on almost all points in our exchanges; but rather than be at each others' throats, we could both benefit ourselves by reasoned discussions.

I do hope that my response does not disappoint you. Be that as it may, I really would not join camp by ridiculing someone simply because some people disagree with him. Perhaps you could share with me what exactly is rubbing you on the wrong side.

Cheers.

@ricadelide
Forgiven.
My dear brother, my Lord Jesus taught us to forgive in-order to be forgiven. Rest assured I have completely forgiven you and I never held malice for you in the first place. I didn't intend to put you in the offensive in my earlier post, but only wished to let you know:
1) If am wrong or if you don't agree with me don't bring The Grail Message into it.
2) Before you criticize the Book, read it and base your criticism on what you read not what others say. Maybe my opinion is not even in accord with the Grail Message.


@Seeklove
Thanks for your concern but , my dear brother, let the issue lie. Lets not let this deviate us from the topic of this post.


@syrup
Once again, I m humbled by your gracious manners
Thanks for all your posts in this thread. Please, my dear sister, lets not deviate from the topic at hand into jugding the Grail Message and ABD-RU-SHIN. I enjoy your conversations with m-nwankwo but I think bringing the issue of the validity of the Grail Message and Its writer will deviate us from the point of this thread. I see a situation that leads to animosity and personal attacks that is always frequent on this forum, and I don't want it in this thread.
I am still waiting for your reply to my last post. Or have I defeated you!!!(just kidding)

@m-nwankwo
As always, I impressed by your knowledge. But please lets return to the point of the thread.

@all
The Grail Message stands on It's own. Mine and m-nwankwo's views are just our perception/expereincing of the book. I advice anybody who wants to make an opinion of the book to read it himself rather than judging It based on mine and m-nwankwo's perception.

Hi @ seeklove,
In order not to be rude I wont ignore your post. However I wont humor you either. Pardon my sarcasm; they seem to work when all else fails.

How can you tell what feelgood saw and what he did not. Are you God? Are you a mind reader?

The first question: NO. The second question: I can't tell you; perhaps

This is very uncivilised of you and the fact that you defend your bad actions speaks volume of you.

Now I'm curious, what bad actions exactly?

We all know what you implied by your advice,

Finally. I'm not the only mind-reader.

If you havent read the book how can you disagree with it's contents?

Frankly i was expecting this question. I could have
- read the cover
- read the table of contents
- read a few pages and not the whole book
- read an abridged version

if not that you are biased

guilty as charged. I never thought being biased was an offense. Certainly you cannot claim to be guiltless in this regard.

Believe me you are terible liar.

Now you take the discussion to a whole new level. Kudos.

Where in this post did justcool diagree with the containts of the bible

Interesting. Did you read my post at all?

Just because he has a different interpretation doent make him disagree. How do you know your own view is correct.

Finally, you make an argument.
Not necessarily but a different interpretation sometimes results from a disagreement with that which was stated. Let me give you an example. The bible says Jesus turned water into wine. Justcool does not accept that it is possible for water to be turned into wine. Thus he disagrees with that statement as recorded in the bible. Of necessity, that would lead to a different interpretation of the miracle Jesus did at Cana.
That he inteprets it differently does not negate the fact that he disagrees with the recorded accounts of the bible.

Please show me in this thread where just cool criticized the bible

Perhaps our definitions of criticsms differ. If I pick up a book and allege that there are contradictions and inconsistencies I of necessity become a critic. Critique does not necessarily connote something negative although often times it does. By alleging that the teachings of Paul (justification by faith alone) disagree with the teachings of Christ, he has made himself a biblical critic. And sincerely, I have no problems with that.

Why do you bear false witness against your neighbor?

Now read that statement again and see if you're not doing the exact same thing you accuse me of.

You are trying to make Christians against him.

Excellent mind-reading skills. You're obviously better at this than I am.

Wel, I am a Christain too and it is people like you who give us a bad name.

Interesting. I assume you are a christian, a muslim, a buddhist and everything. Everything but a crossbearer. It did not take me long to go through all your posts to discover the vericitiy of your claims.
Anyways, that said, the term "christian" is used very arbitrarily these days. However, I do not consider it possible to be a "christian" and a "crossbearer" all at once.

Just because he is a folower of GM does not make him the devil.

Here you reach a climax. By disagreeing with him I've made him out to be the devil. Interesting indeed.


Anyways, you guys REALLY need to chill out a little bit. I know I've pulled your legs very hard but its so that you can mellow down. There's really no need for unnecessary agitation and taking offense. Cheers.

@Justcool,

Again, yours is appreciated. Here are a few things I'd like to highlight:

justcool:

@syrup
According to the gospel writers, Jesus also said to His disciples "This is my blood, " when He handed them wine.  If we take this litral, then Jesus blood is actually wine and not human blood. You and I know that this is not so. Therefore the expresion "blood of Jesus" does not literally mean the blood that flows through His physical body. The expression, "blood of Jesus" is not the physical blood but the WILL OF GOD or the Divine Truth, which lies in the words of Jesus. God Himself is the Truth which is the same with His Words, Laws and Will. Since Jesus is a part of the God, Jesus is also the Truth and his real essence is the Truth. Therefore the Truth is to Jesus what blood is to the physical body of man. The physical body is made up of flesh and blood, while Jesus is made up of the Truth, which he brought and which is also is words.

The one thing that hugely faults your remarks here is that you are looking away from the very source that speaks of the Blood of Christ (which is, the BIBLE) and making up preconceived notions. If you could show me how indeed the Bible itself teaches what you hold on this subject, it would make more point. It would be irrational of me to just assume your position out of hand by looking away from the very source that we find that same subject well detailed.

Suppose I try to interpret what Abd-ru-Shin has taught on a subject (e.g., the Lord's Prayer). Would you take me seriously if I closed his book and begin to make up my own assumptions? If no, what is the rationale that could give us the confidence that your "interpretation" of the Blood of Christ is as the Bible itself teaches?

However, in direct answer, Jesus' Blood was shed on the Cross - that was real blood as "blood" is understood. To assume that it means something else (like His "teachings" is to draw the same illogical idea that His "teachings" was shed on the Cross instead of real Blood. That would be absurd as to throw out all meaning.

On the other hand, don't not miss the very vital role that Biblical figures of speech play in understanding God's Word. Figurative and symbolic language and representations have never been a problem to those who simply follow the pen of the inspired prophets. A few examples here:

* God Himself refers to His covenant people as His "sheep" (Psalm 100:3 and John 10:27)
* His covenant people are also the "apple" of His eye (Deut. 32:10  & Zach. 2:8).
* And Christians are also referred to as "the Body of Christ" (1 Cor.12:27)

Once you fail to see the perculiar context in which these figures of speech are set, you begin to strain at something else and then apply that as the prism by which to test the Bible. That is sadly a weak model indeed and yields absolutely no substance in balanced thinking.

Indeed, the wine is part of the communion Christians share. But why does the wine speak of His Blood in NT symbolic language? The significance is what Jesus wanted us to see - as explicated by Paul:

1 Cor. 11:26
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup,
ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

That celebration is demonstrating something far more than a mere physical display to mortal eyes - it is a shewing of the Lord's death till He comes. God has had no problem with symbols and figures of speech - why should we pretend to be His counsellors and re-interprete His Word for Him?

justcool:

When a prophet(a man) tells you the Truth from God. He is only giving what he received from God who is the Truth Himself. The prophet can only give as much as he can receive from the Truth, and therefore cannot give you the whole Truth. But in the case of Jesus it is different. Being from the Truth and being the Truth Himself, when Jesus tells you the Truth, He is giving you something that belongs to Him, something that He is or something that is a part of Him. This is like giving you His own blood.

If Jesus has given us His Truth as precisely as we find them in the Bible, what then is wrong with receiving that same "Truth"? Why does that have to be re-interpreted to arrive at something else He never said before we can receive it as "Truth"? In all honesty, have you presented the "Truth" by drawing inferences He never intoned? if He did, it would be great to see where He stated what you are presenting.

justcool:

The relationship between Jesus and Truth, is like the relationship between the physical body and blood. The blood makes the physical body, both are inseparable. Once the physical body is rid of blood it dies. The same thing is applicable with Jesus and the Truth. Jesus and the Truth are inseparable. Thefore the blood that was shed for the forgiveness of sins for many is the Truth which Jesus freely gave to mankind which will lead those that live in accordance with IT to forgiveness.

Think for a moment: how do you defend the idea that the blood that was shed on the Cross was merely the 'Truth' that was shed? What was shed on that Cross - mere words, or real Blood? Why would He need to go to the Cross to "shed" words there when He could do the same in the Temple?

This is quite funny.  The ideas you are reading into the NT are so illogical that I can safely conclude that they are self-evidently untennable. However, to grant you the benefit of the doubt, I still leave it open for you to show me where Jesus' Blood on the Cross were rather "words" which were shed instead.

justcool:

In the revelation, it says:
THESE ARE THEY WHICH COME OUT OF GREAT TRIBULATION, AND HAVE WASHED THEIR ROBES,AND MADE THEM WHITE IN THE BLOOD OF THE LAMB.
Here once again we see that the saved ones are those that have washed their robes with the blood of the lamb. This means: Those who have purified themselves with the words of Jesus, i.e those who lived according to wording of Jesus and made themselves clean by living it. (Made them white in the blood of the lamb.) You see that the blood is a metaphor for the words of Jesus. The fact that they washed their robes themselves tell use that we must purify ourselves form sin by living according to the words of Jesus. Not his physical blood.

There is no metaphor that displaces the real Blood of Christ in the passage you are referring to. Take this simple challenge: go through the NT yourself instead of relying on what someone has is asking you to assume; then read up what it teaches about the Blood of Christ - then come back and let's talk more on a few bits about the significance of that Blood that you are failing to grasp.

justcool:

@ricadelide
Forgiven.
My dear brother, my Lord Jesus taught us to forgive in-order to be forgiven. Rest assured I have completely forgiven you and I never held malice for you in the first place. I didn't intend to put you in the offensive in my earlier post, but only wished to let you know:
1) If am wrong or if you don't agree with me don't bring The Grail Message into it.
2) Before you criticize the Book, read it and base your criticism on what you read not what others say. Maybe my opinion is not even in accord with the Grail Message.

Sorry, I had clicked on the earlier post before I saw this.
I had been trying to understand my offense up till this post and the heated responses didn't help matters. Thanks a bunch for clarifying.

From your post, in other words, my merely referencing The Grail Message is wrong? That really concerns me, because I do not know how one can have a valid discussion if we cannot examine the underlying flaws in each of our references. You guys most certainly mention lot of perceived flaws in the bible.
Another issue of concern is: If I pick up The Grail Message and then read it in its entirety, can I then validly criticize what I've read? Or is there no basis at all for criticsm?
Cheers and thanks again for the clarification.