Evidence for God from Science

However, if faith in Christ is the only requirement in being freely "granted" salvation, then what does faith in Christ actually mean?
It cannot mean, simply believing that Jesus was the Messiah, the Christ and the son of God - even the Devil believes that!!!

Believing in Christ is all that is required for salvation. The word for believe, in John 3:16 is pisteuõ.
It means to trust. In the case of salvation, it means to trust in Christ. Trusting that who he is and what he has done is efficacious for salvation.
The devil does not trust Christ for salvation. The devil wasn't offered salvation by believing/trusting Christ.

It also means believing in Christ's ablity to forgive sin and being repentent of sin (otherwise how could He forgive sin if you were not willing to give it up and repent of it).

Repent means to change one's mind. Not turn from sin. Repenting is part of believing in Christ. One must repent, or change one's mind about who Christ is and what he has done, in order to go from a position of not trusting Christ for salvation, to trusting Christ.

An example of sin is cursing (true) Israel without just cause.
That is why the Bible says God will curse those who curse Israel and bless those who bless Israel.
(I dont remember the exact verse right now, but I am sure you will agree it exists.)
If I am wrong then please explain to me: How can you be granted salvation and at the same time be cursed?
You are heading in the direction of cursing Israel by denying her true identity despite the evidence I have shown you.

I don't believe the evidence you put forward about who Israel is. That doesn't mean I've cursed anybody. Every person needs to trust Christ for salvation. Jews and Gentiles. I don't look at either differently in that regard.

Doesn't "placing ones faith in Christ" include being repentant of sin?

Again, repent means change of mind. So yes, changing one's mind about who Christ is and what he has done, is part of believing/trusting Christ for salvation.

Using repent in the way you are, as in turning from sin, is NOT required for salvation. Turning from sin is a work. And works have no part in salvation of a believer.

Please refer me to the section in the discussion guidlines where it says that refusing to answer a question from a moderator is grounds for being banned on the forums.
If you can do that then I will answer, even if it means copying and pasting what I have already written which couldn't be more clear - even to a 5 year old.

From the discussion guidelines:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... hp?f=8&t=4

A moderator reserves the right to deal with any post they deem inappropriate, including for reasons not specifically mentioned here. If you feel unjustly dealt with, please contact the moderator in question directly and privately. If you have any questions on issues not covered here, please contact a moderator for advice. Comments regarding these rules of conduct are also welcome as long as they are constructive.

LostTribes,
I hope you understand the responsibility we moderators have here. We want to allow a certain freedom to members to be able to express their beliefs. But we also have a responsibility to make sure we do anything necessary to first, point out aberrant doctrine. And then make sure this is not a pulpit for aberrant doctrine to be promoted.
And unfortunately for you, each moderator who has responded to this thread, believes British Israelism is at the very least, an aberrant doctrine.

You are heading in the direction of cursing Israel by denying her true identity despite the evidence I have shown you.

Let's rephrase what this would mean: If you do not understand who true Israel is, then this is akin to cursing her, and so all who would deny or not understand who the "True" Israel is will not be saved, no matter that they have a committed heart, mind and faith in Christ as He really is. IF true, this failure to "correctly" understand who modern Israel is comprised of and where they geographically lie today would condemn all but the tiniest minority of today's Christians. Not to even mention that this would be a "Christ-PLUS" teaching of what is required to be saved.

LostTribes,

It's become clear to me from what you've written here, that you are having some problems understanding from scripture, some pretty basic things about salvation by grace through faith. You are misinterpreting scripture, and are adding things to belief in Christ alone, for salvation.

If you are having a difficult time understanding the basics about salvation, don't you think you may be misinterpreting scripture in regards to British Israelism? You don't need to answer that here. I just ask that you ask yourself. Ask God to show you. If you are sincere, He will show you.

I'll be praying for you.

RickD, you said:
"Believing in Christ is all that is required for salvation."
"The word for believe, in John 3:16 is pisteuõ."
John 3:16 says:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"
This does not imply that "whosoever believeth in Him" need not do anything else in order to inherit "everlasting life".
I admit, it is an undeniable, unavoidable condition for salvation, and that is all this verse is saying, but it is NOT the only condition for salvation.

This is made very clear in other verses:
eg. Revelation 22:14 "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

You can love and make lies in your past if you have repented of them, but not when trying to enter the "gates into the city".
Christ died so that you past and future sins can be forgiven - but you still have to repent (i.e. turn away from them and try again).
This is the path/pattern of all true Christians:
Trying not too sin, but sometimes failing, repenting (asking for forgiveness and turning away from sin), trying again not to sin, but sometimes failing, repenting (asking for forgiveness and turning away from sin), trying again not to sin, but sometimes failing, repenting (asking for forgiveness and turning away from sin), trying again not to sin, but sometimes failing, repenting (asking for forgiveness and turning away from sin), trying again not to sin, but sometimes failing, repenting (asking for forgiveness and turning away from sin), trying again not to sin, but sometimes failing, repenting (asking for forgiveness and turning away from sin).
I am sure you see the pattern now.
This is what is required for salavation - it goes hand in hand with believing in Christ - otherwise who are you repenting to?

You also said: "Repent means to change one's mind. Not turn from sin."
You really are splitting hairs now, how is turning away from sin not the same as repenting?
As I explained, you cannot repent and expect forgiveness if you are not willing to turn away from sin (at least temporarily - as best you can - as we are all human).
Please explain what you mean by "change ones mind".
What are you changing your mind about?
Then please explain what scriptural proof you have that this is not the same as turning from sin.
If this is not twisting the words of scripture, then I don't know what is!!!
You said:
"One must repent, or change one's mind about who Christ is and what he has done".
This is not the only meaning of repent, if you say that it is, then I think you are really being very dishonest with yourself.
Repent means to repent of all sin!!!
Revelation 3:3 "Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee."
Revelation 2:5 "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." [i.e. the first works you were doing, before you sinned]
Matthew 3:10 "And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."
[i.e. All good fruit, not just believing in Christ.]

To Phillip, here is my copy and paste that I promised:
"by LostTribesNotLost » Wed Nov 19, 2014 10:02 pm
I will respond to Phillip below, so Phillip please take a look.
...BI is only different in that it teaches the Europeans are the lost 10 tribes (and some say most of Judah as well) - i.e. the chosen race - and the non-Israelites are also saved if they accept Christ in the same way as above."

Philip are you satisfied now?
Can you see I did not ignore a direct question of yours?
I am getting so tired of all the false accusations.
What part of the quote of my text above do you not understand?
Which part was not clear enough?

I did also NOT say that those who accidentally reject Israel, or her Identity as a people will not receive salvation.
Once again, false accusations and putting words in my mouth.
I said that if you knowingly do so then you will be cursed and cannot achieve salvation.
If after reading all I have written about the lost tribes on here, I highly doubt that you will still not believe if you are honest.
But guess what, if you still honestly and truly are not convinced by my evidence, then you will not be cursed.
God knows your thoughts and whether you are being intellectually honest or not.
I am just saying that it is highly unlikely that you would honestly not believe after reading all my evidence.
I believe it is unlikely that you can read all that and still not be convinced, so there is a good chance you know the truth, but still refuse to accept it.
Not gauranteed, maybe you really are not convinced, but it's highly likely you are convinced, but refuse to admit it due to your arrogance and pride.

As a LAST defense for Orange Street Church:
(although I am in no way affiliated with them except by a common belief)
They feel that they need to use terms like "personal salvation", because people like some of those on here, FALSELY accuse people like them of believing purely in some kind of "collective" salvation, simply because they believe the Europeans are God's chosen people in place of the Jews.
Despite the fact that neither are the only ones who will be saved.
Despite the fact that those who accuse them of this do not believe the Jews are the only ones who are saved.
And despite the fact that all they believe is that the Eurpeans replace the Jews and are also NOT the only ones saved.
Once again more false accusations, in fact you people actually accuse them of believing collective salvation, simply because they make an effort to prove they do NOT believe in that. HOW RIDICULOUS IS THAT!!!

Phillip, care to answer my questions now?
You know the ones I have already repeatedly asked for a response to.
I have shown how you have not "bitten" by your vague, partial reply - not as you promised you would.
(PS - to everyone here, posting a random link as a reply to questions I ask does not count unless the link actually answers my questions / concerns - like those I have with David Baron.)

I saw what was written in response to me on the discussion guidlines and will abide by that rule, as ridiculous as it may be.
(i.e. a moderator veto vote for any reason, even reasons unknown to those posting threads they don't agree with. Not just scripturally unjust, but even constitutionally unjust.)
I also don't get the following from your comment: "...And then make sure this is not a pulpit for aberrant doctrine to be promoted. "
Isn't that what the "Abberant Christianity" section is for?
And isn't that what I have been allowed to do up to this point (with some criticism of course).

lost tribes, a reminder, you are posting here so expect to be challenged in regards to BI.

LostTribes,

Maybe this will help you understand what repent means.

LostTribes wrote:

RickD, you said:
"Believing in Christ is all that is required for salvation."
"The word for believe, in John 3:16 is pisteuõ."
John 3:16 says:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"

This does not imply that "whosoever believeth in Him" need not do anything else in order to inherit "everlasting life".
I admit, it is an undeniable, unavoidable condition for salvation, and that is all this verse is saying, but it is NOT the only condition for salvation.

LostTribes,

By your saying trusting Christ is not enough for salvation, shows you are preaching a different gospel. So, not only are you preaching an unbiblical theology of British Israelism, now you are preaching a faith plus something false gospel.

LostTribes wrote:
I also don't get the following from your comment: "...And then make sure this is not a pulpit for aberrant doctrine to be promoted. "
Isn't that what the "Abberant Christianity" section is for?
And isn't that what I have been allowed to do up to this point (with some criticism of course).

No. This is a section to discuss Aberrant beliefs. Not to promote them as you are. Up until now, you have been allowed to speak your mind on your aberrant beliefs. Now, you are promoting a false gospel of faith in Christ plus something.

B. W. wrote:lost tribes, a reminder, you are posting here so expect to be challenged in regards to BI.

Since when did I express unhappiness about BI being challenged ?
In fact, I requested that, but only received answers to a minority of my questions. (i.e. not much of a challenge at all)

Rick: LostTribes,

By your saying trusting Christ is not enough for salvation, shows you are preaching a different gospel. So, not only are you preaching an unbiblical theology of British Israelism, now you are preaching a faith plus something false gospel.

LostTribes, are you asserting that having faith in and committment to Jesus and true repentance (per Christ) are not enough for salvation, that ANYTHING else is needed?

RickD wrote: This is a section to discuss Aberrant beliefs. Not to promote them as you are.

I think it is disengenous to say that, much less enforce it.
When you have a discussion, not all participants in the discussion will agree 100% (on any subject for that matter).
Some will disagree and some with agree with certain beliefs and those who agree with a belief can easily be accused of "promoting" that belief.
They can then be censored for "promoting" a belief if the moderators just happen to disagree with that belief and decide that someone is "promoting" it and not "discussing" it. There is a very fine line between discussing and promoting a belief and it is disengenous and just plain wrong to try and seperate the two.

Please remember that it is not me that is "teaching a different gospel".
IF AND ONLY IF it is a "different gospel" that I am teaching, then perhaps you should take that up with Christ and His disciples and the books they wrote - for it is only those books that I am quoting in making my point and you have done very little to explain the quotes I have supplied which clearly point to repenting of evil works and not repenting of disbelief in Christ [eg. Revelation 2:5 "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works] but if the context of the verses I quoted are still not enough proof for you, then fine - lets go into the original Hebrew and Greek translations for the word repent as your link above does:

I read your link and I still disagree with you, however:
It is quite a good article actually, the author makes some good points about how the word repent is often used in order to have different meanings - which I agree with (more on this below and why I still disagree with you). I don't agree with some of his interpretations of what Christ stood for and accused the Jews of doing:
He did not accuse them of keeping the law of Moses too much and being too "legalistic", he accused them of NOT keeping the law and adding "commandments of men" to God's law.
Matthew 15:9 "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the "commandments of men".
Mark 7:7 "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
Titus 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
He accused them of being hypocrites who kept only parts of the law and not the "weightier matters of the law" (note these parts were still parts of the law of Moses) Matthew 23:23 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."
Matthew 5:20 "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." (how can you exceed their righteousness if they were legalistic and as a result already kept the law almost 100%)
Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
When will all be fulfilled?
When "heaven and earth pass".
Which law?
Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
Fulfill - as in dying on the cross and thus doing away with it - before heaven and earth pass ?
Or fulfill - as in fulfill prophesy and adhere to it in every way? (circumcision, passover, etc)
Some food for thought.

Now onto the word "repent": (continued in second post- see below)

Your author says:

"Metanoeo means “to change one’s mind.” It comes from two Greek words: meta means “after,” and noeo means “to think,” so it has the idea of “thinking again” or an afterthought. Some scholars think it refers exclusively to “turning from sin,” but there seems to be no reason not to take it according to its basic meaning. This is evident in the fact that it is not the primary word the Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint) uses to translate shub. Instead, it uses the word epistrepho, which also means “to turn.” So it is apparent that metanoeo has a broader meaning, namely, a change of mind. The question is what one is changing their mind about. Often, the object is sin, but we should be careful about making the object part of the definition.
"Metamelomai is similar to metaneo, except it expresses the idea of regret.
"Whenever you read a passage and come across the word “repent,” be sure to ask yourself which word the author is using and what nuance he is trying to communicate.
Your author continues: " Is he speaking of a mere change of mind, of direction, or of a feeling of remorse? What is the object of this repentance? Is it a specific sin? Is it a general attitude? Does it have anything to do with sin at all? "

He has done well up to this point, but on these questions of whether, or not "regretting, or changing ones mind" refers to sin, or a former disbelief in Christ, he does very little in substantiating his OPINION, although he makes it clear that he thinks it probably means "turn from legalism". As I have shown in great detail above, this is a distortion of the facts as Christ actually was telling the Pharisees to turn from: their additions to the law - their commandments of men - and thus their perversions of it, not to turn from the law itself!!! If that were true Christ would not have been circumsiced , or kept the Passover.

To conclude, repent in the New Testament can mean "to turn", or "to regret" as your author proves, but even if "repent" in this particular verse of his from Mark 1:15 (repent and believe the Gospel) does mean (only) that they did not believe the gospel and thus in Christ and should repent (only) of that. This does not disprove all the other verses were the word repent clearly means more than that (i.e. to "turn from" sin and former "works"). See these verses I quoted above.
As your author shows in the stict definition of the word repent in ancient Greek, it says to turn from, or regret, but the definition itself does not go beyond that in any way. For us to determine what is being regretted we clearly need to look at context.

Your author has used a context of his own, and I have used a context of my own from other verses.
The point remains : There are verses showing that believing in Christ is a strict prerequisite for salvation.
But there are also verses showing repentence of sin is ALSO a strict pre-requisite for salvation (as I have shown in quotes from the New Testament above - and which nobody has addressed me on).
Your author says: "The question is what one is changing their mind about. Often, the object is sin, but we should be careful about making the object part of the definition."
Straight after that last part about being careful about making the "object part of the definition", he then takes one quote from Mark1:15 and does exactly that!!!
i.e. He then goes on to make what he calls "legalism" - the object in question.

LostTribes,

If you are sincerely interested in seeing what repent means, here's a link that explains it.

And if you are interested in a discussion about metanoia, please start a new thread, or you can read through this thread and post there. Let's leave this thread on topic.

Rick, you and your colleagues were a big part of why this thread started changing subject to that of salvation.
I simply responded, but thats fine, I have no problem with going back to the original subject.

Only one problem, it has become a stale-mate due to moderators using pathetic excuses for why they do not answer my questions.
Such as, "answer a fool according to his folly".
Only one problem, the things I have written have been anything but foolish and I have backed up almost everything I have said with scripture.
I have even answered moderators questions, but none is willing, or able to do the same for me.

So as I result, I pretty much have nothing left to say, since after talking to a blank wall for a while ,that kind of kills the enthusiasm.
The only other thing I would add would be the racial characteristics the ancient Israelites used to describe themselves in the Bible.
There is a whole lot of them I can easily quote to show that they were far more European in looks, than modern day Arab type.

But I guess, if I am going to be misquoted, have false accusations thrown at me, have less than half of my questions answered and be expected to reply to new links, when my reply to old ones has already been ignored, and to top it off, be accused of twisting scripture, without evidence of me doing that, then I would be wasting my time now, wouldn't I?

Lost, our problem isn't the level of detail in your answers. But, to us, the supposed evidence you assert look is as if you had taken random letters out of the alphabet, formed them into various words and short phrases, and then insisted that we should see how they can all be put together to form the lyrics for "Mary Had a Little Lamb." We just don't believe the connections you assert are redundantly clear, actually are. And then as you seemed to make understanding who encompasses modern Israel into an additional salvational requirement - not saying that is your assertion but we were trying to clarify whether that was the case - which is why this turned back to the issue of salvation. We just don't see the benefit of engaging the Lost Tribe stuff. And haven't you wondered why next to no theologians buy into that?

LostTribesNotLost wrote:Rick, you and your colleagues were a big part of why this thread started changing subject to that of salvation.
I simply responded, but thats fine, I have no problem with going back to the original subject.

Only one problem, it has become a stale-mate due to moderators using pathetic excuses for why they do not answer my questions.
Such as, "answer a fool according to his folly".
Only one problem, the things I have written have been anything but foolish and I have backed up almost everything I have said with scripture.
I have even answered moderators questions, but none is willing, or able to do the same for me.

So as I result, I pretty much have nothing left to say, since after talking to a blank wall for a while ,that kind of kills the enthusiasm.
The only other thing I would add would be the racial characteristics the ancient Israelites used to describe themselves in the Bible.
There is a whole lot of them I can easily quote to show that they were far more European in looks, than modern day Arab type.

But I guess, if I am going to be misquoted, have false accusations thrown at me, have less than half of my questions answered and be expected to reply to new links, when my reply to old ones has already been ignored, and to top it off, be accused of twisting scripture, without evidence of me doing that, then I would be wasting my time now, wouldn't I?

LostTribes,

I'm glad you finally see what's been obvious from the beginning of this thread. That nobody really wants to discuss this topic. Don't take it personally. I've posted more than a few topics that have gotten no responses. People don't always have interest in things that we might think are interesting.

Even if this thread has run its course, and you aren't here only to promote BI, there's plenty more to talk about in different threads.

Rick, it's not "That nobody really wants to discuss this topic", it's that the moderators want to paint it in a bad light and are only prepared to discuss it, if I accept their opinions as fact.

In fact, that is the only reason you few moderators have commented to begin with - to try and smear BI as a racist, hateful belief.
Unfortunately for those who have tried to do that, you have failed miserably and now wish to change the subject and discontinue the debate as a result of your failure to discredit BI which was the only reason I was allowed to post to begin with. THAT is what I have started to see, not the fact that nobody is interested.

There have been 1034 views on this thread so far and I doubt that most of those are just from myself and those few who have left comments.
In fact if this thread was allowed into other sections of the forums, I am sure that number would be more than double.
Maybe people are not commenting because they are busy taking in everything I have written and are not shouting their mouths with all their sarcasm and smearing.
Maybe you should allow the users on here to decide if it is abberant, or not - I think you are probably too fearful to even consider allowing that by allowing this in another section. Double standards as RickD himself believes in forms of "Abberant Christianity" as he himself doesn't believe in the rapture, which most Christians consider Bible truth.

"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer