22 Oct 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
By this line of thinking, I'd think that you'd agree with the following:
Allow me to amend it so that I can agree with it, because, of course,
you perverted it in your reinterpretation.
Simply because I say to my son, 'You are to do good works,' doesn't mean that I don't know that at
some point he won't. I may give the command, but it's tempered with love. When he fails to do
so, he is punished accordingly, he shows contrition, I forgive him and then I reissue the command.
In that context, I expect him to improve, not be flawless. Given Jesus' teachings on the nature
of forgiving your brother and seeking forgiveness with your brother, I see no reason to see Jesus'
proscription to be 'complete/perfect' (teleios) having the significance of completion as a
criterion for salvation, just as I don't see exclusive doing of good works
as a criterion for my son being a good son.[/b]
That is: Failing once only means one fails to be flawless. Succeeding 99%
of the time only means you fail to be flawless 1% of the time. If a
person fails 1%, they are a good person, particularly if they are trying to
make that 1% into .5%, and then the .5% into .25%, &c.
That doesn't mean the command is 'Do good works 99% of the time;'
it's still 'Do good works.'
That doesn't mean you've failed when you don't achieve perfection. That
is the purpose of forgiveness, a central point of Jesus teaching.
Nemesio
22 Oct 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Nemesio[/i]lol. I think you understood the point. Those who believe that all that is required is that they are baptised and / or "profess belief" use similar arguments. You both choose to ignore / alter the words of Jesus to fit your preconceptions.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]By this line of thinking, I'd think that you'd agree with the following:
Allow me to amend it so that I can agree with it, because, of course,
you perverted it in your reinterpretation.
[i]Simply because I say to my son, 'You are to do good works,' doesn't mean that I don't know that at
some poin the purpose of forgiveness, a central point of Jesus teaching.
Nemesio[/b]
Try to keep from getting so mired down in the details.
23 Oct 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Those who believe that all that is required is that they are baptised and / or "profess belief" use similar arguments. You both choose to ignore / alter the words of Jesus to fit your preconceptions.
No. Believers take the meaning signified by the words seriously. You would have them be interpreted
in a bizarre, ultra-literal way which results in contradictions with other things Jesus said.
Try to keep from getting so mired down in the details.
How can you object to studying Scripture closely? You'd have me ignore the Greek so that
your interpretation appears correct, I'm sure, but one needs to look at verses both individually
and in context.
Nemesio
23 Oct 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne"Implicit in surrender is the love of God. Love is not love if it does not accept you for exactly who you are at this moment."
[b]"Implicit in surrender is the love of God. Love is not love if it does not accept you for exactly who you are at this moment."
What leads you to believe this?
How does this fit with the following?:
Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in ...[text shortened]... orks?' Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'[/b]
What leads you to believe this?
Love. More specifically, the love that my Father in heaven has for me. My earthly father left me when I was young and I have been fatherless throughout childhood and most of my adult life. When I became a Christian I was led to believe that God is "father of the fatherless," and on top of that, one hell of a dad. Suffice it to say, upon my conversion I knew for the first time in my life what it felt like to have the love of a father.
I've had uncles who were like fathers to me, but the rejection I experienced with my earthly dad left me extremely guarded around father figures in general. As you may or may not be aware, when you're rejected by your father, it's hard to feel it's ever OK to open up and be yourself (whatever that is). I adopted Ralph Waldo Emerson as a makeshift father as a teen, and there's much to be said about getting to know a man through his writings, but a book, no matter how inspiring and brilliant, cannot love.
I'm sure there are kids all over the world right now, like I was, in severe need of a dad just to throw an arm around their shoulder and simply say, "you're awesome, kid, and I love ya." That in itself would have solved so much. If I heard that as a kid, there's nothing I wouldn't do for my dad. Nothing.
God is father of the fatherless. Even in order to approach us, much less save us, he must accept us as we are. What's he going to do, change us into perfect angels before he walks into the room? No way. If God didn't accept us exactly the way we are, how do expect he would convince us to surrender to him, much less trust him? Don't you think God understands human nature better than the best psychologists the world has to offer? Human beings only surrender to true love, if they are blessed enough to ever find it, and that's exactly what God offers.
How does this fit with the following?:
Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will tell me in that day,'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?' Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'
How does it fit? The "I never knew you" part might be a clue.
God is love.
23 Oct 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAnd pray tell what do you believe in ToO?
[/i]lol. I think you understood the point. Those who believe that all that is required is that they are baptised and / or "profess belief" use similar arguments. You both choose to ignore / alter the words of Jesus to fit your preconceptions.
Try to keep from getting so mired down in the details.
23 Oct 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasI dig what you are saying Ephin. I think you know I understand where you are coming from. God is nothing if he is not the unconditional lover , the Father who accepts us when we fail and loves us despite our faults. What you have described is so human and real. God bless.
[b]"Implicit in surrender is the love of God. Love is not love if it does not accept you for exactly who you are at this moment."
What leads you to believe this?
Love. More specifically, the love that my Father in heaven has for me. My earthly father left me when I was young and I have been fatherless throughout childhood and most of my adult ...[text shortened]... t fit? The "I never knew you" part might be a clue.
God is love.[/b]
23 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Nemesio"No. Believers take the meaning signified by the words seriously. You would have them be interpreted in a bizarre, ultra-literal way which results in contradictions with other things Jesus said."
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Those who believe that all that is required is that they are baptised and / or "profess belief" use similar arguments. You both choose to ignore / alter the words of Jesus to fit your preconceptions.
No. Believers take the meaning signified by the words seriously. You would have them be interpreted
in a b ect, I'm sure, but one needs to look at verses both individually
and in context.
Nemesio[/b]
I'm not saying that they don't take them seriously. They choose to ignore / alter the words of Jesus to fit their preconceptions nonetheless. The arguments used by both usually entail a preconceived notion of a standard of acceptance they would like God to have or they are willing to live up to. They then call all higher standards things like "bizarre", "ultra-literal", etc.
"How can you object to studying Scripture closely? You'd have me ignore the Greek so that your interpretation appears correct, I'm sure, but one needs to look at verses both individually and in context."
My comment was directed to your focusing on the details of the "reinterpretation" of the example of your son rather than the larger point. By all means study Scripture closely and look at the Greek. However, it's evident that you settled on a translation of "bad fruit" and then altered the verses around it to fit your translation. And make no mistake, of the translations used in the eight Bibles I found, none used "diseased fruit". In fact seven of them used "evil fruit" no matter how unappetizing you may find it. It's remarkable that you continue to pretend that the only viable translation is "diseased fruit".
23 Oct 08
5 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasCan you not see from the passage that Jesus has a different standard of acceptance than you no matter how deeply felt your sentiments? It's quite conditional. Clearly not everyone is "accepted" the way they are.
[b]"Implicit in surrender is the love of God. Love is not love if it does not accept you for exactly who you are at this moment."
What leads you to believe this?
Love. More specifically, the love that my Father in heaven has for me. My earthly father left me when I was young and I have been fatherless throughout childhood and most of my adult t fit? The "I never knew you" part might be a clue.
God is love.[/b]
Also look at the following:
John 14:21-24
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him. Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto him, Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my words
Clearly, love is dependent on keeping His commandments and keeping His word.
Hopefully you'll consider that Jesus may understand more about love than you.
24 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou clearly have no idea what you're talking about, ToO.
Can you not see from the passage that Jesus has a different standard of acceptance than you no matter how deeply felt your sentiments? It's quite conditional. Clearly not everyone is "accepted" the way they are.
Also look at the following:
John 14:21-24
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth m g His word.
Hopefully you'll consider that Jesus may understand more about love than you.
24 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou really seem to struggle to see the words of Jesus.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, ToO.
Can you not see that Jesus saying, "Depart from me, you who work iniquity", is contrary to "Jesus accepts everyone the way they are"?
Can you not see that Jesus saying, "If a man love me, he will keep my word....He that loveth me not keepeth not my words", is contrary to "Love is unconditional"?
Do you believe you understand love as well as Jesus?
It's difficult to tell with your vague response.
24 Oct 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterThanks, KM. God bless.
I dig what you are saying Ephin. I think you know I understand where you are coming from. God is nothing if he is not the unconditional lover , the Father who accepts us when we fail and loves us despite our faults. What you have described is so human and real. God bless.
24 Oct 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYour interpretation is unintelligible and unsupportable. The term 'evil fruit' departs from the very
My comment was directed to your focusing on the details of the "reinterpretation" of the example of your son rather than the larger point. By all means study Scripture closely and look at the Greek. However, it's evident that you settled on a translation of "bad fruit" and then altered the verses around it to fit your translation. And make no mistake, of ...[text shortened]... e that you continue to pretend that the only viable translation is "diseased fruit".
metaphor and does not reflect the Greek. 'Rotten fruit' is consistent with the metaphor and the Greek.
And, regardless of that, the conclusion that you are forced to embrace is that bad trees only produce
bad fruit. Not only is that claim absurd on the literal level, applying the metaphor (irrespective of
the rotten/evil decision) means that people who are not followers of God cannot produce good fruit
even by accident. Since Jesus acknowledges that wicked people can do good things, this should be
sufficient to get you to reject the 'good tree yields only good fruit' mentality.
However, I've found that reason has no currency with you, so I imagine a sufficiency argument
is going to be wasted typing.
Nemesio
24 Oct 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI'd say this is a fair conclusion.
Clearly, love is dependent on keeping His commandments and keeping His word.
The question is, must that love be flawless? Does not showing love at some point in one's life
invalidate the love shown previously or subsequently?
It appears to me that your answers to these questions are 'Yes,' which seems to dismiss Jesus'
extensive teaching on forgiveness.
Nemesio