05 Jan 10
Originally posted by SwissGambit=====================================
Isn't it possible that some people could believe that Jesus was a teacher, but not divine? They would probably focus on his teachings on how to live your life. Why should such a person care about the existence of God? And, even if they DO have an opinion on it, why should they be forced to present or defend that opinion in every thread?
That's what te ...[text shortened]... ss. And this is hardly limited to just you or ToO - it's how most of the threads end up here.
Isn't it possible that some people could believe that Jesus was a teacher, but not divine? They would probably focus on his teachings on how to live your life. Why should such a person care about the existence of God? And, even if they DO have an opinion on it, why should they be forced to present or defend that opinion in every thread?
========================================
He should defend statements which were accusations against Christ's apostles. A person may try to take the teaching of Jesus in a purely humanistic fashion. Don't you think he goes beyond that when he accuses Paul of corrupting the teaching of Jesus?
Defend that. That is the response of some. Defend that Paul "ruined" the teaching of Jesus. He cannot.
This attitude "Jesus we like but Paul messed everything up" will be questioned by some of us.
I said Paul was faithful and taught as Christ taught exactly. Demonstrate otherwise, I say, if someone wants to say "Jesus is A Okay but Paul messed it all up."
Rather I would point out that Paul pioneered in the experience of everything Christ taught. And from his extensive first hand experience we have such a wealth of wisdom in his 13 or so New Testament epistles we cannot afford to discard them.
And when you get down to it, to take the teaching of Jesus as not divine but only humanistic morality may lead to discouragement. The standard is way to high. And without abiding in Him and allowing Him to abide in us we cannot do it. And if He is not able to live in us we are not able to do it. And if He is not risen from the dead we are not able to do it.
And trying to extricate out of the Gospels His redemptive death and resurrection is a caricature of distortions of the New Testament.
Don't you think you can take a man's words and make them appear to mean the opposite of what was meant ? Sure, you're free to do it. You may be asked to justify what you are doing.
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by black beetleExcuse me for the interruption, enjoy the conversationšµ
Just a note: “forgiveness” is definitely a false translation of the noun "aphesis". Furthermore, the OT is full of remarks regarding the law of aphesis (after a period of 7 years etc. etc.), as one can notice at Deut. 15:2 and Michaias 7:19; and there are also Heb. 8:12, Rom. 4:7-8 (on Psalm 31) and Acts 4:13, 6:12 and 10:43.
The false interpretation ...[text shortened]... live ad infinitum in his kingdom.
Excuse me for the interruption, enjoy the conversationšµ
Pigs flying backwards somewhere, I'm certain of it...
I'm assuming that you are here referring to seven-year release (e·shmte, or shmut) in which Jews who had lent money to another Jew would forgive by wiping out the debt, symbolizing 'Jehovah's release.' Interestingly, this was only for fellow countrymen as the debt could be exacted again for a foreigner.
But, as you accurately pointed out, translating this as merely forgiveness without wiping out the debt is akin to what was allowed toward foreigners, not fellow countrymen--- the debt could be picked up again.
Here in America, our bankruptcy laws used to be based loosely on such a system. Not so anymore...
05 Jan 10
3 edits
Doesn't Revelation 1:5 say essentially what some are trying to infer Matthew says.
"And from Jesus Christ, the faithful Witness ... To Him who loves us and has RELEASED us from our sins by His blood." ( RcV my emphasis )
The language issue is interesting. Theologically I have no problem with the understanding because my translation of Rev. 1:5 says Christ has loosed us or released us from our sins by His blood.
It has no bearing as a confirmation of ThinkofOne's basic hostility towards justification by faith.
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by jaywilllousanti hEmas apo tOn hamartiOn hEmOn en tO haimati autou
Doesn't Revelation 1:5 say essentially what some are trying to infer Matthew says.
[b]"And from Jesus Christ, the faithful Witness ... To Him who loves us and has RELEASED us from our sins by His blood." ( RcV my emphasis )
The language issue is interesting. Theologically I have no problem with the understanding because my translation of Rev. 1 ...[text shortened]... no bearing as a confirmation of ThinkofOne's basic hostility towards justification by faith.[/b]
"...bathing us from the misses of-us in the blood of-Him."
But really: do you think there will be acceptance of anything outside of the red letters--- even if was from an apostle?
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by SwissGambitAnyone can believe whatever they like about Jesus (like him being a teacher and not divine) , the problem comes when a person places a lot of emphasis on Jesus's words and teachings and uses them as a battering ram in debate. That creates a rod for their own back.
Isn't it possible that some people could believe that Jesus was a teacher, but not divine? They would probably focus on his teachings on how to live your life. Why should such a person care about the existence of God? And, even if they DO have an opinion on it, why should they be forced to present or defend that opinion in every thread?
That's what te ...[text shortened]... ss. And this is hardly limited to just you or ToO - it's how most of the threads end up here.
If you go by Jesus's teachings and words it's impossible to separate what he said and did (without being highly selective) from his belief in and relationship with a living and active God (his Father). Anyone who says they believe in the words of Jesus but tries to distill out the "God bit" cannot do this without being disingenuous.
The point is that Jesus himself cared greatly about people realising who exactly he was and he always talked about doing the will of his Father.
Also , it is important that a person who is going to use the words of Jesus so brazenly and explicitly should be able to justify their position. Historically the words and teachings of Jesus have been used , distorted , selected and twisted to mean all sorts of things. I have always asked ToO to look at his ENTIRE teachings and he consistently finds ways of avoiding it. All I have ever asked from him is that he is as rigorous with his own concepts as he expects others to be. He likes to challenge others but doesn't like it coming back at him.
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJust because he was "known " as a teacher doesn't mean that he did not view himself as much much more. What Jesus believed himself to be is far more important than what he was "known" as.
this is an excellent point, for Christ was known, first and fore-mostly as a teacher, a few references shall suffice to establish this,
(Matthew 8:19) . . .And a certain scribe came up and said to him: “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you are about to go.”
(Mark 4:38) . . .So they woke him up and said to him: “Teacher, do you not care tha ...[text shortened]... t we observe is a descent into egotism with the most fervent megalomaniac having the last word.
05 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillJesus does teach that those who believe into Him cannot be eternally lost. One verse I used to demonstrate this was John 10:27,28.
[b]=======================================
You made the following assertion:
"This proves Jesus taught of what I call 'dispensational punishment'.
===================================
By dispensational punishment of His believers I mean that after the second coming of Christ and before the beginning of the eternal age, Christ w b]"Then the master called him to [him] ..." (v.32)[/b].[/b]
There's a wide gulf between BELIEVING and PROFESSING BELIEF. A man professes belief in fidelity in marriage, but is unfaithful to his wife. He doesn't truly believe in fidelity in marriage, he just like to say/think he does.
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.
Saying 'Lord, Lord' is a way of professing belief. Those who do so but do not do the will of His Father will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Matthew 7:23
Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'
To those who profess belief, i.e., say "Lord, Lord", but do not do the will of His Father, He will tell them, "I NEVER KNEW YOU". He will tell them, "DEPART FROM ME, you who work iniquity."
Similarly for the verse you quoted:
John 10:27,28 -
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; And I give to them eternal life, and they shall by no mean perish forever, and no one shall snatch them out of My hand."
His sheep hear His voice, He knows them, and they FOLLOW Him. FOLLOW HIM, not the Bible, not Paul. To these He gives eternal life. As shown in the verses from Matthew, He will tell those who do not FOLLOW him, He will tell them, "I never knew you".
No Jesus did not lie. He told the truth in that with MAN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE BUT WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.
Reread the story of the rich young ruler:
Matthew 19:16-22
And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" ...[Jesus said], "Keep the commandments...sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.
Jesus told him that to obtain eternal life he must KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS and FOLLOW HIM. The rich young ruler then went away grieving. This is all the rich young ruler heard.
It isn't until AFTER the rich young ruler LEAVES that Jesus says, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
Jesus tells the rich young ruler that in order to obtain eternal life he must keep the commandments and follow Him. This is all the rich young ruler heard before he walked away. The rich young ruler is not there when Jesus says, "but with God all things are possible". Jesus does not tell the rich young ruler that all he need do is profess belief. If Jesus believed that all the young man need do is profess belief, then Jesus lied to him. This doesn't make sense. What does make sense is that Jesus believes that you must keep the commandments and follow Him and that "with God", i.e. keeping the commandments and following Him, "all things are possible". Jesus was one "with God", so by following Him and keeping His commandments, the young man would be "with God" also.
I did not completely ignore that, if you would read my post carefully.
Telling me about Matthew 18 does NOT address the following:
"You also never addressed the fact that the rich young ruler, Jesus and the disciples used "eternal life", "kingdom of heaven", "kingdom of God" and "saved" interchangeably."
Your speculation about Matthew 18 does not make sense in light of the fact that the terms are used interchangeably in the story of the rich young ruler. It doesn't make sense for speculation to trump what is explicitly stated.
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by jaywillGood story.
[b]============================
You also never addressed the fact that the rich young ruler, ...
================================
See, Here is a problem ThinkofOne. When I anticipate certain points and begin to elaborate on them, you accuse me of irrelevant rants.
Now when I try to be more concise, then you say "Well you didn't address th ...[text shortened]... d probably ask for it." To which the professor said "You're probably right."[/b]
Unfortunately it doesn't apply here.
For one, as I've explained, what I called your "rants" were refutations of objections that were never raised. I don't know what you don't understand about this.
For another, you still haven't "addressed the fact that the rich young ruler, Jesus and the disciples used "eternal life", "kingdom of heaven", "kingdom of God" and "saved" interchangeably."
05 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne==============================
Good story.
Unfortunately it doesn't apply here.
For one, as I've explained, what I called your "rants" were refutations of objections that were never raised. I don't know what you don't understand about this.
For another, you still haven't "addressed the fact that the rich young ruler, Jesus and the disciples used "eternal life", "kingdom of heaven", "kingdom of God" and "saved" interchangeably."
For one, as I've explained, what I called your "rants" were refutations of objections that were never raised. I don't know what you don't understand about this.
================================
I anticipate where I think objections are going to be raised. And I preemptively deal with them.
This may be more the characteristic of a book or article then an Internet Dissussion Board post.
But if I do answer you in the future I will be as focused as I possibly can be.
But I have a concern for your attention span. For example the matter of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the heavens requires a good deal of explanation which I would not shy from. I do worry about your attention span and motivation to want to follow me.
Just briefly, the term kingdom of the heavens is perculiar to one writer Matthew. By close and careful study I have been persuaded that the relationship between the kingdom of the heavens and the kingdom of God is similiar to what follows:
California is a state in the United States. To be in California is to be in the United States. But one may be in the United States and not necessarily be in California.
The scope of the kingdom of God (the more usual phrase) is larger than the scope of Matthew's term the kingdom of the heavens.
To be in the kingdom of the heavens is certainly to be in the kingdom of God. But one may be in the kingdom of God and miss the kingdom of the heavens.
And at this point I think you are probably tired of reading, hence a problem. But after 30 years of study of the matter, I think I can back up what I just wrote about 90% percent.
I humbly do not admit I can back it up 100% because I think the Bible often eludes 100% theological systemization.
That is all I'm writing now on the latter questions. Don't underestimate though the level of consideration that has been given to this subject by careful Bible students of the past.
Maybe I'll write more latter.
05 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou labored much on this reply. I will try to find time to read it carefully and reply.
[b]Jesus does teach that those who believe into Him cannot be eternally lost. One verse I used to demonstrate this was John 10:27,28.
There's a wide gulf between BELIEVING and PROFESSING BELIEF. A man professes belief in fidelity in marriage, but is unfaithful to his wife. He doesn't truly believe in fidelity in marriage, he just like to say/think r speculation to trump what is explicitly stated.[/b]
We may have some discussion yet. My only goal is to demonstrate that what may be a problem for you is not necessarily a problem for others.
You're free to hold another opinion about it. I'll try to explain my view.
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThere's a wide gulf between BELIEVING and PROFESSING BELIEF. A man professes belief in fidelity in marriage, but is unfaithful to his wife. He doesn't truly believe in fidelity in marriage, he just like to say/think he does.
[b]Jesus does teach that those who believe into Him cannot be eternally lost. One verse I used to demonstrate this was John 10:27,28.
There's a wide gulf between BELIEVING and PROFESSING BELIEF. A man professes belief in fidelity in marriage, but is unfaithful to his wife. He doesn't truly believe in fidelity in marriage, he just like to say/think ...[text shortened]... r speculation to trump what is explicitly stated.[/b]
------ToOne----------------------
Another example of all or nothing thinking?
This is a meaningless statement unless you define the boundaries of infidelity and what it actually means. For example , what about a man who maintains 50 years of marriage but at one point in the marriage he was unfaithful? Do we say that he does not believe in marriage? Or do we say more rationally that he does actually believe in marriage but is a flawed human being who at a time in his life failed in his beliefs?
A man believes in peace and love and then someone attacks his daughter and he lashes out at the assailant - does he not believe anymore? Or is he a human being? I don't know. You tell me. Humanity is complex.
The problem here is that your definition seems so rigid as to not even consider the possibility of any kind of human failings. This is judgemental. You seem to see no possibility that a man can believe A but still find himself doing B.
Whilst I would agree that a man who says he believes A but often or always does B can rightly have his belief in A questioned. But the problem is that there is a spectrum of behaviours and contexts.
For example, Simon Peter said he believed in Jesus and would follow him always , but when the moment came he denied him three times. Does this mean that his belief was false , or were his expectations of himself a bit naive? Simon could not live up to his belief and committment fully but Jesus still did not consider him an "unbeliever" or suggest that he was not earnest in his belief.
The problem is that you cannot seem to discriminate between a false belief (hypocrisy) and a flawed belief (resulting from flawed humna nature). You also suggest that belief is like a light siwtch - either totally switched on or off - with no complexities or shades of grey.
In any event you use your polarised thinking to judge people quite harshly and put forward your rigid position.
Who are you to pass judgement on millions of husbands and wives who may well have been unfaithful but have still repaired their marriage? Have you ever been married?
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne========================================
Good story.
Unfortunately it doesn't apply here.
For one, as I've explained, what I called your "rants" were refutations of objections that were never raised. I don't know what you don't understand about this.
For another, you still haven't "addressed the fact that the rich young ruler, Jesus and the disciples used "eternal life", "kingdom of heaven", "kingdom of God" and "saved" interchangeably."
For another, you still haven't "addressed the fact that the rich young ruler, Jesus and the disciples used "eternal life", "kingdom of heaven", "kingdom of God" and "saved" interchangeably."
==========================================
About the one phrase "enter eternal life".
We should realize that in the New Testament eternal life means more than be forgiven. If we think that being forgiven is a goal in itself we are wrong. We are forgiven that we may live.
Paul realized this when he wrote in Romans 5:10 - "For if we, being enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more we will be saved in His life, having been reconciled"
1.) As related to the past, the sinner WAS and enemy to God. But the sinner has BEEN reconciled. What has reconciled the sinner? "we ... were reconciled to God through the death of His Son." The redemptive sacrifice of Christ on His cross has caused the sinner to be reconciled.
2.) As to the future there is something "much more" to expect and participate in - " ... much more we shall be SAVED in His life, having been reconciled." The judicial reconciliation has taken place. The indwelling of the life if Christ is the realm in which the Christian will be much more saved.
In other words we may say reconciled to God through the death of His Son relate to the judicial redemption. The being "much more saved in His life" is the "organic" transformation and conformation due to the indwelling divine life working within.
Both aspects together comprise God's complete salvation: a judicial redemption and an organic saving in His divine life.
That is Paul. Now let's see how Christ taught this before Paul taught it.
When the rich young ruler asks "What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" he knows nothing about his need to be judicially reconciled to God through the death of Christ. He does know that he does not have eternal life and assumes that there is some good thing he must do to gain it.
What must he do to obtain eternal life. He does not have the revelation to ask "What thing, Lord Jesus, must YOU do that I may gain eternal life?" Probably no one but Jesus, maybe John the Baptist, have the revelation that Christ first must die to [b]reconcile all the enemies of God to God.
ThinkofOne may object that I am retrofitting Paul's concept onto Christ's teaching. No I am not. To the question of "What good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" Jesus immediately informs him that only ... only ... GOD is good.
"Why do you ask Me concerning what is good? There is only One who is good ..." Romans 5:10 - "For if we, being enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of His Son ..." [/b]
Before Jesus speaks of the life to be lived He indicates that only God is good, strongly implying that all evil men are in need of reconciliation to God. The need for the none good rich yound ruler to be reconciled to the ONLY good God is immediately revealed. Only God is good and the evil mankind is in need of reconciliation to the good God.
Jesus does not at this point elaborate on this point of goodness solely an attribute of God. But continues to speak to the man according to the man's Judaic backround.
"Keep the commandments" - for "he that doeth them shall live in them" as Paul also taught in Gal. 3:12 .
The young man asks "Which of the commandments?" This post is getting long so I will stop here and continue on another. I will show you how the Lord Jesus dealt with the audaciousness of the young man who does not realize himself. He does not really get the impact of Christ's initial words that God alone is good.
I will show how because the young man did not realize his true condition Jesus penetrates into his personality to expose his weakness towards God.
05 Jan 10
2 edits
I will show how because the young man did not realize his true condition Jesus penetrates into his personality to expose his weakness towards God.
Verse 20 the young man says "All these things have I observed". He replies that he has kept all the commandments. It is dubious. And the man really didn't know hmself.
So Jesus points out the one good thing which he is incapable of doing - to sell all he has and give to the poor. He may not object to selling all that he has, bnut ti give away all is impossible for him. And then furthermore to follow the Lord Jesus. That is to live a life of wandering without any permenent place to rest. This is absolutely more than the rich young ruler can bear.
We should realize then that Jesus' answer is not to encourage man to try to be justified for eternal life by good works. Rather His answer is to expose man's incapability to do so.
The audaciousness of the rich young ruler is dealt a devestating blow by Jesus. We all need such a blow. Some perhaps more than others need such a blow. Only God is good. And what Christ mentions as our good deed to be justified for eternal life is far beyond us.
"He went away sorrowful" (v.22) This proves that the young man was unable to do good. He can neither keep the Ten Commandments nor give to the poor, this loving his neighbeors as himself. He cannot love God with all of his heart, all of his strength, all of his soul, and all of his mind. He is unable to part with his comfort, wander with the Son of God, or give away his wealth to the poor.
Unableness and inability of man to do good to be justified for eternal life is the lesson of Christ here in Matthew 19.
Does this mean that Christ does not want His followers to live a righteous life? Of course not. It is to teach that it is impossible for them either to be judicially justified before God with good works or be saved without His coming death and resurrection.
"And when the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and said, Who then can be saved?
And looking upon them, Jesus said to them, With man (including the rich young ruler) this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (v.25,26)
God can reduce the big fat camel and bring him through the eye of a needle. God can bring the materialistic self lover into eternal life and into the kingdom. God can make it possible. God can not only judicially justify the non good enemies of God to the only good God. God can also save them in the sphere and realm of His divine life. It is possible with God.
Christ comes to accomplish this work of God.
We will continue to explore the passage below.
05 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillThis post just proves my point. There should be no need to make every discussion about the APOSTLES or what they said, especially not one started by someone who isn't particularly interested in what they have to say.
[b]=====================================
Isn't it possible that some people could believe that Jesus was a teacher, but not divine? They would probably focus on his teachings on how to live your life. Why should such a person care about the existence of God? And, even if they DO have an opinion on it, why should they be forced to present or defend that meant ? Sure, you're free to do it. You may be asked to justify what you are doing.[/b]
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf someone believes that Jesus is not divine, doesn't it make sense that they might think some of the claims of say, John's gospel, are greatly exaggerated at best and human inventions at worst?
Anyone can believe whatever they like about Jesus (like him being a teacher and not divine) , the problem comes when a person places a lot of emphasis on Jesus's words and teachings and uses them as a battering ram in debate. That creates a rod for their own back.
If you go by Jesus's teachings and words it's impossible to separate what he said and ...[text shortened]... expects others to be. He likes to challenge others but doesn't like it coming back at him.
If that's true, then maybe they and you have different ideas of what constitutes the ENTIRETY of Jesus' teachings.