17 Aug 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnePerhaps this gives a clue to your approach. It appears that you take each sentence as if it stands on its own. In doing so, you lose the context and the therefore the larger meaning. In other words, you can't see the forest for the trees. ---------------ToO--------------------
"What I do not see from you is a point by point refutation of my sentences - most of them.
Perhaps this gives a clue to your approach. It appears that you take each sentence as if it stands on its own. In doing so, you lose the context and the therefore the larger meaning. In other words, you can't see the forest for the trees.
For exam ...[text shortened]... that mean, "A good tennis player has a good serve" as your "proof".[/b]
Hypocrisy!!!! You have been doing this consistently for months. From whence do you get the gumption to even dare to say such things when you see no compulsion to do the same yourself. Your hypocrisy goes from the unbelievable to the mind boggling. Is there no limits to it? When will you look at your own posts and ask yourself whether you abide by what you preach to others?????
🙄🙄🙄
17 Aug 08
5 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne======================================
Let me see if I understand you:
John makes a statement that explicitly states my position:
"We know that no one who is born of God sins."
You "prove" that this is not a true statement because John also speaks about what to do if a "brother" sins. You make an inference that "brother" can only be someone who is born of God. Never mind that John does REMELY poor communicators, doesn't it make more sense that your premise is false?
"We know that no one who is born of God sins."
======================================
I don't dispute your quotation. Your quotation in First John 5:18 is Okay. I dispute your interpretation of the meaning.
=========================================
You "prove" that this is not a true statement because John also speaks about what to do if a "brother" sins. You make an inference that "brother" can only be someone who is born of God. Never mind that John doesn't state what he means by "brother". "Brother" could easily be anyone who has taken an interest in following Jesus, anyone in the community or even a fellow human being. It seems ridiculous
=======================================
I don't think that John means human brother or Israelite brother.
The "brothers" are the brother who became brothers of Jesus Christ in His resurrection:
"Jesus said to her, Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brothers and say to them, I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God." (John 20:17)
From the standpoint of God, at the resurrection of Jesus Christ His disciples became His brothers sharing His Father's divine life - I ascend to My FATHER AND YOUR FATHER ..."
From the heavenly and divine perspective the divine brotherhood for the disciples began at the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
The Apostle Peter speaking from the view point of God says that the disciples were regenerated by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead:
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has regenerated us unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." ( 1 Peter 1:3)
From the heavenly and divine perspective the divine brotherhood for the disciples began at the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
The writer of Hebrews says that in His second coming Jesus comes back not as the Only Begotten Son but as the Firstborn Son. That means He has many brothers:
"And when He brings again the Firstborn into the inhabited earth ..." (Heb. 1:6)
First - born obviously means that there are others born after the first. Jesus is the elder Brother of all the other brothers who divine life have His Father also as their Father. So they are called "holy brothers":
"Therefore holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus." (Heb. 3:1)
In the process of sanctification, those whom He is sanctifying He is not ashamed to call them "brothers":
"For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of One, for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, I will declare Your name to My brothers; in the midst of the church I will sing hymns of praise to You." (Heb. 2:11,12)
Because Jesus, the eldest Brother is sanctifying His many brothers He is also said to be leading MANY SONS into glory:
"For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, in leading many sons into glory, to make the Author of their salvation perfect through sufferings." (Heb. 2:10)
The brotherhood, therefore, consists of the disciples of Jesus Christ who have been regenerated through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and are under the process of sanctification.
They are brohers, both male and female. They are brothers because the share the same life of the same Father:
" ... and indeed our fellowship is the the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ." (1 John 1:3)
When John writes " that you may have fellowship with us" means that his audience may be in the fellowship of the Christian brotherhood of the eternal life.
The fact that John, the apostles, and his audience of discples share the life that was manifested to the 12 apostles, puts them all in a brotherhood, a divine/human family together.
Hence in the family of brothers there are different levels of maturity:
There are little children, young men, and fathers (1 John 2:12-19).
Of course John is so experienced that on the other hand all three groups are little children to him:
"And now, little children, abide in Him ..." (1 John 2:28)
The regenerated are brothers because their eternal destiny is all to be sons of God:
"He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to Me." (Rev. 21:7)
I am pretty sure that people who were not regenerated but pretended to be disciples of Jesus were called "false brothers": " ... in dangers among false brothers" (2 Cor. 11:26)
So the weight of evidence is that John is using brothers to refer to those who possess the divine life. He is not speaking of chummy brother as in some ecumenical "brotherhood of man". Nor is he refering to Jewish "brothers" as sometimes did occur in the book of Acts.
=======================================
for it to mean someone born of God, because in his very next thought, John reminds them that no one who is born of God sins. John makes a point of reminding them of this fact.
========================================
It is abnormal for a brother to live in sin. This is not about what is average. It is about what is normal.
Somewhat of a parellel might be drawn with these sentences:
"We know that a Marine does not surrender secret information to the enemy."
"We know that a Navy Seal does not sleep on guard duty."
I don't really like these examples that much. But maybe they can help you to see how something could be said.
I have to do some other things now.
17 Aug 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnePah! I clearly stated that I was making an assumption that you had not overcome sin yourself. You say I am a liar , so that is an implicit answer to my assumption. The only conclusion is that you must feel you have overcome sin yourself, if this is true this means that you never...
Why the pretense that you've been called a liar unjustly.
I've called you a liar, because you are a liar. You try to justify it by saying that it's only in an attempt to goad me into responding to your question, but they are lies nevertheless. The fact that you have persisted in doing so even after being made aware of it indicates an unrepentant heart. You lie habitually and repeatedly.
- look at a woman/man for a millisecond
-lose your patience at all
- have any bad or angry thoughts towards anyone
- are always 100% positive and faithful to God
- never feel any envy ever
- eat more than you need to
etc etc etc ...the list goes on.....
not only this , you also have no expectation of ever failing in any of these ever (because that would lose you your salvation)
Therefore , you must have no need for Jesus , no need to confess , no need for repentance , and no need to ever ask forgiveness from anyone.
Infact you must believe that you will never have any need to make reparation to anyone or apologise for offending someone or being insensitive in some way.
However , you have shown on this forum that you are intransigent , stubborn and impatient , irritated at times. Therefore , you cannot have overcome sin completely.
Therefore , if you are accusing me of being a liar it must be you who is lying first . You are either so naive about your own character that it's painful to see , or unbelievably arrogant.
Since you have no need of growth or development (in your state of perfection) you had better just ascend into heaven right now , unless you see your mission as not yet finished , in which case I'm sure the rest of us mortals will fully appreciate your presence amongst us.
17 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterAre you incapable of making an honest post?
Perhaps this gives a clue to your approach. It appears that you take each sentence as if it stands on its own. In doing so, you lose the context and the therefore the larger meaning. In other words, you can't see the forest for the trees. ---------------ToO--------------------
Hypocrisy!!!! You have been doing this consistently for months. From whe ...[text shortened]... our own posts and ask yourself whether you abide by what you preach to others?????
🙄🙄🙄
I almost always look at the verse in context of a complete line of thought. Quite often I'll post the complete line of thought, though I'll often quote a single verse or even a portion of a verse for brevity.
We both know that you really don't have an answer for a number of the lines of thought by Jesus. That's what you try to dismiss by calling it "messy" as if that changes the reality of the matter.
Ask yourself why you follow me around from thread to thread only to make disparaging remarks no matter how unfounded.
You are a seriously vengeful little man.
17 Aug 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterNice try.
Pah! I clearly stated that I was making an assumption that you had not overcome sin yourself. You say I am a liar , so that is an implicit answer to my assumption. The only conclusion is that you must feel you have overcome sin yourself, if this is true this means that you never...
- look at a woman/man for a millisecond
-lose your patience at all ...[text shortened]... in which case I'm sure the rest of us mortals will fully appreciate your presence amongst us.
Is there anything so vengeful as a "cheap grace" advocate whose "right" to sin is questioned?
Matthew 7:21
"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."
17 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywill[/b]Like I've been saying, you believe in the teachings of Paul, while I believe in the teachings of Jesus.
[b]======================================
"We know that no one who is born of God sins."
======================================
I don't dispute your quotation. Your quotation in First John 5:18 is Okay. I dispute your interpretation of the meaning.
=========================================
You "prove" that this is not a true stateme
I have to do some other things now.
You've convinced me that you are incapable of having a rational discussion. You draw the most absurd conclusions in an effort to prop up your belief system. Everything seems to be based based on the teachings of Paul. Then you apply the teachings of Paul to text that contradicts his teachings by searching for "signs" that you use to completely change the meaning of the text.
I hope someday you'll be able to see the wisdom of the teachings of Jesus.
You might want to ask yourself why Jesus never explicitly states that one can have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation" while continuing to commit sin, though he does state the opposite. You might want to ask youself why Jesus never states that one loves Him even though they don't follow His commandments, though he does state the opposite.
Good luck.
17 Aug 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSure I follow the teachings of Paul, John, Peter, James, Luke and all the New Testament writers.
Like I've been saying, you believe in the teachings of Paul, while I believe in the teachings of Jesus.
You've convinced me that you are incapable of having a rational discussion. You draw the most absurd conclusions in an effort to prop up your belief system. Everything seems to be based based on the teachings of Paul. Then you apply the teachin ...[text shortened]... ey don't follow His commandments, though he does state the opposite.
Good luck.[/b]
Why not?
17 Aug 08
2 edits
You see ToO, Jesus prayed for us who believe in Christ because of the word of the Apostles. It too bad you don't think much of Christ's prayer but it was very effective:
"And I do not ask concerning these only, but concerning those also who believe into Me through their word." (John 17:20)
While you work on disqualifying the apostles, Jesus prayed for them and for those like me who believe in Christ because of their word.
17 Aug 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI guess now I should take that as your last feeble rebuttal and evasive last word.
Like I've been saying, you believe in the teachings of Paul, while I believe in the teachings of Jesus.
You've convinced me that you are incapable of having a rational discussion. You draw the most absurd conclusions in an effort to prop up your belief system. Everything seems to be based based on the teachings of Paul. Then you apply the teachin ...[text shortened]... ey don't follow His commandments, though he does state the opposite.
Good luck.[/b]
17 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillNo problem with that in general. However you seem to take the teachings of Paul as your "foundation", so to speak. As such, you skew your interpretation of the others so that they "fit" your foundation. The problem is that they don't really "fit" all that well, so you have to construct these extremely elaborate conceptions of what the verses "mean" in order to make them "fit".
Sure I follow the teachings of Paul, John, Peter, James, Luke and all the New Testament writers.
Why not?
For example, it seems doubtful that you'd be able to accept the following at face value: ""He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
Perhaps you'll decide that this really only applies to "ORGANIC SALVATION". But then, if I understand you correctly, you equate "eternal life" with "JUDICIAL REDEMPTION". So you'll have to decide that "eternal life" doesn't really mean eternal life or that "obey" doesn't mean obey, or...whatever.
If you take the teachings of Jesus at face value and use them as your "foundation", this "problem" doesn't exist.
17 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo you don't believe in "the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone?"
No problem with that in general. However you seem to take the teachings of Paul as your "foundation", so to speak. As such, you skew your interpretation of the others so that they "fit" your foundation. The problem is that they don't really "fit" all that well, so you have to construct these extremely elaborate conceptions of what the verses "mean" in ord ue and use them as your "foundation", this "problem" goes away.
Do you also reject the messages of Peter in the book of Acts?
You seem to be in rebellion against deputy authority.
What place does the blood of Jesus play in your theology?
17 Aug 08
Originally posted by jaywillI suppose it's easier to ignore the point of my previous post.
So you don't believe in [b]"the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone?"
Do you also reject the messages of Peter in the book of Acts?
You seem to be in rebellion against deputy authority.
What place does the blood of Jesus play in your theology?[/b]
Hopefully on some level, you know that it is true.
17 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo you don't accept the book of Acts and the epistles of Paul.
I suppose it's easier to ignore the point of my previous post.
Hopefully on some level, you know that it is true.
So what is your New Testament - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and First, Second, and Third John ?
How about Peter's epistles, James, and Jude and Hebrews?
How many book do you have in your New Testament ?
Only the things which "ring true" ?
17 Aug 08
Originally posted by jaywill"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
So you don't accept the book of Acts and the epistles of Paul.
So what is your New Testament - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and First, Second, and Third John ?
How about Peter's epistles, James, and Jude and Hebrews?
How many book do you have in your New Testament ?
Only the things which "ring true" ?
18 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo you are afraid to admit that you reject the book of Acts and other NT books?
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
You prefer to keep that rather concealed and secretive only devulging that information as a last resort?