Originally posted by jaywillYou're a funny kid.
If you do not have one excuse for not answering, you have another.
That's OK. I am no longer interested.
This is twice now that you've evaded issues by asking questions and then cried "foul" when you haven't received responses to your questions.
You never really addressed the first (other than tangentially) and you continue to evade the second.
"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."
Originally posted by jaywill"That doctrine then becomes the only point in the Bible and the master key to understanidng everything else."
He is on what we sometimes call a "one liner".
You lay hold of one or two verses and they become practically the only thing the Bible teaches. There is no balance. There is no perspective. You get on one line and drive it.
It is not unlike "baptismal regeneration" as practiced by some Campbellites. You have to be baptized in their water. ...[text shortened]... .
At least most Campbellites that I have met will recognize the other books of the Bible.
This is exactly what you do with the teachings of Paul. What's interesting is that you seem completely oblivious to this fact.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYes I agree with all this in principle , however , the Jews also knew this. This was the essential struggle of Judaism , namely , that righteousness was required by God. However , how much righteousness? A holy God requires perfection , anything other than perfect holiness and righteousness was as dust to him. That was why the sacrificial lamb (imagery remember that Jesus bought heavily into) needed to be spotless.
[b]"Truth is messy and requires that we move out of our comfort zones and look at the awkward aspects of what we believe."
Actually, truth is elegant in its simplicity. Where things get "messy" is when people try to rationalize their deviation from truth.
The teachings of Jesus are elegant in their simplicity. Righteousness is following the wil ...[text shortened]... etc. Sin is living outside the domain of the eternal. One cannot sin and have eternal life.[/b]
Since you are less than perfectly righteous you cannot appease God because your righteousness is as rags to him. You have already sinned and fallen short. We have all "deviated" from the will of God and even if we live perfect lives from here on in , we require the sacrifice of Jesus to put us right with God. We need forgiveness and cleansing (agreed?).
So the starting point still has to be Jesus' sacrifice for us because righteous standing before God cannot be achieved on our own because we have deviated. This is what Jesus taught us in the last supper and this is why God spent centuries engendering this way of thinking in Judaism and this is also why he made sure St Paul was around to put it all together via the Holy Spirit (as jesus had taught would happen)
So all in all although I see the elegance of your position , it just doesn't fit very neatly with the facts. I agree that the truth is simple but not as you describe. The simple truth is about a loving God who seeks to reconcile himself to us in love and acceptance in Christ. But love as you know , can be messy also. Everythign you say is true but it's incomplete. Eternal life comes from righteousness , but the question is how is the gap in righteousness between God and man filled? With our righteousness or God's?
Can I ask you , if jesus had NOT died for the remission of sin (as he clearly taught) do you think it would be possible for you to get eternal life by your own efforts?
Originally posted by knightmeisterAs much as you'd like to believe it, the fact remains that what you make of the Last Supper is purely an inference on your part. Jesus never taught this. Jesus taught that eternal life/heaven/salvation requires following His commandments. He states this plainly and explicity several times and in several different ways. Why didn't Jesus plainly and explicitly state what you believe? Had Jesus lost his ability to express His thoughts plainly and explicitly by the time of the Last Supper? Was Jesus just "confused" in His prior teachings? Was the embodiment of Truth confused about the eternal? If Truth is eternal and absolute, how can it change?
Yes I agree with all this in principle , however , the Jews also knew this. This was the essential struggle of Judaism , namely , that righteousness was required by God. However , how much righteousness? A holy God requires perfection , anything other than perfect holiness and righteousness was as dust to him. That was why the sacrificial lamb (imagery ...[text shortened]... taught) do you think it would be possible for you to get eternal life by your own efforts?
The Jews were mislead by the Pharisees and Scribes, thus, for the most part, no longer understood what righteousness is. Just as Christians today, for the most part, no longer understand what righteousness is. It was not about "the book" when Jesus came and taught and it's not about "the book" now. Man has a way of mucking things up. From what I gather, this began with Paul.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAs much as you'd like to believe it, the fact remains that what you make of the Last Supper is purely an inference on your part. Jesus never taught this.--------ToO--------------------------------------
[b]As much as you'd like to believe it, the fact remains that what you make of the Last Supper is purely an inference on your part. Jesus never taught this. Jesus taught that eternal life/heaven/salvation requires following His commandments. He states this plainly and explicity several times and in several different ways. Why didn't Jesus plainly and explici ...[text shortened]... book" now. Man has a way of mucking things up. From what I gather, this began with Paul.[/b
The problem is that you cannot reconcile the Last Supper with your position because you do not see how they link together with his commandments. For you it is an either/or thing , for me it is not.
So what was he teaching us then? It was obviously meant to signify something to his followers. He explicitly links his body and blood in the same light as the Jewish spotless passover lamb - there can be no other reasonable explanation apart from he is refering to his death on the cross. He explicitly says his blood is to be shed for the "remission of sin".
It beggars belief that you can't see what he is saying is more than my "inference".
The problem the Last Supper gives you is that Jesus is obviously giving his followers a very important message that is something to do with his death (and later ressurection -which he also refers to) and has explicit links with the passover lamb theology.
He is in a room with his JEWISH followers who all know the story of the passover and understand it's significance. Jesus himself is a Jew. He knows scripture inside out. He knows Isaiah's prophecy regarding himself and the remission of sin. He has already stated that he will die and rise again. He has already implied that his death is an imperative part of his mission.
Now , think about it , Jews do not use theological imagery lightly and without significance. Jesus was a man given to speaking in imagery anyway so it's entirely appropriate that he uses the passover imagery to express himself. What you are asking me to believe is that Jesus was mucking about and just having a laugh? Of all the things he could have chosen to stress on this solemn occasion he chose the significance of his death and blood for the remission of sin.
I put it to you that you place too much emphasis on the explicit statements and ignore imagery altogether it seems. Jesus however spoke to farmers in parables about grains of wheat. He spoke to fishermen about nets. He used emotive and imaginative language full of metaphor all the time and there is never any suggestion that when he talks like this he is to be taken less seriously than at other times. Never. Ever.
He knew that the Jews communicated in symbolism and metaphor. He chose that very language. No Jew who knew their religion would have had any doubts as to what he was trying to say. He knew that they would know and he also knew that there was only one way his words could be seen. Just like when he said "before Abraham was I am!" and was stoned. Jehovah's witrnesses arguie that this does not mean he explicitly claimed to be Jehovah God but the Jews knew that they called Jehovah "the great I am" . They knew that he was claiming to be God and he knew that that was exactly how it would be heard.
It's the same with the Last Suppper. It would be a level of clumsiness so out of charactor for Jesus for him to have made such a blunder. He was saying "I am the spotless lamb of God who is sacrificed in front of God for the remision of sin" He didn't have to say it explicitly. Any Jew would have understood the connection and meaning.
(Eg-If I said to you that you had just opened Pandora's box you would know what I meant without me having to say it explicitly)
In any case , you have no viable inference yourself and the Last supper obviously requires interpretation because it is a significant event that involves highly significant imagery. It demands that we think about what Jesus is telling us here. You do not seem to see any need for this. He said what he said as explicitly as if he had spelt it out on a billboard , you do not seem to know or understand the language though.
"When he the Comforter comes he will guide you into all truth"
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou completely infer the concept that man can continue to sin and have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation". You completely infer the concept that man does not have to follow His commandments, i.e., the will of God, to have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation."
As much as you'd like to believe it, the fact remains that what you make of the Last Supper is purely an inference on your part. Jesus never taught this.--------ToO--------------------------------------
The problem is that you cannot reconcile the Last Supper with your position because you do not see how they link together with his commandments. For though.
"When he the Comforter comes he will guide you into all truth"
Matthew 26:28
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink you all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Interestingly enough, "aphesis", the word translated here as "remission" literally means "freedom". So, literally it's "freedom from sin." Not "forgiveness" as it is sometimes translated, but "freedom".
As in the following:
"If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free...Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever;"
How is the slave freed from committing sin? By continuing in His word. By knowing the truth. "The truth will make you free". Knowing the eternal (truth) will make you free. Jesus teaches freedom from committing sin.
Truth is elegant in its simplicity.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou completely infer the concept that man does not have to follow His commandments, i.e., the will of God, to have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation." -------------ToO------------------------------
You completely infer the concept that man can continue to sin and have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation". You completely infer the concept that man does not have to follow His commandments, i.e., the will of God, to have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation."
Matthew 26:28
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and g ...[text shortened]... from [b]committing sin.
Truth is elegant in its simplicity.[/b]
Unless you get past this point you will never see the truth. I do not infer this. YOU infer that I infer it. There is no suggestion in Christianity of a reduced importance of following His commandments , St Paul did not infer this , nor do I.
What St Paul preaches is that when we fail and fall short we are free from condemnation and do not lose our salvation. Paul preaches that God understands our failings and NOT that this is an excuse to sin our brains out. It's subtle difference that appears beyond you at the moment.
You are infering incorrectly on what you THINK I am infering. Those who don't undertsand God's grace and forgiveness always see it as some kind of excuse to sin or thin end of an evil wedge. It is not. It is all in your own mind.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneInterestingly enough, "aphesis", the word translated here as "remission" literally means "freedom". So, literally it's "freedom from sin." Not "forgiveness" as it is sometimes translated, but "freedom--------------------ToO----------------------------------
You completely infer the concept that man can continue to sin and have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation". You completely infer the concept that man does not have to follow His commandments, i.e., the will of God, to have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation."
Matthew 26:28
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and g ...[text shortened]... from [b]committing sin.
Truth is elegant in its simplicity.[/b]
Which is of course very interesting because as you will know the idea of the Passover is intimately linked with freedom and freedom specifically from slavery. So Jesus is saying that it is his blood that sets us free from sin.
This links simply and elegantly with the passages about " anyone who sins is a slave to sin" - " the truth will set you free" -------BUT-------------Jesus finishes that line of thought with the idea that "if the Son sets you free you will be free indeed!"
In the Last Supper we finally see what he was talking about . His blood and his sacrifice sets us free from slavery. The connection is inescapable and suggests that when Jesus said "the Son will set you free" this was what he was talking about. We are set free from slavery to sin just as the Jews were set free from slavery to Egypt.
Of course , the idea of the passover lamb also symbolises God's forgiveness as well as freedom. Forgiveness is freedom , they are intimately linked. To be free of sin is to be cleansed of it , and to be cleansed of sin is also to be forgiven and freed from the penalty of sin (guilt/death). When you forgive someone you set them free from the bond of guilt upon them. Passover symbolism again.
So there is a direct , elegant and simple link between the passages you love to quote and Jesus' words at the Last Supper. The images of slavery , sin , freedom , remission , blood , the Son setting us free etc. For you "the Son sets you free" presmably means that it is his teachings that set us free. If this is the case why did jesus make this link and why did he place such an emphasis on the meaning of his death. Why not just carry on more teaching?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne==============================
You're a funny kid.
This is twice now that you've evaded issues by asking questions and then cried "foul" when you haven't received responses to your questions.
You never really addressed the first (other than tangentially) and you continue to evade the second.
"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're a funny kid.
This is twice now that you've evaded issues by asking questions and then cried "foul" when you haven't received responses to your questions.
You never really addressed the first (other than tangentially) and you continue to evade the second.
"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."
==========================================
I has become quite obvious to me that I have given you WAY more replies than you are able to deal with.
If you really understood the Sriptures well you would have taken each of my 13 or so questions and expounded upon them as to WHY they were wrong. You did not other than offer some response on one passage.
It has become apparent to me that you really do not have a good grasp of the New Testament and much of what I write seems to just go over your head. And I cannot really fault a person for not knowing something. I do fault a person for not WANTING to know.
But my major point is proved. You cannot show any unfaithfulness on the part of Paul to his Lord's ministry. And Paul complained to Timothy that a good number of co-workers in Asia turned AWAY from him.
"This you know, that all who are in Asia turned away from me, of whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. " (2 Tim. 2:15)
It was far from the fact that he was spoiled with too much following.
This debate actually gives opportunity to show the faithfulness of Paul. The more you down play the Apostle Paul the more opportunity there is to show how superior his ministry is to your errors.
What the Christian church needs is not to turn away from the completing ministry of Paul but to turn more TO it. For Jesus Christ used Him to "complete the word of God"
" ... the church, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship of God, which was given to me for you, to complete the word of God." (Col 1:25)
You have failed utterly to show deficiency in Paul's ministry or contradiction to His Master.
From what I have been able to gather this is where ToO stands on
the New Testament books. Tell me then how can his interpretations be reliable. The books are listed roughly from earliest date of authorship to latter:
Matthew - Accepts
James - Questionable
1 Thess - Rejects
2 Thess - Rejects
Galatians - Rejects
1 Corinthians - Rejects
Luke - Questionable (doesn't trust Acts by Luke)
2 Corinthians - Rejects
Romans - Rejects
Ephesians - Rejects
Colossians - Rejects
Philemon - Rejects
Philippians - Rejects
1 Peter - Questionable
1 Timothy - Rejects
Titus - Rejects
Hebrews - Rejects
2 Timothy - Rejects
Acts - Rejects
Mark - Accepts
Jude - Questionable
2 Peter - Questionable
Revelation - Questionable
John - Accepts
1 John - Accepts
2 John - Accepts
3 John - Accepts
How can you trust an expositor like this to know what the New Testament teaches? How can you trust him to know what Jesus taught?
I don't.
"That which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6)
No where in the Bible does it say that the SOUL is born again. Yet the personality is really in the human soul. So to say that to be born again instanteously renders the souls sinless is totally wrong because the human soul is not regenerated.
"That which is born of the Spirit is spirit"
What is regenerated in the new birth is the innermost being of man, the human spirit. The human soul is not regenerated. The human soul gradually comes under the enfluence of the regenerated human spirit.
The first Spirit is capitalized because it is the Holy Spirit the source of the new birth. The second occurence of spirit in this verse begins with a small s. This is the human spirit.
There are passages which tell the disciples to deny thier soul or there self. There are no passages telling the diciples to deny their spirit.
The effect of a born again human spirit on the human soul takes time. A born again human spirit does not immediately render the human soul transformed and sinless.
Since it takes time for the human soul to be transformed in the believers therefore Jesus prayed that the disciples would be PERFECTED.
"I in them, and You in Me, that they may be PERFECTED into one, that the world may know that You have sent Me and have loved them even as You have loved Me." (John 17:23)
Notice that the disciples as He is in the disciples - "I in them ..." they need to undergo the process of being "perfected."
ToO has no answer for this or he would have addressed it. I challenge ToO to point out where in the Gospels the human soul is born again.
ToO also will not be able to refute the fact that in the manifestation of the kingdom of the heavens there are different degress of honor based upon obedience.
"Therefore whoever annuls one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of the heavens; but whoever practices and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens." (Matt. 5:19)
Notice, he who is called least and he who is called great are BOTH in the kingdom of the heavens.
Notice, he who annulled the Lord's teaching and taught men so is less honored , BUT IS STILL IN THE KINGDOM OF THE HEAVENS.
He how did not annul and taught men not to annul will be called great. He is with the one who is less honored in the kingdom of the heavens. They are both there.
Let's see how ToO will answer this. According to his theology ONLY the one who taught and did not annull the teachings of the Lord Jesus should be in the kingdom of the heavens.
Let him explain WHY the less honored disciple is ALSO there in the kingdom of the heavens being honored at all.
This passage proves that in the manifestation of the kingdom of heavens, Jesus taught that there will be different levels of honor based on different levels of obedience.
"Therefore whoever annuls one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of the heavens; but whoever practices and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens." (Matt. 5:19)
Do not be fooled by ToO when he says that this is a Pauline excuse to allow Christians who are born again to commit sins.
First of all no reference to writings of Paul is in this example. This passage is purely from the Gospel of Matthew.
Second of all it is not a matter of excusing sins or having a biblical reason to encourage more sinning. It is a labor to rightly divide the word of God and understand it in its full scope.
I predict that ToO will simply not comment or evade this challenge. I don't think he is capable of refuting this logic from his own cherished Gospel of Matthew.
(I love Matthew also. But not in the twisted way ToO does to try to put down one of the Lord Jesus' apostles ).
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou seem to be talking out both sides of your mouth:
You completely infer the concept that man does not have to follow His commandments, i.e., the will of God, to have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation." -------------ToO------------------------------
Unless you get past this point you will never see the truth. I do not infer this. YOU infer that I infer it. There is no suggestion in Christianity of d of excuse to sin or thin end of an evil wedge. It is not. It is all in your own mind.
Which is it?:
1) Man does not have to follow His commandments, i.e., the will of God, to have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation."
2) Man does have to follow His commandments, i.e., the will of God, to have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation."
"What St Paul preaches is that when we fail and fall short we are free from condemnation and do not lose our salvation. Paul preaches that God understands our failings and NOT that this is an excuse to sin our brains out.
I understand that this is what Paul teaches.
It is NOT what Jesus teaches. Jesus teaches man does have to follow His commandments, i.e., the will of God, to have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation.". Jesus teaches man cannot continue to sin and have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation". The two are merely different ways of stating the same thing. I notice that you split the two up. Any particular reason?
Originally posted by knightmeisterHow is the slave freed from committing sin? By continuing in His word. By knowing the truth. "The truth will make you free". Knowing the eternal (truth) will make you free. Jesus teaches freedom from committing sin.
Interestingly enough, "aphesis", the word translated here as "remission" literally means "freedom". So, literally it's "freedom from sin." Not "forgiveness" as it is sometimes translated, but "freedom--------------------ToO----------------------------------
Which is of course very interesting because as you will know the idea of the Passover is inti phasis on the meaning of his death. Why not just carry on more teaching?
In case you missed it the first time I posted it, the key here is that Jesus teaches that He frees one from committing sin.
Jesus does not teach that one can continue to sin and be free from condemnation.