08 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI doubt you realize this, but there is a lack of depth and clarity to your belief system. For example, look at how you use the quote by Jesus. You twist His words in order to try to make a point. This should tell you some things about yourself. What does the following really mean?
This may be difficult for you to understand, but not everyone lives superficially. You can ask a question like, "Do you believe in democracy?". Superficially the answer can be "Yes" or "No". But in order to understand where the person really stands some dialogue needs to take place.
Just because I choose not to chase all the red herrings you throw out e than this comes from the evil one"
Your self-centeredness is at times alarming.
"Let your Yes be your Yes and your No be your No , anything more than this comes from the evil one"
------------think of one------------
Surely , there is no need to look at it any deeper than what he said ("he said what he said , and he didn't say what he didn't say" )? LOL
This quote refers to the swearing of oaths so you are right , however , I have always seen it as a refernce to how we are not always honest with ourselves and talk ourselves out of things. When a politician doesn't give a straight answer etc etc.... For me it has always been connected to the issue of evasiveness in my mind , so any "twisting" is entirely unintentional. However , I can see how it might be seen to be twisting his words , but it is at least a good example of context and interpretation.
Jesus's words obviously can mean many things to many different people , what I have been trying to do has been to try and look at things from his Jewish perspective , which is something you haven't seem to have wanted to engage with.
08 Nov 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI'm all for understanding the context in which something is written. If anything, you seem to abandon this idea.
I doubt you realize this, but there is a lack of depth and clarity to your belief system. For example, look at how you use the quote by Jesus. You twist His words in order to try to make a point. This should tell you some things about yourself. What does the following really mean?
"Let your Yes be your Yes and your No be your No , anything more tha ...[text shortened]... sh perspective , which is something you haven't seem to have wanted to engage with.
I feel as if you start building a bridge toward a possible answer then stop half-way. So naturally I ask, "Where's the rest of the bridge?". Then you start in with all this stuff about "loaded dice", "chess" and "draughts" or questions like "Have you overcome sin?" that have nothing to do with the issue.
I'm still wondering if you're ever going to finish building the bridge:
Where in "what he said about his death and about the Holy spirit , and about his blood and about the new covenant , and about remaining in him , and about being born again" does it say that "'eternal life' is granted at some point before sin is actually overcome"?
09 Nov 07
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneMaybe we need to do a deal on this. How does this sound?
I'm all for understanding the context in which something is written. If anything, you seem to abandon this idea.
I feel as if you start building a bridge toward a possible answer then stop half-way. So naturally I ask, "Where's the rest of the bridge?". Then you start in with all this stuff about "loaded dice", "chess" and "draughts" or questions lik t "'eternal life' is granted at some point before sin is actually overcome"?
I will start 2 new threads called "jesus -thinkofone answers" and one called "jesus - knightmeister answers". In each thread the obligation will be on each one of us to answer the charge set before us and the onus will be on us to answer the others points. In one thread I am playing away and I am the home team in the other. This way ou get the chance to cross examine me , and I you. Some other rules might be
1) Avoid too much cross polination.
2) No cutting and pasting from one to the other
3) Stay on the subject dictated by the other person
4) No one thread to get ahead of the other.
etc etc
Do you agree to play?
I will start the process in good faith by answering your question directly before starting new threads (this one is a bit long don't you think).
Here goes.....my direct answer to this is that the context of everything Jesus said was the context of the new covenant he came to set up via his death. This is an entirely reasonable posiition to take because his death for our transgressions is the culmination of both his life and ministry but also of centuries of prophecy and Jewish thought.
The context is also Jesus's clear teaching about the Holy Spirit and him living in us. The context is also that we be born again. You start piecing this togther and combine it with communion and the message of passover and it soon becomes clear that what Jesus is suggesting is that he himself (via the Holy Spirit) intends to live in us and set us free from sin (the son shall set you free , remain in me as I remain in you) . The eternal son of God is to indwell our very being via the Spirit.
Now , there is a hell of a lot of evidence to suggest that this is exactly what Jesus is implying, and what's more it was backed up by the personal experiences in Acts and the experience of believers down the centuries.For example....
"Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
– John 3:1-8, NKJV
Ok , now for the answer. If the eternal son of God is to live in us then we are then to become adopted sons of God are we not. But he needs to be invited in first (I stand at the door and knock). Inviting him in means repentance and a turning away from self , but the process begins by inviting christ himself in (being born again). So if christ is invited into our being we then have handed over ourselves to him. But we also have the eternal spirit of God himself living in us. This is why we are assured of salvation because we are indwelt. Eternal life is not "granted" like some royal pardon or abstract idea , but is GIVEN to us to PHYSICALLY and LITERALLY live in us. The process of repentance has started and God has control and will see it through to the end. Eternity itself has entered into us , the son has set us free , a seed has been planted but it doesn't always grow as quick as it should.
(BTW- I think asking the question "have you overcome sin?" is very relevant because if you haven't then it makes your whole argument a bit silly. I'm sure you can figure out why. I also think the chess and draughts analogy is valid because you seem to like to dish it out but not take it. You don't apply the same logic to yourself as you do to others. It's a blindspot you have. If your intention was from the outset of this thread to take the position that you will not entertain anyone else's questions seriously unless they had addressed yours first then you should have said so. In my case the way I have gone about it has been to ask you questions to try to get you to think more deeply about Jesus's ministry. )
09 Nov 07
4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister"I think asking the question 'have you overcome sin?' is very relevant because if you haven't then it makes your whole argument a bit silly. I'm sure you can figure out why." KM
Maybe we need to do a deal on this. How does this sound?
I will start 2 new threads called "jesus -thinkofone answers" and one called "jesus - knightmeister answers". In each thread the obligation will be on each one of us to answer the charge set before us and the onus will be on us to answer the others points. In one thread I am playing away an questions to try to get you to think more deeply about Jesus's ministry. )
This is a logical fallacy. What Jesus meant is in no way connected to what I do or don't do. I really hope that you can understand this. What Jesus meant is also in no way connected to what I believe or don't believe.
"If the eternal son of God is to live in us then we are then to become adopted sons of God are we not. But he needs to be invited in first (I stand at the door and knock). Inviting him in means repentance and a turning away from self , but the process begins by inviting christ himself in (being born again). So if christ is invited into our being we then have handed over ourselves to him. But we also have the eternal spirit of God himself living in us. This is why we are assured of salvation because we are indwelt. Eternal life is not "granted" like some royal pardon or abstract idea , but is GIVEN to us to PHYSICALLY and LITERALLY live in us. The process of repentance has started and God has control and will see it through to the end. Eternity itself has entered into us , the son has set us free , a seed has been planted but it doesn't always grow as quick as it should." KM
The material to build a bridge between the words of Jesus and the idea that "'eternal life' is granted at some point before sin is actually overcome" just isn't there. It isn't even close. It's purely an extrapolation from what Jesus said. It's purely a statement of your beliefs. Can you not make a distinction between what Jesus said and what you believe? Just because you wish it doesn't make it true.
I understand that you find this frustrating, but "logic" just isn't one of your strengths.
09 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat Jesus meant is in no way connected to what I do or don't do. I really hope that you can understand this. What Jesus meant is also in no way connected to what I believe or don't believe. ~ ThinkOfOne
[b]"I think asking the question 'have you overcome sin?' is very relevant because if you haven't then it makes your whole argument a bit silly. I'm sure you can figure out why." KM
This is a logical fallacy. What Jesus meant is in no way connected to what I do or don't do. I really hope that you can understand this. What Jesus meant is also in no ou find this frustrating, but "logic" just isn't one of your strengths.[/b]
I think this about says it all.
09 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt's purely an extrapolation from what Jesus said. It's purely a statement of your beliefs. Can you not make a distinction between what Jesus said and what you believe? Just because you wish it doesn't make it true.
[b]"I think asking the question 'have you overcome sin?' is very relevant because if you haven't then it makes your whole argument a bit silly. I'm sure you can figure out why." KM
This is a logical fallacy. What Jesus meant is in no way connected to what I do or don't do. I really hope that you can understand this. What Jesus meant is also in no ou find this frustrating, but "logic" just isn't one of your strengths.[/b]
------think of one-----------
This would be a very good point if it wasn't for the fact that Jesus sometimes spoke clearly and at many other times used parables and symbolism. If jesus is using symbols like the blood of the passover lamb and comparing it to his blood , or saying he is the vine and we are the branches then we have no option but to attempt some kind of interpretation of what he means. The fact that he often spoke like this surely means that he expected us to have to interpret , which is what I have done. If he did not intend for his words to be interpreted then why did he not do so himself?
However , you keep saying that my interpretation is not correct , but you do not offer any viable alternatives. If I then point this out and try to put you on the spot you do not answer. What do YOU think he meant by these statements? Do you deny that he taught that he was to live in us and us in him? What other possible interpretation could there be?
I wish YOU would make a "distinction between what Jesus said and what you believe" . Jesus believed in the Holy Spirit amongst many other things (being born again , his death covering transgressions, etc etc) . Do you believe this things? Do you even have a viable alternative interpretation ? If so then "let's hear it" (as you would say)
09 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe material to build a bridge between the words of Jesus and the idea that "'eternal life' is granted at some point before sin is actually overcome" just isn't there.
[b]"I think asking the question 'have you overcome sin?' is very relevant because if you haven't then it makes your whole argument a bit silly. I'm sure you can figure out why." KM
This is a logical fallacy. What Jesus meant is in no way connected to what I do or don't do. I really hope that you can understand this. What Jesus meant is also in no ou find this frustrating, but "logic" just isn't one of your strengths.[/b]
-------think of one------------
And this is the whole point . I do not believe that eternal life is granted before sin is overcome either. It's just I believe that sin has been overcome in Jesus and what he did on the cross. Therefore eternal life is open to all who will accept that what they cannot do for themselves has been done for them.
09 Nov 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat Jesus meant is in no way connected to what I do or don't do. I really hope that you can understand this. What Jesus meant is also in no way connected to what I believe or don't believe.
[b]"I think asking the question 'have you overcome sin?' is very relevant because if you haven't then it makes your whole argument a bit silly. I'm sure you can figure out why." KM
This is a logical fallacy. What Jesus meant is in no way connected to what I do or don't do. I really hope that you can understand this. What Jesus meant is also in no ...[text shortened]... ou find this frustrating, but "logic" just isn't one of your strengths.[/b]
------------THINK OF ONE-------------
I understand what you are saying. You are saying that even if I could somehow show you to be a terrible sinner (only joking) this would not change the words of jesus one iota. It has nothing to do with his words. Am I right?
Ok , now there are two problems here.
1) I wish you would apply this same logic to your criticism of Christianity. The logic works both ways . Even if there were billions of Christians all practicing cheap grace and waving their hands in the air but still sinning their brains out it would not mean that the principle of salvation via faith with the grace of God was false. Once again I ask you to use the same logic you apply to me to yourself.
2) The reason why asking "have you overcome sin?" IS relevant to this debate is because I want to know if what you are talking about has substance. Jesus was very interested in moral charactor and abhorred those who preached to others but did not even follow what they preached (remove first the plank from your own eye) Thus , if you are to be able to talk with any authority at all on "overcoming sin" then is highly appropriate that I ask you if you actually have. The rationale here is that if you have no personal experience of overcoming sin then your musings on it are diminished because you can only talk from your intellect but not from personal experience. Jesus himself would probably have stronger words to say to you than this as it was his style to confront any inconsistencies he detected in those around him.
09 Nov 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI understand that you find this frustrating, but "logic" just isn't one of your strengths.
[b]"I think asking the question 'have you overcome sin?' is very relevant because if you haven't then it makes your whole argument a bit silly. I'm sure you can figure out why." KM
This is a logical fallacy. What Jesus meant is in no way connected to what I do or don't do. I really hope that you can understand this. What Jesus meant is also in no ...[text shortened]... ou find this frustrating, but "logic" just isn't one of your strengths.[/b]
-----thinkof one----------------
I think most of the time you teach what you most need to learn. If you were being logical about things you would recognise that jesus often used symbols that needed interpretation. You would also understand the logic that says when no other viable interpretation can be made then the one interpretation we can make (however strange) must be true.
There is also the logical argument that follows from what Jewish theology and prophecy states. If you logically understand what the Jeiwsh understanding of God was and what their prophecies stated then you would have an insight into what jesus was saying and would see that it is entirely logical to assume Jesus was saying he was the Lamb of God slain for the transgressions of mankind. If you don't think this is a logical interpretation then tell me what is.
BUT ...here is the main point I want to make. At least I had the balls to try and give you a straight answer to your question. I had a go . You may think it illogical , others may disagree, but at least you have the chance to analyse my logical defence of my position.
Compare this to your approach . You keep you head down behind the trench whilst taking potshots at others. At least I had the guts to put myself out there and back up what I am saying with an argument. Look at this post of yours for example . It's full of statements but with no logic to back it up. You say I'm "not even close" but you don't say why. Anyone can just say stuff like that. It's lazy. You say a lot of things without backing them up with any reference to jewish context or jesus's other sayings but still say it's "not even close"
How about you answer one of my questions so that I can then figure out whether you believe what Jesus actually said? Put yourself through the same scrutiny you put others through. Unload those dice of yours. Will accept my challenge of a double thread?
I still have no idea what YOU make of the things I have quoted jesus as saying.
09 Nov 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt's purely an extrapolation from what Jesus said.
[b]"I think asking the question 'have you overcome sin?' is very relevant because if you haven't then it makes your whole argument a bit silly. I'm sure you can figure out why." KM
This is a logical fallacy. What Jesus meant is in no way connected to what I do or don't do. I really hope that you can understand this. What Jesus meant is also in no ...[text shortened]... ou find this frustrating, but "logic" just isn't one of your strengths.[/b]
---think of one---------
This statement would have so much more weight if you were able to provide the definitive and correct interpretation of these passages which would then show my "extrapolations" to be fanciful. But you do not provide any such evidence to support your potshots. The fact that Jesus said these things remains whatever you think about my interpretations.
09 Nov 07
1 edit
Think about what these words mean.....
"Remain in me , as I remain in you"
"When he , the spirit of truth, comes he will guide you in all truth"
" ...you will know that I am in my Father and you are in me , just as I am in you"
" I am telling you the truth , he who believes has eternal life , I am the bread of life.......the bread comes down from heaven and whoever eats it will not die ..I am the living bread that came down from heaven..if anyone eats this bread( using a direct communion/passover symbol) they will live for ever. The bread I give him is my flesh , which I give (refering to his death) so that the world may live"
Is my "extrapolation" really so illogical?
09 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterHow is this logical?
The material to build a bridge between the words of Jesus and the idea that "'eternal life' is granted at some point before sin is actually overcome" just isn't there.
-------think of one------------
And this is the whole point . I do not believe that eternal life is granted before sin is overcome either. It's just I believe that sin has been ove ...[text shortened]... pen to all who will accept that what they cannot do for themselves has been done for them.
If sin has been overcome, why are "Christians" sinning?
09 Nov 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterYes, Jesus meant whatever He meant. The actions of a give individual won't change that.
What Jesus meant is in no way connected to what I do or don't do. I really hope that you can understand this. What Jesus meant is also in no way connected to what I believe or don't believe.
------------THINK OF ONE-------------
I understand what you are saying. You are saying that even if I could somehow show you to be a terrible sinner (only j ...[text shortened]... this as it was his style to confront any inconsistencies he detected in those around him.
1) This is true. What does it have to do with what Jesus said?:
"Depart from me, you who work iniquity."
"Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever..."
2) Jesus meant whatever He meant. I thought you said you understood this. This is a red herring.
09 Nov 07
4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterYes. It in no way necessitates the idea that "'eternal life' is granted at some point before sin is actually overcome".
Think about what these words mean.....
"Remain in me , as I remain in you"
"When he , the spirit of truth, comes he will guide you in all truth"
" ...you will know that I am in my Father and you are in me , just as I am in you"
" I am telling you the truth , he who believes has eternal life , I am the bread of life.......the bread comes down from ...[text shortened]... his death) so that the world may live"
Is my "extrapolation" really so illogical?
If it falls short of the words of Jesus, it's just "cheap grace".
"Depart from me, you who work iniquity."
"Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever..."
What would be so tragic if Jesus actually meant what He said above?
09 Nov 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIt means that the penalty for sin has been overcome. Sin is separation from God as well as an act or thought. Christ opens the door to communion with God without having to be perfected first. The most disasterous problem with sin is how it cuts man off from fellowship with God because God and sin don't mix. He is repulsed by it due to his Holiness. However , on the cross Christ becomes cut off from God and becomes a repulsive thing to his father as he bears the penalty for our transgressions (Isaiah prophecy). He takes the penalty for us and so in one real sense sin is overcome. Christians (like all humans) will sin and will struggle with their sinful nature (which is why I am interested in your struggle with sin) but this need not cut them off from God. God still wants us to be perfected and to strive for holiness but we can do it in love and fellowship with him rather than in fear of eternal judgement. Why? Because christ took that penalty on our behalf.
How is this logical?
If sin has been overcome, why are "Christians" sinning?
I mean how are we to live? One could repent and live for 35 years competely without sin and then one stray look at a leggy blonde walking down the street and we are damned to depart from Christ because we are only 99.9% perfect? I have to believe he is more faithful and compassionate than that.