Originally posted by no1marauderDo you not find it proposterous that you (not a follower of Jesus) could presume to tell me (a follower of Jesus) what He is saying in His word?
You may say whatever you want; but don't say you're a Christian when you reject Jesus' words. And you are the second "Christian" (after RBHILL) I ever "met" who told a deliberate lie about Jesus' words; his was the Jesus discussed hell more than Heaven (not true as even the slightest glance at the Gospels tells you) and yours was the whopper that Matthew 25 said ANYTHING about faith. Would you like to retract that statement?
Not only do you lack the discernment of the Holy Spirit, but you lack the ability to understand the message of the Bible as a whole.
Originally posted by DarfiusI'll take that as a No, I don't want to retract the lie I told about Jesus' words in Matthew 25. How that makes you a "follower of Jesus" is beyond me.
Do you not find it proposterous that you (not a follower of Jesus) could presume to tell me (a follower of Jesus) what He is saying in His word?
Not only do you lack the discernment of the Holy Spirit, but you lack the ability to understand the message of the Bible as a whole.
Originally posted by DarfiusPlease recall that the Pharisees threw Bartimeus out of the Temple
Do you not find it proposterous that you (not a follower of Jesus) could presume to tell me (a follower of Jesus) what He is saying in His word?
for presuming to teach them about Hebraic Law.
If you are wrong, whether a believer or non-believer points it out, you
are wrong. A believer does not necessarily have a better
understanding of the document 'The Bible' just because s/he believes
it to be the Word of God. Belief does not confer reading
comprehension.
I can point out several times with so-called Christians have utterly
misrepresented the literal Bible (two come to mind: when you said the
Church was founded 'on Jesus and not on St Peter,' and when RBHILL
said that Mary was no different than other women).
Nemesio
Originally posted by RBHILLRecall that you said the above.
If the O.T. wasn't inspired by God, then Jesus would not have quoted from it.
Jesus did not quote from all books of the OT, so it is clear that
inspiration is not simply a product of being quoted.
Furthermore, when Jesus DID quote from the OT, 6/7 times
it was from the Septuagint, which gives the Septuagint's
contents a certain status. The Septuagint had the seven books
rejected by the Protestants.
There is NO Christian justification for their excision from the OT canon,
so give it up, RBHILL. You reject 'God's Word.'
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauder
I would like your opinion on Matthew 25 which clearly states that on Judgment Day man will be judged on how he treated his fellow man.
I've had this entire debate with Nemesio in the past. I believe the author is talking about all 'Christians' when he referes to 'all people'. As we know Matthew already states the requirements for salvation and that these are not 'charitable giving', Mat 25 is simply referring to people that claimed to be saved, got Baptised, praised God, yet did not have Jesus in their hearts, did not follow the 2nd most important command "Love your fellow man". We also know from Mat 7 that there will be "Christians"
that will worship in Jesus's name, but will not follow his commands and do wicked and will not reach salvation.
You cannot claim that if A = Hell, then doing the opposite of A = Heaven. Requirements for salvation are rather particular. Lets say salvation is a set of {A,B,C,D,E,F} ... if you perform these deeds, openly and honestly, you will automatically perform {G,H,I and J}. Logical conclusion is that if you do not perform either G, H, I or J, then you could not have performed A,B,C,D,E and F in the first place.
eg: If you love your sister, you will not kill her. However if you do not kill your sister, does that imply you love her ?
Now in many places Jesus, or biblical authors will write what deeds will cause some to reach Heaven and other not (eg: Mat 25 where Jesus will seperate people and those that did not perform, say J, will go to hell.) This cannot imply that doing J will result in salvation for all over scripture this view is opposed. G,H,I and J will not result in salvation. No man is perfect, we all for short on that account. If we were perfect then yes, we could perform good deeds and go to Heaven, but you won't find a single man like that. Instead the message of the scriptures are that giving your life to God, earnestly and sincerely, will result in your salvation. Your salvation will result in a change of characted for the better, and you will automatically perform {G,H, I, K}
This is the only way the Gospels make sense. Once you believe this, Isaiah's prophecies start to make real sense.
pc
I think that there are two problems involved with the Mary issue. I think Mary was a good example of a servant or follower of God. I think the problem would be with worshiping her. I also have issue with her being a perpetual virgin. The bible is clear that after the virgin birth she had other children. I think though calling her the devil is wrong and she gets thrown through the mud. I think understanding what the bible says about mary helps to shed light on the subject. I was raised by a Catholic mom so when I became a so called born again christian we had many a heated discussion on these subjects.
anyway that is my 2 cents on the subject. menace71 (Manny)
Originally posted by NemesioWell then so do you.
Recall that you said the above.
Jesus did not quote from all books of the OT, so it is clear that
inspiration is not simply a product of being quoted.
Furthermore, when Jesus DID quote from the OT, 6/7 times
it was from the Septuagint, which gives the Septuagint's
contents a certain status. The Septuagint had the seven books
rejected by the Prot ...[text shortened]... heir excision from the OT canon,
so give it up, RBHILL. You reject 'God's Word.'
Nemesio
Every one has the Bible says so in Romans 3:23.
But Because I have accepted Christ I am forgiven of that.
Originally posted by RBHILLYou are not forgiven if you do not continue to avoid the sin.
Well then so do you.
Every one has the Bible says so in Romans 3:23.
But Because I have accepted Christ I am forgiven of that.
Sincerity of contrition requires an active part on the sinner
to avoid the sin.
As you continue to deny the Scriptural status of the seven books of
the OT that the Occidental and Oriental Churches, then you actively
and knowingly continue and sin and cannot have truly accepted Jesus.
Nemesio
Originally posted by pcaspianI believe the author is talking about all 'Christians' when he refers to 'all people'.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] I would like your opinion on Matthew 25 which clearly states that on Judgment Day man will be judged on how he treated his fellow man.
I've had this entire debate with Nemesio in th ...[text shortened]... elieve this, Isaiah's prophecies start to make real sense.
pc[/b]
1) When you say “the author,” to whom are you referring? Do you mean if the author of a gospel has Jesus say “all people,” that he knows his readers will (should) understand him to mean “all (only?) Christians,” from the context of the rest of the book he has authored?
I am assuming this is aimed at Matthew 25, given the context of the post. I read through this chapter again quickly, and didn’t see “all people,” but “these,” etc., which could be taken as “all people who do this…,” “or any people who do this…,” or “everyone who does this….” But I think the question at hand was clearly whether or not this meant "all people who...."
If you are referring to the author of a book, then he, of course, can assume that all of the “characters” in his book have their thoughts in the same context (same for his readers). By the same token, he cannot assume that they know about other books….
Or….
2) If you think Jesus actually spoke these words, or gave these lessons and parables in more or less these words, how much “context” (local or broad) do you think Jesus assumed on the part of his listeners? How “local” is the discourse recorded in Matthew 7 to the discourse recorded in Matthew 25, for example.
Certainly he would not assume a context based on a book to be written later? Would he assume a context based on the letters, say, of Paul? Or James?
He probably would assume a context based the Hebrew Scriptures, but I doubt that you would argue that all questions about what Jesus meant ought to be settled from the OT.
3) When and how do you decide that some more “universal” statement is properly limited by more particularistic statements/texts? Or that some more particularistic texts need to be subsumed by, “taken up into,” or even swept away by the more universal text? How do you “weigh and balance” such texts against one another?
Do you do this on a case-by-case basis? If so, what is your criteria? Do you decide what to believe first, and then read everything through those “glasses?” That is, do you decide how to weight the texts based on a pre-determined theological principle? (I don’t mean these questions as crassly as they sound: I grew up, as I noted in my above post on James, a purely “sola gratia, sola fide” Lutheran—that whole background was an assumed criteria for my understanding, and was itself “beyond question.” )
I’m really interested in this third question the most. As I noted in my “James” post, the works/faith issue was clearly an unsettled one at the time Paul and James wrote, or they wouldn’t have felt the need to address it. So how would you weight James against Paul? (I assume you wouldn’t do a simple verse count.) Again, I am more interested in how you would proceed than whether or not I agree with the “outcome.”