19 Mar 10
Jaywill and Ephin ,
Don't you see that the only way to take things forward with ToOne is to pretty much give up to start with.
Until he can agree (and stick to) a basic simple format for fair discussions (eg - one person answers one question and then the other person does the same) then it's next to pointless. He is unable to admit any deficiencies in his reasoning , and like a politician , finds a way out of any corner.
The best way is not to even humour him with the idea that he is debating fairly and reasonably. The more we argue with him the more it perpetuates. He needs to know firmly and squarely that he has built an impenetrable mental wall around himself , and the only way that can be reflected to him is by non- participation.
It doesn't matter what logic or scripture you use , there is no way in. He has a catagorical / fundamental position that is incredibly rigid and he sees no flaws in it whatsoever. But he also won't pin himself down so you don't have anything to work with and then when you press him on an issue he starts to discuss the discussion rather than the issue itself.
Until we address his discussion style and the tactics he uses everything else is pointless. He will just take you round in circles.
Join me in confronting his tactics in simple and clear language.
19 Mar 10
Originally posted by jaywillEvidently you missed this part of my post:
[b]==============================
This just isn't true JW. I've responded to the vast majority of posts addressed to me, though I do tend to ignore stalking posts.
==================================== [/b]
Stalking posts ?? That is a very interesting phrase - "stalking posts".
So when you convey to us that you have deep and ...[text shortened]... No grace - no empowering. No empowering - NO CHRISTIAN LIFE period.[/b]
"I've explained this to you numerous times. It was not relevant to that discussion. No matter how many more times you ask or how long you stalk me, it won't make it relevant to that discussion. Asking irrelevant questions seems to be a common ploy amongst those who are unable to make a valid argument on the topic at hand. That and whining about it and stalking the person who calls them on it."
19 Mar 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo the stalkers are now two....?
Evidently you missed this part of my post:
"I've explained this to you numerous times. It was not relevant to that discussion. No matter how many more times you ask or how long you stalk me, it won't make it relevant to that discussion. Asking irrelevant questions seems to be a common ploy amongst those who are unable to make a valid argument on the topic at hand. That and whining about it and stalking the person who calls them on it."
Welcome to the club Jaywill , I'll get you a members card in about a week. Infact I'll get a few while I am at it , I have a feeling we won't be the last members.
I have great connections with the liars club , the "you're such a child" YASAC association and deluded anonymous. I've been an honorary member of all of them for a while now.
Entry requirements? Stand up to ToOne and say it how it is.
🙄
19 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf the phrase "every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit" was important to the teaching, He would have offered a detailed explanation as to its underlying meaning in John 15:4-10.
It depends upon what you consider a definitive conclusion. If by definitive you mean, 'pruning' is too vague a notion to ascribe a certain meaning to (a particular disciplinary action, etc.), then you are right. However, my argument doesn't require that level of definition. Christ said, "every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be ev s not keeping His commandments. Your point is absurd.
Don't be ridiculous. How about the fact that Christ said it? That in itself lends 15:2 sufficient importance. I already pointed out to you that the majority of Christ's sayings throughout the Bible have no detailed explanation, a fact which has no bearing on how important we deem them, nor does it determine whether or not we are allowed to ascribe meaning to them.
In John 15:2b all we have to draw on is pure metaphor: "Every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit". If Jesus provided the underlying meaning for "fruit" and "prunes" and "more fruit", we might be able to draw a conclusion that is more than conjecture. As it is, we cannot.
Not true, as I've already shown. I get what you're trying to do here, but you're ignoring the obvious in order to do it. What you want to do is obscure the passage to the point of indecipherability. Allow me to elucidate the plain meaning of John 15:2 for you, since, understandably, you probably don't have much motivation to do so yourself...
It doesn't matter what "prunes" and "fruit" entail exactly for us to conclude, accurately, that God does something to those who obey Christ's commandments. The something that God does we know produces an increase in something else (i.e., fruit). This much we can deduce without knowing what "prune" and "fruit" are exactly. What is of concern is that there's a presence of an increase in something. An increase, of course, shows that the original "unpruned" state of the individual was incomplete, because something which can be increased cannot be said to be complete.
OK, this is already enough to conclude that the believer is lacking in some way, but we can narrow that down somewhat by looking at what 'prune' and 'fruit' entail. I think we can both agree that Christ was not daft. He obviously chose his words with much care. His listeners, mostly agricultural folk, would have at least understood the meaning of 'prune', if not exactly what He was referring to. Pruning involves the removal of unwanted material from a plant in order to effect, in this case, greater fruitfulness. We can conclude then, accurately, that God is removing something in the way of greater fruitfulness.
'Fruit', on the other hand, is defined elsewhere in the Bible as 'righteousness' (Heb. 12:11; Phil. 1:11). Ask yourself what could get in the way of an increase in righteousness? Whatever it is, it must be antithetical to the will of God; i.e, even the obedient are imperfect. QED.
I hope this helps.
The fact is that Rev. 3:19 is attributed to a vision where the author claimed that Jesus spoke to him.
You might as well discount every prophet in the Old Testament while your at it. They received messages from God, too. 🙂
That a sinner repents does not change the fact that he did not keep His commandments. In fact, if he had kept His commandments, there would have been no need for him to repent. In fact, earlier you agreed that when one sins, one is not keeping His commandments. Your point is absurd.
You have to ask yourself, then, why Jesus requires His followers to seek forgiveness for their sins daily and as necessary? Matthew 6:12...
The bottom line is, the passages you habitually cite to support your argument for sinless perfectionism don't explicitly support your argument. What I'm trying to get you to understand is that your argument for sinless perfectionism isn't self-evident in Christ's teaching and the only absurdities being created here are due to your theological error. If you refuse to come to terms with that, I don't see much point in us arguing about this subject any further.
19 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasI tried to address your previous post in its entirety.
[b]If the phrase "every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit" was important to the teaching, He would have offered a detailed explanation as to its underlying meaning in John 15:4-10.
Don't be ridiculous. How about the fact that Christ said it? That in itself lends 15:2 sufficient importance. I already po point in us arguing about this subject any further.[/b]
I ask that you do the same instead of continuing to take isolated sentences/passages out of context and responding to them as if the surrounding content doesn't exist. The isolated sentences/passages are often merely building blocks for larger concepts. Perhaps it's time you learned how to understand the importance of larger themes. But then, that seems to be the way you approach scripture also.
I see little point in continuing this discussion if you continue to respond in this manner.
20 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI tried to address your previous post in its entirety. I ask that you do the same instead of continuing to take isolated sentences/passages out of context and responding to them as if the surrounding content doesn't exist.
I tried to address your previous post in its entirety.
I ask that you do the same instead of continuing to take isolated sentences/passages out of context and responding to them as if the surrounding content doesn't exist. The isolated sentences/passages are often merely building blocks for larger concepts. Perhaps it's time you learned how to underst ...[text shortened]...
I see little point in continuing this discussion if you continue to respond in this manner.
I honestly tried to make sure to address all your major themes. I'm sorry if you feel I didn't do that. If you have any interest in continuing this discussion, bring my attention to whatever it is you feel I unfairly overlooked and I will respond to it. I have a wife and a kid, which means I don't have very much time to dig into this stuff, so cut me a little slack, eh? 🙂
I see little point in continuing this discussion if you continue to respond in this manner.
Well, it was a lively discussion and I bow in your general direction. Peace.
20 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne============================
Evidently you missed this part of my post:
"I've explained this to you numerous times. It was not relevant to that discussion. No matter how many more times you ask or how long you stalk me, it won't make it relevant to that discussion. Asking irrelevant questions seems to be a common ploy amongst those who are unable to make a valid argument on the topic at hand. That and whining about it and stalking the person who calls them on it."
Evidently you missed this part of my post:
"I've explained this to you numerous times. It was not relevant to that discussion. No matter how many more times you ask or how long you stalk me, it won't make it relevant to that discussion. Asking irrelevant questions seems to be a common ploy amongst those who are unable to make a valid argument on the topic at hand. That and whining about it and stalking the person who calls them on it."
==============================
Whether I missed this or did not miss it, it seems to make no difference.
But I do not recall you ever saying anything about the resurrection of Christ except I may vaguely recall you saying it made no difference to anything you are teaching. It makes all the difference.
This is why it is fruitless to discuss this with you. And this is why you regard my attempts to as "stalking".
And this is precisely why I have to write ABOUT you and not TO you. But it is really not about you. It is about the attempt of some to teach a Gospel of Jesus Christ devoid of the resurrection of Christ.
Even in the secular world there is a saying "You cannot enlighten an unconscious person."
Your unconsciousness of the livingness of the resurrected Christ and His availability to us today, is your huge blind spot.
You say much about the Lord's words the truth shall make you free. The truth is the resurrection. At least an indispensible part of the truth which makes free is the resurrection of Christ.
Here is the bottom line - it is the difference between teaching a Christ who is UNAVAILABLE to teaching of a Christ who is AVAILABLE.
THAT in a nutshell is the difference between the New Testament and your teaching.
And your teaching apparently, by all indications, is that it is irrelevant whether Jesus is alive and available TODAY. Jesus taught and the whole New Testament teaches that He is available because of His resurrection.
20 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasBring it to your attention? Like that's all I'd have to do. I had to bring the following to your attention no less than three times and then finally had to dedicate an entire post detailing how you ignored it time and again even with me expressly bringing it to your attention before you responded to it:
[b]I tried to address your previous post in its entirety. I ask that you do the same instead of continuing to take isolated sentences/passages out of context and responding to them as if the surrounding content doesn't exist.
I honestly tried to make sure to address all your major themes. I'm sorry if you feel I didn't do that. If you have any manner.[/b]
Well, it was a lively discussion and I bow in your general direction. Peace.[/b]
The fourth point is exceedingly weak as it is built upon a metaphor which, by its nature, cannot be relied upon to draw a definitive conclusion;as it is built by taking verses from disparate sources and cobbling them together, which is not a very reliable methodology; and as it relies heavily on that which was not given an underlying meaning by Jesus.
At that, the above was a summary of the original argument that you also ignored.
So much for "OK, I promise to engage in a mature, forthright discussion with you, wherein I try my best never to avoid a straightforward question, misrepresent your position, or circumvent an argument by insulting you" which you've now broken many times.
Quite frankly, I didn't really think there'd be much chance of you living up to it. You, like several others on this forum, are afraid to honestly deal with the teachings of Jesus and so find ways to avoid looking too closely.
The fact is that you have an exceedingly weak argument. You might as well just admit it instead of playing games and then, to top it off, hiding behind your wife and kid.
20 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill[/b]You say much about the Lord's words the truth shall make you free. The truth is the resurrection. At least an indispensible part of the truth which makes free is the resurrection of Christ.
[b]============================
Evidently you missed this part of my post:
"I've explained this to you numerous times. It was not relevant to that discussion. No matter how many more times you ask or how long you stalk me, it won't make it relevant to that discussion. Asking irrelevant questions seems to be a common ploy amongst those who are unable and the whole New Testament teaches that He is available because of His resurrection.
Jesus said differently. But then, you don't value what Jesus said as much as you value what those other than Jesus said. Look at your posts. When you quote scripture, you almost always quote those other than Jesus to support your position.
Here's what Jesus said makes one free:
John 8:32-36
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "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." They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?"
Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."
Jesus says that one must continue in His word, i.e., follow His teachings in order to know the truth that will set him free from the slavery of committing sin.
20 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAt that, the above was a summary of the original argument that you also ignored.
Bring it to your attention? Like that's all I'd have to do. I had to bring the following to your attention no less than three times and then finally had to dedicate an entire post detailing how you ignored it time and again even with me expressly bringing it to your attention before you responded to it:
[quote]The fourth point is exceedingly weak as it i mit it instead of playing games and then, to top it off, hiding behind your wife and kid.
I certainly did not ignore your original argument. Allow me to reproduce the specific passages for proof:
The fourth point is exceedingly weak as it is built upon a metaphor which, by its nature, cannot be relied upon to draw a definitive conclusion...
It depends upon what you consider a definitive conclusion. If by definitive you mean, 'pruning' is too vague a notion to ascribe a certain meaning to (a particular disciplinary action, etc.), then you are right. However, my argument doesn't require that level of definition. Christ said, "every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful" (John 15:2). You don't need to know exactly what Christ is referring to by 'prunes' to be able to conclude that God is dealing with some incompleteness or imperfection in the believer's person. If the rest of Christ's metaphor in John 15 can be used to conclude something significant about what it means to be a disciple, it stands to reason that verse 2 can as well. Therefore your attempt to refute my argument based on the fact that it is derived from a metaphorical saying is toothless; at worst you are employing a double standard (p. 17).
It doesn't matter what "prunes" and "fruit" entail exactly for us to conclude, accurately, that God does something to those who obey Christ's commandments. The something that God does we know produces an increase in something else (i.e., fruit). This much we can deduce without knowing what "prune" and "fruit" are exactly. What is of concern is that there's a presence of an increase in something. An increase, of course, shows that the original "unpruned" state of the individual was incomplete, because something which can be increased cannot be said to be complete.
OK, this is already enough to conclude that the believer is lacking in some way, but we can narrow that down somewhat by looking at what 'prune' and 'fruit' entail. I think we can both agree that Christ was not daft. He obviously chose his words with much care. His listeners, mostly agricultural folk, would have at least understood the meaning of 'prune', if not exactly what He was referring to. Pruning involves the removal of unwanted material from a plant in order to effect, in this case, greater fruitfulness. We can conclude then, accurately, that God is removing something in the way of greater fruitfulness.
'Fruit', on the other hand, is defined elsewhere in the Bible as 'righteousness' (Heb. 12:11; Phil. 1:11). Ask yourself what could get in the way of an increase in righteousness? Whatever it is, it must be antithetical to the will of God; i.e, even the obedient are imperfect. QED. (p. 18)
...as it is built by taking verses from disparate sources and cobbling them together, which is not a very reliable methodology...
This isn't even an attempt at developing your argument or addressing mine. It is merely a claim that my sources are disparate, that is, in conflict with one another, and that I've cobbled them together, which is to say you believe I've fashioned my argument poorly. This is entirely subjective on your part, however, despite your attempt to legitimize it with words like "...not a very reliable methodology." The fact is Rev. 3:19, whether or not you personally accept it, is attributed to Christ, in all seriousness. Furthermore, it mirrors a passage from the Old Testament that Christ Himself was familiar with in his lifetime, i.e., Psalm 3:11-12. Clearly my sources are anything but disparate and cobbled together; quite the opposite. But that is neither here nor there...(p. 17)
...and as it relies heavily on that which was not given an underlying meaning by Jesus.
I already pointed out to you that the majority of Christ's sayings throughout the Bible have no detailed explanation, a fact which has no bearing on how important we deem them, nor does it determine whether or not we are allowed to ascribe meaning to them (p. 18).
Note: you haven't addressed my responses to your original argument (above).
20 Mar 10
9 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehas[/b]You cannot be serious. You didn't post that until well AFTER all the following had transpired. For you to try to use that as evidence that you had not ignored my original argument, is as pathetic as it gets. What you quoted is merely what I was referring to where I said, "..before you responded to it" :
[b]At that, the above was a summary of the original argument that you also ignored.
I certainly did not ignore your original argument. Allow me to reproduce the specific passages for proof:
[quote]The fourth point is exceedingly weak as it is built upon a metaphor which, by its nature, cannot be relied upon to draw a definitive conclusion.. ddressed my responses to your original argument (above).
I had to bring the following to your attention no less than three times and then finally had to dedicate an entire post detailing how you ignored it time and again even with me expressly bringing it to your attention before you responded to it:
[quote]The fourth point is exceedingly weak as it is built upon a metaphor which, by its nature, cannot be relied upon to draw a definitive conclusion;as it is built by taking verses from disparate sources and cobbling them together, which is not a very reliable methodology; and as it relies heavily on that which was not given an underlying meaning by Jesus.
At that, the above was a summary of the original argument that you also ignored. [/quote]
I had to go to great lengths to get you to finally post that response and your assertion that all I need do is "bring [your] attention to whatever it is [I] feel [you] unfairly overlooked and [you] will respond to it" has been anything but the case thus far.
Once again, so much for "OK, I promise to engage in a mature, forthright discussion with you, wherein I try my best never to avoid a straightforward question, misrepresent your position, or circumvent an argument by insulting you" which you've now broken many times. And yet again here.
Furthermore, I have already addressed most of those responses that you cobbled together there, with the exception of the latest responses which were in the post that once again ignored large portions of my post at which point this discussion broke down. For you to try to characterize it otherwise is dishonest.
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOnce again, so much for "OK, I promise to engage in a mature, forthright discussion with you, wherein I try my best never to avoid a straightforward question, misrepresent your position, or circumvent an argument by insulting you" which you've now broken many times. And yet again here.
You cannot be serious. You didn't post that until well AFTER all the following had transpired. For you to try to use that as evidence that you had not ignored my original argument, is as pathetic as it gets. What you quoted is merely what I was referring to where I said, "..before you responded to it" :
[quote]I had to bring the following to your att ...[text shortened]... nt this discussion broke down. For you to try to characterize it otherwise is dishonest.[/b]
----------------------ToOne------------------------
Then why the hell don't you do a very simple thing and just lay out clear and specific rules to this discussion.
EG- Ephin spends 3 reasonably lengthed posts addressing one basic issue and one passage only. He has to answer straight questions during this period. Once completed then the roles reverse - and then so on and so forth.
If you don't like this then come up with some other system - I'm sure Ephin would be happy to oblige (so would I but you turned me down months ago). At least then a system could be adopted and you could both stop wasting words discussing the discussion instead of the issues.
I bet you won't do this though. You like it too much this way because no progress can be made and you can return to your default position of "EPhin is being pathetic" (or some other rationalisation).
It's clear you will do anything to avoid taking on board anything that anyone says to you.
I bet my mortgage you are single.
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI see little point in continuing this discussion if you continue to respond in this manner.
I tried to address your previous post in its entirety.
I ask that you do the same instead of continuing to take isolated sentences/passages out of context and responding to them as if the surrounding content doesn't exist. The isolated sentences/passages are often merely building blocks for larger concepts. Perhaps it's time you learned how to underst ...[text shortened]...
I see little point in continuing this discussion if you continue to respond in this manner.
----ToOne------------
Which translated means................"I'm on a bit of sticky wicket here , so let's call this off"
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne"Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."
You say much about the Lord's words the truth shall make you free. The truth is the resurrection. At least an indispensible part of the truth which makes free is the resurrection of Christ.
Jesus said differently. But then, you don't value what Jesus said as much as you value what those other than Jesus said. Look at your posts. When you qu ...[text shortened]... n order to know the truth that will set him free from the slavery of committing sin.[/b]
-----------------ToOne-------------------------------
Your point to Ephin about fruit and pruning was that if a metaphor is not fully explained by Jesus properly then anything we read into it is just "conjecture".
The metaphors of slaves , house and what the Son setting you free are not fully explained.
Should we ignore them?
20 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneToO continues here to portray the resurrection of Christ as irrelevent to his brand of humanist pseudo Christian ethics.
You say much about the Lord's words the truth shall make you free. The truth is the resurrection. At least an indispensible part of the truth which makes free is the resurrection of Christ.
Jesus said differently. But then, you don't value what Jesus said as much as you value what those other than Jesus said. Look at your posts. When you qu n order to know the truth that will set him free from the slavery of committing sin.[/b]
=========================================
jaywill:
You say much about the Lord's words the truth shall make you free. The truth is the resurrection. At least an indispensible part of the truth which makes free is the resurrection of Christ.
ToO:
Jesus said differently. But then, you don't value what Jesus said as much as you value what those other than Jesus said. Look at your posts. When you quote scripture, you almost always quote those other than Jesus to support your position.
============================
When I restricted myself to the "red letters" in the Gospels you could not see.
I said to myself "Only use the quotations from the Gospels".
It didn't help. I have tried a number of different approaches with you.
========================
Here's what Jesus said makes one free:
John 8:32-36
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "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." They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?"
Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."
Jesus says that one must continue in His word, i.e., follow His teachings in order to know the truth that will set him free from the slavery of committing sin.
============================
Concerning His resurrection He said
"Yet a little while and the world beholds Me no longer, but you behold Me; because I live, you also shall live." (John 14:19)
This phrase "you also shall live" should not be taken for granted. It implies all that Jesus taught His disciples. It means they shall live unto God, live in God, live for God, and actually live God.
"Because I live, you also shall live".
The natural humanists like you says "Oh, I shall live regardless". The enlightened man realizes that if Christ is not risen and alive he cannot live unto God, he cannot live for God, he cannot live as God intends man to live.
Why then shall the disciples be able to live ? They can live because Christ will live. The world will behold Him no longer. But He lives and He can dispense Himself into His lovers.
Because today He lives, we who believe into Him can live also. The resurrection and availability of Christ today, I mean today, is how we may live as His followers.
I could speak this same matter from many different passages.
In the very same chapter 8 which you fondly quote, we also see Jesus Christ confess that He is the great "I AM" the ever existing and self existing God. He is the "I AM" Who appeared to Moses in the burning bush in Exodus.
Death cannot hold Him. And because He lives in resurrection we can live through Him.
"Before Abraham came into being, I am" (8:58)
The freedom is having this Divine I AM of Christ the life giving Spirit dispensed into our being.
ToO, Paul had more experience in this then you do. An understatement.