Go on the record ToOne!

Originally posted by jaywill
ToO continues here to portray the [b]resurrection of Christ as irrelevent to his brand of humanist pseudo Christian ethics.

=========================================

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 r Paul had more experience in this then you do. An understatement.

[/b]Jesus knew much better than Paul.

See if you can ignore again that Jesus says that one must CONTINUE IN HIS WORD to be a true disciple. To know the truth and be set free from the slavery of committing sin.

From what I've seen, Paul rarely if ever refers to the words of Jesus. Therefore he wasn't a true disciple of Jesus.

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.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[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).

[/b] Epi, your argument here on John 15 is very good. I notice that you do not respond to ToO after this.

If you do not it is perfectly understandable to me. The debate is over. And ToO's concept has been shown to be fallacious through your expounding of Christ's intention to further "prune" the abiding branches which are His disciples.

It is an edifying explanation.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jesus knew much better than Paul.

See if you can ignore again that Jesus says that one must CONTINUE IN HIS WORD to be a true disciple. To know the truth and be set free from the slavery of committing sin.

From what I've seen, Paul rarely if ever refers to the words of Jesus. Therefore he wasn't a true disciple of Jesus.

Here's what J o know the truth that will set him free from the slavery of committing sin.

[/b]

===================================
Jesus knew much better than Paul.

See if you can ignore again that Jesus says that one must CONTINUE IN HIS WORD to be a true disciple. To know the truth and be set free from the slavery of committing sin.

From what I've seen, Paul rarely if ever refers to the words of Jesus. Therefore he wasn't a true disciple of Jesus.
======================================

I totally agree with you that Jesus the Son of God knew more than Paul.

That is not my point. My point is that the one whom God ordained to write 13 or so of the 27 New Testament books had more experience than you and I.

You are a FOOL not to listen to him. And your refusing to do so is classic, vintage rebellion against delegated authority.

So we are back where we have been before. And I do not recall that you were responsive.

SO ONCE AGAIN -- What did Paul teach which contradicted the teaching of Jesus ? ?

And I mean MAJOR concepts, foundational tenets of the Christian faith. WE have been here before and you have not addressed this question as far as I can remember.

PROVE Paul opposes Jesus Christ. Sound familiar ?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jesus knew much better than Paul.

See if you can ignore again that Jesus says that one must CONTINUE IN HIS WORD to be a true disciple. To know the truth and be set free from the slavery of committing sin.

From what I've seen, Paul rarely if ever refers to the words of Jesus. Therefore he wasn't a true disciple of Jesus.

Here's what J o know the truth that will set him free from the slavery of committing sin.

[/b]

======================================
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.
==========================================

Splendid. So that means you continue in His word about His redeeming death and resurrection ? My brother Paul certainly did, as did Peter and John.

Is that a word of Jesus which you continue in ?

A "stalking post" no doubt.

But Jesus says we must continue in His word. So should we continue in His word that He will rise and did rise FROM THE DEAD ?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================
Jesus knew much better than Paul.

See if you can ignore again that Jesus says that one must CONTINUE IN HIS WORD to be a true disciple. To know the truth and be set free from the slavery of committing sin.

From what I've seen, Paul rarely if ever refers to the words of Jesus. Therefore he wasn't a true dis ...[text shortened]... estion as far as I can remember.

PROVE Paul [b]opposes Jesus Christ. Sound familiar ?[/b]

[/b]When Jesus walked the Earth He taught the following regarding the absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation": One must become righteous, i.e., one must become one with God, one must follow the will of God, one cannot continue to commit sin, etc.

From what I can tell, you believe otherwise and that a large portion of this belief comes from the teachings of Paul.

IIRC, you believe all one need do is profess belief with ones mouth and that this came from Paul. Jesus taught otherwise.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
When Jesus walked the Earth He taught the following regarding the absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation": One must become righteous, i.e., one must become one with God, one must follow the will of God, one cannot continue to commit sin, etc.

From what I can tell, you believe otherwise and that a large portion of t ...[text shortened]... do is profess belief with ones mouth and that this came from Paul. Jesus taught otherwise.[/b]

======================================
When Jesus walked the Earth He taught the following regarding the absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation":
=====================================

Wherever it says "eternal life" in the New Testament one can substitute the words "heaven" or "salvation" ?

Are you saying that these three words are always absolutely interchangeable in the New Testament ?

Yes or No ?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]======================================
When Jesus walked the Earth He taught the following regarding the absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation":
=====================================

Wherever it says "eternal life" in the New Testament one can substitute the words "heaven" or "salvation" ?

Ar ...[text shortened]... are always absolutely interchangeable in the New Testament ?

Yes or No ?[/b]

I'm not surprised that you didn't really want to go there and ignored my post other than to ask about a tangential issue.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
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]

You whine too much, ThinkOfOne guy. I might have been a little late responding to various aspects of your position, but at least I have responded. You, on the other hand, have left my rebuttals unanswered. It's obvious that you'll latch onto any perceived injustice in order to avoid having to further defend your weak argument. Don't be surprised if you're the only person in these forums who believes that you are the victim of unfair debating tactics, or that your position remains secure behind that haze of superfluous complaining. Regardless, I enjoyed our discussion up until you went into self-preservation mode. For that reason I won't be continuing this discussion.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
You whine too much, ThinkOfOne guy. I might have been a little late responding to various aspects of your position, but at least I have responded. You, on the other hand, have left my rebuttals unanswered. It's obvious that you'll latch onto any perceived injustice in order to avoid having to further defend your weak argument. Don't be surprised if y u went into self-preservation mode. For that reason I won't be continuing this discussion.

What a joke. You haven’t lived up to your promise to discuss this in a “mature, forthright” manner and when you get called on it, you call it “whining”. This is your defense? It is absurd. It's what I'd expect from a teenager.

Almost as absurd as your exceeding weak argument, especially the following assertion:

You forget that one of Christ's commandments is also repentance (Matt. 6:12). Therefore, a sinner could be said to be keeping Christ's commandments if he repents, even though he had sinned.

You had no answer for the following response and thus ignored it:

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 ignored this because you know that the consequence of the above kills point four of your argument, which is all you had left to desperately cling to.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm not surprised that you didn't really want to go there and ignored my post other than to ask about a tangential issue.

You are speaking of your own reluctance to address my relevant issue.

I am trying to get you to take one of your three phrases and STICK with it. Either Heaven or Salvation or Eternal Life.

Choose one of the three terms and we will see what the "minimumn requirement" for the experience of that one term is.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What a joke. You haven’t lived up to your promise to discuss this in a “mature, forthright” manner and when you get called on it, you call it “whining”. This is your defense? It is absurd. It's what I'd expect from a teenager.

Almost as absurd as your exceeding weak argument, especially the following assertion:
[quote] You forget that one of Christ' ...[text shortened]... above kills point four of your argument, which is all you had left to desperately cling to.

What a joke. You haven’t lived up to your promise to discuss this in a “mature, forthright” manner and when you get called on it, you call it “whining”. This is your defense? It is absurd. It's what I'd expect from a teenager.
--------------------ToOne-----------------------------

You are not exactly forthcoming yourself when put on the spot on certain passages. You ignore points when it suits you but then castigate others when you perceive they do the same.

When others read into Jesus' metaphors you call it "conjecture" but when you do the very same you call it "truth".

You play with loaded dice and you know it.

You have no honour.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm not surprised that you didn't really want to go there and ignored my post other than to ask about a tangential issue.

You teach what you most need to learn. Like all hypocrites you are blissfully unaware of your own shortcomings and so instead you project out your own behaviour on to others. You are one of the biggest side steppers on this forum.

You've been told many times by many people that you are evasive.

Are they all wrong?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm not surprised that you didn't really want to go there and ignored my post other than to ask about a tangential issue.

Conveniently ignored by ToO:

=================================
Splendid. So that means you continue in His word about His redeeming death and resurrection ?

But Jesus says we must continue in His word. So should we continue in His word that He will rise and did rise FROM THE DEAD ?
==================================

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
When Jesus walked the Earth He taught the following regarding the absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation": One must become righteous, i.e., one must become one with God, one must follow the will of God, one cannot continue to commit sin, etc.

From what I can tell, you believe otherwise and that a large portion of t ...[text shortened]... do is profess belief with ones mouth and that this came from Paul. Jesus taught otherwise.[/b]

ThinkOone, this post is not written for you. You are not my intended audience in these paragraphs.



=================================
When Jesus walked the Earth He taught the following regarding the absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation":
================================

Does this include when Jesus walked on earth after His resurrection too?

Why is it important? It is important because Jesus teaches about being saved here while walking the earth after His resurrection:

" ... Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to all the creation. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned." (Mark 16:15,16)

The minimum requirement to be saved without question is to BELIEVE. For believing and being baptized is associated with being saved. And not believing is associated with being condemned.

Saved and condemned appear to be established as opposites. The act of believing is positively related to being saved. The act of not believing is associated with being not saved or condemned.

The righteousness is Christ Himself. For baptism stands for being immersed INTO Christ.

Does ToO believe Jesus rose from the dead ?
Does ToO believe that Jesus TAUGHT that He would rise from the dead ?

Does ToO believe that Jesus TAUGHT that He would rise but didn't really rise from the dead ?

Does ToO believe that Jesus didn't even TEACH that He would rise from the dead ?

Does anyone know what ToO believes about these questions ?


Do ToO believe Jesus "walked on earth" after He resurrected from the dead ?

ToO lumps "salvation" and "heaven" as interchangeable terms. The implication is that where you read one term you may substitute the other and get the same meaning.

However Jesus told Zaccheus in Luke 19:9 - "Today salvation has come to this house ..." However Zaccheus's household did not go that day up into heaven.

So a exact /"heaven" / "salvation" comparison does not always hold.

Mary praised God that the Son of God would bring Israel "salvation from our enemies" (Luke 1:71). It is not speaking of going to heaven.


==================
One must become righteous, i.e., one must become one with God, one must follow the will of God, one cannot continue to commit sin, etc.
=====================

An important teaching instance of Christ being one with His redeemed people is His coming to make an abode with them.

"Judas, not Isacariot, said to Him, Lord, and what has happened that You are to manifest Yourself to us and not to the world ?

Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him." (John 14:22,23)

1.) The problem addressed is how will Jesus make Himself known to His disciples yet not to the world?

The disciples He will come to them as the Triune God, the Divine WE - the Father and the Son in or as the Holy Spirit, and make an abode within the disciples.

2.) To keep the word of Jesus and love Jesus will cause Jesus and His Father to come and make an abode in the lover. That makes God and man one. It at least is the start of making God and man one. It may not be the consummation of this oneness. But it is the start of this oneness.

3.) This coming of the Son and the Father to make an abode within the lovers of Jesus is to occur AFTER His resurrection, absolutely:

The proof is in the same chapter - "... the Spirit of reality, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him; but you know Him, because He abides with you and shall be in you.

I will not leave you orphans; I am coming to you." (John 14:17,18)

The coming of the Spirit of reality is the coming of Jesus. The He in verse 17 is suddenly changed to the "I" of verse 18: - " ... because He abides with you and shall be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you."


Jesus is coming to the lovers of Jesus. He will not leave them as orphans. He will not forsake them but will come to live within them. From within them He is one with them. He will live in them and manifest Himself to them.

The world will not experience this manifestation. For they do not believe. If people of the world do change to believe in Christ they will keep His word and they will join the believers to whom Christ will make an abode within and manifest Himself to them.

Anyone part of the unbelieving world who does NOT behold Jesus may be changed to a lover of Jesus by keeping His word and being transfered to the group of people into whom Jesus and His Father as the Divine WE come to to make an abode with them.

The Son and the Father come as the Spirit of truth - the Spirit of reality.

This Person was WITH the disciples physically. Jesus teaches that He will come TO them and live within them. He has to be one with them to live in them.

In the process of His manifesting more and more of Himself to them they are more and more sanctified. They are more and more made dispositionally righteous.

But they could not receive Christ indwelling unless they are justified by God. This is also proved in the same chapter 14. But I will only mention the proof briefly.

At the beginning of the chapter Jesus says He goes away to prepare a place for His disciples. When He comes again He will receive them to Himself.

This place prepared for the disciples is a place IN GOD. It is not speaking of Jesus going to Heaven to prepare mansions for all the believers. He is speaking of preparing them a place in the Father. That is a living place in a living Person. And the way to the living place is a living Person too - "I am ... the way".

Chapter 14 speaks of Jesus going to the cross to die a redemptive death to make it possible for man to be in God, in the Father's house, in the mystical body of Christ. He goes to die for the sins of the redeemed. This enables them to be "organically" put into God Himself. This being put into God Himself is the same as the Father and Son coming to His lovers to make an abode with them in verse 23.

So they must receive the redemption of Christ's death in order for Christ in resurrection to come and make an abode with them. This coming to them and living in them makes them one with God in spirit, in the innermost being. It begins the process of them being completely one with God.

How do we know that this indwelling of the disciples after Christ's resurrection makes them one with God? We know because of verse20 of the same chapter:

"In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you" (John 14:20)

"That day" must be the day of their realization of His resurrection. In "THAT DAY", the day of His being alive again, that day of His manifesting Himself alive to them - they will realize that He is in the Father and they in Him and He in them.

This relationship is a mutual indwelling. He is in the Father, the disciples are in Him, and He is in the disciples. This is not only a mutual indwelling. This is a mingling of God and man.

This is the beginning of a mingling of divinity and humanity. This is the beginning of God living in man to be one with man.

I will stop here. Thank you for your patience reader.

Originally posted by jaywill
You are speaking of your own reluctance to address my relevant issue.

I am trying to get you to take one of your three phrases and STICK with it. Either Heaven or Salvation or Eternal Life.

Choose one of the three terms and we will see what the "minimumn requirement" for the experience of that one term is.

This is the same nonsense you guys always come up. What's actually written is meaningless to you. It's like talking to a group of young children.

You've lost context here. Try reading through this so that you can get back on track.

You posted the following:

I totally agree with you that Jesus the Son of God knew more than Paul.

That is not my point. My point is that the one whom God ordained to write 13 or so of the 27 New Testament books had more experience than you and I.

You are a FOOL not to listen to him. And your refusing to do so is classic, vintage rebellion against delegated authority.

So we are back where we have been before. And I do not recall that you were responsive.

SO ONCE AGAIN -- What did Paul teach which contradicted the teaching of Jesus ? ?

And I mean MAJOR concepts, foundational tenets of the Christian faith. WE have been here before and you have not addressed this question as far as I can remember.

PROVE Paul opposes Jesus Christ. Sound familiar ?

I responded to your point which is in bold above as follows:

When Jesus walked the Earth He taught the following regarding the absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation": One must become righteous, i.e., one must become one with God, one must follow the will of God, one cannot continue to commit sin, etc.

From what I can tell, you believe otherwise and that a large portion of this belief comes from the teachings of Paul.

IIRC, you believe all one need do is profess belief with ones mouth and that this came from Paul. Jesus taught otherwise.

The point of my post is in bold above and addresses your point directly.

You ignored the point of my post and instead posted this:

======================================
When Jesus walked the Earth He taught the following regarding the absolute minimum requirement for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation":
=====================================

Wherever it says "eternal life" in the New Testament one can substitute the words "heaven" or "salvation" ?

Are you saying that these three words are always absolutely interchangeable in the New Testament ?

Yes or No ?

So I responded as follows pointing out that you have abandoned the point of your first post above:

I'm not surprised that you didn't really want to go there and ignored my post other than to ask about a tangential issue.

You then posted the following making the false assertion in bold:

You are speaking of your own reluctance to address my relevant issue.

I am trying to get you to take one of your three phrases and STICK with it. Either Heaven or Salvation or Eternal Life.

Choose one of the three terms and we will see what the "minimumn requirement" for the experience of that one term is.

The fact is that YOU are the one that's gone off topic.

And of course KM joins in as usual with his false assertions thinking he has something of substance to offer as any other child would to try to back up one of his friends.

I end up spending a great deal of effort in just trying to keep you clowns on track.

You guys really need to get a grip on reality.

Are any of you guys capable of following a discussion?