- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
06 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterNonsense.
-...
Belief in the Living God is hardly an "issue" ! Jesus's ministry makes no sense unless God actually exists. He constantly says things like " I do only what I see my Father doing" . It's an absolute fundamental. Jesus saw himself as sent on a mission by his Father. His life and death is a nonsense if you take that away.
...
Jesus' ministry makes sense in and of his place in history and religion, some 2,000 years ago. The literal events, however, don't make sense to me today. For example, Satan is not an entity to me - he can't be, that's sets up an anti-God entity with grave theological problems for me. As a symbol and metaphor, however, I can get something out of Jesus' encounter with Satan.
What you are asserting is not accurate - Jesus' teachings and ministry do have value even if he is not God walking upon the earth, even if he did not resurrect - yes, even if there is no God! I have used and continue to use his ministry to better myself and my situation. I don't have to believe in outdated, unprovable thiestic ideas in order to benefit from his ministry.
As for conventional notions of God, I think they are off the mark. I see neither the evidence nor the need for conventional, orthodox thiestic belief systems.
07 Jan 10
7 edits
Originally posted by jaywill
[b]========================================
For another, you still haven't "addressed the fact that the rich young ruler, Jesus and the disciples used "eternal life", "kingdom of heaven", "kingdom of God" and "saved" interchangeably."
==========================================
About the one phrase "enter eternal life".
We sh s personality to expose his weakness towards God.[/b]
ThinkofOne may object that I am retrofitting Paul's concept onto Christ's teaching. No I am not.
Jaywill, how can you deny this? You start off with what Paul taught and then use it as the foundation to prop up your interpretation. When you're done twisting the story of the rich young ruler onto the framework it is littered with highly speculative conclusions, distortions, incongruities, etc. Let's look at a few.
When the rich young ruler asks "What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" he knows nothing about his need to be judicially reconciled to God through the death of Christ. He does know that he does not have eternal life and assumes that there is some good thing he must do to gain it. ...
What must he do to obtain eternal life. He does not have the revelation to ask "What thing, Lord Jesus, must YOU do that I may gain eternal life?" Probably no one but Jesus, maybe John the Baptist, have the revelation that Christ first must die to reconcile all the enemies of God to God. ...
To the question of "What good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" Jesus immediately informs him that only ... only ... GOD is good.
"Why do you ask Me concerning what is good? There is only One who is good ..."
Let's look at Young's Literal Translation:
16 And lo, one having come near, said to him, 'Good teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have life age-during?' 17 And he said to him, 'Why me dost thou call good? no one is good except One -- God; but if thou dost will to enter into the life, keep the commands.'
There's no reason without the framework of Paul for anyone to assume that Jesus thinks that the RYR should be asking "What thing, Lord Jesus, must YOU do that I may gain eternal life?" This is pure speculation.
Jesus does not ask "Why do you ask Me concerning what is good?", but " 'Why me dost thou call good? ("Why do you call Me good?" in reference to the RYR calling Him "Good teacher" ). This does not imply that Jesus does not believe that the RYR cannot gain eternal life as evidenced by Jesus immediately saying "if thou dost will to enter into the life, keep the commands." Jesus explicitly tells him that if he keeps the commandments he will "enter into the life" even AFTER asking the RYR why he called Him good.
We should realize then that Jesus' answer is not to encourage man to try to be justified for eternal life by good works. Rather His answer is to expose man's incapability to do so. The audaciousness of the rich young ruler is dealt a devestating blow by Jesus. We all need such a blow. Some perhaps more than others need such a blow. Only God is good. And what Christ mentions as our good deed to be justified for eternal life is far beyond us.
"He went away sorrowful" (v.22) This proves that the young man was unable to do good. He can neither keep the Ten Commandments nor give to the poor, this loving his neighbeors as himself. He cannot love God with all of his heart, all of his strength, all of his soul, and all of his mind. He is unable to part with his comfort, wander with the Son of God, or give away his wealth to the poor.
Unableness and inability of man to do good to be justified for eternal life is the lesson of Christ here in Matthew 19.
You say, "This proves that the young man was unable to do good" which is once again highly speculative. It only shows that the RYR is UNWILLING to place "eternal life" above his riches. All this talk about "Unableness and inability" is nonsense. There are plenty of people even today who give up all their worldly possessions to live a monastic life. You also need to consider the "Cast the first stone" story where Jesus tells the woman, "Go and sin no more." What is that command if Jesus believed it impossible?
Plus, have you considered that with your interpretation via Paul from the RYR's perspective? Here he has sincerely asked Jesus what is required for eternal life. You'd have us believe that Jesus lies to the guy and let's him walk away without knowing the answer. It's cruel. Do you really have such a low opinion of Jesus that you believe that Jesus would do this to someone?
07 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitGood luck trying to get KM to listen to reason.
1) Even if Jesus believed in God, I fail to see why all of Jesus' followers must believe in God. Being a follower doesn't mean you hold exactly the same beliefs on every issue.
2) The main point of this example was to show that there may not be a consensus on which of Jesus' words in the Bible are authentic. I was trying to show one plausible example e early churches, or different groups of christians with their own variations on theology?
It'll be one logical fallacy after another.
He still can't seem to wrap his mind around the idea that what Jesus taught is required for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" is not somehow dependent on what any individual, may believe regarding God or sin or...whatever he dreams up on any given day.
Thanks for leaving me out of the presentation of your argument. Note that KM somehow thinks you are speaking for me as he keeps referencing me (and misrepresenting me at that). It seems KM still believes that he can nullify this teaching of Jesus by attacking the person who points it out. He is blinded by this vendetta.
07 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne====================================ThinkofOne may object that I am retrofitting Paul's concept onto Christ's teaching. No I am not.
Jaywill, how can you deny this? You start off with what Paul taught and then use it as the foundation to prop up your interpretation. When you're done twisting the story of the rich young ruler onto the framework it is littered with highly sp believe that Jesus would do this to someone?
Jesus does not ask "Why do you ask Me concerning what is good?", but " 'Why me dost thou call good? ("Why do you call Me good?" in reference to the RYR calling Him "Good teacher" ).
===================================
I was quoting Matthew 19:17 which in my RcV reads "And He said, Why do you ask Me concerning what is good? There is only One who is good. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
Mark 10:17 reads "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but God alone."
I don't think there is much difference between the two. There was no hidden motive in quoting the Matthew passage. I may have lost track of which Gospel we were discussing.
=====================================
This does not imply that Jesus does not believe that the RYR cannot gain eternal life as evidenced by Jesus immediately saying "if thou dost will to enter into the life, keep the commands." Jesus explicitly tells him that if he keeps the commandments he will "enter into the life" even AFTER asking the RYR why he called Him good.
======================================
Perhaps you could explain to me why, when the young man says that he has kept the commandments, that Jesus does not confirm that he has entered into eternal life.
=======================================
You say, "This proves that the young man was unable to do good" which is once again highly speculative.
======================================
It is not that the RYR could not do good at all. It is that he could not be good enough to be justified before God to receive eternal life.
==============================
It only shows that the RYR is UNWILLING to place "eternal life" above his riches.
==================================
I think it is the same difference.
=====================================
All this talk about "Unableness and inability" is nonsense. There are plenty of people even today who give up all their worldly possessions to live a monastic life.
======================================
It is a point to consider that the 12 disciples HAD given up much to follow the Lord Jesus (Matt. 18:27; Mark 10:28). But the RYR may have had many more riches then they.
I don't know how you can get around the fact that Jesus, though He loved the RYR (Mark 10:20) did not confirm that the RYR had fulfilled his requirement. Rather, Jesus raised the bar of perfection until the RYR realized that he simply could not do what was needed.
Jesus is exceedingly wise and His eyes penetrate the deepest recesses of all men's hearts. And what He did to the RYR was for the RYR's benefit, as hard as it may seem. Remember that Jesus is God/Man.
If you've never had to turn sorrowfully away at self realization, I wonder if you have stood next to Jesus. Disappointment is not the end.
Look at Peter's experience. He thought he could followed Jesus even to death. Jesus warned him that he would deny Him three times. But Oh No ... not Peter. Not self confident Peter.
The jist of it is this THinkOfOne - there is in this universe only ONE Person who is absolute for the will of God - Jesus. It is by identification with Him that we are saved. He alone is absolute for the will of His Father to the uttermost. He alone is thoroughly FOR God.
By identification with Jesus Christ we can be saved. "I am the vine; you are the branches. He who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing." (John 15:5)
Apart from Him we can do NOTHING for the will of God.
And apart from Him we cannot be justified.
And apart from Him we cannot be perfected.
============================
You also need to consider the "Cast the first stone" story where Jesus tells the woman, "Go and sin no more." What is that command if Jesus believed it impossible?
=====================================
His words are spirit and life. And the power of His word can indeed set us free from sin.
When Jesus told the mob "I am" (John 18:4-6) they fell back because of the sheer power of the divine pronouncement.
In like manner I believe when Jesus told that woman "Go and sin no more" the divine power of His word changed her life.
This is why we need to come to His word with an entirely opened heart and allow the Spirit of Christ to speak to us.
This comment is my application of that passage. We are not told what happened to the woman after this. But for Jesus to tell her to go and sin no more may have been specifically related to her adulteries.
I don't think His saying "Go and sin no more" meant that His redemptive death and resurrection were not needed by the women and everyone else in that crowd.
======================================
Plus, have you considered that with your interpretation via Paul from the RYR's perspective? Here he has sincerely asked Jesus what is required for eternal life.
=======================================
Jesus actualy went a step further than his request. He told him what he should do if he would be perfect.
"You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (Mark 10:21)
"If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor , etc. " (Matt. 19:21)
Jesus did not stop to say "You already have eternal life then." Jesus showed him what still lay before him in order to be perfect.
I don't think Jesus believed that the RYR was really blameless as to the Ten Commandments. I think the RYR may have audaciously considered that he had kept them. Perhaps he compared himself to others.
But compared to Jesus Himself, the only one in whom the Father is well pleased, we all fall short.
======================================
You'd have us believe that Jesus lies to the guy and let's him walk away without knowing the answer. It's cruel. Do you really have such a low opinion of Jesus that you believe that Jesus would do this to someone?
======================================
I don't think Jesus lied or was cruel. I think Jesus loved the man and ministered to him exactly what he needed to hear.
We do not know that this was the end of the man's story. And for all we know, when Mark wrote his gospel the man could have been there reminding Mark of his experience with Christ.
Now granted this is speculation purely. But I do believe that some of the people mentioned in third person in these Gospel accounts were actual disciples who told of thier stories.
Anyway, as long as you fall more and more in love with Jesus, I don't care how you interpret the passages.
Don't you just love Jesus ? When I read the account, my heart is drawn to Jesus Christ. Just let it be drawn.
I'd be glad to lose any theological debate just as long as we each come away loving Jesus more.
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterWell, I simply disagree with your assessment of 1). "Nonsense" is certainly too strong a word.
----------------------------------------------------------
1) Even if Jesus believed in God, I fail to see why all of Jesus' followers must believe in God. Being a follower doesn't mean you hold exactly the same beliefs on every issue.
-------------------------swissG-------------
Belief in the Living God is hardly an "issue" ! Jesus's ministry ...[text shortened]... "whatever you do to one of these you do unto me" is seeping with implied meaning.
As for 2), there is no slippery slope at all. There is only an acknowledgment that some of Jesus' teachings might have been changed or added on in the process of being passed by word-of-mouth, and an effort to analyze and discover which words have the highest chance of being genuine.
"Mere" men judged humanity all the time in the Old Testament. What about the prophets, for example? Or Noah, before the Flood?
07 Jan 10
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywill[/b]
[b]====================================
Jesus does not ask "Why do you ask Me concerning what is good?", but " 'Why me dost thou call good? ("Why do you call Me good?" in reference to the RYR calling Him "Good teacher" ).
===================================
I was quoting Matthew 19:17 which in my RcV reads "And He said, Why do as we each come away loving Jesus more.
I was quoting Matthew 19:17 which in my RcV reads "And He said, Why do you ask Me concerning what is good? There is only One who is good. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
Mark 10:17 reads "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but God alone."
I don't think there is much difference between the two. There was no hidden motive in quoting the Matthew passage. I may have lost track of which Gospel we were discussing.
We were discussing Matthew. I quoted Young's Literal Translation from Matthew so that you could see that the translation you are using misses the mark. Did you read the YLT?
Perhaps you could explain to me why, when the young man says that he has kept the commandments, that Jesus does not confirm that he has entered into eternal life.
This is an example of how you ignore the words of Jesus in order to twist what Jesus taught onto the framework of Paul. You are so focused on trying to make it fit, that you don't even see what is plainly stated.
Matthew 19:20
The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?”
The RYR asked Jesus what else he is lacking. Clearly the RYR understood that Jesus did not intend that keeping that list of commandments was all there was to it, why didn't you?.
It is not that the RYR could not do good at all. It is that he could not be good enough to be justified before God to receive eternal life.
Jesus never says this. In fact, as I keep pointing out, Jesus tells the RYR where he must begin to start on the path to eternal life which begins with following the commandments.
I think it is the same difference.
There's a world of difference between being "unable" to do something and being "unwilling" to do it. I have to believe that you understand this, but are so determined to continue to twist the teachings of Jesus onto the framework of Paul, that you are willing to feign ignorance.
I don't know how you can get around the fact that Jesus, though He loved the RYR (Mark 10:20) did not confirm that the RYR had fulfilled his requirement. Rather, Jesus raised the bar of perfection until the RYR realized that he simply could not do what was needed.
C'mon Jaywill, this is yet another example of you engaging in wild speculation in order to twist what Jesus taught onto the framework of Paul.
It's much more reasonable to believe that Jesus was interested in helping the RYR by telling him the truth. Instead you choose to pervert what Jesus plainly states into some sort of "lesson" so that it fits the framework of Paul. You demonstrate time and again that you cannot see the words of Jesus for what they are. This is exactly what Jesus was talking about when He said, "You have eyes, but cannot see".
This comment is my application of that passage. We are not told what happened to the woman after this. But for Jesus to tell her to go and sin no more may have been specifically related to her adulteries.
I don't think His saying "Go and sin no more" meant that His redemptive death and resurrection were not needed by the women and everyone else in that crowd.
Yet another example of how hard you have to work to twist what Jesus says in order for it to "fit" onto the framework of Paul. Why can't you simply let the words of Jesus speak for themselves, rather than engage in all this wild speculation?
Jesus did not stop to say "You already have eternal life then." Jesus showed him what still lay before him in order to be perfect.
I don't think Jesus believed that the RYR was really blameless as to the Ten Commandments. I think the RYR may have audaciously considered that he had kept them. Perhaps he compared himself to others.
But compared to Jesus Himself, the only one in whom the Father is well pleased, we all fall short.
And more wild speculation that is not based on the teachings of Jesus. You keep choosing to ignore what Jesus explicitly states and have to resort in wild speculation in order to get it to "fit" onto the framework of Paul.
I don't think Jesus lied or was cruel. I think Jesus loved the man and ministered to him exactly what he needed to hear.
We do not know that this was the end of the man's story. And for all we know, when Mark wrote his gospel the man could have been there reminding Mark of his experience with Christ.
Now granted this is speculation purely.
If Jesus truly loved the RYR, he would tell him the truth. In your mind that would be that it is impossible for the RYR to stop committing sin and that all the RYR need do is profess belief. But Jesus never tells the RYR this. Do you really think that you (or Paul) have a better handle on truth than Jesus?
Anyway, as long as you fall more and more in love with Jesus, I don't care how you interpret the passages.
Don't you just love Jesus ? When I read the account, my heart is drawn to Jesus Christ. Just let it be drawn.
The sad fact is that it is Paul that you love. If you loved Jesus, you would follow what He says instead of insisting on twisting his words to fit the framework of Paul. Look at what Jesus taught:
John 15:7-11
7 “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 “My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples. 9 “Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. 10 “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love
If you keep HIS commandments, you will abide in His love. This is consistent with what He explicitly told the RYR. It is not consistent with your attempts to twist the words of Jesus onto the framework of Paul.
And again:
John 14:21-24
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him. Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto him, Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my words
This is consistent with what He explicitly told the RYR. If one doesn't keep His words, he does NOT love Him.
07 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThis is an example of how you ignore the words of Jesus in order to twist what Jesus taught onto the framework of Paul. You are so focused on trying to make it fit, that you don't even see what is plainly stated.
[quote]I was quoting Matthew 19:17 which in my RcV reads "And He said, Why do you ask Me concerning what is good? There is only One who is good. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
Mark 10:17 reads "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but God alone."
I don't think there is much difference between the two. There was no ]
This is consistent with what He explicitly told the RYR.[/b]
----------ToOne----------------------------
Rank hypocrisy!!!!!!!! You are the biggest twister of Jesus's teachings!!!!
Jesus clearly teaches his followers that they are to confess sin daily to God in Matt 6:9 . The fact that he does so throws a complete spanner in the works of your theology. You either completely ignore this or come up with some cobbled together rationalisation about it. Jesus clearly and explictly teaches his followers to come before God in daily confession. This means that he accepted the idea that those who followed Him were not necessarily going to be without any sin and would need to pray in this way.
One could argue that Jesus did not intend the Lord's Prayer to be the way everyone should pray and that there was another way of praying for those people who were perfect and never sinned. However , since he offers no other way of praying this idea is bunkum.
Our Father, who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses(sins),
As we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
[For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever.]
Amen.
Either you think Jesus didn't say what he said in Matt 6:9 or you just ignore his words and teachings because they conflict with your own rigid interpretation.
Jesus would have you for breakfast and I'm sure he would mention something to you about planks and eyes etc.
You are a hypocrite ToOne!
You teach what you most need to learn.
But , of course , I am just a "stalker"
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz................š
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAnd more wild speculation that is not based on the teachings of Jesus. You keep choosing to ignore what Jesus explicitly states and have to resort in wild speculation in order to get it to "fit" onto the framework of Paul.
[quote]I was quoting Matthew 19:17 which in my RcV reads "And He said, Why do you ask Me concerning what is good? There is only One who is good. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
Mark 10:17 reads "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but God alone."
I don't think there is much difference between the two. There was no ...[text shortened]... he RYR. If one doesn't keep His words, he does NOT love Him.[/b]
------------ToOne-------------
DITTO.....(see above post)
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by BadwaterYou miss the point.
Nonsense.
Jesus' ministry makes sense in and of his place in history and religion, some 2,000 years ago. The literal events, however, don't make sense to me today. For example, Satan is not an entity to me - he can't be, that's sets up an anti-God entity with grave theological problems for me. As a symbol and metaphor, however, I can get something out of ...[text shortened]... see neither the evidence nor the need for conventional, orthodox thiestic belief systems.
It's not how you make sense of him it's what he thought about himself that's at issue here. You are free to think of him as a great teacher if you wish and I understand and agree that this may have great meaning for you - but don't kid yourself for one minute that Jesus saw himself in this way. Do you really think that for Jesus his ministry makes sense without the God bit?
"I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him [Jesus Christ]: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God."
That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said wouldnot be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell.
You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is,the Son of God,: or else a madman or something worse .... You can shut him up for fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great humanteacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to."
-- From Case for Christianity, by C.S. Lewis.
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by SwissGambit"Mere" men judged humanity all the time in the Old Testament. What about the prophets, for example? Or Noah, before the Flood?
Well, I simply disagree with your assessment of 1). "Nonsense" is certainly too strong a word.
As for 2), there is no slippery slope at all. There is only an acknowledgment that some of Jesus' teachings might have been changed or added on in the process of being passed by word-of-mouth, and an effort to analyze and discover which words have the highes ...[text shortened]... time in the Old Testament. What about the prophets, for example? Or Noah, before the Flood?
-------------------swissG------------------------------
Judge yes , but not PASS judgement and decide a man's eternal destiny.
They did not dare say that they would be there at the end of time dividing the sheep from the wolves in sheep's clothing.
07 Jan 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThis is obviously an attack on me and made indirectly to me. If you want to say something to me , just have the gumption to post it directly.
Good luck trying to get KM to listen to reason.
It'll be one logical fallacy after another.
He still can't seem to wrap his mind around the idea that what Jesus taught is required for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" is not somehow dependent on what any individual, may believe regarding God or sin or...whatever he dreams up on any given day. ...[text shortened]... hing of Jesus by attacking the person who points it out. He is blinded by this vendetta.
Incidently , your post had no content of any value at all and also failed to grasp that when I started to talk to swissG he began by implicitly defending your position. This was how the exchange started. I thought it appropriate to mention you because of this. I also have no choice but to address you indirectly because you refuse to take part in any decent debate with me , whereas you have no excuse - I am here any time you want to thrash out the truth.
Get all paranoid if you wish , but personally I would prefer to stay on the issues (matt 6:9 for example)