29 Dec 09
Originally posted by jaywillI seem to have graduated from "coward" to "sleazy". Evidently you were unsuccessful in keeping your pride in check.
Yep, Right on time as usual. The problem is my pride, not your sleaziness.
Go ahead and conceal your true beliefs if you think it will give you some kind of advantage.
[b]Hide what really constitutes the canon of Scripture and hide whether Christ is resurrected.
Shhhhhhhh !!![/b]
Like I said, "When you've calmed down and can demonstrate that you understand it, we can continue."
I know this might be difficult for you to understand, but the fact that Jesus taught that righteousness is required for "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation" is not in any way dependent on your question, "Is your Jesus raised from the dead?". Perhaps after you calm down, you'll realize this.
30 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne================================
I seem to have graduated from "coward" to "sleazy". Evidently you were unsuccessful in keeping your pride in check.
Like I said, "When you've calmed down and can demonstrate that you understand it, we can continue."
I know this might be difficult for you to understand, but the fact that Jesus taught that righteousness is required for "eternal life" Jesus raised from the dead?". Perhaps after you calm down, you'll realize this.
I seem to have graduated from "coward" to "sleazy". Evidently you were unsuccessful in keeping your pride in check.
=====================================
You fail to understand that the issue is not jaywill. The issue is Jesus.
And you want Him dead. Sidetracting the discussion to someone's pride does nothing.
==========================
Like I said, "When you've calmed down and can demonstrate that you understand it, we can continue."
==============================
Continue what ? Continue to allow you to represent yourself as a trusted interpreter of the words of Jesus when you conceal your real animosity towards Jesus and His resurrection?
Seems that you're the one trying to pridefully save face not me.
==================================
I know this might be difficult for you to understand, but the fact that Jesus taught that righteousness is required for "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation" is not in any way dependent on your question, "Is your Jesus raised from the dead?". Perhaps after you calm down, you'll realize this.
===================================
Wrong. If Jesus is dead there is no chance for anyone to have "eternal life".
If Jesus is dead than there is no redemption and we all can forget about salvation.
That's what Jesus said, and in the Gospel of Mark no less:
"And afterwards He appeared to the eleven as they were reclining at table, and He reproached them their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen.
And He said to them, 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 16:14-16)
Now if it makes you feel better, you can scratch out those passages and scribble in pen "jaywill's pride, jaywill's ego, and jaywill's anger".
But that is what Jesus taught. And its in the Gospel of Mark, so it has to be true, Right?
Do you want to represent what Jesus taught or do you want to select just some sentences from Jesus that justify your personal philosophy of life?
30 Dec 09
It certainly leads to bizarre results when you take passages like the following, from Matthew 5, and try to make them gel with Pauline theology. I was just reading Bart Ehrman's book Jesus, Interrupted, which calls attention to this passage.
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
So, which is it? Paul tells us that attempting to keep the law won't save us. Matthew tells us that we have to have a pretty high standard of keeping the law to enter the kingdom.
30 Dec 09
3 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambit========================================
It certainly leads to bizarre results when you take passages like the following, from Matthew 5, and try to make them gel with Pauline theology. I was just reading Bart Ehrman's book Jesus, Interrupted, which calls attention to this passage.
[quote]17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish tells us that we have to have a pretty high standard of keeping the law to enter the kingdom.
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
So, which is it? Paul tells us that attempting to keep the law won't save us. Matthew tells us that we have to have a pretty high standard of keeping the law to enter the kingdom.
=========================================
The assumption of your question is this "SAVED exactly equals ENTER THE KINGDOM".
Now to be fair sometimes "SAVED" and "ENTER THE KINGDOM" seem to be two phrases meaning the same thing. But not always.
First let me demonstrate from Paul's epistle then from Jesus "red letter" words.
PAUL - "For another foundation no one is able to lay besides that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.... The word of each will become manifest; for the day will declare it, because it is revealed by fire, and the fire itself will prove each one's work, of what sort it is.
If anyone's work which he has built upon [the foundation Christ] re mains, he will receive a reward;
If anyone's work is consumed, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (1 Cor.3:11,13-15)
SwissGambit, please notice Paul's words "SAVED, YET AS THROUGH FIRE".
Please notice Paul's words "HE WILL SUFFER LOSS, BUT HE HIMSELF WILL BE SAVED."
Paul is clearly teaching Christians that they can be "SAVED" yet lose a "REWARD". And in losing the "REWARD" though they are saved they will "SUFFER LOSS".
Now, what would be the "loss" in Paul's thinking? What would it be to suffer loss even though a Christian is "saved" . Can we figure it out from anything else in Pauline theology ? The answer is yes. And the following are three additional Pauline passages directed to Christians as warnings of the LOSS they could conceivably suffer even though they are saved:
First we look in the very same epistle of First Corinthians:
1.) "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be led astray; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor homosexuals nor thieves not the covetous, not drunkards, not revilers, not the rapacious will inherit the kingdom of God.
And these things were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor. 6:9-11)
Please take note of the words " ... WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
Next we look in Paul main letter on the nature of the church, Ephesians:
2.) "For this you realize, knowing that every fornicator or unclean person or greedy person (who is an idolater) has no inheritance in the kingdom of God. Let no one deceive you with vain words, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them ... walk as children of light." (Eph. 6,8b)
Take note of the words " ... HAS NO INHERITANCE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
Finally, we examine Paul's epistle dealing mainly with LAW and GRACE, Galatians.
3.) "And the works of the flesh are manifest, which are such things as fornication, uncleaness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, divisions, sects, envyings, bouts of drunkeness, carousings, and things like these, of which I tell you beforehand, even as I have said before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Gal. 5:19-21)
Take note of the words " ... WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD"
In all three cases, Paul's audience is Christian disciples either in the church in Corinth, in the church in Ephesus, or in the churches in Galatia. All have been redeemed and saved. All are warned that certain life style practices, "and things like these" indicating that they are only a sample, will prevent these saved Christians from entering or inheriting the kingdom of God.
In another post I will prove that Paul is only teaching what Jesus Himself taught in the "red letters".
This should be enough to show being "saved yet as through fire" and to "suffer loss" means to Paul, failure to inherit the reward of the coming kingdom of God.
You need to be very familiar with the New Testament before you come under Bart Erhman's kind of exegesis and persuasion.
30 Dec 09
1 edit
In the above post I proved that Paul taught in First Corinthians, Ephesians, and Galatians that Christians must live the highest standard of morality to inherit or enter into the coming kingdom of God. His audience are those who have been redeemed through the Gospel of grace. Yet he warns them that they could lose a reward and suffer loss. This loss means the loss of the reward of inheriting the kingdom of God.
Now we look at the "red letter" sayings of Jesus to understand WHERE Paul got his teaching from. It was from Jesus of course.
Here Jesus is speaking about the service of His stewards (or slaves, servants) when He returns to earth:
"And the Lord said, Who then is the faithful and prudent steward, whom the master will set over his service to give them their portion of food at the proper time?
Blessed is that slave whom his manster, when he comes, will find so doing. Truly I tell you that he will set him over all his posessions.
But if that slave says in his heart, My master is delaying his coming, and begins to b eat the male servants and the female servasnts and to eat and to drink and become drunk. The master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, and will cut him asunder, and will appoint his portion with the unbelievers.
And that slave who knew hjis master's will and did not prepare or do accirding to his will, will receive many lashes;
But that slave who did not know, yet did things worthy of stripes, will receive few lashes. But to everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required from him; and to whom much has been committed, they will ask of him all the more." (Luke 12:42-48)
1.) The context of the teaching is the Christian's readiness for Christ's unexpected and sudden return.
2.) Servants and stewards of the master corresponds to believers in Christ.
3.) A faithful steward will be rewarded to reign over the Lord's possessions when He returns. That means reign with Him over the earth in the coming kingdom.
4.) The unfaithful steward who misbehaves because he thinks the Lord Jesus is not coming any time soon, runs the risk of being caught off guard.
5.) The result of being caught off guard is to have his portion appointed with the unbelievers, though he is a believer.
6.) Based upon the degree of his cognition of the will of the Lord, he will be disciplined. This may be "many lashes" or "few lashes" accordingly.
7.) These many lashes or few lashes should not refer to any eternal punishment for the simple fact that eternal punishment is just that, punishment with no limit, forever.
If Mark's Gospel "red letters" record Jesus as teaching "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned" (Mark 16:16) and Luke shows the possibility of Jesus punishing His servants either with few or many lashes, the logical interpretation is that - He who believes and is baptized shall be saved" does not automatically mean such a saved one will be rewarded with being put over the Lord's posasessions - "Truly I tell you that he will set him over his posessions (Luke 12:44)"
Instead of being saved and put over all the Lord's possessions in His established kingdom at His second coming, he may be saved, yet be appointed a temporary punishment like an unbeliever.
Paul taught what Jesus taught.
30 Dec 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat you seem to fail to realize is that you read the teachings of Jesus through the lens of Paul and as such cannot understand what Jesus is saying.
Yes, I'm serious and that's pretty much what I was thinking. What you seem to fail to realize is that you read the teachings of Jesus through the lens of Paul and as such cannot understand what Jesus is saying. You have eyes but cannot see. From what I can tell, Paul is your Lord.
Feel free to give your own commentary if you like. My commentary rests on t ...[text shortened]... aning and show a lack of understanding of the words of Jesus. You have eyes, but cannot see.[/b]
I "seem to fail to realize?" How wonderfully and ironically patronizing.
Either I fail to realize it, or I don't. According to your very pointed words, I fail to realize my filtering, so do everyone a favor and save your pseudo-humility.
You have eyes but cannot see. From what I can tell, Paul is your Lord.
From what I can tell, you are your Lord. Think about it: I am heavily indebted to Paul for my understanding of the spiritual life, for my understanding about what it means to worship God in spirit and in truth. You, on the other hand, are indebted to no one but your own thinking when it comes to the spiritual life. After all, it was you who said:
Feel free to give your own commentary if you like. My commentary rests on the words of Jesus.
Such naivety--- to think a superficial rendering of only Christ's words is the key to spirituality--- is as absurd as any religion ever thought of by man... because that's exactly what it is. The Lord Jesus Christ rejected the supposed spiritual leaders of His day, for (among other reasons) having an appearance of righteousness but a reality of death. Those leaders sincerely considered themselves blameless before God. Why? Because they followed the letter of the Law. How is the false spiritual life you purpose any different?
You don't seem to have understood my post. If you did, you'd realize that your questions have no meaning and show a lack of understanding of the words of Jesus. You have eyes, but cannot see.
I seem to understand your post just fine. It is you who fails to understand the implications of your own alleged beliefs. Either you are going to take His words as they come--- and follow them accordingly--- or you're not.
Either you are perfect as God is perfect, or you're not.
The fact of this matter is pretty straight-forward. You are now attempting to obfuscate the matter by back-pedaling from your original stance. Now, instead of literally following everything the Lord Jesus Christ said, you insist that when He said a person's inequity would send them to Hell, what He meant to say was "you guys better take this next part very seriously."
Hypocrite! You can't even follow your own made-up religion!
30 Dec 09
From Paul:
"But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith.
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,
since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.
Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law."
A superficial faith isn't the child-like faith spoken of by our Lord Jesus Christ, it is childishness.
30 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo far as I know, Jesus did not teach of "voluntary" sins and "involuntary" sins. Jesus did not teach make this distinction.
So far as I know, Jesus did not teach of "voluntary" sins and "involuntary" sins. Jesus did not teach make this distinction. Why do you choose not to believe the teachings of Jesus? Why do you choose to follow the Bible rather than the teachings of Jesus?
I've never seen a coherent explanation as to the exact distinction between "voluntary" sins and " an provide one and some examples. How is it that Jesus failed to make this distinction?
-------------------ToOne----------------
And yet he made it clear that daily confession of sins ("forgive us our trespasses" ) to God was to be part of the prayer life of his followers when he taught the Lord's prayer. It's perfectly logical to assume that he expected his followers would fail and sin and so require confession. But this would logically mean that there were some sins that would not prohibit one from being a follower and having eternal life.
He also clearly made an implicit distinction between the sins and failings of his disciples ( who he did not dismiss from his presence) and the dismissive contempt he felt for the iniquity and wickedness of his enemies (eg Pharisees).
It's also known that the Judaic model of sin involved a variety of words for sins of differing levels of seriousness. Jesus said nothing to usurp this model.
It's also stands to reason from our own experiences that there are different variations of sins ranging from devious plotting to harm and mame others through to being impatient with someone or having a momentary loss of temper. It beggars belief to think that Jesus was not aware (as we all are) that some sins are more depraved and serious than others and that they should be judged differently. Where did he say "all sins are the same"?
Finally , he was fully aware of Simon Peter's sins and knew in advance that he would reject Him (cock crows thrice). Rejecting Jesus is presumably a sin , and yet Jesus made Peter the rock of his church - which makes Simon Peter one of his greatest followers.
The thief on the cross was granted eternal life after living a life that was presumably way less than perfect.
All in all whatever dogmatic and extreme view you might want to put forward about sin it will always be vulnerable to many irresolvable flies in the ointment. But hey ho , don't let that stop you.
30 Dec 09
Originally posted by jaywillYou know Jaywill, you really need to calm down if you want to stop behaving so irrationally. Once again, a lot of your post makes little sense. I'll ignore all that nonsense about "The issue is Jesus...And you want Him dead", "you conceal your real animosity towards Jesus", etc.
[b]================================
I seem to have graduated from "coward" to "sleazy". Evidently you were unsuccessful in keeping your pride in check.
=====================================
You fail to understand that the issue is not jaywill. The issue is Jesus.
And you want Him dead. Sidetracting the discussion to someone's pride does ...[text shortened]... sentences from Jesus that justify your personal philosophy of life?[/b]
Beyond your hissy fits, red herrings, name calling, etc. there still lies the fact that all you've done is avoid directly addressing the passages of the teachings of Jesus that I cited earlier. Is this on-going production only to avoid addressing those passages? Jesus said what He said. Instead of dealing with this you keep trying to divert the issue to "Is your Jesus raised from the dead?" in an act of desperation. No matter what my view might be on that, it doesn't change the fact that Jesus taught that righteousness is required for "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation". How you cannot comprehend this is beyond me.
30 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou know, like Jaywill, you've also tried about every manner to directly addressing the fact that that Jesus taught that righteousness is required for "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation".
[b]What you seem to fail to realize is that you read the teachings of Jesus through the lens of Paul and as such cannot understand what Jesus is saying.
I "seem to fail to realize?" How wonderfully and ironically patronizing.
Either I fail to realize it, or I don't. According to your very pointed words, I fail to realize my filtering, so do every rt very seriously."
Hypocrite! You can't even follow your own made-up religion![/b]
You've also continued to demonstrate that you did not understand my Mark 9 post no matter how much you protest to the contrary.
It seems that Paulians are not able and willing to directly discuss the the fact that that Jesus taught that righteousness is required for "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation".
30 Dec 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSpoken like a true Paulian. Why don't you just admit that Paul is your Lord?
From Paul:
"But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
and are justified freely by his grace through the redemptio ...[text shortened]... cial faith isn't the child-like faith spoken of by our Lord Jesus Christ, it is childishness.
30 Dec 09
5 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne=====================================
You know Jaywill, you really need to calm down if you want to stop behaving so irrationally. Once again, a lot of your post makes little sense. I'll ignore all that nonsense about "The issue is Jesus...And you want Him dead", "you conceal your real animosity towards Jesus", etc.
Beyond your hissy fits, red herrings, name calling, etc. there still lies "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation". How you cannot comprehend this is beyond me.
You know Jaywill, you really need to calm down if you want to stop behaving so irrationally. Once again, a lot of your post makes little sense. I'll ignore all that nonsense about "The issue is Jesus...And you want Him dead", "you conceal your real animosity towards Jesus", etc.
=========================================
Hypocrit.
I am not impressed with how objective you think you sound. If you read the Gospels you should have read Jesus say - "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." (Matt. 22:37)
He didn't just say "all your mind" or just "all your intellect".
So you needn't waste anymore time trying to impress me that you are cool, detached, and objective. My loving of God includes not just my mind but my heart and my soul.
Your pseudo detachment is not impressing me.
===========
Beyond your hissy fits,
====================
Need I repeat it? If you weren't such a coward maybe I wouldn't have such a hissy fit. At least you appear to be acting with cowardice.
" I want to show everybody what Jesus taught but keep close to the vest how I really feel about His teaching on His redemptive death and victorious resurrection. Maybe, just maybe I can convince people that it really doesn't matter. "
Well, let's see what your guy Mark writes in the trusted "red letters".
"And afterwards He appeared to the eleven as they were reclining at table, and He reproached their unbelief and hardnesss of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen.
And He said to them, Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel (which good news OBVIOUSLY includes that fact that Jesus has been raised from the dead) to all creation. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned." (Mark 16:14-16)
My question to you in essence was "If you are proclaiming to be a teacher of the Gospel of Jesus, then are you a believer or not? And that is especially related to the belief in His having been raised from the dead AS HE TAUGHT.
Your behavior in reluctance to state your position leads me to assume you also are in "unbelief and hardness of heart".
Then we could see if someone in unbelief and hardness of heart towards the Gospel can claim to be accurately representing the Gospel OR is it possible that such a hardened and unbelieving one is teaching a Gospel enfluenced by Satan.
=============
red herrings, name calling,
====================
I believe in truth in advertizing. And since you won't be frank about where you stand as a supposed interpreter of the words of Jesus, I called you what you are.
==============================
etc. there still lies the fact that all you've done is avoid directly addressing the passages of the teachings of Jesus that I cited earlier.
=================================
Let's review how we got into this loop.
You charged me with saying that someone (you being that someone) who was teaching the teachings of Jesus was doing the work of Satan. Or it was something close to that.
The charge carried with it the implied boast that YOU were teaching the teachings of Jesus. So, I asked you what do you teach about the resurrection.
In case you didn't notice Jesus taught that He would be crucified, resurrect on the third day, and those who believed and were baptized would be saved. Those who did not believe would be condemned.
This is in the Gospel of Mark (which I think is your trusted "earliest" gospel). So I essentially tested you to see if you DO teach the teaching of Jesus or whether you are being selective only to support your philosophy.
You, predictably, refuse to disclose how you feel about this most crucial and central tenet of the teachings of Jesus, which teachings YOU proport to be a reliable communicator of, (How could I call a teacher of Jesus's teaching doing the work of Satan).
After this concealment and reluctance to show where you are on this core foundation of Christ's teaching - His own redemptive death and resurrection, you evade the request by launching into my temper and my pride.
Now you have an ongoing campaign to portray yourself as reasonable, detached, objective, and ready to discuss.
I would be more impressed by a frank admission of whether in your passing on the teachings of Christ you agree with the resurrection or disbelieve it.
Now, the relevance to living righteously is that it is Christ, alive, available, and His ability to indwell in His believers that makes it possible for them to live righteously. Without Him, without His divine life and nature mingled into our being, we cannot make it. And He knows that.
Now is this just Paul's thought ? No, it is Paul's thought but Paul derived it from Christ. It is greatly elaborated on in the Gospel of John. Yet it is also touched in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.
And if greater weight to the teaching of the indwelling resurrected Christ is found in the other books beside Mark as to sheer volume, that does not in the least make it less authentic as the New Testament teaching.
1.) I will not allow you to claim you are an authentic representative of the teachings of Jesus when you deny His teaching of His redemptive death and resurrection to be our Lord.
2.) I will not allow you to selectively splice out some favorable verses from Mark, and a few from John to present your lopsided opinion about what Jesus really taught.
3.) If you can't come out and confess that you believe the Teacher Jesus is dead, I will refer to you as a coward.
This admittedly harsh name is because you are worst than just ignorant or undecided. You are acting like a wolf in sheep's clothing, concealing your basic antagonism to the core message of Christ while pretending to be His reliable interpreter.
If that strikes you as a hissy fit that's fine with me.
Maybe you just never were committed to anything worth having a hissy fit over.
===================================
Is this on-going production only to avoid addressing those passages? Jesus said what He said. Instead of dealing with this you keep trying to divert the issue to "Is your Jesus raised from the dead?" in an act of desperation. No matter what my view might be on that, it doesn't change the fact that Jesus taught that righteousness is required for "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation". How you cannot comprehend this is beyond me.
==================================
And where does the righteousness come from?
His redemptive death and His resurrection to be the indwelling life and Lord.
That is the connection. And if you disagree with that, then you have to prove that the New Testament teaches that we do not need the resurrection and availability of Christ to be saved or enter into the will and kingdom of God.
And I don't think you can do that.
30 Dec 09
Originally posted by jaywillI am interested in the historical side of the writing and compiling of the bible. I have no dog in the fight. I am not reading Ehrman to get brilliant exegesis or be persuaded of things, but rather just to hear a different perspective.
You need to be very familiar with the New Testament before you come under Bart Erhman's kind of exegesis and persuasion.
30 Dec 09
Originally posted by jaywillOK, I actually did read all of your posts. Other than feeling a little vague on what the Kingdom of God actually is, I didn't see any major problems with your theory.
In the above post I proved that Paul taught in First Corinthians, Ephesians, and Galatians that Christians must live the highest standard of morality to inherit or enter into the coming kingdom of God. His audience are those who have been redeemed through the Gospel of grace. Yet he warns them that they could lose a reward and suffer loss. This loss means th ...[text shortened]... emporary punishment like an unbeliever.
Paul taught what Jesus taught.
I do not think Ehrman is making the case that there is no coherent way to combine the theology of Matthew and Paul. Mainly, he is saying that sometimes we lose the clear voice of each individual author when we rush to combine their message with that of another.
30 Dec 09
3 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambit====================================
I am interested in the historical side of the writing and compiling of the bible. I have no dog in the fight. I am not reading Ehrman to get brilliant exegesis or be persuaded of things, but rather just to hear a different perspective.
I am interested in the historical side of the writing and compiling of the bible. I have no dog in the fight. I am not reading Ehrman to get brilliant exegesis or be persuaded of things, but rather just to hear a different perspective.
=====================================
There is a YouTube debate on the historical reliability for a belief in the resurrection of Christ. The debaters are William Lane Craig and Bart Erhman.
It would be no secret that I am on the side of Craig, but Erhman gets some good shots in and I would recommend to anyone interested in historical matters of the life of Christ, to watch the whole long debate.
If you want to watch a good debate on history search YouTube for that Craig / Erhman debate when you have an hour or so to view it.