Now only remains a judgement for unbelief

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=====================================
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.
========================= of God.

And I don't think you can do that.

[/b]You're just raving Jaywill.

For example, you say:
"Well, let's see what your guy Mark writes in the trusted "red letters"...This is in the Gospel of Mark (which I think is your trusted "earliest" gospel)"

You just make up things in a desperate attempt to make your point.

I've never claimed that Mark is "[my] guy" or that "red letters" equates with "trusted" or that Mark is to be trusted because it is the "earliest gospel".

That you write so many untruths in a desperate attempt to disparage speaks volumes about your character.

Originally posted by jaywill
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 emporary punishment like an unbeliever.

Paul taught what Jesus taught.

There are serious problems with your attempts to try to shoehorn the teachings of Jesus to fit into the teachings of Paul.



You say the following about the passage from Luke 12:
"Servants and stewards of the master corresponds to believers in Christ."

Presumably in your eyes all these believers are still "saved" as they are at worst only to have their "portion appointed with the unbelievers" and receive "lashes".

However, you ignore this phrase from 12:46 in order to get it to work out the way you would like:
"and will cut him asunder"

So the servant is also cut in two. Doesn't sound good. What might really be going on here?

Let's look to Matthew 24:45-51:

45 “Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 “Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. 47 “Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 “But if that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is not coming for a long time,’ 49 and begins to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards; 50 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, 51 and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Here the master will "cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Do you believe "the hypocrites" are also saved?

So is this recounted correctly in Luke or Matthew? The version in Matthew is certainly more coherent. The version in Luke reads like Matthew with the verses about "lashes" tacked on to soften what Jesus said with those doing the softening afraid to completely alter the original words.

There's also the problem that your interpretation of Luke contradicts what Jesus taught elsewhere. Jesus taught something very different from Paul.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
There are serious problems with your attempts to try to shoehorn the teachings of Jesus to fit into the teachings of Paul.



You say the following about the passage from Luke 12:
"Servants and stewards of the master corresponds to believers in Christ."

Presumably in your eyes all these believers are still "saved" as they are at worst only to have ...[text shortened]... what Jesus taught elsewhere. Jesus taught something very different from Paul.

There are serious problems with your attempts to try to shoehorn the teachings of Jesus to fit into the teachings of Paul...................



There's also the problem that your interpretation of Luke contradicts what Jesus taught elsewhere.

-------ToONE---------------------

Jesus' teachings on the Lord's prayer is also a problem for your position - and yet you expect others to admit where there are problems but don't admit them yourself? How exactly does that work?

You've been shoehorning Jesus into your interpretation from day one.

Originally posted by knightmeister
There are serious problems with your attempts to try to shoehorn the teachings of Jesus to fit into the teachings of Paul...................



There's also the problem that your interpretation of Luke contradicts what Jesus taught elsewhere.

-------ToONE---------------------

Jesus' teachings on the Lord's prayer is also a problem for your p tly does that work?

You've been shoehorning Jesus into your interpretation from day one.

And the stalking resumes...

So much for the thought that perhaps you had finally started to mature.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You 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".

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 a ...[text shortened]... sus taught that righteousness is required for "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation".

You 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".
Your responses are too stupid to insult, so I'll just allow reality to do the job for me.

You are here claiming that I have failed to address the biblical teachings regarding the righteousness required for entrance into heaven. Contrary to this, consider one of my first posts into this quagmire, wherein I said that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself was our righteousness. Let the record speak for itself.

You've also continued to demonstrate that you did not understand my Mark 9 post no matter how much you protest to the contrary.
Misunderstanding isn't the issue; your lack of a response is the issue. You have yet to respond to the direct inquiry.

Either you are following His words letter by letter, word by word, concept by concept, or you are not. There is no middle ground. You cannot be willing to lose your eye, willing to lose your hand or foot and also be unwilling to lose any of the same. It isn't 'on the same level of importance,' it's pass/fail.
If righteousness be your goal (or, for the sake of this argument, what you call righteousness) then your willingness to lose any of the aforementioned appendages would be evident by their noticeable absence.

Ergo, unless and until you are hobbling around on your one good foot, are typing with the aid of a hook and giving us rotten, uncleaned philistines the stink eye out of the one without the patch, your stab at teaching anyone in the ways of the spiritual life will remain as ineffectual as a dulled plastic butter knife sawing away at a brick.

With that, I'll leave your silly little game with some words of encouragement...

"For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?
What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task.
I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow.
So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.
The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor.
For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw,
his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work.
If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward.
If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."

Your attempts to judge are a distraction.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I found this quote by FreakyKBH on the "Salvation of Demons" thread to be interesting.

...God poured out His anger on the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other judgment for sin from that point forward. Now only remains a judgment for unbelief.

It's remarkable that Jesus spent a great deal of time and effort into teaching what is right ...[text shortened]... in such a short time. Are those teachings of Jesus worthless? Was Jesus that clueless?

"Was Jesus that clueless?"

No.

What's your point? That one can be righteous by what, being righteous?

Give it a break TOO. If you were that righteous no one could debate with you. Just like they couldn't and still can't debate with Jesus. Jesus shut them all down every time. He still does.

I even started a thread titled "A Debate with Jesus" and no one could handle it.

Only a deluded person would think they can be righteous enough by their own efforts to gain eternal life.

It's depressing to think you so despise what Jesus did on the cross, dieing for your sins, that you now think you can "be good enough" to obtain eternal life.

You are the one who doesn't have a clue.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
And the stalking resumes...

So much for the thought that perhaps you had finally started to mature.

I fail to see how raising an issue that is based on the very words of Jesus is "stalking" ? I also feel justified in asking why you think you can ask others to face some of the problems with their position , whilst at the same time failing to recognise any problems at all with your own position.

It's like I said from the very beginning - you only like to play with loaded dice.

Seems to me that your basic problem is that you define any kind of sin at all as being incompatible with any kind of righteousness. It's as if you think that if there is any sin in a person then their claim on any kind of righteousness is absolutely gone. But since you never clearly define what you think sin actually it's hard to figure out what you think.

It's as if you cannot conceive of a righteous man who has a good heart but who also sometimes sins. You cannot seem to imagine or see such a thing - whereas Jesus saw it in the flawed and proud Simon Peter. Why can't you see what Jesus saw?

You are also in complete denial about the fact that we all interpret the teachings of Jesus in different ways and that Jesus's teachings (taken as a body of work) are not always explicit or easily simplified. You basically present your own interpretation as the "truth" and others as "interpretations" or "Paulian delusions".

Until you are mature enough to accept that your own interpretation has it's flaws (just like anyone else's) then no-one will ever be able to say anything to you without risking your wrath or your patronising contempt.

I think somone in the church really messed with your head and it's left such a huge chip on your shoulder that you have almost built a theology on it. But hey , maybe we are all stalkers?

So once again I ask - would you like a serious fair debate on this or are you going to continue to deflect away any challenge to your position as "stalking"? I know which one would be easier for you.

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 ...[text shortened]... tells us that we have to have a pretty high standard of keeping the law to enter the kingdom.

There are problems for those who argue for St Paul's interpretation , and there also problesm for those who go down ToOne's line. The whole point is that it's not clear cut and open to interpretation. There are contradictions all over the place.

The problem is that ToOne simply won't acdept that there are serious problems across the board for both sides. That's what makes him virtually impossible to debate with.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
There are serious problems with your attempts to try to shoehorn the teachings of Jesus to fit into the teachings of Paul.



You say the following about the passage from Luke 12:
"Servants and stewards of the master corresponds to believers in Christ."

Presumably in your eyes all these believers are still "saved" as they are at worst only to have ...[text shortened]... what Jesus taught elsewhere. Jesus taught something very different from Paul.

Jesus taught something very different from Paul.
---------ToOne---------------------------------------

I would beg to differ on this - but what's really interesting is what Jesus DID with his life. You always focus on what he SAID - but look at what he DID.

There was a pre-existing theological framework set up in Judaism of the passover lamb and the sacrifice of the (spotless) lamb was supposed to cover the sins of the people and put them right with God. Confession of sin could take place regularly and the lamb was sacrificed and men were justified in the eyes of God. This was a continual process. This framework of theology fits very neatly with St Paul's theology of salvation by faith in the Lamb of God (Jesus) and what his death had achieved for us and how he would be able to take away the sins of the people via repeated confession.

So , this concept very much fits St Paul's philosophy on Christ. Now , bear in mind that Jesus knew the Torah , the scriptures and the traditions inside out. He knew all about the ideas around the passover lamb and what they signified to the Jewish people. At the last supper he even said "this is my body , given for the remission of sins". His death was to achieve something. He even used bread and wine (items that are laced with meaning)

So what did Jesus do? He walked right into the whole thing , hookline and sinker , and set himself up as the Lamb of God without an ounce of irony or ambiguity. So unless he was stupid he must have known what he was doing and what it meant. Of course he did.

He chose to die in a paticular way . He knew what he was doing. He was making the biggest statement of his life to all of us and it cost him an agonising death to do it (not just words)

Now, take isolated scriptures from here and there if you like - but don't pretend to yourself that aren't ignoring message of his death or missing the bigger picture.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
There are serious problems with your attempts to try to shoehorn the teachings of Jesus to fit into the teachings of Paul.



You say the following about the passage from Luke 12:
"Servants and stewards of the master corresponds to believers in Christ."

Presumably in your eyes all these believers are still "saved" as they are at worst only to have ...[text shortened]... what Jesus taught elsewhere. Jesus taught something very different from Paul.

============================================
There are serious problems with your attempts to try to shoehorn the teachings of Jesus to fit into the teachings of Paul.
===============================

So you are not particularly partial to the Gospel of Mark as most reliable authentic communicator of the ideas of Jesus. I assume then that for you ANY OTHER New Testament book will due.

But it is possible I have you confused with someone else and I am not going to research through months or years old posts to find out.

Now let's see your "serious problems" with my comparing Pauline warnings if dispensational punishment of redeemed Christians with Luke 12.

==================================
You say the following about the passage from Luke 12:
"Servants and stewards of the master corresponds to believers in Christ."
==================================

I don't think this point can seriously be questioned. Luke 12:35-48 concerns Jesus Christ teaching His disciples about the need for them to be watchful and faithful for His second coming.

"And you be like men waiting for their own master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that when he comes and knocks they may open to him immediately." (12:36)

Notice the introductory words include the phrase "their master". In next verse 37 He refers to "slaves" which would mean slaves of the "master" of course.

Transference of the parable to the real situation of His second coming can be seen in verse 40 -"You also, be ready, because at an hour when you do not expect it, the Son of Man is coming."

Now, an unbeliever usually does not believe the Son of Man either rose from the dead or is coming. So the teaching is directed to "slaves" of the "master", meaning the disciples of Jesus Christ who serve Him and expect His return.

I don't think this can be refuted so I will go on. The reward to the watching, prudent, and faithful slave of the master is being assigned the responsibility to manage the possessions of the master when he returns - "Blessed is that slave whom his master, when he comes, will find him so doing [faithful service]. Truly I tell you that he will set him over all his possessions. (v.44)

Compare this to Matthew 25:21,23 - His master said to him, Well [done], good and faithful slave. You were faithful over a few things; I will set you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master....His master said to him, Well done ... etc.

Compare also with Revelation 2:26,27 - "And he who oversomes and he whoi keeps My works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations; And he will shepherd them with an iron rod, as vessels of pottery are broken to iees, as I also have received from My Father."

Now I do not have as much time this morning, so I am going to have to be very brief.

======================================
Presumably in your eyes all these believers are still "saved" as they are at worst only to have their "portion appointed with the unbelievers" and receive "lashes".
===============================

This objection was already dealt with in anticipation. And I said that the limited and measured punishment argues against it being eternal.

Two eternally lost sinners who are "lashed" forever would hardly have a sense of one punishment being more harsh than the other. Both results are without measure.

=========================
However, you ignore this phrase from 12:46 in order to get it to work out the way you would like:
"and will cut him asunder"
============================

Because I did not explicitly expound on the phrase cut asunder does not mean it was ignored, not noticed, not considered, or a source any kind of imagined embaressment.

The phrase "cut asunder" is not to me any MORE negative than "appoint his portion with the unbelievers".

I don't have as much time this moring, but the Apostle John speaks of Christ's second coming. And John writes of the possiblity that some believers who have eternal life may be "put to shame" from before Him at His second coming.

The KJV is misleading. It is not a matter of how the believer FEELS, ie. "feel ashamed", rather it is a matter of being "put to shame". The shame being undefined, yet indicative of something unpleasant:

"And now, little children, abide in Him, so that if He is manifested, we may have boldness and not be PUT to shame from before Him at His coming." (1 John 2:28 my emphasis)

I do not have time to prove that the audience of this sentence are those for whom the question of the gift of eternal life has been settled.

Now Christ's reigning over the nations is an activity of the 1,000 year millennial kingdom of Christ immediately after His second coming. This is stressed six times in the 20th chapter of Revelation. Go read Revelation 20 and count the number of times John refers to "thousand years".

So the reward aside from the gift of eternal life is to reign with Christ for 1,000 years at His second coming. And some Christians as His servants may lose that reward. And others in addition to losing it may be positively punished. And some will be punished with one degree of severity and others with a heavier degree of severity.

That is what Luke 12 is talking about. And whatever punishment or discipline the Master's slaves might receive it is dispensational and would not last more than 1,000 years. Perhaps it might last some portion of that in some cases. But I do not know.

I do know that parallel warnings speak in this manner of the unforgiving servant not getting out of confinement and punishment until he has paid the last farthing. I do not have time to look up the reference.

That is all the time I have to write this morning. Perhaps more can be written latter.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Jesus taught something very different from Paul.
---------ToOne---------------------------------------

I would beg to differ on this - but what's really interesting is what Jesus DID with his life. You always focus on what he SAID - but look at what he DID.

There was a pre-existing theological framework set up in Judaism of the passover lamb an ...[text shortened]... tend to yourself that aren't ignoring message of his death or missing the bigger picture.

======================================
There was a pre-existing theological framework set up in Judaism of the passover lamb and the sacrifice of the (spotless) lamb was supposed to cover the sins of the people and put them right with God. Confession of sin could take place regularly and the lamb was sacrificed and men were justified in the eyes of God. This was a continual process. This framework of theology fits very neatly with St Paul's theology of salvation by faith in the Lamb of God (Jesus) and what his death had achieved for us and how he would be able to take away the sins of the people via repeated confession.
==============================================

This is very good. And I would add that the concept not ONLY fits into Paul's theology. It fits right into the teaching of Jesus from the synoptic Gospels.

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and He broke it nd gave it to the disciples and said, Take, eat; this is My body.

And He took a cup and gave thanks, and He gave it to them, saying, Drink of it, all of you,

For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26-28)

Operative words to consider:

"BLOOD OF THE COVENANT"
"POURED OUT"
"FOR MANY FOR FORGIVENESS OF SINS"

words, of course, not inserted into Matthew by Paul.

"And similarly the cup after they had dined, saying, This cup is the new covenant [established] in My blood, which is being poured out for you." (Luke 22:20)

These passages preceeding Christ's crucifixion establish among many, His teaching of a covenant, a new covenant consisting of (among other things) a redemptive death for the forgiveness of sinners.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
There are serious problems with your attempts to try to shoehorn the teachings of Jesus to fit into the teachings of Paul.



You say the following about the passage from Luke 12:
"Servants and stewards of the master corresponds to believers in Christ."

Presumably in your eyes all these believers are still "saved" as they are at worst only to have what Jesus taught elsewhere. Jesus taught something very different from Paul.

================================
Let's look to Matthew 24:45-51:

45 “Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 “Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. 47 “Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 “But if that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is not coming for a long time,’ 49 and begins to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards; 50 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, 51 and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


Here the master will "cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Do you believe "the hypocrites" are also saved?
======================================

These servants will receive a dispensational punishment with is temporary.

I believe that at worst it will last 1,000 years. Perhaps it may vary be any portion of that time. But I do not know.

It is noteworthy that the phrase "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is used for BOTH eternal punishment and temporary dispensational punishment, if my interpretation is true.

==================================
So is this recounted correctly in Luke or Matthew? The version in Matthew is certainly more coherent. The version in Luke reads like Matthew with the verses about "lashes" tacked on to soften what Jesus said with those doing the softening afraid to completely alter the original words.
==================================

As a Christian BOTH passages just about equally cause me concern. However, neither passage taken in full context, can be understood to mean eternal punishment.

===================================
There's also the problem that your interpretation of Luke contradicts what Jesus taught elsewhere. Jesus taught something very different from Paul.
===================================

You have stated that. You have at no time ever on this Forum that I know of been able to successfully demonstrate it.

Now, here is what Paul's final words to Timothy were about what to expect when Christ returned:

"Faithful is the word: For it we died with Him, we will also live with Him;

If we endure we will also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He also will deny is;

If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself." (2 Timothy 2:11-12)


Reigning with Him requires the Christian to endure with Him.
Reigning with Him is conditioned upon enduring with and through Him.
So reigning is conditional.

If the Christian denies Christ, Christ may deny Him.
However, Christ remains faithful to the Christian's faithlessness because "He cannot deny Himself"

When Jesus returns some saved believers will be acknowledge by Christ and rewarded to reign with Him.

Other Chrisitians He will deny because they were faithless and denied Him.
Yet in so doing He remains faithful to them because "He cannot deny Himself."

He has puchased for them the gift of eternal redemption. He DOES NOT have to reward them with co-reigning with Him however.

It is completely logical. I don't think you or anyone else can refute this logic of the New Testament.

One more thing. Eternity does not begin immediately after the second coming of Christ. First He reigns on the earth for 1,000 years (See Revelation 20).

So this period just before the eternal age contains rewards distinct from the eternal age, which are recompense and not gift. And they are an incentive to the wise to cooperate with Him in the age of grace.

It is during this 1,000 year period Christ can still work on His people to discipline, perfect, reward, punish, the eternally redeemed for the eventual New Jerusalem in the eternal age (Rev. 21,22).

And in addition, in Matthew the slothful and disciplined servant is cast not into eternal fire but into "outer darkness".

That probably means outside in some way, the realm of Christ's glorious presence on the earth. I do not know WHERE that may be. But it will be for Christians and it will be out of the realm of His glorious light filled presence. And it must be temporary.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You 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".
Your responses are too stupid to insult, so I'll just allow reality to do the job for me.

You are here claiming that I have failed to address the biblical aping through the flames."

Your attempts to judge are a distraction.[/b]

Your responses just get sorrier and sorrier.


Your responses are too stupid to insult, so I'll just allow reality to do the job for me.

Yet another self-defeating statement from you.

You are here claiming that I have failed to address the biblical teachings regarding the righteousness required for entrance into heaven. Contrary to this, consider one of my first posts into this quagmire, wherein I said that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself was our righteousness. Let the record speak for itself.

Yes, let the record speak for itself:

You know, like Jaywill, you've also tried about every manner to directly addressing the fact that JESUS taught that righteousness is required for "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation".

For one, you still seem to be confused about what I claimed.

For another, your claiming that "the Lord Jesus Christ Himself was our righteousness" does not address the fact that Jesus taught what He taught. Do you need me to spell it out in more detail? Are you really that blind?

Either you are following His words letter by letter, word by word, concept by concept, or you are not. There is no middle ground. You cannot be willing to lose your eye, willing to lose your hand or foot and also be unwilling to lose any of the same. It isn't 'on the same level of importance,' it's pass/fail.
If righteousness be your goal (or, for the sake of this argument, what you call righteousness) then your willingness to lose any of the aforementioned appendages would be evident by their noticeable absence.

What a ludicrous assertion. Jesus often spoke figuratively rather than literally. You are like Nicodemus in the following who had ears but could not hear. Neither of you can understand what Jesus is saying, so neither of you can follow what He is truly teaching. Do you need me to spell it out in more detail? Are you really that blind?

"There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (John 3:1-7).

Originally posted by josephw
"[b]Was Jesus that clueless?"

No.

What's your point? That one can be righteous by what, being righteous?

Give it a break TOO. If you were that righteous no one could debate with you. Just like they couldn't and still can't debate with Jesus. Jesus shut them all down every time. He still does.

I even started a thread titled "A Debate with Jesu ...[text shortened]... od enough" to obtain eternal life.

You are the one who doesn't have a clue.[/b]

"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven...Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]============================================
There are serious problems with your attempts to try to shoehorn the teachings of Jesus to fit into the teachings of Paul.
===============================

So you are not particularly partial to the Gospel of Mark as most reliable authentic communicator of the ideas of Jesus. I as ...[text shortened]... morning. Perhaps more can be written latter.[/b]

Jaywill, you really need to try to comprehend what you're reading before you respond. Your lengthy rants on "Servants and stewards of the master corresponds to believers in Christ" and "Presumably in your eyes all these believers are still 'saved' as they are at worst only to have their 'portion appointed with the unbelievers' and receive 'lashes'" were pointless as no objection was posed. I was just "setting the table" as they say.

The phrase "cut asunder" is not to me any MORE negative than "appoint his portion with the unbelievers".

Well, if you don't see being dismembered as being more negative, I doubt there's anything that could be said to change your mind.