Revelations 20:12

Originally posted by no1marauder
Who cares? For the sake of argument, I'm willing to concede it wasn't a later addition as my original post says. The thief's actions would still fit into the general categories mentioned. The specific works mentioned in Matthew 25 were not meant to be all inclusive.

The thief's actions would still fit into the general categories mentioned.
Humor us by enlightening us. What are these "general categories," and how did that thief make the mark?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Raving or not, the contradiction remains. You insist that the parable of the sheep and the goats found in Matthew 25 is the litmus test for entrance into Heaven. That list (using your further insistence that the topical reading is the 'right' method) contains several overt actions. However, two chapters previously, in Matthew 23, Jesus is castigating th ...[text shortened]... tions in Matthew 23 and yet others in Matthew 25 gain entrance into Heaven for doing the same?

An analogy: someone who says they accept Christ as their saviour (e.g. in order to join an influential society or similar), but doesn't really mean it.

Surely you see the difference between someone who spends a lifetime helping others out of goodness and sympathy, and who perhaps dies poor as a result, and someone who makes a show of acting well out of self-serving interests (profit, status, power, etc.)?

Originally posted by dottewell
An analogy: someone who says they accept Christ as their saviour (e.g. in order to join an influential society or similar), but doesn't really mean it.

Surely you see the difference between someone who spends a lifetime helping others out of goodness and sympathy, and who perhaps dies poor as a result, and someone who makes a show of acting well out of self-serving interests (profit, status, power, etc.)?

Obviously there is a difference, but that's not the point of this discussion.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Obviously there is a difference, but that's not the point of this discussion.

The difference is that one group is condemned and the other accepted by Christ and its is the whole point of this discussion.

And the simple answer to this stupid question you asked :
"How can the religious leaders be hell-bound for executing overt actions in Matthew 23 and yet others in Matthew 25 gain entrance into Heaven for doing the same?"

.. is that Christ said so !

Originally posted by no1marauder
Assuming the thief on the cross story isn't merely a later addition as many theologians believe (it is directly contradicted by the other Gospel versions), the following acts are analogus to his actions:

I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me.


To you, Jesus' life meant nothing and only his death has any significance. Death worshippers; how primitive!

His life meant nothing to me? His life means everything to me.

1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith also vain.

What would be vainity would be to place all my hope and faith in someone who dies and does not rise again or to place all my hope and faith in myself who is equally as perishable. Christ is alive and well in my life and I feed off of his words from when he walked as a man and I walk and talk with him presently.

As far as you assertion that the other gospel contradict the story of the theif on the cross, all I can say is prove it. Just because a story is in one gospel and not another, in no way means that it did not happen. All it means is that they did not include that story. Do you really believe that any one of the gospels covered every story and event in Christ's life? If so, why write another gospel? How do we know that Christ ate and drank every day. Apparently the gospel contradict this assertion because this to is not included in any of the gospels as saying such.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Ever read James 2: 12-18, whodey:

12 So speak ye, and so do, as men that are to be judged by a law of liberty.

13 For judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy: mercy glorieth against judgment.

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him?

15 If a brother or ...[text shortened]... I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.

Yes, it does my heart good to see you reading your Bible. Anyhew, as the vese indicates, if you place your faith in something then you will naturally have a physical manifestation of thay faith via works. If I believe that my chair will support me then I will eventually sit in it. The belief that the chair will support me does me no good until I decide to sit in that chair. However, the belief that this is so is key in order for it to eventually happen. This verse is much akin to Matthew 7:16 which reads, "You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. Wherefore, by their fruits shall you know them. No produce of a particular fruit will save you. No particular volume of fruit producing will save you either. It is merely a reflection of the type of tree you are apart of. The key is transforming the tree via the cross. Then the tree will naturally bring forth good works/fruit. From your perspective, producing good fruit will make the tree a good tree and we all know this is not practicle. You must first have a good tree in order to consistently produce good fruit.

Originally posted by Rajk999
The difference is that one group is condemned and the other accepted by Christ and its is the whole point of this discussion.

And the simple answer to this stupid question you asked :
"How can the religious leaders be hell-bound for executing overt actions in Matthew 23 and yet others in Matthew 25 gain entrance into Heaven for doing the same?"

.. is that Christ said so !

its is the whole point of this discussion.
Correction, Mr. Rajk. The point of this discussion is proper interpretation of the Gospels, as it specifically relates to the words of Jesus.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]its is the whole point of this discussion.
Correction, Mr. Rajk. The point of this discussion is proper interpretation of the Gospels, as it specifically relates to the words of Jesus.[/b]

Which is precisely what I was addressing; the fact you see a contradiction where there is none.

Acts have meaning; two people can apparently do the same thing (e.g. donate a particular amount to a particular good cause), but one can be judged to have acted well (e.g. out of love and generosity) and the other badly (e.g. as a calculated means of achieving a self-serving goal).

This is an important and obvious moral distinction.

Originally posted by dottewell
Which is precisely what I was addressing; the fact you see a contradiction where there is none.

Acts have meaning; two people can apparently do the same thing (e.g. donate a particular amount to a particular good cause), but one can be judged to have acted well (e.g. out of love and generosity) and the other badly (e.g. as a calculated means of achieving a self-serving goal).

This is an important and obvious moral distinction.

Completely off topic, but I'll bite, nonetheless. There is a contradiction in that No1 attempts to attribute entrance to Heaven with a list of acceptable works, a la Matthew 25. Juxtaposed with this, Matthew 23, the seven woes which lambaste the religious leaders for their trust in outward actions.

Now back to the topic, No1 is attempting to make a case for a naive, straight-forward rendering of the text, despite what a straight-forward reading of the text actually yields, as seen in the quoted passage of Mark. He cannot have it both ways.

More to the point, a non-believer (or a believer in a state of reversionism) is totally incapable of understanding anything beyond a topical sense of the Scriptures. The flesh cannot comprehend the spiritual. If one wishes to call this 'secret decoder rings,' 'secret handshakes,' or the like, one is free to do so. Whatever label one wishes to use does not alter the facts.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Raving or not, the contradiction remains. You insist that the parable of the sheep and the goats found in Matthew 25 is the litmus test for entrance into Heaven. That list (using your further insistence that the topical reading is the 'right' method) contains several overt actions. However, two chapters previously, in Matthew 23, Jesus is castigating th ...[text shortened]... tions in Matthew 23 and yet others in Matthew 25 gain entrance into Heaven for doing the same?

A) The description of Judgment Day in Matthew 25 is not a parable;

B) The illustrations of good works given by Jesus in Matthew 25 is not a "litmus test";

C) What the religious leaders are doing in Matthew 23 is not what Jesus is describing in Matthew 25 as I have already pointed out.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And yet they were also engaged in missionary work. The point remains, whether your obstinance will allow you to see it or not, is that Scripture interprets Scripture. What can be accomplished in the flesh is not of the Spirit.

Those who follow your strict adherence to Matthew 25 with no thought to the thrust of Scripture, i.e., acceptance of the work of Jesus Christ, will end up in hell, right along side of the religious leaders.

These are just assertions by you. Provide Scriptural support for them, preferably from the Gospels.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b] The thief's actions would still fit into the general categories mentioned.
Humor us by enlightening us. What are these "general categories," and how did that thief make the mark?[/b]

I already did in a post you apparently only partially read:

Assuming the thief on the cross story isn't merely a later addition as many theologians believe (it is directly contradicted by the other Gospel versions), the following acts are analogus to his actions:

I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Completely off topic, but I'll bite, nonetheless. There is a contradiction in that No1 attempts to attribute entrance to Heaven with a list of acceptable works, a la Matthew 25. Juxtaposed with this, Matthew 23, the seven woes which lambaste the religious leaders for their trust in outward actions.

Now back to the topic, No1 is attempting to make a ca ...[text shortened]... the like, one is free to do so. Whatever label one wishes to use does not alter the facts.

Again, no contradiction or litmus test exists. You may keep parroting these assertions if you desire, but you've dismally failed to support these claims.

A straight forward reading of Mark doesn't support your "Secret Decoder Ring" theory either as the "lamp on the stand" passage in the same chapter as you quoted shows.

Originally posted by whodey
His life meant nothing to me? His life means everything to me.

1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith also vain.

What would be vainity would be to place all my hope and faith in someone who dies and does not rise again or to place all my hope and faith in myself who is equally as perishable. Chr ...[text shortened]... contradict this assertion because this to is not included in any of the gospels as saying such.

All the Gospels speak of the other prisoners on the crosses next to Jesus and they are described as mocking Jesus in every one but Luke. This has been discussed before and is a side issue though (I know "the 4 guy theory"😉.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A) The description of Judgment Day in Matthew 25 is not a parable;

B) The illustrations of good works given by Jesus in Matthew 25 is not a "litmus test";

C) What the religious leaders are doing in Matthew 23 is not what Jesus is describing in Matthew 25 as I have already pointed out.

A) The description of Judgment Day in Matthew 25 is not a parable
Oh, I see. So this was just an amusing antecdote about real sheep and actual goats. What are we quibbling about then, Professor No1?

C) What the religious leaders are doing in Matthew 23 is not what Jesus is describing in Matthew 25 as I have already pointed out.
They were engaged in seemingly spiritual activities. According to you, feeding the poor, visiting the imprisoned, etc., are all spiritual activities. Kind of running into a brick wall using your methods of interpretation, aren't we?

You seem to enjoy Matthew's account. Here's another snag for your interpretative methods. Again, more spiritual activities going for naught:

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

Them Gospels sure is tough to reckon aright, ain't they? Go figure.