Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I think you'll find that the bible instructs you to learn from Ghost (of a Duke):

"But the Comforter, the Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26)

Then the Ghost should remember who made him. 😉

Originally posted by josephw
It is only with the help of Jesus will you know the truth.

It's a question of authority chaney. The Truth is based in who's authority. Is the truth based on the authority of any of the posters in this thread, or anyone else's?

You, and I, and everyone else, needs to know that the truth is based in the authority of the author and embodiment of truth it ...[text shortened]... , who is the Jesus of the New Testament.

Anyway, that's my two cents worth. Hope it helps. 🙂

Interesting ..
Trust in the Lord = Trust in Jesus

But when Jesus says what a Christian has to DO and what is REQUIRED of a Christian, what GOOD WORKS the Christian MUST DO, the life the Christian MUST live, the sins the Christian MUST avoid, ... you Christians deny that these teachings are true.

Very interesting.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Wow, you completely blow off nearly my entire post.

Obviously, you're full of your own opinion, much like you lean unto your own understanding of scripture. I tell you the opinion of most Bible commentators, and you don't even reference it in your reply at all and only restate your wrong idea yet again.

And you wonder why I compare you to Rajk, who b ...[text shortened]... ing to hell and therefore not worth conversing with other than to preach false doctrine to them.

When did I wonder why you compare me with Rajk?

You claimed that "most Bible commentators" agree with you, but didn't cite any.

I'm full of my own opinion and lean to my own understanding of scripture? Obviously, I'm not going to think one thing but say something else in my posts.

I gave a reason why I thought that your explanation was unlikely. Basically someone has to fall from more than the height they'd hang themselves from for their body to rupture. The only way that that could be different was if he was already dead for a week or so and the body was putrefying, while it's not impossible Acts does not read in this way. The two versions of the story are inconsistent.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Interesting ..
Trust in the Lord = Trust in Jesus

But when Jesus says what a Christian has to DO and what is REQUIRED of a Christian, what GOOD WORKS the Christian MUST DO, the life the Christian MUST live, the sins the Christian MUST avoid, ... you Christians deny that these teachings are true.

Very interesting.

I deny none of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

What I deny is what you teach, and that is that by obedience to the teachings of Jesus Christ is how one procures salvation.

The thief had no such opportunity to obey the teachings of Jesus Christ before he was assured of salvation by trusting in the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ on the cross for salvation. Then he died and was with Jesus Christ in paradise.

Now, I'm not saying that obedience isn't necessary, only the evidence of salvation.

Originally posted by josephw
I deny none of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

What I deny is what you teach, and that is that by obedience to the teachings of Jesus Christ is how one procures salvation.

The thief had no such opportunity to obey the teachings of Jesus Christ before he was assured of salvation by trusting in the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ on the cross for s ...[text shortened]... paradise.

Now, I'm not saying that obedience isn't necessary, only the evidence of salvation.

Ok, thanks.

I can show you where this is stated by Christ -
..obedience to the teachings of Jesus Christ is how one procures salvation.

So could you provide a reference for this doctrine by Jesus Christ?
obedience is the evidence of salvation?

Originally posted by chaney3
I must confess that I haven't......although, I have been reading sonship's thread.....so that must count?

I have been getting some sincere advice from everyone, and some big choices need to be made.

must confess that I haven't......although, I have been reading sonship's thread.....so that must count?

No it doesn't "count". Though I didn't qualify it in my question, I've qualified it pretty much everywhere else. When I asked if you had started reading the words of Jesus, I meant the words Jesus spoke while He walked the Earth.

Sonship's thread is entitled "Jesus's teachings after the resurrection", so it is about words attributed to Jesus after His death. It's part and parcel of the mythology that Paul and followers of Paul created in making a religion ABOUT JESUS as opposed to the concepts conveyed by the words Jesus shared while He walked the Earth. Words that He said "are spirit and are life".

If you have yet to make the distinction, there is what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth which is very different from the mythology created about Him. In fact, the mythology is antithetical to what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If you have yet to make the distinction, there is what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth and it is very different from the mythology created about Him. In fact, the mythology is antithetical to what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth.

I feel compelled to point out that the mythology of what Jesus supposedly said when he walked the earth was created after the mythology of Paul.
And both mythologies include Jesus rising from the dead and 'walking the earth' after the resurrection. Why would words he spoke then be less valid?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I feel compelled to point out that the mythology of what Jesus supposedly said when he walked the earth was created after the mythology of Paul.
And both mythologies include Jesus rising from the dead and 'walking the earth' after the resurrection. Why would words he spoke then be less valid?

I read your post several times and I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Be that as it may, I'll once again state what I've stated many a time:
By and large the teachings of Jesus while He walked the Earth are coherent. It is the concepts conveyed by those words that cohere that are of value. Conceptually some of it is quite deep and profound.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I read your post several times and I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Be that as it may, I'll once again state what I've stated many a time:
By and large the teachings of Jesus while He walked the Earth are coherent. It is the concepts conveyed by those words that cohere that are of value. Conceptually some of it is quite deep and profound.

Even if we concede the teachings are coherent (and yes, even profound) on what basis can they be attributed to Jesus with any real confidence?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Even if we concede the teachings are coherent (and yes, even profound) on what basis can they be attributed to Jesus with any real confidence?

What does it matter? "It is the concepts conveyed by those words that cohere that are of value."

John 8
63... the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I read your post several times and I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I find that hard to believe.

By and large the teachings of Jesus while He walked the Earth are coherent. It is the concepts conveyed by those words that cohere that are of value.
When you say 'the teachings of Jesus while he walked the Earth, I assume you are talking about the gospels? Any particular gospel, or all of them? You do know the teachings differ between the gospels depending on what the writers theology and intended message was?

And why choose the gospels as your source of Jesus' 'teachings as he walked the earth'? Its not as if they are likely to be any more accurate than Pauls version of events.

Conceptually some of it is quite deep and profound.
Many teachings are quite deep and profound. I for one am not particularly impressed by those attributed to Jesus by the gospels.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I find that hard to believe.

[b]By and large the teachings of Jesus while He walked the Earth are coherent. It is the concepts conveyed by those words that cohere that are of value.
When you say 'the teachings of Jesus while he walked the Earth, I assume you are talking about the gospels? Any particular gospel, or all of them? You do know the teac ...[text shortened]... d profound. I for one am not particularly impressed by those attributed to Jesus by the gospels.[/b]

Tell you what. Reread the following:
"By and large the teachings of Jesus while He walked the Earth are coherent. It is the concepts conveyed by those words that cohere that are of value."

Then do an extensive analysis of the words attributed to Jesus while He walked the Earth in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John and determine the major themes and their underlying concepts with the above in mind. You can even skip Mark if you like.

Then get back to me.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Then get back to me.

No. I am just going to take it that you didn't like the points I made and have no rational response.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No. I am just going to take it that you didn't like the points I made and have no rational response.

C'mon TW. Over the years you've repeatedly shown that you struggle grasping abstract concepts. You continue to show it here.

Here's something that hopefully you can understand:
TW: "Many teachings are quite deep and profound.I for one am not particularly impressed by those attributed to Jesus by the gospels."

If you haven't done a conceptual analysis of what Jesus taught while He walked the Earth, of what value is your opinion regarding them? Have you even done so much as to read through them?

If you want to throw yet another hissy fit and pretend that I "didn't like the points [you] made and have no rational response" when you struggle, that's fine by me. It's what you do.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon TW. Over the years you've repeatedly shown that you struggle grasping abstract concepts. You continue to show it here.

Here's something that hopefully you can understand:
TW: "Many teachings are quite deep and profound.I for one am not particularly impressed by those attributed to Jesus by the gospels."

If you haven't done a conceptual analys ...[text shortened]... you] made and have no rational response" when you struggle, that's fine by me. It's what you do.

So help me understand.
You are not necessarily in love with the "person " of Jesus Christ but with what was spoken presumably by him?