Originally posted by Rajk999So anything to do with Grace and Salvation in the Old Testament, or by Paul must be ignored as non-authoritative? Why?
So since we talking about Grace and Salvation, lets have some supporting quotes from Jesus Christ -- the sole authority on the matter.
Does God ever communicate with humans in any way other than via Jesus' words as recorded in the New Testament? Why do you believe that?
Originally posted by knightmeisterDoes this logic apply to other famous figures?
Grace is much more practical and workable because it encourages repentance and takes account of the reality of the human condition. In this theology and man can strive to live well but not live in abject fear of damnation. Jesus did not leave us with a chocolate teapot message.
Can we equally conclude that half of what Hitler is reported to have said is not useful to us and should thus be discarded as untrue? Or is it OK for Hitler to leave chocolate teapot messages but not Jesus? Why?
Originally posted by Rajk999Apology accepted. Don't worry about it.
You are absolutely right. My apologies to KM. To be honest I dont know how that post ended up sounded like an attack but it was meant to sound like how you phrased it - I was attacking KMs conclusions and not him personally.
Going back to teapots. I fail to see how anything can be "more useless" than a chocolate teapot?
The conclusion I am making are clear , if a theology is unworkable then it should be discarded. What issue do you have with this?
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis type of reasoning is infact very scientific. It's not the only critieria by which we might judge a theology but it is an important one.
I have always found it interesting how many people believe that the religion has little or nothing to do with the truth, or actual facts, but rather what works for them.
Your problem is that if Jesus said something that is not useful to you, you discard it (well and good), and then make the flawed claim that Jesus could not have said it.
Its identical t ...[text shortened]... ng. Surely it is the person who creates a God to suits his needs that is in cloud cuckoo land?
It's scientific because it's based on the principle of experiment. If someone comes up with a scientific theory and it doesn't actually work practically in experiments then they are quite right to doubt it.
If someone purports a theory of teleportation but can't actually teleport anyone and their machine doesn't work , what then?
I can't see what your problem is.
Originally posted by knightmeisterMy problem is the glaring holes in your logic. You are getting very confused between "Theology" and "what Jesus actually said". I suspect the real problem is that you start by believing Jesus' words to be undeniable fact and run into problem from there. Maybe that is the hypothesis that should be discarded.
I can't see what your problem is.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be your argument:
1. Jesus never got it wrong or told a lie or said anything that wasn't of value.
2. Person A claims Jesus made statement X.
3. Statement X is untrue or of no value (eg 'Make your tea with chocolate teapots'😉.
4. Jesus could not have made statement X.
I am questioning assumption 1. especially when it comes to "wasn't of value" and even more especially when it isn't of value to you personally.
Originally posted by twhitehead1Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
So anything to do with Grace and Salvation in the Old Testament, or by Paul must be ignored as non-authoritative? Why?
Does God ever communicate with humans in any way other than via Jesus' words as recorded in the New Testament? Why do you believe that?
Christ is above Paul. Paul was sent to set up the early churches and preach the doctrines taught by Christ.
God is above Christ but spoke to people only prior to Christ's arrival, ie in the Bible. As far as speaking to others are concerned, I dont know. God can speak to anyone in any era. I dont know. Do you? Why is that important for me. Im a Christian and I believe in Christ and what he said. Who God speaks to now, last year, last hundred years is of no concern to me. Why is it of concern to you?
Originally posted by knightmeisterChrist also said :
Apology accepted. Don't worry about it.
Going back to teapots. I fail to see how anything can be "more useless" than a chocolate teapot?
The conclusion I am making are clear , if a theology is unworkable then it should be discarded. What issue do you have with this?
Luke 18:22 ... sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
Thats also an 'unworkable theology' for 99.99% of Christians, if the wording is taken literally. Does that mean that it should be discarded?
Rather I think it should be used as a goal to which a Christian must aspire. The same with your beef with sin. A sinless life is perfection and should be aspired to.
Originally posted by Rajk999Thats non-authoritative! Or does the rule only apply to certain topics?
1Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Christ is above Paul. Paul was sent to set up the early churches and preach the doctrines taught by Christ.
So, if Paul was teaching the doctrines taught by Christ, should we listen to his teachings or not? If we should not, then why was he sent? If we should then your comment about only Christ being authoritative seems a bit misplaced.
God is above Christ but spoke to people only prior to Christ's arrival, ie in the Bible.
He only spoke in the Bible? How did he do that?
As far as speaking to others are concerned, I dont know. God can speak to anyone in any era. I dont know. Do you? Why is that important for me. Im a Christian and I believe in Christ and what he said. Who God speaks to now, last year, last hundred years is of no concern to me. Why is it of concern to you?
Because if God spoke to anyone other than Christ, that would mean that they too might be an authoritative source. Or does God possibly talk to other people but never about Grace and Salvation?
Originally posted by Rajk999A sinless life is perfection and should be aspired to.
Christ also said :
Luke 18:22 ... sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
Thats also an 'unworkable theology' for 99.99% of Christians, if the wording is taken literally. Does that mean that it should be discarded?
Rather I think it should be used as a goal to which a Chri ...[text shortened]... pire. The same with your beef with sin. A sinless life is perfection and should be aspired to.
---------------rajk-----------------
No argument with that. It should be aspired to. But it also needs to be recognised that one is not condemned if one doesn't get there.
This is where grace comes in.
Originally posted by Rajk999What do you mean by 'aspire'? Do you mean get nice warm fuzzy feelings about but never actually do?
Rather I think it should be used as a goal to which a Christian must aspire. The same with your beef with sin. A sinless life is perfection and should be aspired to.
Why would you not actually do as Christ suggested? Why is it unworkable for you?
Originally posted by twhiteheadCorrect me if I am wrong, but this seems to be your argument:
My problem is the glaring holes in your logic. You are getting very confused between "Theology" and "what Jesus actually said". I suspect the real problem is that you start by believing Jesus' words to be undeniable fact and run into problem from there. Maybe that is the hypothesis that should be discarded.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to b ...[text shortened]... "wasn't of value" and even more especially when it isn't of value to you personally.
1. Jesus never got it wrong or told a lie or said anything that wasn't of value.
YES
2. Person A claims Jesus made statement X.
YES
3. Statement X is untrue or of no value (eg 'Make your tea with chocolate teapots'😉.
NO - BECAUSE STATEMENT CAN BE INTERPRETED IN DIFFERENT WAYS.
4. Jesus could not have made statement X.
NO - HE DID MAKE SATTEMENT X - THE ARGUMENT THEN ENSUES AS TO WHAT STATEMENT X MEANS AND THAT BECOMES A VARIETY OF THEOLOGIES.
Originally posted by knightmeisterThanks for the clarification.
NO - HE DID MAKE SATTEMENT X - THE ARGUMENT THEN ENSUES AS TO WHAT STATEMENT X MEANS AND THAT BECOMES A VARIETY OF THEOLOGIES.
I still think the logic is flawed because of premise 1. ie it should be suspect too.
I also find it very suspect that you believe that an interpretation of Jesus' words that has no value for you personally is therefore an incorrect interpretation. The implication is that you are not trying to find out what he meant, but rather merely using his words for your own benefit. Why even bother starting with his words? Why not simply make up your own theology without Jesus?