Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI am saying they do not corroborate your interpretation of Luke. What they DO corroborate is that Jesus was mocked by the thieves. Luke provides the dialogue that illustrates this.
So how exactly are they contradicting my interpretation of Luke?
Originally posted by FMFThat is your opinion. But in case you haven't noticed you are no authority on how I should interpret scripture. 😛
I am saying they do not corroborate your interpretation of Luke. What they DO corroborate is that Jesus was mocked by the thieves. Luke provides the dialogue that illustrates this.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI am just discussing your beliefs and assertions about reality with you because you aired them in this public arena. You can just cop out and flounce off any time you want. 😉
That is your opinion. But in case you haven't noticed you are no authority on how I should interpret scripture. 😛
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFSo you seriously think that your interpretation of scripture is correct and everyone else is wrong because they don't share your opinions about how this particular piece of scripture should be interpreted? You have quite a chip on your shoulder.
I am just discussing your beliefs and assertions about reality with you because you aired them in this public arena. You can just cop out and flounce off any time you want. 😉
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI am discussing something with you and not with "everyone else".
So you seriously think that your interpretation of scripture is correct and everyone else is wrong because they don't share your opinions about how this particular piece of scripture should be interpreted? You have quite a chip on your shoulder.
Originally posted by roigamBe clear now. Are you - or are you not - claiming that the NWT translation of "EN ARCHE EN HO LOGOS, KAI HO LOGOS EN PROS TON THEON, KAI THEOS EN HO LOGOS" as 'In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god' is "accepted by most Bible scholars as the best translation available"?
Excuse me but this has been translated just that way in several other Bible.
The NWT used master texts for it's translations.
A master text is accepted by most Bible scholars as the best translation available
according to the latest ancient scrolls available.
What Bible do you use and what does it say at John 1:1? Also, what scrols were used in
that particular translation?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk"Everyone else"? Well I am not a Christian but I know that there are hundreds of millions of Christians who have read the scriptures, and have read about Jesus' clear and explicit commands, and as a result they believe in the notion that they must actually endeavour to live a good life - before (and about which) they are finally judged.
So you seriously think that your interpretation of scripture is correct and everyone else is wrong because they don't share your opinions about how this particular piece of scripture should be interpreted? You have quite a chip on your shoulder.
These Christians say things like "lip service means nothing and faith without works is dead" and "Faith without works is not genuine faith. Faith without works is dead." So, the notion is not mine alone. We are discussing things that Christians think here, aren't we? You ought not to try and cast yourself as speaking on behalf of "everyone else". Just argue for what you believe.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFWe are talking about salvation. If you believe the thief on the cross was saved, and it was not his faith or his good works that saved him, then what exactly saved him? If you say Jesus saved him just because he felt like it, are you saying anyone who lacks faith and good works can be saved?
"Everyone else"? Well I am not a Christian but I know that there are hundreds of millions of Christians who have read the scriptures, and have read about Jesus' clear and explicit commands, and as a result they believe in the notion that they must actually endeavour to live a good life - before (and about which) they are finally judged.
These Christians say t ...[text shortened]... try and cast yourself as speaking on behalf of "everyone else". Just argue for what you believe.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI don't believe he was "saved". You believe he was, but your reason for it doesn't make much sense and sounds to me like a rather fanciful human invention.
We are talking about salvation. If you believe the thief on the cross was saved, and it was not his faith or his good works that saved him, then what exactly saved him?
Your interpretation would appeal to people who were content to live bad lives but arrange (for all intents and purposes) to "forgive" themselves and get "saved" by 'believing that believing is all it takes' (along with being "repentant" about that bad life, even at death's door) to wind up living forever... in 'paradise' no less.
Such a convoluted let-yourself-off-the-hook philosophy does not appeal to me on any level (least of all on what may be my hard-wired-morality level) and the far-fetched supernatural angle makes it impossible to even pretend to subscribe to it.
I see no reason to believe that the stuff you talk about is based on any revelation of God. Meanwhile, Jesus' teaching about philanthropy and empathy and endeavouring to live a righteous life and and do good works consistent with His teachings makes some sense to me, philosophically.
But most of the Christians around here don't want to talk about that ~ they just want to talk about how they are already "saved" because of stuff going on inside of their heads that don't seem to believe HAS to be translated into action.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI am not saying Jesus "saved" anyone. I am a non-believer, Fetchmyjunk. My point was that the Bible story might make more sense if it sought to demonstrate that Jesus can "save" whoever He wants, regardless of their "faith" (the thief clearly was not a follower of Christ, he was mocking Jesus with his dying words, so perhaps He was "saved" because of good things he did during his life - whatever, Jesus is the judge of all that, and it's not for people to second guess etc.), rather than your interpretation which makes a nonsense of the idea of "faith" and the entire Jesus-message about how to live one's life.
If you say Jesus saved him just because he felt like it...
1 edit
FMF: I don't believe he was "saved" [lifted out of a much longer post which explained what I believed in some detail].What's your response to the other 220 words I addressed to you?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So when Jesus said "today you will be with me in paradise" he was saying the thief is going to hell?
Originally posted by FMFSo actually you don't believe anything written in the Bible but you want to tell me what it is saying from your position of unbelief?
I am not saying Jesus "saved" anyone. I am a non-believer, Fetchmyjunk. My point was that the Bible story might make more sense if it sought to demonstrate that Jesus can "save" whoever He wants, regardless of their "faith" (the thief clearly was not a follower of Christ, he was mocking Jesus with his dying words, so perhaps He was "saved" because of good things ...[text shortened]... kes a nonsense of the idea of "faith" and the entire Jesus-message about how to live one's life.