Luke 7:50

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
There is no I in debate. It's a team sport. Get with the program.

Team my a**, the Wolfpack has left me out with this barbarians alone. Even Bbarr hasn't shown up to point out that his "Argument from Evil" wouldn't apply to a Deist God. I don't mind taking point, but you guys are back at the PX knocking down a few cold ones and having a good laugh while I'm rassling hand to hand with these loonies.

BTW, do you sign up for Coletti's Christian Logic forum?

Originally posted by no1marauder

BTW, do you sign up for Coletti's Christian Logic forum?

You've got to be kidding me. Any logic forum that deems Coletti to be an authority is a logic forum that I want nothing to do with. I browsed through briefly, read some crap and left.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Here is where you are in error. My answer would be Jesus, of course! But the point is that what Paul spoke was by "revelation" from Jesus Christ.

Gal 1:11-12
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the rev ...[text shortened]... usness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(NKJ)

That's what Paul says. If I say I'm speaking from revelation from Jesus Christ would you believe me? Like me, Paul never met Jesus Christ. It's a wonder to me that "Christians" treat some letters written by a guy who never even spoke to Jesus in the flesh as equivalent in authority to the actual recorded words of Jesus. The mind reels.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You've got to be kidding me. Any logic forum that deems Coletti to be an authority is a logic forum that I want nothing to do with. I browsed through briefly, read some crap and left.

You don't feel an evangelical mission to cure them of the errors of their ways (logically speaking)?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You don't feel an evangelical mission to cure them of the errors of their ways (logically speaking)?

I do, but I'm powerless. My only weapon is reason, to which they are perfectly immune. I suppose the Wolfpack could storm the boards brandishing some old-school ridicule and mockery, but I'm sure Officer Coletti would be quick to issue a wholesale Christian ban. Besides, I don't know if they allow brothaz to join.

Originally posted by no1marauder
OK, now we're getting somewhere. The first two passages are somewhat irrelevant as they merely state that believers MAY be saved, not that they MUST be saved. Group A believers are, of course, in anyway, but these passages do not conflict with Matthew 25 which clearly says what you do is what matters, not what you believe. If the belief leads one to the ...[text shortened]... l life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.

None of those verses are irrelevant...believing is required first. But I see where you are coming from. And it is wrong. You do not seem to understand the whole theme of scripture.
Let's go step by step.
God created, etc....Satan corrupted what God created....and we are only at Genesis 3!
The rest of the bible is God trying to restore man to His original intention.
He sent His Son as a ransom for mankind. To atone for their sins. He had to die and be raised.
Now He is risen and He works in His people. He started in Acts chapter 2.
He has given those who receive Him holy spirit within, eternal life, etc.
What was taking place in the gospels is really OT. Jesus came to fulfill OT prophecy and carry out God's plan.
He knew He would be crucified. He didn't want to neccessarily, but knew He had to. And it wasn't just people that crucified Him. It was Satan who was and still is trying to thwart God. But he failed....

1 Cor 2:7-9
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him."
(NKJ)

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's what Paul says. If I say I'm speaking from revelation from Jesus Christ would you believe me? Like me, Paul never met Jesus Christ. It's a wonder to me that "Christians" treat some letters written by a guy who never even spoke to Jesus in the flesh as equivalent in authority to the actual recorded words of Jesus. The mind reels.

Not just Paul, but Timothy, James, John, Peter,etc. What you propose is absurd.

You must go to the same church as Frogstomp.😉

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Not just Paul, but Timothy, James, John, Peter,etc. What you propose is absurd.

You must go to the same church as Frogstomp.😉

It's "absurd" to think that the no1 authority on what Jesus Christ's teachings are is Jesus Christ??? You have a different meaning of "absurd" from my dictionary.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
None of those verses are irrelevant...believing is required first. But I see where you are coming from. And it is wrong. You do not seem to understand the whole theme of scripture.
Let's go step by step.
God created, etc....Satan corrupted what God created....and we are only at Genesis 3!
The rest of the bible is God trying to restore man to His orig ...[text shortened]... entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him."
(NKJ)

This is your problem; you come in with a preconceived idea and then interpret all of Scripture to rigidly fit into your set in stone beliefs. Your "whole theme" is something you were told to believe that you have accepted uncritically. Whenever the words of a passage are in conflict with your ideas, that must be explained away by tortured reasoning akin to your "4 guys were crucified next to Jesus" even though the Gospels unequivocally tell you differently. In short, you don't believe in Scripture; you believe in something and then try to make Scripture accord with it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's "absurd" to think that the no1 authority on what Jesus Christ's teachings are is Jesus Christ??? You have a different meaning of "absurd" from my dictionary.

Not absurd of Christ's word's, but that you think the bible is only the four gospels.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Not absurd of Christ's word's, but that you think the bible is only the four gospels.

Who said that?? The Bible is a collection of books written centuries apart. What books went into the Bible was a decision made by men; there were writings by early Christians who were just as much authorities as Paul, but they were excluded. There were bishops and others writing letters to people that weren't included. Those are historical facts.

Now, a "Christian" must logically be someone who believes, at a minimum, in the teachings of Jesus Christ. The four Gospels are what we have of his teachings, though it's quite possible they are all second hand accounts. Still, they are reputed to be his words. Thus, they are the source of Christian doctrine. You seem to feel that the most important parts of Christian doctrine are it's interpretation by Paul and others rather than Jesus' words. That is common here; Paul gets quoted about 10 times as much as Jesus. Whether anything Paul says is contrary to Jesus is debatable, but certainly many of your and other fundies interpretation's is at the very least, not reflected in Jesus' words. As such, what makes you so sure it is proper doctrine?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Who said that?? The Bible is a collection of books written centuries apart. What books went into the Bible was a decision made by men; there were writings by early Christians who were just as much authorities as Paul, but they were excluded. There were bishops and others writing letters to people that weren't included. Those are historical facts.

...[text shortened]... ry least, not reflected in Jesus' words. As such, what makes you so sure it is proper doctrine?

Why bother trying to Christianize these Paulines, it really doesnt matter what they think as long as the do the works.

This is so very simple.

The issue here is St Luke 7:50 which says 'your faith has saved you.'
But it is incomplete without St Luke 7:47 'her many sins have been
forgiven, seeing that she has loved much.'

In other words, her faith -- which is indicated by her loving much --
has saved her. Faith and works are inseperable.

This is supported by St James 2:26: Just as the body without a spirit
is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

They cannot be separated. A person of faith is a worker, a lover.

Anyone trying to say otherwise is a heretic according to the Bible itself.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
This is so very simple.

The issue here is St Luke 7:50 which says 'your faith has saved you.'
But it is incomplete without St Luke 7:47 'her many sins have been
forgiven, seeing that she has loved much.'

In other words, her faith -- which is indicated by her loving much --
has saved her. Faith and works are inseperable.

This is supported by ...[text shortened]... lover.

Anyone trying to say otherwise is a heretic according to the Bible itself.

Nemesio

Amen.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's an intellectual exercise; I place myself in no groups.

Since when is a pissing match an "intellectual exercise" ?