New Church

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I dont see anything "damning" about what you've posted here.
?

I have to say I have to raise more than an eyebrow at a claim to be "able to freely visit heaven and hell, and speak to demons and spirits", though it's interesting that epi seems to have no problems embracing similar claims of Paul. As to "works-based salvation", I surmise that it's based on it not being what he believes.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I have to say I have to raise more than an eyebrow at a claim to be "able to freely visit heaven and hell, and speak to demons and spirits", though it's interesting that epi seems to have no problems embracing similar claims of Paul. As to "works-based salvation", I surmise that it's based on it not being what he believes.

Like I said, I dont see anything damning about this type of claim.
Think what you will, as you know it is not you who shall judge me. And I aint losing any sleep over this type of thinking. In fact, I would consider quite 'normal'

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently there is nothing more "reprehensible" to you than the thought of having to walk as Jesus walked. It's so much easier to believe that all you need do is cry, "Lord, Lord". However Jesus asks, "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?"

No. What is reprehensible to me is the arrogance which informs the 'thinking' that the work done on the cross can be somehow added to, that it in some way was deficient or lacking in power.

Clueless is too nice of a term because it connotes a certain level of naiveté, whereas your assault on truth is an informed (albeit poorly) and willful bastardization.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No. What is reprehensible to me is the arrogance which informs the 'thinking' that the work done on the cross can be somehow added to, that it in some way was deficient or lacking in power.

Clueless is too nice of a term because it connotes a certain level of naiveté, whereas your assault on truth is an informed (albeit poorly) and willful bastardization.

Your dogged adherence to your antiquated sacrificial mythology is, at its root, nothing more than a means of excusing yourself from having to do anything. You proclaim your pious but empty belief while you wait for Jesus to do all the work. Pathetic.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No. What is reprehensible to me is the arrogance which informs the 'thinking' that the work done on the cross can be somehow added to, that it in some way was deficient or lacking in power.

Clueless is too nice of a term because it connotes a certain level of naiveté, whereas your assault on truth is an informed (albeit poorly) and willful bastardization.

If you dont have good works you are LACKING.
That means you dont have what it takes to get salvation:

Luk 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Originally posted by rwingett
Your dogged adherence to your antiquated sacrificial mythology is, at its root, nothing more than a means of excusing yourself from having to do anything. You proclaim your pious but empty belief while you wait for Jesus to do all the work. Pathetic.

Spoken like a person who hasn't the foggiest notion of what the standard really is. And you can't be entirely blamed for being in the fallen state, without any reference outside of your own thinking to align your mind.

Or, can you be blamed? I think you can, and here's why. Genetically-speaking, we are able to grade the good and the bad strands of DNA. We understand how it is conceptually possible to have perfect genes. Ironically, we understand this on the basis of what we possess: defective genes.

Of course, we haven't a clue as to how to get our genes to that state of perfection, but we definitely know that such perfection is possible. Thus, we have a conceptual model of perfect.

Using that model--- as well as informed by our own impotence of affecting that perfection--- we can begin to imagine the insurmountable gap which exists between man and perfect God. I say "begin to imagine" only because our imaginations will necessarily be tainted by the very thing which keeps us from Him. He has confirmed the beyond-our-grasp nature of His perfection in various parts of the Bible, putting Him in the realm of exceedingly beyond our imagination. Guess what? I can imagine a lot... and He's beyond that.

But wait! Here comes an idea of man which intones that if we try hard enough, we will somehow appease this perfect God. In our this-really-is-the-best-I-can-do mode, your imagination has man pleasing the righteousness of this beyond-even-your-best-imagination God. How does that work, exactly?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Spoken like a person who hasn't the foggiest notion of what the standard really is. And you can't be entirely blamed for being in the fallen state, without any reference outside of your own thinking to align your mind.

Or, can you be blamed? I think you can, and here's why. Genetically-speaking, we are able to grade the good and the bad strands of DN ...[text shortened]... ighteousness of this beyond-even-your-best-imagination God. How does that work, exactly?

Geez, now you're sounding a like a bad version of me...
Why you blamin' rwingett again?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No. What is reprehensible to me is the arrogance which informs the 'thinking' that the work done on the cross can be somehow added to, that it in some way was deficient or lacking in power.

Clueless is too nice of a term because it connotes a certain level of naiveté, whereas your assault on truth is an informed (albeit poorly) and willful bastardization.

What is arrogant is denying the teachings of Jesus whilst calling Him, "Lord".

From what I can tell the Bible is your "Lord", not Jesus.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What is arrogant is denying the teachings of Jesus whilst calling Him, "Lord".

From what I can tell the Bible is your "Lord", not Jesus.

You know nothing of Him without the Bible. As He has stated, He has placed His word above His name. Wonder what that means.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You know nothing of Him without the Bible. As He has stated, He has placed His word above His name. Wonder what that means.

Jesus says to continue in HIS WORD, not the words of Paul, not the words of the Bible on the whole.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jesus says to continue in HIS WORD, not the words of Paul, not the words of the Bible on the whole.

(John 17:17) . . .Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth

umm it seems quite clear that Christ was rather fond of Gods written word, and it seems that Christ was quoting from the Psalms, of which he was also fond of doing,

(Psalm 119:160) . . .The substance of your word is truth, And every righteous judicial decision of yours is to time indefinite. . .

therefore it begs the question, if Christ was fond of it, upheld it and taught others to do the same, why are you taking a stance contrary to what Christ did?

in fact when he was under temptation or rather extreme pressure he seems to have turned to it for encouragement,

(Matthew 4:1-11) . . .Then Jesus was led by the spirit up into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil.  After he had fasted forty days and forty nights, then he felt hungry.  Also, the Tempter came and said to him: “If you are a son of God, tell these stones to become loaves of bread.”  But in reply he said: “It is written, ‘Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah’s mouth.’”  Then the Devil took him along into the holy city, and he stationed him upon the battlement of the temple  and said to him: “If you are a son of God, hurl yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will give his angels a charge concerning you, and they will carry you on their hands, that you may at no time strike your foot against a stone.’”  Jesus said to him: “Again it is written, ‘You must not put Jehovah your God to the test.’”  Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory,  and he said to him: “All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.”  Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”  Then the Devil left him, and, look! angels came and began to minister to him.

His half brother James also seems to have evaluated it rather differently,

(James 1:25) . . .But he who peers into the perfect law that belongs to freedom and who persists in it, this man, because he has become, not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, will be happy in his doing it.

therefore once again we must ask ourselves, who is following the example of Christ and the early Christians by upholding and cherishing the word of God in its entirety?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b](John 17:17) . . .Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth

umm it seems quite clear that Christ was rather fond of Gods written word, and it seems that Christ was quoting from the Psalms, of which he was also fond of doing,

(Psalm 119:160) . . .The substance of your word is truth, And every righteous judicial decis ...[text shortened]... of Christ and the early Christians by upholding and cherishing the word of God in its entirety?[/b]

You confuse the law of God with what is written. Not all that is written is the law of God. Jesus taught things contrary to the OT.

As an example:

Leviticus 24
19 ‘If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him. 21 ‘Thus the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but the one who kills a man shall be put to death.

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ 39 “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

There is no reason to believe that Jesus would have seen the whole of the NT as the law of God either.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You confuse the law of God with what is written. Not all that is written is the law of God. Jesus taught things contrary to the OT.

As an example:

Leviticus 24
19 ‘[b]If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it ...[text shortened]... is no reason to believe that Jesus would have seen the whole of the NT as the law of God either.[/b]

to what was Jesus referring when he stated, 'your word is truth'?

(John 17:17) . . .Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth

the fact of the matter is that Jesus is not negating the Law itself, but the Pharisaical interpretation of the Law, that is why in each of the sixth instances he quotes from the Hebrew scriptures he starts with the phrase, 'you have heard that it was said', this of course is in stark contrast to what he has stated previously when facing pressure from Satan, where he clearly explained, 'it is written'. This is perhaps illustrated best in the last of those sixth utterances,

You heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbour and hate your enemy', there is of course no mosaic law which states, 'Hate your enemy', The scribes and Pharisees said it. That was their interpretation of the Law to love your neighbour your Jewish neighbour and no others. Thus what Christ is clearly referring to in each of these instances is not the Law itself as thinkofone would have us erroneously believe, but the Pharisaical interpretation of the law.

To use this as a basis for stating that the scripture should be ignored is the greatest folly imaginable because it leads to serious difficulties and an almost impossible appraisal of what is legitimate and what is not.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
to what was Jesus referring when he stated, 'your word is truth'?

[b](John 17:17) . . .Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth[/b]

If you are asking what Jesus meant by "word", look at the following:

John 17
"7 “Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; 8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.

They are the words that Jesus gave, i.e. the teachings of Jesus, that were given to Him from God.

It was the words given to them by Jesus, not the words they already had, i.e., the OT.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If you are asking what Jesus meant by "word", look at the following:

John 17
"7 “Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; 8 [b]for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me.

They are the words that ...[text shortened]... od.

It was the words given to them by Jesus, not the words they already had, i.e., the OT.[/b]

please see the edited text above for a scriptural refutation of a rather erroneous assertion. The truth of the matter is in the details thinkofone 🙂