05 Jan 10
2 edits
One of the gospels says that Jesus looked on the rich young ruler and loved him.
However Jesus exposed his terrible shortage. This rich young ruler was willing to forgo eternal life. He turned away sorrowfully and decided that he could not lose what he had for the sake of eternal life.
ThinkofOne is right that "eternal life", "the kingdom of heaven", "the kingdom of God", and "be saved" are all bound together in these passages.
Yet if we are clear on two lines of thought we can get a clearer picture.
1.) The pursuit of the young man is toward eternal life.
2.) By using the incident of the young man as teaching material, Jesus explains to His disciples about the reward of the kingdom of the heavens.
Verse 21 pertains a word concerning the kingdom. - "Jesus said to him, If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have trwasure in the heavens; and come, follow Me."
Going further than just the matter of initial salvation, the Lord Jesus points the young man to the truth of the kingdom: to "have treasure in heaven" denotes abundance in the kingdom.
That the Lord Jesus took the incident to speak of the kingdom reward is also indicated in his subsequent discussion to Peter.
"Then Peter answered and said to Him, Behold, we have left all and followed You. What then willthere be for us?
And Jesus said to them. truly I say to you that you who have followed Me, in the restoration, when the Son of man sits on the throne of His glory, you also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
This is a reward in addition to eternal life. It is not the common portion of all disciples to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Though there will be other rewards to other disciples not of the twelve in the restoration - the millennial kingdom.
"And he who overcomes and he who keeps My works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations; and he will shepherd them with an iron rod, as vessels of pottery are broken in pieces, as I also received from My Father." (Rev. 2:26,27)
This is a reward in addition to eternal life. It is to enter into the joy of the Lord in the coming kingdom over the globe headed up by Jesus. Some remaining nations will be ruled by Christ and His co-kings. This is a reward and recompense for overcoming in the Christian life.
This is not the common portion to all defeated and backslidden disciples simply because they have believed in the Son of God. This is the reward to those who in addition to being reconciled to God through the death of His Son, partook much more of being saved "organically" by and in the transforming life of Christ indwelling them.
05 Jan 10
Originally posted by SwissGambitThere's two issues here.
If someone believes that Jesus is not divine, doesn't it make sense that they might think some of the claims of say, John's gospel, are greatly exaggerated at best and human inventions at worst?
If that's true, then maybe they and you have different ideas of what constitutes the ENTIRETY of Jesus' teachings.
1) Why I ask ToO whether he believes in God or not (which I feel is justified because Jesus makes constant references to his Father and doing his Father's work)
2) Did Jesus claim to be divine?
I'm not sure which discussion you want to have. If you want to discuss whether Jesus thought he was divine or not then you only have to consider that his teachings are riddled with examples of how he sees himself as the judge of all mankind. I fail to see how anyone other than God has the right (or knowledge) to judge us.
For example , if Jesus was just a mere man then how can he presume to be able to judge me or know whether I qualify for eternal life or not? How dare he! And yet that's just what he does say. CS Lewis points out that we are so used to hearing the words of Jesus that we forget the staggering arrogance of what he says (not just in John). It simply makes no sense to say he was just a good "teacher". The evidence that he thought he was more than this is overwhelming. Afterall , that was what he was killed for - acting as if he were God himself - and not once did he try to tell them that they had "got it all wrong".
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by knightmeister1) Even if Jesus believed in God, I fail to see why all of Jesus' followers must believe in God. Being a follower doesn't mean you hold exactly the same beliefs on every issue.
There's two issues here.
1) Why I ask ToO whether he believes in God or not (which I feel is justified because Jesus makes constant references to his Father and doing his Father's work)
2) Did Jesus claim to be divine?
I'm not sure which discussion you want to have. If you want to discuss whether Jesus thought he was divine or not then you on ...[text shortened]... ere God himself - and not once did he try to tell them that they had "got it all wrong".
2) The main point of this example was to show that there may not be a consensus on which of Jesus' words in the Bible are authentic. I was trying to show one plausible example of why a person might believe that only some of the sayings attributed to Jesus were actually his.
CS Lewis' point is only valid if again we assume that all four gospels are completely accurate in their quoting of Jesus' words. However, to borrow from Bart Ehrman, Mark, which was written first, does not claim that Jesus was God, while John, written last, very emphatically claims that he is. Isn't it plausible that the change in tone represented changes in theology among the early churches, or different groups of christians with their own variations on theology?
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI said what I said but since your six cannot grasp it you see what you see and "you are certain of it" too, oh the horror😵
[b]Excuse me for the interruption, enjoy the conversation😵
Pigs flying backwards somewhere, I'm certain of it...
I'm assuming that you are here referring to seven-year release (e·shmte, or shmut) in which Jews who had lent money to another Jew would forgive by wiping out the debt, symbolizing 'Jehovah's release.' Interestingly, this was only for f ...[text shortened]... America, our bankruptcy laws used to be based loosely on such a system. Not so anymore...[/b]
BTW, aphesin is merely aphesis in acccusative case; enjoy your Greek😵
06 Jan 10
5 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambit==========================================
1) Even if Jesus believed in God, I fail to see why all of Jesus' followers must believe in God. Being a follower doesn't mean you hold exactly the same beliefs on every issue.
2) The main point of this example was to show that there may not be a consensus on which of Jesus' words in the Bible are authentic. I was trying to show one plausible example e early churches, or different groups of christians with their own variations on theology?
1) Even if Jesus believed in God, I fail to see why all of Jesus' followers must believe in God. Being a follower doesn't mean you hold exactly the same beliefs on every issue.
==================================
You are free to follow Jesus as a example of a good person. Many people do that in some regard.
I guess it depends on how militantly they insist that the writers of the New Testament, are distorting what Jesus taught.
===================================
However, to borrow from Bart Ehrman, Mark, which was written first, does not claim that Jesus was God, while John, written last, very emphatically claims that he is.
======================================
I don't agree with Bart Erhman's theory of "Jesus is not God in Mark".
The following passage is from the Gospel of Mark:
"And Jesus, while He was teaching in the temple, answered and said, How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself said in the Holy Spirit,
"The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand until I put Your enemies underneath Your feet."
David himself calls Him Lord, and how is He his son?" (Mark 12:35-37)
The fact that David in the Holy Spirit calls the Christ "Lord" indicates He is God. He is David's descendent according to humanity but He is David's God according to His divinity.
===============================
Isn't it plausible that the change in tone represented changes in theology among the early churches, or different groups of christians with their own variations on theology?
==================================
John was mending the net so to speak. His ministry was to bring the disciples back to the beginning. The church had been damaged and there was a need to recover the damage by bringing the believers back to basics.
These basics are that Jesus Christ was absolutely their spiritual life. Jesus was the spiritual knowledge of God Himself coming into them.
Peter opened the Gospel gates.
Paul prepare churches for practical living on the earth.
John's ministry was to mend the broken Gospel net and bring the believers back to the beginningt things, the crucial and fundamental matters of Christ as divine life.
As problems and attacks against the church evolved so also the apostles adjusted their ministry to deal with the problems.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
06 Jan 10
jaywill has a gift for distorting what is said in a post and twisting it to suit his biblical perspective. Don't think for a moment that he isn't doing that to the Bible as well.
I guess it depends on how militantly they insist that everyone else is, like the writers of the New Testament, are distorting what Jesus taught.
Which is to say, whether it fits your view, not whether it's what Jesus taught.
I don't agree with Bart Erhman's theory of "No divinity of Jesus in Mark".
The following passage is from the Gospel of Mark:
Swiss Gambit borrows from Erhman but not in this way, so jaywill conveniently runs off with a strawman. Then jaywill quotes scripture as if that instills authority - it does not.
Bravo.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by Badwater======================
jaywill has a gift for distorting what is said in a post and twisting it to suit his biblical perspective. Don't think for a moment that he isn't doing that to the Bible as well.
I guess it depends on how militantly they insist that everyone else is, like the writers of the New Testament, are distorting what Jesus taught.
Which is to sa ...[text shortened]... man. Then jaywill quotes scripture as if that instills authority - it does not.
Bravo.
jaywill has a gift for distorting what is said in a post and twisting it to suit his biblical perspective. Don't think for a moment that he isn't doing that to the Bible as well.
========================
The originator of this thread, ThinkofOne, wants us to believe that the Apostle Paul taught contrary to Jesus.
Do you deny this ?
========================
I guess it depends on how militantly they insist that everyone else is, like the writers of the New Testament, are distorting what Jesus taught.
======================
Anyone is welcomed to request that I substantiate an interpretation of the New Testament. I do not for a second suggest you should believe me just because I said so.
My practice has always been to check everything with the Scriptures. I think you should have a Berean attitude and study to see if these things are so.
James says all the teachers make mistakes. I make them also.
====================
Which is to say, whether it fits your view, not whether it's what Jesus taught.
Me:
I don't agree with Bart Erhman's theory of "No divinity of Jesus in Mark".
The following passage is from the Gospel of Mark:
You:
Swiss Gambit borrows from Erhman but not in this way, so jaywill conveniently runs off with a strawman. Then jaywill quotes scripture as if that instills authority - it does not.
================================
It was not a strawman argument. That passage in the Gospel of Mark demonstrates how Jesus shut the mouth of the scribes.
Using the Scriptures He proved that David prophesied that the Christ would be God incarnate. He is a descendent of David - "son of David" yet He is the Lord and God of David.
Therefore, I would not "borrow" from Bart Erhman that the alledged earliest written Gospel does not show Jesus teaching that He is God incarnate.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by black beetleI said what I said but since your six cannot grasp it
I said what I said but since your six cannot grasp it you see what you see and "you are certain of it" too, oh the horror😵
BTW, aphesin is merely aphesis in acccusative case; enjoy your Greek😵
And to which 'six' are you referring?
you see what you see and "you are certain of it" too, oh the horror
Are you certain of my certainty?
BTW, aphesin is merely aphesis in acccusative case; enjoy your Greek😵
Thanks for that. Tricky stuff, but worth the effort.
Have you any reliable online resources you could recommend?
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by jaywillSG was borrowing from the part about Jesus not being God walking on earth in Mark, which is not John's perspective. You did not address that, you instead quoted scripture.
It was not a strawman argument. That passage in the Gospel of Mark demonstrates how Jesus shut the mouth of the scribes.
Using the Scriptures He proved that David prophesied that the Christ would be God incarnate. He is a descendent of David - "son of David" yet He is the Lord and God of David.
Therefore, I would not "borrow" from Bart Erhman th ...[text shortened]... the alledged earliest written Gospel does not show Jesus teaching that He is God incarnate.
The portrayals of Jesus in Mark and John are vastly different. They are not congruent. Ehrman is not invalidated simply because you can cut and paste passages from Mark.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by BadwaterThis is what SG wrote:
SG was borrowing from the part about Jesus not being God walking on earth in Mark, which is not John's perspective. You did not address that, you instead quoted scripture.
The portrayals of Jesus in Mark and John are vastly different. They are not congruent. Ehrman is not invalidated simply because you can cut and paste passages from Mark.
CS Lewis' point is only valid if again we assume that all four gospels are completely accurate in their quoting of Jesus' words. However, to borrow from Bart Ehrman, Mark, which was written first, does not claim that Jesus was God, while John, written last, very emphatically claims that he is.
Two points are raised here.
1.) Assumptions are made that the four Gospels are completely accurate in recording the words of Jesus.
2.) Mark, the earliest Gospel does not claim that Jesus was God.
I dealt mainly with the second point. Mark does show Jesus teaching that the Christ was the descendent of David as well as the God and Lord of David.
Of course Erhman or anyone can always say that what does not support their theology was not authentically spoken by Jesus.
How do I know they aren't just assigning the label of "non-authentic sayings" to all that does not agree with what they want Jesus to be all about ?
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
06 Jan 10
Assumptions are made that the four Gospels are completely accurate in recording the words of Jesus.
In the absence of any factual evidence of this, and in the presence of profound differences in the words of Jesus between the Gospels, it is a fool's errand to assume they are "completely accurate."
Mark, the earliest Gospel does not claim that Jesus was God.
Yes, Mark does not portray Jesus as God walking upon the earth, whereas John does. That is John's agenda. And your point was...?
06 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Badwater==================================Assumptions are made that the four Gospels are completely accurate in recording the words of Jesus.
In the absence of any factual evidence of this, and in the presence of profound differences in the words of Jesus between the Gospels, it is a fool's errand to assume they are "completely accurate."
[quote]Mark, the earliest Gospel does ...[text shortened]... God walking upon the earth, whereas John does. That is John's agenda. And your point was...?
In the absence of any factual evidence of this, and in the presence of profound differences in the words of Jesus between the Gospels, it is a fool's errand to assume they are "completely accurate."
======================================
I think it is a fool's errand to assume that the four Gospels should be exact verbatim replicas of each other.
Please out one "profound" difference and what damage it does to the overall theme of the Gospel's being God manifest in the flesh as Redeemer and Savior Lord.
That Mark had one emphasis and John another and Matthew another and Luke another does not constitute "profound" decrepencies.
===============================
Mark, the earliest Gospel does not claim that Jesus was God.
==================================
This will not be the third time I indicate to you that Mark 12:35-37 demonstrates otherwise.
And Jesus WAS walking the earth and claiming that He was the Christ. So you are simply wrong.
====================================
Yes, Mark does not portray Jesus as God walking upon the earth, whereas John does. That is John's agenda. And your point was...?
========================================
Was Jesus walking around on the earth when He uttered the words of Mark 12:35-37?
If so then He, walking around on the earth, was teaching it was the God and Lord of David walking around.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSenses;
[b]I said what I said but since your six cannot grasp it
And to which 'six' are you referring?
you see what you see and "you are certain of it" too, oh the horror
Are you certain of my certainty?
BTW, aphesin is merely aphesis in acccusative case; enjoy your Greek😵
Thanks for that. Tricky stuff, but worth the effort.
Have you any reliable online resources you could recommend?[/b]
Our way transcends words;
No;
😵
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
06 Jan 10
Please out one "profound" difference and what damage it does to the overall theme of the Gospel's being God manifest in the flesh as Redeemer and Savior Lord.
Such an exercise is a waste of my time. Your preconception is otherwise.
This will not be the third time I indicate to you that Mark 12:35-37 demonstrates otherwise.
No, it does not. Two verses does not a Gospel make.
Was Jesus walking around on the earth when He uttered the words of Mark 12:35-37?
If so then He, walking around on the earth, was teaching it was the God and Lord of David walking around.
According to your Christology, not mine, and I'll make a wild presumption here and say that isn't SG's view either.
06 Jan 10
Originally posted by SwissGambit----------------------------------------------------------
1) Even if Jesus believed in God, I fail to see why all of Jesus' followers must believe in God. Being a follower doesn't mean you hold exactly the same beliefs on every issue.
2) The main point of this example was to show that there may not be a consensus on which of Jesus' words in the Bible are authentic. I was trying to show one plausible example ...[text shortened]... e early churches, or different groups of christians with their own variations on theology?
1) Even if Jesus believed in God, I fail to see why all of Jesus' followers must believe in God. Being a follower doesn't mean you hold exactly the same beliefs on every issue.
-------------------------swissG-------------
Belief in the Living God is hardly an "issue" ! Jesus's ministry makes no sense unless God actually exists. He constantly says things like " I do only what I see my Father doing" . It's an absolute fundamental. Jesus saw himself as sent on a mission by his Father. His life and death is a nonsense if you take that away.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) The main point of this example was to show that there may not be a consensus on which of Jesus' words in the Bible are authentic. I was trying to show one plausible example of why a person might believe that only some of the sayings attributed to Jesus were actually his.
-----------------------------swissG-------------------------------------------
This is a valid point but there's a huge problem. ToO places a huge emphasis on the particular words he quotes as being the authentic words of Jesus. If I pulled this rug out from under him he would cry foul. How do we decide which words are authentic and which words are not? On the basis of which ones we like? This is a slippery slope which basically throws the whole thing out of the window.
In any case as afr as I can see Jesus said very clearly or implied directly that he was going to be the judge of humanity. He makes statements alluding to this right across the Gospels. Now , think about what the implications are for him saying this. How can a "mere" man judge humanity? Even a simple statement like "whatever you do to one of these you do unto me" is seeping with implied meaning.