07 Jan 10
7 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterKM, I call you a "stalker" because that's what you are. I've repeatedly asked you not to address my posts and post about me, but you continue to do it in pursuit of your vendetta. In fact, it seems a very high percentage (perhaps the majority) of your posts are in this pursuit. That you still attempt to deny it is ludicrous. And once again I can hardly make a post without you forcing your vendetta upon it.
This is obviously an attack on me and made indirectly to me. If you want to say something to me , just have the gumption to post it directly.
Incidently , your post had no content of any value at all and also failed to grasp that when I started to talk to swissG he began by implicitly defending your position. This was how the exchange started. I t ...[text shortened]... aranoid if you wish , but personally I would prefer to stay on the issues (matt 6:9 for example)
Incidently , your post had no content of any value at all and also failed to grasp that when I started to talk to swissG he began by implicitly defending your position. This was how the exchange started. I thought it appropriate to mention you because of this.
SG is providing a plausible defense, but realizes that it is not necessarily MY defense and hasn't portrayed it that way. You however, in your usual blind manner, keep trying to make it about me. You can deny being a stalker all you want, but your track record clearly shows otherwise.
I also have no choice but to address you indirectly because you refuse to take part in any decent debate with me , whereas you have no excuse - I am here any time you want to thrash out the truth.
Who wants to debate anything with someone who is stalking them? Add to that the fact that you have continually and purposely misrepresented me and my views in an effort to "discredit" me, seem incapable of rational discussion, have difficulty comprehending the written word, etc., and it is clear that there is no point in trying to discuss anything with you. And contrary to your egocentric belief, not everyone has to address every red herring you toss out like that Matthew 6:9 nonsense.
I have exactly one person on my "Ignore List" and that's you. Everyone else seems to be mature enough to simply give alternative views and not resort to stalking.
Get all paranoid if you wish , but personally I would prefer to stay on the issues (matt 6:9 for example)
Someone need only be aware of or look up your posting history to know that it isn't "paranoia". You're a real piece of work.
That you've continued your vendetta for a couple of years now shows just what a warped and twisted individual you are.
08 Jan 10
Originally posted by black beetle... and the one in you suggesting that the one in me who is asking you ought to give direction to me should be acknowledging that one of the ones in you is more inclined to Buddhist sensibilities than any of the ones in me.
The one in you who asks me now should give direction to you😵
08 Jan 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne=================================
[quote]I was quoting Matthew 19:17 which in my RcV reads "And He said, Why do you ask Me concerning what is good? There is only One who is good. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
Mark 10:17 reads "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but God alone."
I don't think there is much difference between the two. There was no ...[text shortened]... he RYR. If one doesn't keep His words, he does NOT love Him.[/b]
We were discussing Matthew. I quoted Young's Literal Translation from Matthew so that you could see that the translation you are using misses the mark. Did you read the YLT?
==============================
Why should I jump to the conclusion that the Recovery Version misses the mark there ? I have nothing against YLT which I do not know that well. But which Greek text the two English version use may be the difference.
The RcV uses someting called the Nestle Greek text. And I still do not see a great significant of a difference between YLT and RcV on the passage in question.
============
Me:
Perhaps you could explain to me why, when the young man says that he has kept the commandments, that Jesus does not confirm that he has entered into eternal life.
You:
This is an example of how you ignore the words of Jesus in order to twist what Jesus taught onto the framework of Paul. You are so focused on trying to make it fit, that you don't even see what is plainly stated.
======================================
Your focus is on trying to undermind Paul's faithful apostleship. Nothing new there. An entire book of Second Corinthians is with us discribing how Paul was forced like a fool to defend his apostleship against suspicious detractors.
===================================
Matthew 19:20
The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?”
The RYR asked Jesus what else he is lacking. Clearly the RYR understood that Jesus did not intend that keeping that list of commandments was all there was to it, why didn't you?.
=======================================
And this only goes to establish my point. Jesus had to expose the young man's shortage, a shortage which the RYR should have realized. If all these things he had indeed kept from his youth then the thing "still lacking" should have been no obstacle to him.
It is probable that the tenth commandment not to covet, was one he had never truly overcome. "But the young man, hearing this word, to sell all he had and give to the poor and follow the itinerant and homeless Jesus, for he had many possessions." (v.22)
Had he actually not coveted possessions from his youth as he confidently spoke, he should have had no problem in parting with them.
Jesus highlights the young man's coveteous attachment to his possessions in at leat two sentences:
1.) Promiasing him that he will have treasures in heaven to offar greater value than his earthly riches (v.21).
2.) Telling the disciples that it is hard for the rich to enter into the kingdom of the heavens - "Only with difficulty will a ich man enter into the kingdom of the heavens... It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (vs. 23,24)
I don't think the RYR had ever overcome "Thou shalt not covet ...". Furthermore Deutoronomy 27:26 said "Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them. And all the people said Amen."
Breaking one of the commandments put the man under a curse.
The young are more prone to be audacious and self confident. In John 8 it was the older ones who left first trying to stone the woman. The last to leave were the younger ones. "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her." The RYR really didn't know himself.
Jesus helped him to know himself truly. Neither he nor any other man living could earn eternal life by keeping the law. With fallen man it is impossible.
"We all like sheep have gone astray; Each of us has turned to his own way. And Jehovah jas caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him." (Isaiah 53:6)
As Jesus grew up He read these Scriptures and realized that they had to be talking about Himself.
================================
Me:
It is not that the RYR could not do good at all. It is that he could not be good enough to be justified before God to receive eternal life.
You:
Jesus never says this. In fact, as I keep pointing out, Jesus tells the RYR where he must begin to start on the path to eternal life which begins with following the commandments.
==============================
The issue is did He tell him with the expectation that he could fulfill the demand? Or did he tell him to expose that he could not?
I say the latter is the case. And the following verses (23,24) confirm my view. Your attempts to turn Jesus into Moses fail. Your attempts to prove that Jesus came only to rehash the law giver Moses expecting people to follow His own perfection into eternal life, do not succeed.
=================================
There's a world of difference between being "unable" to do something and being "unwilling" to do it.
==============================
He was unable because he was unwilling. He had never totally oer come all coveteousness. Compared to other men, he was unwilling to have less. He know what he had - "great possessions".
I don't see a big difference in his being unable and his being unwilling.
===================================
I have to believe that you understand this, but are so determined to continue to twist the teachings of Jesus onto the framework of Paul, that you are willing to feign ignorance.
======================================
I am not twisting. And I do not "feign" ignorance. I in truth cannot see how you can make the claims you make.
Why didn't Jesus jsut say "It is possible with man"? Why did He stress to the disciples that without the God of impossibility acting it would be impossible for man to fulfill the needed legal requirement ?
================================
Me:
I don't know how you can get around the fact that Jesus, though He loved the RYR (Mark 10:20) did not confirm that the RYR had fulfilled his requirement. Rather, Jesus raised the bar of perfection until the RYR realized that he simply could not do what was needed.
You:
C'mon Jaywill, this is yet another example of you engaging in wild speculation in order to twist what Jesus taught onto the framework of Paul.
==========================
God places the members in the Body of Christ as it pleases Him. He did not place them as it pleases YOU or as it pleases ME.
He did not seek your permission to have this man Paul write 13 of the 27 New Testament books. Your problem is not really with Paul. It is with Jesus.
Your attempts to drive a wedge between Christ and His Apostle fail miserably.
James was probably the most conservative of the New Testament writers slow in the transition from the old covenant to the new:
"For whoever keeps the whole law yet stumbles in one [point] has become guilty of all. For He who said, Do not commit adultery, also said, Do not murder. Now if you do not commit adultery, but you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law." (James 2:10,11)
This came from the man who boasted that there were thousands of law keepers among the Christians in the church in Jerusalem. This came from the man whom Martin Luther, with his devotion to "Justification By Faith" dispised.
So if ever Paul had a opposite sounding voice in the NT it is James. And even James declares the thought that even if a person kept the whole law yet still failed in coveting, he was guilty of transgressing the whole law.
So you are now not only going to have to drive a wedge between Jesus and Paul. You are also going to have to drive one between Jesus and James.
==================================
Yet another example of how hard you have to work to twist what Jesus says in order for it to "fit" onto the framework of Paul. Why can't you simply let the words of Jesus speak for themselves, rather than engage in all this wild speculation?
======================================
Okay, let's let the words of Jesus speak for themselves:
"With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible".
=====================================
And more wild speculation that is not based on the teachings of Jesus. You keep choosing to ignore what Jesus explicitly states and have to resort in wild speculation in order to get it to "fit" onto the framework of Paul.
========================================
That above was not speculation. It was quotation.
08 Jan 10
Originally posted by jaywillC'mon Jaywill.
[b]=================================
We were discussing Matthew. I quoted Young's Literal Translation from Matthew so that you could see that the translation you are using misses the mark. Did you read the YLT?
==============================
Why should I jump to the conclusion that the Recovery Version misses the mark there ? I have nothi ...[text shortened]... at above was not speculation. It was quotation.[/b]
Well, maybe if I don't try to address so many things at one time, you'll be able to keep things straight.
I'll start with the easiest one.
You really don't understand the difference between "unable" and "unwilling"?
If I asked you to bark like a dog and you refused, would it be because you are "unable" to do it or "unwilling" to do it?
08 Jan 10
3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne=========================
C'mon Jaywill.
Well, maybe if I don't try to address so many things at one time, you'll be able to keep things straight.
I'll start with the easiest one.
You really don't understand the difference between "unable" and "unwilling"?
If I asked you to bark like a dog and you refused, would it be because you are "unable" to do it or "unwilling" to do it?
C'mon Jaywill.
Well, maybe if I don't try to address so many things at one time, you'll be able to keep things straight.
I'll start with the easiest one.
You really don't understand the difference between "unable" and "unwilling"?
If I asked you to bark like a dog and you refused, would it be because you are "unable" to do it or "unwilling" to do it?
===================================
Okay, let's say the operative word here is willing.
Now what did Jesus say about the first commandment?
" ... he questioned Him, which is the first commandment of all ?
Jesus answered, The first is :"Hear, Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord; And you shall love the Lord your God from your whole heart and from your whole soul and from your whole mind and from your whole strength." (Mark 12:28-30)
The RYR realized that he could not will with his whole strength to love God. The will is a part of the soul - mind, emotion, will. The RYR could not exercise his will to love God in such an absolute manner. Threfore he did not love the Lord his God with his "whole soul".
And because I have no intention of running away from Christ's faithful apostle Paul, here is how Paul put it, for he had exactly the SAME problem:
"For I delight in the law of God according to the inner man. But I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind and making me a captive to the law of sin which is in my members." (Rom. 7:22,23)
"But if what I do not will, this I do, I agree with the law that it is good. Now then it is no longer I that work it out but sin that dwells in me." (vs.16,17)
"For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am fleshly, sold under sin" (v.14)
"For I do not do the good which I will; but the evil which I do not will, this I practice. But if what I do not will, this I do, it is no longer I that work it out but sin that dwells in me." (vs.19,20)
Paul expresses the young man's delimma. And in so he touches all men and women's problem including his own. The power of indwelling sin drags us away from the good we delight to do but cannot.
But Paul found the answer - "I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.
I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness is through law, then Christ has died for nothing." (Gal. 2:20,21)
Paul was among those who pioneered into the experience of what Jesus meant when He said "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
The negative side - It is no longer I but sin that dwells in me.
The positive side - It is no longer I but Christ who lives in me.
And again - " ... work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; For it is God who operates in you both the willing and the working for His good pleasure." (Phil. 2:12b,13)
The God for whom all things are possible can dispense His life into the followers of Jesus, operating in them both the willing and the working for His good pleasure.
And in Matthew Jesus took the lead to teach that He would be God with us then and forevermore - "And behold, I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age." (Matt. 28:20b)
08 Jan 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe one in me never asks, never replies, lacks of sensibilities, is not born and cannot die; my mind is sensible to whatever your mind is sensible but my Zen transcends all sensibilities, the Buddhist ones included😵
... and the one in you suggesting that the one in me who is asking you ought to give direction to me should be acknowledging that one of the ones in you is more inclined to Buddhist sensibilities than any of the ones in me.
08 Jan 10
Originally posted by jaywillSeems like you decided to get up on the soapbox of Paul rather than answer the question. If you provided an answer, I wasn't able to figure out what it is.
[b]=========================
C'mon Jaywill.
Well, maybe if I don't try to address so many things at one time, you'll be able to keep things straight.
I'll start with the easiest one.
You really don't understand the difference between "unable" and "unwilling"?
If I asked you to bark like a dog and you refused, would it be because you a ...[text shortened]... ays until the consummation of the age." (Matt. 28:20b)[/b]
So back to the question:
"If I asked you to bark like a dog and you refused, would it be because you are 'unable' to do it or 'unwilling' to do it?"
Or was that your way of conceding that there is a difference?
08 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne=================================
Seems like you decided to get up on the soapbox of Paul rather than answer the question. If you provided an answer, I wasn't able to figure out what it is.
So back to the question:
"If I asked you to bark like a dog and you refused, would it be because you are 'unable' to do it or 'unwilling' to do it?"
Or was that your way of conceding that there is a difference?
Seems like you decided to get up on the soapbox of Paul rather than answer the question. If you provided an answer, I wasn't able to figure out what it is.
====================================
You could not deal with the "soapbox" of James either.
I detect a very subtle stradegy in your argument. You want to cause the Christian to be ashamed of Paul and to distance himself from Paul. The poison that infects you wants to spread to infect others. I resist it. Actually, I think it is a spiritual problem more than an intellectual one.
If you entertain any thought that I will distance myself from the apostle Paul in some kind of embaressed or defensive way you can forget about it completely. As I said before, I really do not think your difficulties lie with Paul. They are with Jesus.
I think you yourself know this. And that is why we have not as of yet been able to get you to confess that you don't believe He rose from the dead. Do you think the resurrection of Christ was the invention of Paul ?
Selectively, you embrace some words of Jesus if you can use them to teach a "demythologized" Jesus of your Humanism.
How come there is such eagerness to attribute to Jesus His advice to the RYR about the commandments, but there is no enthusiasm about His promise to be "with you always, even until the consummation of the age" ?
The latter teaching means that Jesus is available and knowable today. The Christian walk depends upon that truth.
========================================
So back to the question:
"If I asked you to bark like a dog and you refused, would it be because you are 'unable' to do it or 'unwilling' to do it?"
Or was that your way of conceding that there is a difference?
==========================================
If I ddid barked like a dog, a dog could tell the difference because I do not really have the dog nature.
The law demands something of man which he does not possess the nature to do. The RYR did not have the nature to will to do what Jesus asked of him.
His nature had been damaged from the fall of man. Now I think you will protest that the poisoning of the nature from any fall of man is Pauline thought.
And I would reply that Jesus taught of the poisoned nature from the fall before Paul taught it.
Right here:
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that every one who believes into Him may have eternal life." (John 3:14,15)
This picture of people being bitten by poisoness serpents conveys the truth that Satan's nature has corrupted the created man. This picture goes back to the book of Numbers. And Jesus used it to stress His teaching to Nicodemus that fallen sinners need to be born again in order to see the kingdom of God.
When Paul said "I am crucified with Christ" he was teaching correspondingly to Jesus saying:
" ... as Moses lifted up THE SERPENT in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up"
Christ death is also the terminating of the Satanic power in man. That is why Jesus taught that His being lifted up on the cross was like the lifting up of a serpent, the ancient serpent Satan.
In this instance He did not say the Lamb for redemption. He said the serpent for termination. Christ's death not only redeems the sinners. It terminates for us the Satanic power in the fallen man. Paul saw deeply into this and experienced the liberating power of Christ's terminating crucifixion. So Paul wrote:
"I AM CRUCIFIED WITH CHRIST; AND IT IS NO LONGER I WHO LIVE, BUT IT IS CHRIST WHO LIVES IN ME ..." (Gal. 2:20 my emphasis)
Its the NATURE that has to be dealt with. The RYR had a NATURE problem. And so does every other sinner, those striving to keep the law of God and those not.
The fallen nature effects the mind, emotion and will of the sinner. The mind is distracted and on other things beside God. The emotion loves other things above God. And the will is weak in obeying God.
Jesus and His servants James and Paul are in harmony. You cannot draw a wedge between Jesus and Paul. And you cannot drive a wedge between Jesus and James.
Back to Matthew. Because the weakness of the RYR's will is a NATURE problem, Jesus told the disciples:
"WITH MEN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE ..." .
Because Jesus is the Savior of God to SOLVED THE PROBLEM He went on "But with GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE" (my emphasis)
And my excursion into Romans chapter 7 was to underline that though you may be blind to this delimma, the Apostle Paul was not. And of course Christ was not.
08 Jan 10
Small interruption to ToO's diversionary discourse. He claims to be a person beholden to the words of the Lord Jesus Christ (although he absolutely refused to say whether or not he was holding himself to the same standard), so what He held as important, by reason, ToO must hold as important.
The Lord Jesus Christ quoted (or, better, referred to) 24 different OT sources, including Isaiah, wherein this nugget can be found:
Since ancient times no one has heard,
no ear has perceived,
no eye has seen any God besides you,
who acts on behalf of those who wait for him.
You come to the help of those who gladly do right,
who remember your ways.
But when we continued to sin against them,
you were angry.
How then can we be saved?
All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.
No one calls on your name
or strives to lay hold of you;
for you have hidden your face from us
and made us waste away because of our sins.
At first blush, this appears to support the idea that the righteousness of which the Christ spoke--- that which was necessary to see God--- is, indeed, outside the bounds of human possibility.
08 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI detect a very subtle stradegy in your argument. You want to cause the Christian to be ashamed of Paul and to distance himself from Paul. The poison that infects you wants to spread to infect others. I resist it. Actually, I think it is a spiritual problem more than an intellectual one.
[b]=================================
Seems like you decided to get up on the soapbox of Paul rather than answer the question. If you provided an answer, I wasn't able to figure out what it is.
====================================
You could not deal with the "soapbox" of James either.
I detect a very subtle stradegy in your arg s delimma, the Apostle Paul was not. And of course Christ was not.[/b]
Actually I'm hoping that you will come to embrace the teachings of Jesus. Currently you seem unable to "see" the teachings of Jesus, because you so desire the teachings of Paul and others to be true. You so desire to have your "salvation" assured for merely "professing belief" even though this is contrary to the teachings of Jesus. In an effort to do so, you resort to cobbling together these ridiculously convoluted and incongruous constructs.
The teachings of Jesus are elegant in their simplicity. Righteousness is following the will of God. God is eternal. The attributes of God are eternal: truth, love, compassion, justice, etc. Eternal life is living in the domain of the eternal. One must BE righteous to have eternal life.
Sin is a deviation from righteousness. Sin is a deviation from following the will of God. Sin is a deviation from the eternal. Sin is a deviation from truth, love, compassion, justice, etc. Sin is living outside the domain of the eternal. One cannot sin and have eternal life.
God is truth. Truth is elegant in its simplicity.
Truth will make you free.
08 Jan 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHReferring to the OT does not imply that Jesus held ALL of the OT as "important" or as truth.
Small interruption to ToO's diversionary discourse. He claims to be a person beholden to the words of the Lord Jesus Christ (although he absolutely refused to say whether or not he was holding himself to the same standard), so what He held as important, by reason, ToO must hold as important.
The Lord Jesus Christ quoted (or, better, referred to) 24 dif ...[text shortened]... --- that which was necessary to see God--- is, indeed, outside the bounds of human possibility.
Your wild speculations do not trump the explicit teachings of Jesus:
"You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is Perfect." Matt 5:48.
08 Jan 10
4 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne===================================
[b]I detect a very subtle stradegy in your argument. You want to cause the Christian to be ashamed of Paul and to distance himself from Paul. The poison that infects you wants to spread to infect others. I resist it. Actually, I think it is a spiritual problem more than an intellectual one.
Actually I'm hoping that you will come to embrace the teac l life.
God is truth. Truth is elegant in its simplicity.
Truth will make you free.[/b]
Actually I'm hoping that you will come to embrace the teachings of Jesus.
======================================
I am glad to hear that you wish that for me.
I am almost beside myself with excitement when I say aloud His teaching:
"I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes into Me, even if he should die, shall live ..." (John 11:25)
I want to shout with joy that I have come to the truth. Jesus is the resurrection and the life !
=================================
Currently you seem unable to "see" the teachings of Jesus,
=================================
You're right in a way. I have not hardly gotten into the "unsearchable riches of Christ".
I intend to be occupied with this tremendous ministry for the rest of my life. Eternity will not be long enough to explore the unsearchable riches of Jesus.
=====================================
because you so desire the teachings of Paul and others to be true.
========================================
The teachings of Jesus includes these wonderful words to the disciple Ananias about His apostle:
"Go, for this man is a chosen vessel to Me, to bear My name before both the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; For I will show him how many things he must suffer on behalf of My name." (Acts 9:15,16)
You see Ananias was afraid to receive Saul of Tarsus as a Christian brother. This man had formerly been so dedicated to Judiasm that he persecuted the church and sought to destroy her to the ground. He was REALLY totally ANTI Jesus.
But Jesus turned him around. We thank God for what He accomplished through this faithful brother.
We thank God for all the servants and apostles of Christ. All things are ours, whether life or death or Cephas or Apollos or Paul, all are ours as Christians. And we are Christ's and Christ is God's.
=======================================
You so desire to have your "salvation" assured for merely "professing belief" even though this is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
=====================================
I began to follow the Lord Jesus seriously around 1970-71. The matter of Christ as the assurance of salvation I learned many many years ago. Some people may fight that battle for a long time.
By His mercy I graduated a long time ago.
As to my concern today, it is to be more and more conformed to the image of Christ and built up in the Body with the other brothers and sisters.
Christ as my security of eternal redemption has been settled in my heart YEARS ago. My concern today is transformation into His image for the coming millennial kingdom.
==============================
In an effort to do so, you resort to cobbling together these ridiculously convoluted and incongruous constructs.
==================================
I will and am praying for you.
==================================
The teachings of Jesus are elegant in their simplicity.
================================
With God all things are possible.
========================
Righteousness is following the will of God.
============================
Did I ever say it was not ?
The righteous thing to do is to believe that Christ is the resurrection and the life. We can start there.
You are very very very intent on labelling Paul with so called "easy believism" and portray him as soft on subjective practical daily righteousness.
The more you do that the more I sincerely question "Has this guy READ the epistles of Paul ?"
Justification by Faith does not negate the need for dispositional righteous living. And if I showed you once I showed you six times, that Paul warned that such things as these unsavory lifestyles of practicing unrighteousness, would exclude the Christian from the reward of Christ's coming kingdom.
======
God is eternal. The attributes of God are eternal: truth, love, compassion, justice, etc. Eternal life is living in the domain of the eternal. One must BE righteous to have eternal life.
=====================
Very good. And Jesus and His apostle affirmed that Christ is able to present us before God without blemish and faultless - positionally and dispositionally.
============================
Sin is a deviation from righteousness. Sin is a deviation from following the will of God. Sin is a deviation from the eternal. Sin is a deviation from truth, love, compassion, justice, etc. Sin is living outside the domain of the eternal. One cannot sin and have eternal life.
=============================
One cannot sin and enjoy eternal life.
The sinner who receives Jesus as Lord and Savior has eternal life.
I have eternal life. I am learning to more and more enjoy eternal life.
=============================
God is truth. Truth is elegant in its simplicity.
==============================
Does that mean that you believe Jesus is "the resurrection and the life" according to John 11:25 ?
08 Jan 10
5 edits
Originally posted by jaywill[/b] Jesus taught taught that His TRUE DISCIPLES will be set free from the slavery of committing sin. Jesus never taught that it was impossible for "fallen man" to stop committing sin.
[b]===================================
Actually I'm hoping that you will come to embrace the teachings of Jesus.
======================================
I am glad to hear that you wish that for me.
I am almost beside myself with excitement when I say aloud His teaching:
"I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes into Me, [b]"the resurrection and the life" according to John 11:25 ? [/b]
John 8:32-36
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free...Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin...So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."
Jesus taught that only those who follow Him, do the will of His Father, do not continue to commit sin, etc. will have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation". He never taught that all that was required was that one "profess belief".
John 10:27-28
“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven....Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'
You can continue to deny these teachings of Jesus, but they exist nonetheless. Whatever teachings you embrace that work against these teachings work against Jesus. No matter how long or hard you struggle to deny these teachings, they will remain. They are eternal.
08 Jan 10
4 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne=================================
Jesus did not teach that it was impossible for "fallen man" to stop committing sin. In fact, He taught that His TRUE DISCIPLES will be set free from the slavery of committing sin.
John 8:32-36
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and '
You can continue to deny these teachings of Jesus, but they exist nonetheless.[/b]
Jesus did not teach that it was impossible for "fallen man" to stop committing sin. In fact, He taught that His TRUE DISCIPLES will be set free from the slavery of committing sin.
================================
I agree that His disciples will be set free from the enslaving power of sin. But they must be born again to receive the divine nature.
And this potentiality occured after His death and resurrection. It is in His state of resurrection that He became available to indwell His disciples.
===============================
John 8:32-36
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word,
====================================
Exactly, IF they continue in His word, which word includes His word and work through crucifixion and resurrection.
By God's mercy the disciples continued in His word. Continue in His word is not continue in a few selected of His words and deny the rest.
=============================
then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free...
==============================
Exactly. And He said the Holy Spirit that He would send from the Father would guide them into all of the truth. And that Holy Spirit was sent after His death and resurrection.
========================
Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin...So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."
=======================
So we need the risen Savior to truly set us free.
=============================
Jesus taught that only those who follow Him, do the will of His Father, do not continue to commit sin, will have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".
==============================
And in the 40 days after His resurrection and before His public ascension, He trained the disciples to live by His invisible presence.
After His resurrection we see a number of occasions where He would appear to them or He would vanish from their sight. He laid the foundation for their apostleship and the Christian church. He is with them even though they cannot see Him.
He trained them to know that He was always with them. He was within them. He was compounded with their personalities and in this way they had to learn to follow Him.
This is the way He lived by the Father. And this is how the disciples had to learn to live by Him:
"As the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me." (John 6:57)
We must internalize this resurrected Person. We must "eat" Him. Especially we must feed on His life giving words. And then we enter into the process of being freed more and more by the Son.
This is not just my theology. It is my experience.
Anyway, after His resurrection He trained the apostles to live by His invisible presence. They had a new divine life within them. They had to learn to live by it.
And in the book of Acts the angel told them to speak all the words of "this life" -
"Go and stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of this life." (Acts 5:20)
You see, Jesus was indeed "the resurrection and the life" (John 11:25)
Are you STILL evading confessing the resurrection of Christ.
You, ThinkofOne, are waisting TIME.
You need to receive the resurrected Christ to get on the road to being set free by the Son. You need TIME for Him to work Himself into your personality.
By procrastinating to receive the resurrected Jesus as Lord and Savior, you are wasting precious time which you NEED to be conformed into His image for the coming age.
======================
John 10:27-28
“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
=================================
Amen.
==============================
Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven....Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'
=================================
This passage does not have to do with eternal punishment. It has to do with the unfaithful servants being cast into outer darkness in the 1,000 year millennial kingdom.
Before the eternal age there is the 1,000 years millennial kingdom. Read Revelation 20 and count the number of times it speaks of "a thousand years". Six times, I believe it mentions this.
Before the eternal age there is the thousand years kingdom reward as an incentive for the disciples to cooperate with the age of grace.
If the sheep in His hand will never perish, then the sheep in His hand can still be disciplined WITHOUT perishing forever.
==================================
You can continue to deny these teachings of Jesus, but they exist nonetheless.
============================
Was that YES, you do believe Jesus is the RESURRECTION or was that NO, you do NOT believe that Jesus is the RESURRECTION and the LIFE ?
IF you still believe that He is not, and you are afraid to confess your unbelief, that is unfortunate.
You give the impression that you are sneaky, wanting to present yourself as a disciple but secretly denying that the Master is risen as the disciples believe.
Why not pray the desperate prayer of the dad with his demon possessed son? "Lord I believe. Help my unbelief!"
If I were you I would cry out "Lord Jesus I CANNOT believe you rose from the dead. Have mercy and help my unbelief."
On the THIRD DAY, He rose. And today "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) Jesus can enter into His followers as life giving Spirit, giving Himself and all His victory to you for daily living.
It is marvelous!