Original Righteousness

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently my presentation was unclear.

Quotes are preceded by J: (jaywill) and by T: (ThinkOfOne) and are in 3 groups.

My observations about each individual qoute group is in italics and immediately follow the group in question.

It appears that you are in such a hurry to respond that you neglect to ascertain what is being said. So take a d elf and continue your spirtual journey. If you don't, you'll likely remain where you are.

You seem to want very much to help me with a problem of pride. A vague charge of pride is not too helpful.

Are you saying that because of a personal problem of pride I do not have the right to speak about Romans 5?

Are you saying that because of a personal problem with pride I have no right to speak of the gospel?

For the first time in this thread I see you refer to "the Father." What do you mean by the Father? Who do you mean by the Father?

I have not read completely your other discussion on this forum. So why don't you tell me where you are coming from?

But just so you know. We Christians do not have to grovel introspectively when we are enlightened to our pride or any other sin. We have the blood of Jesus Christ which cleanses us from all sin.

It is a small thing for me to be critiqued by you as being proud. Yes, when I am not in touch with the Lord pride is manifested. But know that for this reason I do not stop speaking about the unsearchable riches of Christ.

Don't expect me to withdraw into introspection and shut up because, after all, I have the sin of pride. My pride trangression is under the blood of Christ with all of my other failures.

Now to exclusivity and pride - This last post is the FIRST time I have seen you write about my desire to follow the Father. If you are a brother in Christ and are refering to the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Father, would it have been so hard for you to just indicate from the start of your participation that you were a Christian?

If you are a Christian, is there any particular reason why on this dicsussion you chose to postpone that confession? What advantage to the fellowship did you think concealing that would give you?

If you're a lover of Jesus and the Father of our Lord Jesus, was any pride keeping you from making that plain from the outset?

Originally posted by kirksey957
OK, that settles it. Islam is better. Now go to bed, both of you.

LMFAO

ThinkofOne has made the criticism of my alleged pride a few times.

I admit that I was defensive is assuming he was on the attack. His first submission to this discussion was a an observation that so few Christians are righteous. Then he asked from my insight into that problem. His second submission I believe was asking my personal opinion about the spiritual life of George Bush.

His latter posts speak of his concern for my spiritual journey and my life with the Father. He has not yet told me much about the spiritual journey or its destination. And I do not yet see what his problems are with what I said about Romans chapter 5.

Anyway, pretend that I am the most most most proud person in the world.

Got it?

Okay, now read this:

"SO THEN AS IT WAS THROUGH ONE OFFENSE UNTO CONDEMNATION TO ALL MEN, SO ALSO IT WAS THROUGH ONE RIGHTEOUS ACT UNTO JUSTIFICATION OF LIFE TO ALL MEN" (ROM. 5:18)


Now imagine that I am the most humble person. Imagine me to be really really humble.

Okay, now read again:

"SO THEN AS IT WAS THROUGH ONE OFFENSE UNTO CONDEMNATION TO ALL MEN, SO ALSO IT WAS THROUGH ONE RIGHTEOUS ACT UNTO JUSTIFICATION OF LIFE TO ALL MEN" (ROM. 5:18)


Did it make any difference as far as what the New Testament says? Original Sin and Original Righeousness as its counter balance. That is my subject here.

If I was over defensive in a proud way against anyone I apologize.

Now how about Romans 5:18? Can you reading see how the same principle which worked against man in Adam also works for man in Christ? I think it is marvelous.

Originally posted by jaywill
Anyway, pretend that I am the most most most proud person in the world. ... Now imagine that I am the most humble person. Imagine me to be really really humble.

What if I imagine that you were fluent in Biblical exegesis? Can I do that next?

Originally posted by Nemesio
What if I imagine that you were fluent in Biblical exegesis? Can I do that next?

Are you making the claim that there is a superior way to read the Bible. However many Christians believe that the Bible is inspired by God and that understanding it also requires some 'inspirational assistance' from God. If this is accepted then Biblical exegesis will provide no further insights as to the intended meaning and be no more or less accurate than any other method of reading it.
If God inspired someone to write Genesis for example, then he either did not intend you to read it, or he ensured that it would be understandable after translation to its current form. So say that the only 'correct' way to understand it is to assume that you are a listener living at the time it was written implies that it was not inspired by God.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you making the claim that there is a superior way to read the Bible. However many Christians believe that the Bible is inspired by God and that understanding it also requires some 'inspirational assistance' from God. If this is accepted then Biblical exegesis will provide no further insights as to the intended meaning and be no more or less accurate t ...[text shortened]... ou are a listener living at the time it was written implies that it was not inspired by God.

I'm glad you are playing Devil's Advocate for me here.

Let's review some known facts: There can be no dispute that what Christians call the 'Old Testament'
was composed by Semitic people over the course of some 1500 years or so. Let's pretend,
just for the sake of argument, that there was no mythological borrowing from other (whisper:
pagan) sources. Let's imagine that God literally guided the hands of the various authors
to which we attribute these works.

We know, for a certainty, that after these books were written, the people who read them
engaged in vigorous interpretation. And, it was part of their theological mindset that interpretative
debate was essential to understanding how Scripture was to influence the lives of their faithful.
Read that again: It was part of their theological framework that debate over the meaning (or
derash) of a Scriptural passage. That is to say, no Jew would have ever insisted that
there was 'one right exegesis.' Such a concept is utterly foreign to Jewish exegesis. Vistesd
once quoted an old Jewish authority who said something like 'In order to understand the Torah,
one must discuss his torah.' The idea of exegetical unity among Jewish people is utterly
anachronistic; such desires didn't exist until the Gentiles adopted Jewish Scripture as their own.

So, I am not making the claim that there is one superior way to read the Bible. I am making the
claim that the abandoning of these Jewish exegetical techniques departs from any meaningful
Biblical hermeneutic and necessarily is going to receive my comment. I think the Jews knew what
they were doing with their Scripture; after all, they were doing it within generations of its being
communicated (orally first, then literally). Why would anyone think that the 'One, Unique, Right
Message' way -- a concept a millennium older than the text itself made by people who were culturally
foreign to it -- is a superior way?

The answer to that is: Security. People want to feel that God has given them a handbook and all
they have to do is read it and then they know what God wants. People get creeped out at the idea
that 'something might not be 100% clear in the Bible' because they understand that to mean that
God wasn't 100% and then they have to think for themselves and, well, gee, that's work and that's
scary. So we get our regurgitators, we get our harmonizers, we get our outlandish explanations,
(Man rode dinosaurs to work, or God thought slavery wasn't okay, but He gave laws guiding it, or
Jesus was crucified after Passover, but before the paschal lamb was slaughtered, &c, &c), and we
get our decoder ring theories.

None of it has any Jewish historical basis and, frankly, given that these are ancient Jewish texts,
anyone who takes the Bible seriously cannot ignore the methodologies employed by the authors and
retain an ounce of credibility.

Nemesio

Originally posted by jaywill
You seem to want very much to help me with a problem of pride. A vague charge of pride is not too helpful.

Are you saying that because of a personal problem of pride I do not have the right to speak about Romans 5?

Are you saying that because of a personal problem with pride I have no right to speak of the gospel?

For the first time in this t ...[text shortened]... Father of our Lord Jesus, was any pride keeping you from making that plain from the outset?

The question:
It hasn't been my experience that Christians have been any more righteous than non-Christians. Do you have any insight as to why so few Christians actually take Jesus Christ as their Lord and follow the Father?

Perhaps the answer to the question:
But just so you know. We Christians do not have to grovel introspectively when we are enlightened to our pride or any other sin. We have the blood of Jesus Christ which cleanses us from all sin.

Perhaps what is truly required:
Luke 3:3
He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

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. Many will tell me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?' Then I will tell them, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The question:
[b]It hasn't been my experience that Christians have been any more righteous than non-Christians. Do you have any insight as to why so few Christians actually take Jesus Christ as their Lord and follow the Father?

Perhaps the answer to the question:
But just so you know. We Christians do not have to grovel introspectively when w orks?' Then I will tell them, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'

I'll let you put a little more explanation on this.

Originally posted by jaywill
I'll let you put a little more explanation on this.

Be glad to. Let me know what needs clarification.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Be glad to. Let me know what needs clarification.

I'll let you take the initiative to volunteer what you would like to clarify.

Originally posted by jaywill
I'll let you take the initiative to volunteer what you would like to clarify.

If you won't tell me what is unclear, how am I supposed to know what needs clarification? I don't even know where to start.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If you won't tell me what is unclear, how am I supposed to know what needs clarification? I don't even know where to start.

I don't think that you have made your position clear in this discussion. I think you have asked a few qiestions, made a few personal remarks, and generally held your cards close to the vest so as to let the other poster say a lot so there is a lot for you to critique.

I don't think you have been too generous to outline your position. and everyone knows that no postion is easier to defend. I am not going to expend a lot of energy to pull you out of your foxhole. I have written a lot of words. You have been sparse with your words and just continually taken aim at mine.

So you run your mouth off for awhile and let us know where you are coming from. Little hints here and there about my personal spiritual journey I will no longer count as very significant contributions to the topic.

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. Many will tell me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?' Then I will tell them, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'


Interesting. After objectiing to my exclusivity you put forth the exclusivity of this passage.

I thought you were the broadminded one here. Then again you really haven't made your beliefs that clear to me.

I can easily reply to the two passages but I think you should outline generally your own position more and not just take aim at what I wrote.

Originally posted by jaywill
You seem to want very much to help me with a problem of pride. A vague charge of pride is not too helpful.

Are you saying that because of a personal problem of pride I do not have the right to speak about Romans 5?

Are you saying that because of a personal problem with pride I have no right to speak of the gospel?

For the first time in this t ...[text shortened]... Father of our Lord Jesus, was any pride keeping you from making that plain from the outset?

Maybe I misunderstand you here, but I don't think it's right to justify pride through Jesus.

Pride in Jesus is different. Pride in his life, how he helped the poor & the weak. Pride in the good things that other people did.

Pride in what you are standing up for and not backing down is only proportional to what you are standing for or against.

NOTHING WRONG WITH PRIDE... 🙂. (It's a catalyst)

Originally posted by Orange Peel
Maybe I misunderstand you here, but I don't think it's right to justify pride through Jesus.

Pride in Jesus is different. Pride in his life, how he helped the poor & the weak. Pride in the good things that other people did.

Pride in what you are standing up for and not backing down is only proportional to what you are standing for or against.

NOTHING WRONG WITH PRIDE... 🙂. (It's a catalyst)

Let me consider what you're asking for a bit.