Questioning online apologetics

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==============================================
It's also unfortunate that since you feel secure in your sin, you likely won't take steps to remedy it. In fact, it seems that you are so secure, you can't even see it. You have eyes but cannot see.
========================================

Your tactics of attacking the opponent's morality are becom ...[text shortened]... he Lord Jesus The Judge examines me instead of dealing with the teaching of Matthew 5:19?[/b]

You're quite the conclusion jumper.

Try looking back about 6 posts at the one that begins:
"Look at Young's Literal Translation:"

Since you haven't responded to it, I assume that you missed it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You're quite the conclusion jumper.

Try looking back about 6 posts at the one that begins:
"Look at Young's Literal Translation:"

Since you haven't responded to it, I assume that you missed it.

I just saw it. And I just replied to it. I did NOT see it before.

Why did you need BOTH replies ?

Why wasn't the Young's Literal answer sufficient as a reply ?

ToO,

================================
Look at Young's Literal Translation:
"Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands -- the least -- and may teach men so, least he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens."
=======================================


Why is he in the REIGN of the heavens AT ALL ?


=================================
He doesn't say that he will be in heaven. He says that the reign of the heavens will call him "least".
==================================

I didn't say that it said he would be in heaven. I said it says he will be in the kingdom of the heavens. Or if you please "reign" of the heavens.

Why is he reigning at all ?

No answer yet.


========================================
Think about who "may loose one of these commands" and "may teach men so": the scribes and Pharisees. Think about who will not enter the kingdom of heaven: the scribes and Pharisees. Think about who will be called "least": the the scribes and Pharisees.
=========================================

Those who are left OUTSIDE are not called LEAST. They are OUTSIDE and don't even qualify to be participants in that reign.


"But I say to you that many will come from the east and the west and will recline at table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens, But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness, In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matt. 8:12)


How absurd of you to suggest that those left OUT of the kingdom will be called the LEAST IN the kingdom.

Try again.

And and remember that as you appeal to "Context" so can some one else do so in your First John arsenal. Okay ?

I erased as obsolete the first response now that I see your Young's Literal reply.

Now what is your reply ?

Originally posted by jaywill
I just saw it. And I just replied to it. I did NOT see it before.

Why did you need BOTH replies ?

Why wasn't the Young's Literal answer sufficient as a reply ?

Look at the times. Sometimes there's a timing issue where two posters are fomulating posts simultaneously.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Look at the times. Sometimes there's a timing issue where two posters are fomulating posts simultaneously.

That is correct. And I will be cautious about that.

Now to the problem at hand.

Why is the more permissive servant IN the reign or kingdom of the heavens to be thus honored AT ALL ???

Originally posted by jaywill
ToO,

================================
Look at Young's Literal Translation:
"Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands -- the least -- and may teach men so, least he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens."
====================================== ...[text shortened]... l to "Context" so can some one else do so in your First John arsenal. Okay ?

lol. Let's try this:

"Osama Bin Laden was called "evil" in the Oval Office."

This doesn't necessarily mean that Osama Bin Laden was ever physically in the Oval Office does it?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. Let's try this:

"Osama Bin Laden was called "evil" in the Oval Office."

This doesn't necessarily mean that Osama Bin Laden was ever physically in the Oval Office does it?

In other words you are saying that the calling of the disciple TAKES PLACE in the kingdom but not the disciple.

How then do you know that the one called GREAT is IN the kingdom of the heavens ?

Those who are OUTSIDE the kingdom are called those in outer darkness in Matthew's Gospel.

Can you find another passage that says those in the outer darkness outside the kingdom of the heavens are called the least in the kingdom of the heavens ? Another similar passage be more convencing to your interpretation.

I don't think the contrast you present is what is intended. ie. "Osama will be called least in the Oval Office but Thomas Jefferson will be called great in the Oval Office."

That would be the proper comparison. Osama bin Laden wouldn't be called "LEAST". He'd be called an out and out scoundrel blankty blank in the Oval Office.

I don't accept that comparison. But you are resourceful. I think there is a better answer. And it does nothing to encourage Christians to sin.

Your big myth is that unless we resort to psuedo Judiasm's law keeping in order to be saved we will encourage Christians to sin under grace. I don't accept that resorting to your phseudo Neo Judiasistic law keeping is the New Testament's answer to that problem.

Do you have a more satisfactory answer for Matthew 5:19? Or is that all you have on it ?

'

Originally posted by jaywill
ToO,

[b]================================
Look at Young's Literal Translation:
"Whoever therefore may loose one of these commands -- the least -- and may teach men so, least he shall be called in the reign of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach them, he shall be called great in the reign of the heavens."
=================================== ontext" so can some one else do so in your [b]First John arsenal. Okay ?[/b]

[/b]Look again:

"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven"

In 19, Jesus is speaking of those who annul commandments and teach others to do the same. In 20, Jesus is speaking of those who did annul commandments and taught others to do the same. Jesus also says that they will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus even begins 20 with "For" as in a continuation of a thought.

Do you think Jesus was just spouting off sentences randomly?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Look again:

"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will a continuation of a thought.

Do you think Jesus was just spouting off sentences randomly?[/b]

================================
Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven"

In 19, Jesus is speaking of those who annul commandments and teach others to do the same. In 20, Jesus is speaking of those who did annul commandments and taught others to do the same. Jesus also says that they will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus even begins 20 with "For" as in a continuation of a thought.

Do you think Jesus was just spouting off sentences randomly?
========================================

First point. I do NOT think Jesus is spouting off sentences randomnly. I think you need to entire book of Matthew (let alone the rest of the New Testament much of which you reject) to see what Jesus could be teaching about.

But I think just using Matthew I can make a better case than what you propose.

Second Point - If nothing else has been accomplished I do hope that at least you can see that with troublesome passages CONTEXT indeed needs to be considered.

You blast some of us for considering CONTEXT in a difficult passage like First John 5:18. You want to say because we consider context we are only anxious to preserve our right to live a sinful Christian life. This is a great insult.

I hope that you can see that you're not the only one who cares to go over the Bible with a interpretive "electronic microscope" so to speak, to ascertain how CONTEXT can help us understand meaning of a passage.

You appeal to CONTEXT on Matthew 5:19. So do I refer to CONTEXT to comprehend a passage like First John 5:18.

Now I think you have come to the end of your collection of understandings of Matthew 5:19. In a separate post I will expound on what I think is a better answer to Christ's precise speaking.

I doubt that you'll want to change your position. That is OK with me. But I will show you how I would deal with such a passage. And it would not be by saying "Well, the calling of the servant the least takes place in the kingdom, but the servant is not in the kingdom."

Stand by if your interested. If not maybe someone else will be.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
It's simply a request for forgiveness. What does forgiveness entail? Under what conditions is it granted? You choose to infer particular answers to those questions based on what you wish to be true.

"everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."

The word poieo which is translated as "commits" here, means "to make or do".

If the intent of Jesus ...[text shortened]... .whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it."

Firstly , I have never implied that this is what Jesus meant---------------------------- "Though your heart may be set on truth and righteousness, you will never be able to do the things which I say because of your sin nature."------------------------------------------------

Only that Jesus seems to have understood our human failings and sinful nature. This is not an excuse for sin NOR a reason to think sin cannot be overcome , it's just a more realistic approach. Why do you resort to misrepresentation here ?

Secondly , the fact that Jesus builds in a request for forgiveness to God as part of the Lord's Prayer for those who follow him implies logically that he expects that we will be needing to ask for forgiveness from God. Remember that the Lord's prayer is presented as a template for the daily routine for prayer for followers of Jesus ( eg- give us this day).

Logically there is no other explanation other than Jesus is teaching us how to pray daily to the Father for forgiveness from our transgressions (ie sin). This can only be possible if there is some sin involved. It simply does not read as a request for forgiveness for "past" sins only but it reads more like a daily repeated request to God as part of on-going prayer.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Firstly , I have never implied that this is what Jesus meant---------------------------- "Though your heart may be set on truth and righteousness, you will never be able to do the things which I say because of your sin nature."------------------------------------------------

Only that Jesus seems to have understood our human failings and sinful nat s only but it reads more like a daily repeated request to God as part of on-going prayer.

You do understand that that was said in context of the entire post don't you? There was a larger point being made.

It's like, all related and stuff.

Also, these two thoughts seem incoherent:
a)"Only that Jesus seems to have understood our human failings and sinful nature. This is not an excuse for sin NOR a reason to think sin cannot be overcome , it's just a more realistic approach."

b)"Logically there is no other explanation other than Jesus is teaching us how to pray daily to the Father for forgiveness from our transgressions (ie sin). This can only be possible if there is some sin involved. It simply does not read as a request for forgiveness for "past" sins only but it reads more like a daily repeated request to God as part of on-going prayer."

In a) you seem to be saying that you believe that sin can be overcome.

In b) you seem to be saying the only logical explanation is that a daily prayer is required for daily sins.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
It's simply a request for forgiveness. What does forgiveness entail? Under what conditions is it granted? You choose to infer particular answers to those questions based on what you wish to be true.

"everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."

The word poieo which is translated as "commits" here, means "to make or do".

If the intent of Jesus ...[text shortened]... .whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it."

It's obvious that Jesus seemingly contradicts himself in the NT by refering to an on-going daily request for forgiveness for sin in the Lord's Prayer and at the same time seemingly saying that sin must be overcome to be his follower.

So , there are two things one can do faced with this. You can either see one of these as being false or you can look for a common denominator that supercedes the apparent "contradiction".

With me so far?

Objectively I find it impossible to dismiss the words and verses you quote nor do I particularly want to. However, I find it also impossible to reconcile this with the many flies in the ointment that suggest that Jesus was much more tolerant of sin than you suggest. The Lord's Prayer alone does this because there is just no reason why "forgive us our trespasses , as we forgive......etc" can be interpreted otherwise without a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty and self deception.

It seems to me you have chosen to just ignore one aspect of Jesus for the sake of the other aspects of his teaching rather than take them as a whole. This way of getting round the contradictions though requires a stubborn form of intellectual dishonesty on your part because you offer no viable alternatives to my interpretations.

Your idea that the Last Supper was a mere "ritual" is an example of this. Your attempt to deflect my argument about why God would allow St Paul to distort the truth so heavily by bringing up child absue was another. You also have no real explanation of this part of the Lord's prayer.

So you just surgically remove all the flies in the ointment and evade any questions on them. This is all so neat and elegant , but highly unconvincing. Instead of addressing the problem you just wish it away. But it doesn't make sense , because truth really does need to hold together better (even if it is messy).

I'm afraid you have chosen the easy (but disingenuous) path. If you would simply admit that this aspect of the Lord's Prayer does leave you scratching your head then I could have more respect for you. It's as if you fear what might happen if you did admit this. Logically i cannot see how Jesus would exhort us to ask for daily forgiveness if he did not think his followers would need to do so.

This bit of the Lord's prayer must be irrelevant for you I guess?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You do understand that that was said in context of the entire post don't you? There was a larger point being made.

It's like, all related and stuff.

Also, these two thoughts seem incoherent:
a)"Only that Jesus seems to have understood our human failings and sinful nature. This is not an excuse for sin NOR a reason to think sin cannot be overcome , saying the only logical explanation is that a daily prayer is required for daily sins.

Why are you fishing around for contradictions within my posts when you should be trying to figure out why Jesus would build in a request for forgiveness of sins into the daily prayer life of his followers?????????

The real question is why he would do this if your position on him is the correct one? It just doesn't add up. You kept saying that logic wasn't my strong point but it doesn't seem like it's yours either.

This is the issue at hand. Stop stalling and address it. It's a big fly in the ointment for you and I want to hear your explanation . We can deal with my posts later. It's as if you just don't read the parts fo the posts where it challenges you. It's a blind spot for you.

(BTW- You did this with the St Paul issue , and seemingly felt that attack was the best form of defence whilst still having no answer to the problem)

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
It's simply a request for forgiveness. What does forgiveness entail? Under what conditions is it granted? You choose to infer particular answers to those questions based on what you wish to be true.

"everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."

The word poieo which is translated as "commits" here, means "to make or do".

If the intent of Jesus ...[text shortened]... .whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it."

If Jesus saw man's "sin nature" as something that couldn't be overcome, why does He ask this question?:
"Why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do the things which I say?"
----------------TOOne----------------------------------------------

He did see it as something that could be overcome , just that it might entail of period of spiritual growth and development with a few bumps and bruises along the way.

The reason he said that was to point out the hypocrisy of those who were calling him Lord but didn't know him and had no intention of following him. This is different from those who had made him his Lord but stumbled along the way (eg Simon Peter). if I remember rightly he said this to the scribes did he not rather than to his disciples?