Questioning online apologetics

Knightmiester's last post about the Lord's Prayer and forgiveness was excellent.

Now to Matthew 5:19:

The fact that BOTH the least of His servants AND the GREAT of His servants could be participating in the kingdom of the heavens is perfectly consistent with other teachings in Matthew.

For example in the parable of the sower one heart yields 100 fold fruit while another yields 50 fold fruit and yet another yields 30 fold fruit. They all three are the result of the "good earth" ( a hearing and understanding heart ). See Matthew 13:1-23:

"But the one sown on the good earth, this is he who hears the word and understands, who by all means bears fruit and produces, one a hundredfold, and one sixtyfold, and one thirtyfold." (Matt. 13:23)

The same principle occurs in parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14-30:

His master said to him, Well done, good and faithful slave. YOu were faithful over a few things, I will set you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.

This is said to the one who traded with his ten talents and the one who traded with his five talents. Both are rewarded. The one who is not rewarded is the one who buried his talent. So obviously Christ Jesus teaches varying levels of responsibility and reward in the reign of the kingdom of the heavens.

IF you still doubt, notice that in a sister passage one servant is rewarded to reign over 10 cities while another is rewarded to reign over 5 sities (Luke 19:16-19)

One resason why the least or lesser rewarded servant still participates in the kingdom of the heavens is because of the underlying principals of the kingdom of the heavens as taught in Matthew 5 - 8.

For example:

"Blessed are the merciful for they shall be shown mercy" (Matt.5:7)

It is possible for a Christian to teach wrongly but yet be merciful towards his fellow servants. Because he was merciful, though his teaching was wrong and annulled some of the Lord's instructions, he may OBTAIN MERCY because he was merciful toward others.

This is not a natural characteristic of man. We tend to be very strict with other people but merciful upon ourselves. We are tight and exacting with other people while accomodating and compromising on ourselves. This is the natural life.

The kingdom life is one that is strict with oneself but merciful
towards others. The disciple towards his own behavior is strict with a high standard for himself. Yet he is not so quick to judge others and condemn others. Towards others he is merciful.

Because he lives this kind of life, exacting on himself but merciful on others, he will OBTAIN mercy when the Lord Jesus comes to reward His servants.

This mercy from the Lord to the lesser or least servant imputes righteousness to him. He enters into the kingdom of the heavens. But he is not called great there. He is lesser there. But he is there.

There can be MERCY at the judgment seat of Christ towards His eternally saved people. The one's whose teaching was not so consistent with the Lord's strict instructions was nonetheless shown mercy because he was merciful towards others.

Reaffirming this understanding of Matthew is the kingdom teaching on judging:

"Do not judge, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged; and with what measure you measure, it shall be measured to you." (Matt. 7:1,2)


IN short Jesus is saying to those who will be saved in essence - "You still will be judged. You will be examined according to HOW you dealt with your fellow servants and other people. If you were strict and exacting on others while accomadating on yourself I will judge you strictly the way you treated other people. If you were saved and had a high standard of morality for yourself but were not easy to judge other Christians and other people I will show you mercy because you had like me a merciful heart."

In such a way one who taught nullifying some of the Lord's instructions will still be able to enter into the coming manifestation of the kingdom of the heavens.

Originally posted by knightmeister
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 t that attack was the best form of defence whilst still having no answer to the problem)

I'm not "fishing" for contradictions. There ARE contradictions. This is something you do often. You argue something "prove" one thing, then argue the contrary to "prove" another.

The point of the Paul issue, that you didn't seem to get, is that you do the same thing with that. Take your "bike riding" thread. It seems like you're arguing "free will". Why do you allow "free will" for all manner of unspeakable acts, but "free will" doesn't apply when it comes to the issue of Paul and the church? Does it have boundaries whereever it becomes inconvenient for you? Is this the only boundary or are there others?

I do believe that there's "free will". It's simple: It's all free. As part of that I believe that people are free to interpret the teachings of Jesus however they like. If you look at the history and current state of Christianity, you have to conclude that this is the case.

Truth is elegant in it's simplicity.

Originally posted by knightmeister
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 grow ...[text shortened]... I remember rightly he said this to the scribes did he not rather than to his disciples?

"if I remember rightly he said this to the scribes did he not rather than to his disciples?

This has gotta be at least the third time you've tried a similar argument. My answer is still similar: Do you really believe that the scribes were calling Jesus "Lord"?

What's the point of trying to discuss anything with you? You've got this conception of yourself as this master logician, yet you make the same mistakes over and over again. Now if you could at least admit to yourself that your sense of reason is poor, you might be able to improve it. Instead you puff up your chest and bluster away.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm not "fishing" for contradictions. There ARE contradictions. This is something you do often. You argue something "prove" one thing, then argue the contrary to "prove" another.

The point of the Paul issue, that you didn't seem to get, is that you do the same thing with that. Take your "bike riding" thread. It seems like you're arguing "free will". W conclude that this is the case.

Truth is elegant in it's simplicity.

============================

Truth is elegant in it's simplicity.

==============================


My sentiments exactly !

In the natural world you are BORN and then you GROW and MATURE.

In the spiritual world you are BORN AGAIN and then you are to GROW and MATURE in that new life.

Why can't YOU see the simplicity of that ?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm not "fishing" for contradictions. There ARE contradictions. This is something you do often. You argue something "prove" one thing, then argue the contrary to "prove" another.

The point of the Paul issue, that you didn't seem to get, is that you do the same thing with that. Take your "bike riding" thread. It seems like you're arguing "free will". W conclude that this is the case.

Truth is elegant in it's simplicity.

Despite what you say God chose to intervene and give us the truth in Jesus. He chose to reveal himself to the Jews and he decided that Jesus' words should be recorded.

Part of what Jesus taught is that the Holy Spirit is active in the world. The whole of Jesus's teachings are intimately linked with God's activity. There's obviously a plan to leave a record of the truth for men to follow. If God had not done this you would not even have the words of Jesus to debate on this forum. If God had not seen to it that Jesus's words were preserved for you , you would not even have had your "truth" to follow. You are reliant on God to preserve and make sure the "truth" is recorded for you. Do you really think he would have allowed jesus's words to dissappear for the sake of free will?

The concept of free will does not entail that God does not intervene and it does not mean that God does not have a plan to reveal the truth to us. This plan was obviously on going and under way for centuries via Moses , Judaism etc and prophecies , all leading up to the birth of Christ.

So what you expect me to believe is that after this long careful process involving the incarnation of his Son , God allowed his plan to be scupppered by St Paul and did not use the Holy Spirit to inspire someone to challenge Paul as a deceiver?

The bike riding thread and the child abuse issue are separate things. You are trying to dig one hole to fill another.

How does bringing up the problem of free will negate my argument over St Paul? Of course men are free to interpret the truth as they want , but the issue here is not about free will but about God's plans.

In Judaism God is active in history and the world . He has plans and aims. One of these aims presumably was to bring the truth to the world. The way God would do this was by inspiration of the Spirit using certain men and races. So even with free will God is still planning to bring the truth to the world.

You expect me to believe that God failed in his plan and was not able to (or chose not to) prevent Paul from perverting the truth of Jesus so drastically??????

So let's be clear on this. You have no real explanation as to why God allowed his plans to be scuppered other than to say that it's down to free will?

The problem with this is that Jesus said "my words will remain forever" and "I will build my church and the gates of hell will not stand against it". Then St paul ( a false prophet to you and an instrument of the enemy) wrecks the whole thing and Jesus's words are turned into the tragic lie of Christianity? Uh!???? Unthinkable!

Maybe Jesus should not have been so bold about his church if he had known what was to come , and how little his Father would back him up on his claim?

No , God does not make plans that he does not follow through. Free will or no free will , he follows through on his promises. If he didn't how could he be the faithful Father that Jesus said would provide for us , if he can't even preserve the truth he was trying to give us???

Now , you may think that by bringing up child abuse or bikes the St Paul issue vanishes . It does not. Digging one hole to fill in another still leaves a hole.The issue of child abuse is similar but different because it does not involve a consistent plan on God's part.

The issue is about God's plans and whether he sees them through or not. Myabe you are the one that God is inspiring to re-correct St Paul? If so , he's left it a bit late hasn't he?

(BTW- All this assumes that you actually believe in an active agent who is Jesus's Father - it might be nice if you could clarify this - if not then the games off anyway because you have not subscribed to one of Jesus's basic teachings - so do you believe in an active Father God?)

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"if I remember rightly he said this to the scribes did he not rather than to his disciples?

This has gotta be at least the third time you've tried a similar argument. My answer is still similar: Do you really believe that the scribes were calling Jesus "Lord"?

What's the point of trying to discuss anything with you? You've got this conceptio ...[text shortened]... is poor, you might be able to improve it. Instead you puff up your chest and bluster away.[/b]

Why don't you just say who you think he was talking to? The scribes did call him Rabbi did they not. And as far as the "slaves to sin" passage is concerned , it definitely was addressed to the scribes as far as I can see and not his followers. It was a response to their comments about Abraham.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm not "fishing" for contradictions. There ARE contradictions. This is something you do often. You argue something "prove" one thing, then argue the contrary to "prove" another.

The point of the Paul issue, that you didn't seem to get, is that you do the same thing with that. Take your "bike riding" thread. It seems like you're arguing "free will". W ...[text shortened]... conclude that this is the case.

Truth is elegant in it's simplicity.

I'm not "fishing" for contradictions. There ARE contradictions. This is something you do often. You argue something "prove" one thing, then argue the contrary to "prove" another. ----------ToO------------

The contradictions of any one individual have no bearing on anything. Even if you proved that I contradicted myself here and there (which I don't doubt) it has no bearing on whether my argument stands on St Paul or the Lord's Prayer. So far your only response on these issues has been no response other than to go on the attack and not answer the question.

If your pride was no so great you would just say "yes , KM , I admit that the Lord's prayer is somewaht troublesome " or " yes it is curious why God would allow his truth to be so drastically perverted , I'm not sure why this happened".

Apparently , such humility is beyond you. Humility and honesty are sacrificed by you at the altar of preserving your "elegant" truth.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Despite what you say God chose to intervene and give us the truth in Jesus. He chose to reveal himself to the Jews and he decided that Jesus' words should be recorded.

Part of what Jesus taught is that the Holy Spirit is active in the world. The whole of Jesus's teachings are intimately linked with God's activity. There's obviously a plan to leave Jesus's basic teachings - so do you believe in an active Father God?)

Your postion is not based on reason. It is based on what you wish to be true. Your position is basically that you believe that God wouldn't allow such a thing. The position for athiests who bring up unspeakable acts is that God wouldn't allow such a thing. It's basically the same argument and it's unsound on both sides. While you recognize it as unsound for the atheists, you don't recognize it as unsound for your own argument.

You believe what you want to believe. You like to think it based on reason, but the fact remains that it isn't. The fact that you don't even recognize that it isn't based on reason demonstrates once again that you seem incapable of reason.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm not "fishing" for contradictions. There ARE contradictions. This is something you do often. You argue something "prove" one thing, then argue the contrary to "prove" another.

The point of the Paul issue, that you didn't seem to get, is that you do the same thing with that. Take your "bike riding" thread. It seems like you're arguing "free will". W conclude that this is the case.

Truth is elegant in it's simplicity.

Truth is elegant in it's simplicity.---------------ToO-------------------------

Try this on for simple elegance......


1)Jesus said "I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"

2)He chose Simon Peter as his rock for the church.

3) Simon Peter had no problem with Paul , who then went on to pretty much build , support and develop the early church.

So St Paul was the major factor in the building of the church. If Paul is a false prophet then the gates of hell must have prevailed against the truth and the church Jesus talked about was defeated and the truth was squashed (only to emerge 2000 years later when the enlightened ToO trumps Paul ??)

Therefore , if ToO is right , the following questions remain.........

Where is the church that Jesus promised he would build? What happened to it? Where is the true early church?

Why did a false prophet prevail against the church that Jesus promised when Jesus said nothing would prevail against it? According to you all that St Paul taught is false and the early Christian church is false and not in the truth. Lies and deception have prevailed against the truth , there is no true church?

So simple logic kicks in.....what's the odds here?

Was Jesus just plain wrong ? Or is ToOne's assessment of St Paul just plain wrong?

Hmmmm.....I think my 5 quid is safe.