Spirituality
29 Jun 06
04 Jul 06
2 edits
Ever read James 2: 12-18, whodey:
12 So speak ye, and so do, as men that are to be judged by a law of liberty.
13 For judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy: mercy glorieth against judgment.
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but have not works? can that faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked and in lack of daily food,
16 and one of you say unto them, Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; and yet ye give them not the things needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.
18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from thy works, and I by my works will show thee my faith.
04 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI was referring to the part of Mark that has the Lord Jesus Christ explaining His use of parables, but we'll take your lead and stick with Matthew.
In my Bible, Matthew 25 ends at verse 46. How far does it go in the Bible only available to those who know the secret handshake and the silly walk?
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."
Professor No1, how can we possibly reconcile the passage you are quoting out of Matthew 25 with this (and the other seven) woes of Matthew 23? These woes are clearly slams against the outer appearance of righteousness--- even the physicality of the same--- without the benefit of right thinking. According to what you have been teaching us regarding Matthew 25, simply doing the physical work of a charitable kind is tantamount to entrance into Heaven.
Is it possible that the work described in Matthew 25 is another analogy, i.e., using the physical world to describe a spiritual concept?
04 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderas many theologians believe
Assuming the thief on the cross story isn't merely a later addition as many theologians believe (it is directly contradicted by the other Gospel versions), the following acts are analogus to his actions:
I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
To you, Jesus' life meant nothing and only his death has any significance. Death worshippers; how primitive!
Tsk, tsk. Worked yourself into another corner with that word "many" again, have you?
04 Jul 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBH"Either/or" thinking is only required in your and whodey's theology. Judgment is based on a totality of a person's actions not a mere accumulation of various acts.
I was referring to the part of Mark that has the Lord Jesus Christ explaining His use of parables, but we'll take your lead and stick with Matthew.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
In ...[text shortened]... tthew 25 is another analogy, i.e., using the physical world to describe a spiritual concept?
04 Jul 06
Originally posted by Big MacI have read it and nothing in Phillipians 2 can be interpreted to mean what you said :
i've already given you the references. did you read them? or are you just questioning for questioning's sake.
look at phillipians 2.
but, i must clarify for you. the lord works in the ways mentioned in matt. 25.
according to proverbs 21:1 our thoughts and actions are "directed" in the hands of god.
so, to be exact, the lord works in everyone. but, ...[text shortened]... in matt. 25 are done BY the lord in the believer for the lord's own glory and his pleasure.
[/i]"the lord works in and through only those who have been saved. ."[/i]
That statement is clearly a result of you twisting several quotes and arriving at an incorrect conclusion.
04 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderSo, in other words, you have no answer for the the self-contradiction within your view. And we should take your word on the subject? That's laughable. No wonder you and froggie get along so well. Keep winding them up, boys: it's a real hoot.
"Either/or" thinking is only required in your and whodey's theology. Judgment is based on a totality of a person's actions not a mere accumulation of various acts.
04 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderJudgment is based on a totality of a person's actions not a mere accumulation of various acts.
"Either/or" thinking is only required in your and whodey's theology. Judgment is based on a totality of a person's actions not a mere accumulation of various acts.
From Professor No1's earlier post within this same thread:
"When I read posts like this, it makes me wonder if some of the so-called "Christians" on this site have ever even read the Gospels. They seem to rely entirely on "crib notes" from various Fundamentalists while ignoring Jesus' words.
whodey: It does not list a specific work does it?
Yes, it does."
When I read posts like this, it makes me wonder if some of the so-called "antagonists" on this site ever bother to even read their own posts.
Rich, ain't it?
04 Jul 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThere is no contradiction at all. BTW, you're raving.
So, in other words, you have no answer for the the self-contradiction within your view. And we should take your word on the subject? That's laughable. No wonder you and froggie get along so well. Keep winding them up, boys: it's a real hoot.
04 Jul 06
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat is this so-called "contradiction"? Does Matthew 25 list specific works or not?
[b]Judgment is based on a totality of a person's actions not a mere accumulation of various acts.
From Professor No1's earlier post within this same thread:
[i/]"When I read posts like this, it makes me wonder if some of the so-called "Christians" on this site have ever even read the Gospels. They seem to rely entirely on "crib notes" from various antagonists" on this site ever bother to even read their own posts.
Rich, ain't it?[/b]
Obviously your rigid indoctrination will not allow you to fathom the idea that Judgment Day involves some, er, judgment.
04 Jul 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWho cares? For the sake of argument, I'm willing to concede it wasn't a later addition as my original post says. The thief's actions would still fit into the general categories mentioned. The specific works mentioned in Matthew 25 were not meant to be all inclusive.
That corner's getting tighter and tighter, ain't it? "Many" and, now, "common." Good luck with that one, fella.
04 Jul 06
You don't understand Matthew 23 anymore than you understand Matthew 25.
4 Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.
5 But all their works they do to be seen of men: for they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
6 and love the chief place at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7 and the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called of men, Rabbi.
The "works" here mentioned do not benefit their fellow men as the ones mentioned in Matthew 25 do. See the difference between "enlarging the borders of their garments" and feeding the hungry?
04 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderRaving or not, the contradiction remains. You insist that the parable of the sheep and the goats found in Matthew 25 is the litmus test for entrance into Heaven. That list (using your further insistence that the topical reading is the 'right' method) contains several overt actions. However, two chapters previously, in Matthew 23, Jesus is castigating the religious leaders with the seven woes, specifically for their outward adherence to a list of so-called spiritual activities. Thus, a contradiction. How can the religious leaders be hell-bound for executing overt actions in Matthew 23 and yet others in Matthew 25 gain entrance into Heaven for doing the same?
There is no contradiction at all. BTW, you're raving.
04 Jul 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd yet they were also engaged in missionary work. The point remains, whether your obstinance will allow you to see it or not, is that Scripture interprets Scripture. What can be accomplished in the flesh is not of the Spirit.
You don't understand Matthew 23 anymore than you understand Matthew 25.
4 Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.
5 But all their works they do to be seen of men: for they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garmen ...[text shortened]... e the difference between "enlarging the borders of their garments" and feeding the hungry?
Those who follow your strict adherence to Matthew 25 with no thought to the thrust of Scripture, i.e., acceptance of the work of Jesus Christ, will end up in hell, right along side of the religious leaders.