1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe American Standard Version quotes John 3:28-29 as:
If the two scriptures aren't mutually exclusive, as you say, then you must take the Christian position which I am professing: belief in Jesus Christ and obedience to Jesus Christ go hand in hand. Up until now you were saying only works were necessary to stumble into heaven. Why change your tune all of sudden?
Regarding the good deeds/works issue you ved. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God" (Ephesians 2:8)
28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but, that I am sent before him.
29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, that standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is made full.
That is, of course, John the Baptist speaking.
So you've either quoted the wrong verse or relied on someone else who quoted the wrong verse. Either way, the actual words of John 3:28-29 lend no support to your argument.
EDIT: I assume you mean John 6:28-29:
28 They said therefore unto him, What must we do, that we may work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
"Believing on him (Jesus)" includes doing what he says is necessary for salvation. See Matthew 25.
Originally posted by epiphinehasNo, as I recall, you admitted that you could not be 100% sure of your non-dualist axiom, since the possibility exists of revelatory knowledge trumping your original assertions about God; or at least fill in certain blanks where inscrutable mystery resides. (I may be wrong about this, though.)
[b]Ah, but only with respect to the posited God of dualistic theism.
No, as I recall, you admitted that you could not be 100% sure of your non-dualist axiom, since the possibility exists of revelatory knowledge trumping your original assertions about God; or at least fill in certain blanks where inscrutable mystery resides. (I may be wrong about ...[text shortened]... you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God" (Ephesians 2:8).[/b]
I’m a bit tired (having been out mowing all afternoon); I’m not even going to go back and look—I’ll just stand corrected. I might have been conflating this with another thread. I try to maintain a discipline, so to speak, of never assuming certainty for myself, though in argument on here that is not always clear—clearly.
In the non-dualist systems, scripture does not seem to play the same role as in dualistic theism (despite my fanciful play with the TTC, which you were astute enough to see exactly what I was doing with it), since the bridge that needs to be crossed via divine revelation is not recognized.
As you can see by that last attempt at a coherent sentence, I’m bushed.
May the force be with you. 🙂
Originally posted by no1marauderFair enough. I won't quote Paul anymore. And I know it won't make any difference to you, but Paul did meet Jesus if you remember:
I don't pay much attention to Paul's words, so you might as well stop quoting them. He never even met Jesus and certainly his words shouldn't be taken as more authoritative on Christianity than Jesus'. Whether you are espousing the "Christian position" i.e. the position that Christ took - is what is being debated - you still haven't bothered to give any ...[text shortened]... ords of Jesus in Matthew 25.
I'll be back after I look at John 3 in context.
"As he was approaching Damascus on this mission, a light from heaven suddenly shone down around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul! Saul! Why are you persecuting me?” “Who are you, lord?” Saul asked. And the voice replied, “I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting! Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do" (Acts 9:3-6).
...FYI
My take on Matthew 25 is James 2:26:
"Just as the body is dead without breath, so also faith is dead without good works" (James 2:26).
Anything I say isn't going to matter to you, because you are fixated on that one verse as if it discounts everything else in the bible.
For instance, 1 John's account of a saving faith:
"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has become a child of God. And everyone who loves the Father loves his children, too. We know we love God’s children if we love God and obey his commandments. Loving God means keeping his commandments, and his commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:1-3).
Or this from Luke:
"The men at the table said among themselves, “Who is this man, that he goes around forgiving sins?” And Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace" (Luke 7:49-50).
Or Mark and Matthew:
"Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralyzed man, “My child, your sins are forgiven" (Mark 2:5).
"Some people brought to him a paralyzed man on a mat. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralyzed man, “Be encouraged, my child! Your sins are forgiven" (Matthew 9:2).
These were accounts of Jesus' teachings as related by men who knew Jesus...
Originally posted by no1marauderI can see Matthew 25 just fine. I can also see John 6:29 just fine. I agree with you. Both are necessary. But you can't have one without the other. You seem to want works rather than grace. I say you can't have serve God's will without grace; that is, no faith, no works.
"Believing on him (Jesus)" includes doing what he says is necessary for salvation. See Matthew 25.
Do [i]you[/b] believe in Jesus Christ?
Originally posted by epiphinehasI don't equate Paul's claim of seeing Jesus in a vision as equal to the quotes of his actual words given in the Gospels. You are free to do so if you choose.
Fair enough. I won't quote Paul anymore. And I know it won't make any difference to you, but Paul did meet Jesus if you remember:
"As he was approaching Damascus on this mission, a light from heaven suddenly shone down around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul! Saul! Why are you persecuting me?” “Who are you, lord?” ...[text shortened]...
These were accounts of Jesus' teachings as related by men who knew Jesus...
First off, Matthew 25 is Jesus giving an account of what will actually happen on Judgement Day. And the entire chapter hinges on it, not "one verse". That's kinda important to Christian theology i.e. what happens on Judgement Day, dontcha think?
James 2:26 is clearly consistent with Matthew 25 (and it was supposed to written by his brother though Martin Luther wanted it kicked out of the Bible).
1 John 5:1-3 is consistent with Matthew 25. "We know we love God’s children if we love God and obey his commandments. Loving God means keeping his commandments, and his commandments are not burdensome". Loving God's children, keeping his commandments and doing the acts towards your fellow man that Jesus states as representative in Matthew 25 don't seem contradictory at all.
As to the others, sure Jesus can forgive sins, but that doesn't mean if you continue to sin you obtain salvation. What did he tell the adulterer? "Go and sin no more". Some of you fundies think you get a free "Get out of Hell" card just by saying you believe in Jesus, no matter what foul acts you do. That is anti-Scriptural.
Originally posted by vistesdHave a good rest, vistesd. Until later... Later.
[b]No, as I recall, you admitted that you could not be 100% sure of your non-dualist axiom, since the possibility exists of revelatory knowledge trumping your original assertions about God; or at least fill in certain blanks where inscrutable mystery resides. (I may be wrong about this, though.)
I’m a bit tired (having been out mowing all afternoon); ...[text shortened]... n see by that last attempt at a coherent sentence, I’m bushed.
May the force be with you. 🙂[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderAgain, I don't disagree with you. Somewhere you've morphed your position from 'good works get you into heaven' to 'faith + good works get you into heaven'. I don't know what the heck we're arguing about anymore. And I'm getting tired of you ignoring everything I say: I never said all it takes is to say 'I believe in Jesus' to get into heaven--YOU HAVE TO REPENT AND BELIEVE IN ORDER TO GET INTO HEAVEN -- FAITH IS A GIFT FROM GOD, NOT AN ARBITRARY DECISION. Repentance means to change your ways from doing evil to obedience to God's law, and obedience to God's law is not possible without the power of God imparted through His gift of faith. Repentance is an absolute change of heart.
I don't equate Paul's claim of seeing Jesus in a vision as equal to the quotes of his actual words given in the Gospels. You are free to do so if you choose.
First off, Matthew 25 is Jesus giving an account of what will actually happen on Judgement Day. And the entire chapter hinges on it, not "one verse". That's kinda important to Christian ...[text shortened]... ng you believe in Jesus, no matter what foul acts you do. That is anti-Scriptural.
And you still have yet to answer my question: do you believe in Jesus Christ? I will no longer carry on this conversation with you until you answer that one question.
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhat do you mean by "believe in Jesus Christ"? No. 1 is a lawyer and he may not understand the lingo.
Again, I don't disagree with you. Somewhere you've morphed your position from 'good works get you into heaven' to 'faith + good works get you into heaven'. I don't know what the heck we're arguing about anymore. And I'm getting tired of you ignoring everything I say: I never said all it takes is to say 'I believe in Jesus' to get into heaven--YOU HAVE ...[text shortened]... l no longer carry on this conversation with you until you answer that one question.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasOf course not. They were never considered part of the mainstream canon, unlike what you call
I presume you consider the deutero-canonical books as part of the present canon? Do you accept the gnostic gospels as well then?
the 'Deutero-canonical' books. Those books were part of the canon since the inception of
Christianity, the Septuagint comprising the vast majority of the OT biblical citations found in the
NT (over 300 of 350, as I recall). This was the Bible used by all Christians ratified by those who were
guided by the same Holy Spirit which guided them to incorporate the 27 books of the NT canon.
Their removal was a contrivance of the 16th century, a blatant disregard for the Christians of the
first century (whom, we must concede, must have known better, having direct relationships with
the Disciples), merely for the economic convenience of having a cheaper Bible to print. Objections
to their inspired state hardly constitute a justification -- Revelation has suffered greater scrutiny
over the past 1900 years, and the Letter of Saint James, too, was a often a candidate for
canonical excision in the past 1000 or so years.
Edit: Did you know, when the Jews ratified their own canon in the last decade of the first century,
and excised these books themselves, they cursed the name of Jesus at the same time? Why should
we follow their lead?
Nemesio
Originally posted by epiphinehas
How is 'born again' exclusively 19th Century? Is it not used by Jesus in John 3:3? I understand it can also be translated as 'born from above', but Nicodemus' reply indicates that he and Jesus were talking about being 'born again' somehow.
Jesus says, 'Born from above.' Nicodemus dimly responds, 'Born again?' Jesus replies, 'No dummy,
born from above with spirit and fire. It's a rhetorical device to illustrate precisely what the author
of Saint John's gospel intends so that they don't make the mistake that you are making
(and render it 'again'😉.
Or 'being saved'--didn't Paul speak of being saved in Romans 10:9? "If thou mayest confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and mayest believe in thy heart that God did raise him out of the dead, thou shalt be saved." Surely Paul predates pre-credal theological epistles and apologies.
Yes, I'm familiar with the concept of 'sothese.' But what does such a salvation entail?
Mere confession? No. Saying 'Jesus is Lord?' No. These things are outward, noisy gongs without
love, St Paul very clearly says. No. The true believer is the one who sees Christ in the needy, not
the Pharisee who prances around saying, 'Look at me! I'm a believer.' Being saved in the 19th-
century sense is a discrete moment in time, before which you are destined to hell, after which you
are eternally destined from heaven. This understanding is indeed totally absent from NT writing.
No, a 1st-century understanding of sothese is one of 'continuing permanence.' You see Christ
in all other people and you act as Christ toward them. You cannot know that you are saved, for
every moment is a test of faith, every moment is an opportunity to either be Christ or to ignore
that vocation.
This is 1st-century thinking. Salvation is never certainly attained, only that the means by which to
attain it are laid out with certainty: tend the needy, comfort the afflicted, house the homeless.
And, it is not that 'works save' (I can hear your objection now). One cannot be 'truly worthy' in the
eyes of God because one cannot be Christ at all times. It's that works are the most critical
manifestation (epiphanos) of faith. One can think that they 'are saved' all they want, but
only the outside of their cup is clean without works. A person who is focused on 'being saved' or
thinks that they 'are saved' is counter-biblical, merely a Pharisee pointing out to God how good he
is. A person who spends his/her life striving to be Christ (all the while failing), s/he is laying the
foundation for the accepting of the gift given.
Nemesio
Originally posted by epiphinehasSt John's Gospel refers to the Jews' concern over entering the praetorium and becoming defiled
If you don't want to waste your time explaining to me all your references and evidences for the discrepancies in the texts, then I'll have to live with that, but I would very much like to hear them. If you are so passionate about proving false the inerrancy of the bible, why would you consider it a waste of time? Because it might not affect my faith in God's word?
before eating the Passover [18:28]. Also, the author notes that it was the day of preparation for
the Passover [19:14]. This necessarily means that the 'Last Supper' couldn't have been the
Passover seder.
The Synoptics clearly indicates that the paschal lamb is sacrificed before the 'Last Supper' [cf.
St Mark 14:12], which necessarily requires that it was the Passover seder.
The argument has been made that the Jews celebrated two Passovers, but that is bunk. This happened
in the wide Diaspora, where Jews unable to travel to Jerusalem celebrated on two nights for fear
of missing the observance. However, this never ever ever happened in Jerusalem, because the
chief priests were right there to inform the people when, precisely, the Passover was to be
celebrated.
This is an unavoidable discrepancy and is one of half-a-dozen demonstrations of how the historical
content of the NT is most certainly not inerrant.
It shouldn't put the slightest damper on your faith in 'God's Word' to know that one of the authors
made a mistake, or altered things for his own benefit (in fact, the alteration in St John makes for
wonder allegorical discourse). Inerrancy is idolatry, something upon which faith ought not hinge.
Nemesio
I have a question I don't know if it is related to the topic or not, but It came to me while reading this thread. As far as I know Paul Writings are written before the four Gospels. Which means that when Paul wrote all of his messages, he didn't read the Gospels yet and we can't say he was explainng the Jesus Teaching. But it seams to me that all Christians to explain what Jesus said int he 4 Gospels using Pauls writing, while it seams to me that is not correct.
The other point, is where did paul got his faith and belives while the Gospels were not writen yet?
Originally posted by NemesioWell, said, Nemesio. I couldn't have said it better myself. I might add, though, that one will not 'spend his/her life striving to be Christ (all the while failing)' without first confessing positively that Christ is Lord and believe in his/her heart that God raised Him from the dead. In short, men and women cannot come to the Lord without first being drawn. For none, of course, can confess that Jesus is Lord without the Holy Spirit revealing it to them first. And what of Paul proclaiming that we are given the Holy Spirit as a 'foretaste of future glory'? Surely, then, there is some assurance for the believer?
Yes, I'm familiar with the concept of 'sothese.' But what does such a salvation entail?
Mere confession? No. Saying 'Jesus is Lord?' No. These things are outward, noisy gongs without
love, St Paul very clearly says. No. The true believer is the one who sees Christ in the needy, not
the Pharisee who prances around saying, 'Look at me! I'm ...[text shortened]... iling), s/he is laying the
foundation for the accepting of the gift given.
I really appreciate your insight; thank you.
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioYes, I'm aware of that. Are you referring to the Masoretic texts? Also there are Prescott and Hort, who attempted the removal of anything alluding to divinity in Jesus. Considering what you've shared, far be it from me to state with assurance that human fallibility has created some discrepancy in the original texts. All the more essential the discernment afforded believers through the Holy Ghost! Incomplete (EDIT: or inaccurate) texts don't infringe on the Truth...
Did you know, when the Jews ratified their own canon in the last decade of the first century,
and excised these books themselves, they cursed the name of Jesus at the same time? Why should
we follow their lead?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioWhether the text is rendered 'born again' or 'born from above', it is still referring to the same 'birth' through spirit and fire Jesus is referring to. I don't believe that whoever translated 'born from above' as 'born again' made the same mistake Nicodemus had. They are both rhetorical devices pointing to the same thing. I did not mean to insinuate that Nicodemus' response to Jesus indicated anything essential to what Jesus was trying to explain to him.
Jesus says, 'Born from above.' Nicodemus dimly responds, 'Born again?' Jesus replies, 'No dummy,
born from above with spirit and fire. It's a rhetorical device to illustrate precisely what the author
of Saint John's gospel intends so that they don't make the mistake that you are making
(and render it 'again'😉.