The Bible is the Claim NOT the Evidence.

I turned to Christ not because I was perfect and needed nothing.

I can see my pride whenever I go to make my confessions before the Lord Jesus.

Maybe you cannot you yet see yours.
That's why you cling to your trust in yourself that you need no God, no Savior from your sins.

Originally posted by sonship
Let's say I am the MOST MOST MOST PROUD person on the planet.

Does that mean what I told you is wrong necessarily ? Nope.

Pride gets in the way of truth.

Perhaps you should consider what Jesus taught about pride and humility.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Pride gets in the way of truth.

Perhaps you should consider what Jesus taught about pride and humility.

Thank you ThinkofOne. I do very much consider what Jesus lived and taught.
You can receive Jesus into your spiritual being you know?

When I post I often pray.
If I feel the Spirit spoke not in what I wrote, I quickly erase.

You may know that in that last six or so years I have apologized to posters too.

Hey , ANYTIME you want to remind me to pay attention to what Jesus is and what He taught, Please do so.

Originally posted by sonship
Thank you ThinkofOne. I do very much consider what Jesus lived and taught.
You can receive Jesus into your spiritual being you know?

When I post I often pray.
If I feel the Spirit spoke not in what I wrote, I quickly erase.

You may know that in that last six or so years I have apologized to posters too.

Hey , ANYTIME you want to remind me to pay attention to what Jesus is and what He taught, Please do so.

Jesus did not teach 'salvation by grace'. Jesus taught 'salvation through righteousness'. People are so attracted by the former because they don't want to have to truly humble themselves. Many even convince themselves that 'apologizing' and 'confessing' are acts of humility when true humility requires them to truly deny themselves - not just make gestures toward it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jesus did not teach 'salvation by grace'. Jesus taught 'salvation through righteousness'. People are so attracted by the former because they don't want to have to truly humble themselves. Many even convince themselves that 'apologizing' and 'confessing' are acts of humility when true humility requires them to truly deny themselves - not just make gestures toward it.

Jesus did not teach 'salvation by grace'. Jesus taught 'salvation through righteousness'.

The first issue is "Is there a difference?"

You seem to think salvation by grace is VERSES salvation through righteousness. You seem to want to make an absolute dichotomy between the two which is not really scriptural.

If I wanted to debate you on this yet another time I would probably point out that you have a false dichotomy going there.

And of course the terms "saved" and "salvation" have varied connotations in the Bible. We've been through that before.

Originally posted by sonship

Jesus did not teach 'salvation by grace'. Jesus taught 'salvation through righteousness'.

The first issue is "Is there a difference?"

You seem to think salvation by grace is VERSES salvation through righteousness. You seem to want to make an absolute dichotomy between the two which is not really scriptural.

If I wanted to de ...[text shortened]... nd "salvation" has varied connotations in the Bible. We've been through this before.

You know, I've talked to quite a few Christians about this over the years and NONE have tried to make the case that it is a 'false dichotomy'. They know as well as I that they are extremely different concepts and that they both can't be true.

I know how much you hate to admit you're wrong. Remember the time when you insisted that there weren't any contradictions in the Bible and I pointed one out to you? After exchanging post after post, you finally admitted that the verses contradicted each other, but insisted that you believed they were both equally true. I still can only shake my head at that one.

Pride gets in the way of truth.

Watch me move pride right out of the way then.

I confess that Jesus is my Lord.
I confess that my God is the man Jesus of Nazareth.

The proud find it impossible to make such a confession.

Originally posted by sonship

Pride gets in the way of truth.

Watch me move pride right out of the way then.

I confess that Jesus is my Lord.
I confess that my God is the man Jesus of Nazareth.

The proud find it impossible to make such a confession.

As I said earlier, "Many even convince themselves that 'apologizing' and 'confessing' are acts of humility when true humility requires them to truly deny themselves - not just make gestures toward it."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
As I said earlier, "Many even convince themselves that 'apologizing' and 'confessing' are acts of humility when true humility requires them to truly deny themselves - not just make gestures toward it."

Would you like me to retract my apologies to you if I have made some ?

Are you going to come out clearly and definitely and tell everyone which parts of the New Testament you base your assessment of what Jesus taught on?

In the past you were extremely slippery and secretive about this. Was it ALL of Mark or some of Mark? Was it Matthew and not John? Was it SOME of Matthew and none of John? Or was it some of John and a portion here and there of Luke?

What about His disciples who were intrusted to understand His message and take it to the world? Is Jesus speaking in the books of Acts and Revelation to be taken or discarded ?

I recall you keeping these issues very close to the vest like a skillful poker player keeping his hand hidden.

I have no desire to wade through that foggy swamp of non-committal again.
You remain overly ambiguous on what is the authoritative teaching of Jesus.

If you committed to the New Testament we might be able to at least draw some clear lines of differences and let readers make up their own minds.

I recall you always concealing what you regard as authoritative teaching of Christ.

Originally posted by sonship
Would you like me to retract my apologies to you if I have made some ?

Are you going to come out clearly and definitely and tell everyone which parts of the New Testament you base your assessment of what Jesus taught on?

In the past you were extremely slippery and secretive about this. Was it ALL of Mark or some of Mark? Was it Matthew and not Joh ...[text shortened]... minds.

I recall you always concealing what you regard as authoritative teaching of Christ.

I never said that there's anything wrong with apologizing. Rather it's that apologizing and confessing are not the acts of humility that many seem to like to make them out to be as I explained above.

Not sure how you could not know where I stand on the teachings of Jesus as I've stated it in one form or another often enough. For example here:

However, I do believe that, by and large, the words that were attributed to [Jesus] while he walked the Earth are reasonably sound and reasonably coherent within themselves and that many of them fly in the face of the mythology and beliefs that have been created around Him since His death.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=145588&page=&page=2

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I never said that there's anything wrong with apologizing. Rather it's that apologizing and confessing are not the acts of humility that many seem to like to make them out to be as I explained above.

Not sure how you could not know where I stand on the teachings of Jesus as I've stated it in one form or another often enough. For example here:

H ...[text shortened]... ath.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=145588&page=&page=2

You can apologize to me. I am not too proud to accept it. I'm just proud to be a redneck. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by RJHinds

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to God! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Leviticus 24:16

However, I do believe that, by and large, the words that were attributed to Him while he walked the Earth are reasonably sound and reasonably coherent within themselves and that many of them fly in the face of the mythology and beliefs that have been created around Him since His death.

This view still leaves quite a lot of ambiguity left for you to, on the fly, as the need arises, reject those saying which do not support a possible a priori concept of Jesus.

Phrases like "by and large," "attributed to Him," "reasonably sound," "reasonably coherent within themselves" still leave you maximum wiggle room to escape out some side door when your imagined Jesus is not supported by New Testament text.

I think you leave yourself plenty of freedom to discard passages or at least raise such a fuss of questionability over passages that your Jesus never says what doesn't work for your Jesus . You'll be ducking here and there, left and right to make sure your own desired Jesus is not disturbed by words you don't want Him to have said.

No gospel will be free from this wiggle room to pick and choose what you and what you do not want to believe Jesus said.

The retired pastor acknowledged that in order to resolve those conflicts, he revises and/or dismisses the words of Jesus. (Hence his acknowledgement that in doing so, he "essentially [makes] the New Testament/Bible his 'Lord' rather than Jesus." )

This is defending the tactic by putting on it the face of anti-idolatry.

"If I don't, on the fly, decide which words I want my Jesus to say, then I would be commiting bibleolatry - making the New Testament my Lord"

This is clever.

From what I can tell, this is what the vast majority of Christians do.

This lends a facade of legitimacy to the slippery tactic. The handy-dandy vast majority of substandard religious people is the darling rational behind which sneaky guerrilla warfare opposition to the New Testament may be launched.

After all we are only attempting to rescue the observer of these maneuvors from "the vast majority of Christians" which we all know rather indistinguishable from non-Christians in living.

Maybe I am being unfair. Anyway, I can see the set up as it is designed to enthrone the "Jesus" of some skeptic's preference - not God incarnate, probably not Redeemer, and most likely not raised from the dead nor even recoreded as predicting or teaching of His own death and resurrection.

Whatever you do not like, you simply dismiss ouright or shroud in a thick fog of questionability, your Jesus remains intack.

One can always point to a group like "The Jesus Seminar" for academic support.

This despite the fact that Jesus repeatedly said to follow HIS words, HIS commandments, etc. They should be revising/dismissing the words of the the NT writers around His instead.

I do not have a problem with difficult sayings of Jesus.
I do not have a problem with potentially embaressing sayings of Jesus, (to someone's Christianity).

I do not shrink from awkward sayings of Jesus which seem to stroke the cat's fur the wrong way.

I do not have a major problem with contradictory or at least paradoxical words of Jesus.

I do not have a problem with words of Jesus which seem to throw a monkey wrench into mainstream evangelical beliefs. These things do not bother me.

Maybe you have a lot of words of Jesus which might cause some evangelicals to shift nervously in their chairs. If none of the words of Jesus don't cause you to feel a bit uncomfortable, I don't know what kind of creature you are. That's just the kind of Person God become a man was and still is.

I think along with the "red letter" words of Jesus we have a few New Testament writers who pioneered in the experience of living by Christ. Whereas you will have to exert tremendous effort to discount their experience and words about Jesus, I am thankful that God left us such examples of His followers.

To go your way I have to labor mightly to imagine that you are closer to what Jesus intended than His apostles. John was exceedingly close to Jesus. His testimonial concerning Jesus is invaluable. The same goes for Peter and Paul and even James who I would regard as probably more "one foot in the old way, one foot in the new way" then all the rest of the NT writers.

Anyway, in defining your arena, I detect tremendous leeway to slip out a side door of rationale. Jesus could not have possibly spoken this or that because that would contradict the Jesus of your agnostic / skeptical / modernistic "Jesus".

Now none of this is meant to sound offensive overtly so. Its not a personal thing. The apostle Paul did speak of the trouble the apostles had with the preaching by some detractors of "another Jesus".

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? I object to any religion that is certain of everything and requires proof of nothing.

What things are you certain of?