News:

IGI has a myspace page.  Please add us if you're a myspace fiend!

Main Menu

Unbeliever Struggles with a Biblical Truth.

Started by eyeshaveit, December 21, 2015, 01:07:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

eyeshaveit

Quote from: composer on December 21, 2015, 10:24:12 AM
Quote from: eyeshaveit on December 21, 2015, 10:17:31 AM
What better for a Christian to ponder: that we are all sinners and Jesus Christ is our Savior.
Deut. 24:16 & Ezek. 18:20 still refute that!

Well, let's see about that:

?Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.? - Deuteronomy 24:16.

?The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.? - Ezekiel 18:20.

Yes, ?the wages of sin is death?; and that is exactly why mankind needs a Savior:

?For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.? - Romans 6:23. 

What better gift, during this season of Christ Jesus' birth, than the promise of eternal life?
Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

Airyaman

What is Jesus saving someone from if not sin?
Please take a moment to remember the victims of the terrorist attacks in Bowling Green, Atlanta, and Sweden.

eyeshaveit

Jesus Christ died so you could have access to God.

composer

Quote from: eyeshaveit on December 21, 2015, 01:07:12 PM
Quote from: composer on December 21, 2015, 10:24:12 AM
Quote from: eyeshaveit on December 21, 2015, 10:17:31 AM
What better for a Christian to ponder: that we are all sinners and Jesus Christ is our Savior.
Deut. 24:16 & Ezek. 18:20 still refute that!

Well, let's see about that:

?Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.? - Deuteronomy 24:16.

?The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.? - Ezekiel 18:20.

Yes, ?the wages of sin is death?; and that is exactly why mankind needs a Savior:

?For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.? - Romans 6:23. 

What better gift, during this season of Christ Jesus' birth, than the promise of eternal life?

You missed the crucial factor fatal to your assertion -

. . . . Each one shall be put to death for his own sin. . . . .

i.e. NO one else can be put to death for the sins of another!

Your ideology is proven spurious!

||popcorn||

Your alleged gods are very bad god persons, I am offering them the chance to become good god persons for the very first time, but only after they admit they are bad god persons and want to try again.

Airyaman

Please take a moment to remember the victims of the terrorist attacks in Bowling Green, Atlanta, and Sweden.

QuestionMark

This word "saving" should be taken to have variable meaning. The study of salvation is soteriology. This reflects on the Greek "soter" or savior. The words "soter" and "savior" are not direct translations. Other related words would included "deliverer", "protector", "guaranteer", "preserver".

God saves us from perishing, as our preserver.
God saves us from the risk of change and loss as guaranteer.
God saves us from attack and harm as protector.
God brings us through trial and tribulation as deliverer.

In these senses and many others God is our savior. In fact, the name Jesus means "The LORD is savior" or "The LORD's salvation" or "The LORD saves". But we must look at how he saves with regard to sin if we want to accept that Ezekiel's testimony is also correct (which it is).

In the Christian historical document, the apostles of Jesus make it clear (if it wasn't already clear on the night of his betrayal), that we are one flesh with Jesus. He said, unless you eat of my body and drink my blood you have no part in me.

The goal then is being "one flesh" with Jesus. He is not dying for someone else then, he himself is dying.  "For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord?s."

He took on our sin, though he had not done it himself, and we took on his righteousness though we had not done it ourselves, when the body of Jesus became the body of his elect. Just as on a proper wedding night, the body of the man and the body of the woman are united and become "one flesh", the body of Jesus Christ and His bride became one flesh.

Composer will not understand this, he cannot understand it. It is why the deceiver crucified the LORD of glory.
καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει

composer

Quote from: QuestionMark on December 22, 2015, 01:47:23 AM
This word "saving" should be taken to have variable meaning. The study of salvation is soteriology. This reflects on the Greek "soter" or savior. The words "soter" and "savior" are not direct translations. Other related words would included "deliverer", "protector", "guaranteer", "preserver".

God saves us from perishing, as our preserver.

Posts like yours & Co. only demonstrate your gods are imaginary / mythical!


Quote from: QuestionMark on December 22, 2015, 01:47:23 AM
God saves us from the risk of change and loss as guaranteer.


Posts like yours & Co. only demonstrate your gods are imaginary / mythical!


Quote from: QuestionMark on December 22, 2015, 01:47:23 AM
God saves us from attack and harm as protector.


Posts like yours & Co. only demonstrate your gods are imaginary / mythical!


Quote from: QuestionMark on December 22, 2015, 01:47:23 AM
God brings us through trial and tribulation as deliverer.


Posts like yours & Co. only demonstrate your gods are imaginary / mythical!


Quote from: QuestionMark on December 22, 2015, 01:47:23 AM
In these senses and many others God is our savior. In fact, the name Jesus means "The LORD is savior" or "The LORD's salvation" or "The LORD saves". But we must look at
how he saves with regard to sin if we want to accept that Ezekiel's testimony is also correct (which it is).


Posts like yours & Co. only demonstrate your gods are imaginary / mythical!

Deut. 24:16 & Ezek. 18:20 still refute you!


Quote from: QuestionMark on December 22, 2015, 01:47:23 AM
In the Christian historical document, the apostles of Jesus make it clear (if it wasn't already clear on the night of his betrayal), that we are one flesh with Jesus. He said, unless you eat of my body and drink my blood you have no part in me.

jebus is a Historical MYTH!


Quote from: QuestionMark on December 22, 2015, 01:47:23 AM
The goal then is being "one flesh" with Jesus. He is not dying for someone else then, he himself is dying.

Only died in Story book land!


Quote from: QuestionMark on December 22, 2015, 01:47:23 AM
"For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord?s."

He took on our sin, . . . .

Nah! Story book Deut. 24:16 & Ezek. 18:20 still refute that!



Quote from: QuestionMark on December 22, 2015, 01:47:23 AM
Composer will not understand this, he cannot understand it. It is why the deceiver crucified the LORD of glory.

What you fail to realise foremost is your bible is human devised propaganda, especially regarding Historical MYTHS like jebus, Moses, Pauly & apostles!

Hence even your latest (6th or more) Cult ideology is predominantly based upon Mythology & human invention!

You are only deceiving yourself otherwise!

&

The test for a genuine believer is a simple one - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; (John 14:12 KJV Story book.

Time for you & Co. to run for the hills again no doubt!  ||wink||  ||grin||  ||razz||

||popcorn||
Your alleged gods are very bad god persons, I am offering them the chance to become good god persons for the very first time, but only after they admit they are bad god persons and want to try again.

QuestionMark

Can you demonstrate that anything you say is true?
καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει

composer

Quote from: QuestionMark on December 22, 2015, 03:42:04 AM
Can you demonstrate that anything you say is true?

Sure!

Let's start with -

The test for a genuine believer is a simple one - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; (John 14:12 KJV Story book.

Your turn!  ||wink||

||popcorn||
Your alleged gods are very bad god persons, I am offering them the chance to become good god persons for the very first time, but only after they admit they are bad god persons and want to try again.

Airyaman

Quote from: QuestionMark on December 22, 2015, 01:47:23 AM
This word "saving" should be taken to have variable meaning. The study of salvation is soteriology. This reflects on the Greek "soter" or savior. The words "soter" and "savior" are not direct translations. Other related words would included "deliverer", "protector", "guaranteer", "preserver".

God saves us from perishing, as our preserver.

Everyone dies, so false.

QuoteGod saves us from the risk of change and loss as guaranteer.

Christians don't suffer because of life changes? I know many, for instance, who were laid off and faced financial difficulties. Some even lost their homes. Does that mean then they those were not true Christians?

QuoteGod saves us from attack and harm as protector.

Also false. Many middle eastern Christians are being killed. Does that mean then they those were not true Christians?

QuoteGod brings us through trial and tribulation as deliverer.

That one is speculative at best.
Please take a moment to remember the victims of the terrorist attacks in Bowling Green, Atlanta, and Sweden.

jetson

Quote from: QuestionMark on December 22, 2015, 03:42:04 AM
Can you demonstrate that anything you say is true?

What would be the point of that? You spend your time making claims about an entity that has yet to be shown to actually exist. You have the freedom to make up whatever you want, determine who is accurate and who is not when it comes to an old book, and blow off the burden of proof as though it isn't a factor for what you claim is true.

You, and all "Christians" do this on a daily basis, and then you want others to demonstrate truth?

How about you demonstrate any truth about any god you think is real? Demonstrate...you know, as you have asked of someone else. Your demonstration could become the standard!
WWJD?  Well, for one thing, he might freak out and flip some tables.

Boots

Quote from: QuestionMark on December 22, 2015, 01:47:23 AM
This word "saving" should be taken to have variable meaning.

variable depending on what?  what you need it to mean at any given time to defend your faith?

aren't you simply advocating equivocation?
Religion=institutionalized superstition

Apologetics=the art of making s**t up to make other made-up s**t sound more plausible

"To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place."

~Sam Harris

QuestionMark

Depending on the meaning of the Greek.

You know the Scriptures aren't written in English...

I hope you know that.

Merry Christmas
καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει

composer

Quote from: QuestionMark on December 26, 2015, 04:14:29 AM
Depending on the meaning of the Greek.

You know the Scriptures aren't written in English...

I hope you know that.

Merry Christmas

So are you now admitting your ESV English Translation you say you claim to prefer & use, is flawed?

||popcorn||
Your alleged gods are very bad god persons, I am offering them the chance to become good god persons for the very first time, but only after they admit they are bad god persons and want to try again.

Andy S.

Quote from: QuestionMark on December 22, 2015, 01:47:23 AM
This word "saving" should be taken to have variable meaning. The study of salvation is soteriology.

According to Wiki, differing Christian views on "soteriology" are as "widespread as Christianity itself":

"Variant views on salvation are among the main fault lines dividing the various Christian denominations, both between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism and within Protestantism, notably in the Calvinist?Arminian debate, and the fault lines include conflicting definitions of depravity, predestination, atonement, and most pointedly, justification.

According to Christian belief, salvation is made possible by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, which in the context of salvation is referred to as the "atonement". Christian soteriology ranges from exclusive salvation to universal reconciliation concepts."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology

If there are so many differing opinions concerning "soteriology" within the Christian faith it kinda seems like the study of salvation is....well....pointless.

How can unbelievers "struggle" with this "biblical truth" of salvation when Christians can't even agree what the "biblical truth" of salvation really is?

It seems like this "struggle" (past and present) is amongst Christians....not unbelievers.  Maybe Christians should first hammer out the exact requirements needed for salvation and completely agree on Christian soteriology before saying an unbeliever "struggles" with some "biblical truth" concerning salvation.     
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on December 30, 2015, 06:21:51 PM
Quote from: QuestionMark on December 22, 2015, 01:47:23 AM
This word "saving" should be taken to have variable meaning. The study of salvation is soteriology.

According to Wiki, differing Christian views on "soteriology" are as "widespread as Christianity itself":

"Variant views on salvation are among the main fault lines dividing the various Christian denominations, both between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism and within Protestantism, notably in the Calvinist?Arminian debate, and the fault lines include conflicting definitions of depravity, predestination, atonement, and most pointedly, justification.

According to Christian belief, salvation is made possible by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, which in the context of salvation is referred to as the "atonement". Christian soteriology ranges from exclusive salvation to universal reconciliation concepts."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology

If there are so many differing opinions concerning "soteriology" within the Christian faith it kinda seems like the study of salvation is....well....pointless.

How can unbelievers "struggle" with this "biblical truth" of salvation when Christians can't even agree what the "biblical truth" of salvation really is?

It seems like this "struggle" (past and present) is amongst Christians....not unbelievers.  Maybe Christians should first hammer out the exact requirements needed for salvation and completely agree on Christian soteriology before saying an unbeliever "struggles" with some "biblical truth" concerning salvation.   

As a Christian, it seems to me that you already pointed out the exact requirements:

"According to Christian belief, salvation is made possible by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, which in the context of salvation is referred to as the "atonement"."

  If a person starts with the belief in the atonement as accepting " the life, death and resurrection of Jesus" ,they are a Christian.I don't remember encountering  any unbelievers who do accept that belief and maintain it.
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

Andy S.

Quote from: Goombah on January 04, 2016, 11:20:28 PM

As a Christian, it seems to me that you already pointed out the exact requirements:

"According to Christian belief, salvation is made possible by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, which in the context of salvation is referred to as the "atonement"."

I think this wiki article stated the above requirement ^^^ as the most basic of requirements needed for salvation.  In other words, most Christians would agree with this basic requirement.  However, Christians can have additional requirements than this most basic requirement. 

If you read this wiki article it is clear that there are differing views on Christian soteriology.   

Quote from: Goombah on January 04, 2016, 11:20:28 PM
  If a person starts with the belief in the atonement as accepting " the life, death and resurrection of Jesus" ,they are a Christian.

Goombah, Christians have different views on the exact requirements needed for salvation.  My former pastor would disagree with your above statement because of his additional requirements needed for salvation.  He would say many people can accept the "life, death and resurrection of Jesus" and are still not true Christians.

I bet Jstwebbrowsing, as a JW, accepts the "life, death and resurrection of Jesus" but my former pastor would say he is not a true Christian because Jst. does not believe that Jesus is the one true God of the old testament.  This is according to my former pastor's interpretation of John 8:24.

My former pastor would also say one can accept the "life, death and resurrection of Jesus" but without repenting from the sins that separates one from God then they cannot be saved or be considered a true Christian.  I believe this was based on his interpretation of Luke 24:47.

My wife's former pastor would also disagree with your above statement.  He says anyone who doesn't speak in tongues is not a true Christian.  This is according to his interpretation of Mark 16:17.

In addition, when I was a teenager my old youth pastor said I had to be baptized in order to be saved according to his interpretation of Mark 16:16.

I could go on but this is just a sample of differing views on Christian soteriology.  Goombah, Christians have differing views on the exact requirements needed for salvation.

Christians should first hammer out the exact requirements of what a true Christian has to do or believe in order to be saved.  Then they can maybe say unbelievers struggle with this "biblical truth".     

"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Boots

Here's the problem as i see it.

Quote from: eyeshaveit on December 21, 2015, 01:07:12 PM

?Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.? - Deuteronomy 24:16.


If this were true, then The Fall in the Garden of Eden is irrelevant; only A&E should suffer because of their sin (if one is to believe they sinned at all).  Then we don't need a Savior.
Religion=institutionalized superstition

Apologetics=the art of making s**t up to make other made-up s**t sound more plausible

"To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place."

~Sam Harris

nick

So what it comes down to, which it always does, is that you need the "magic decoder ring" to know what the bible really says or meant.  Fathers shall not be held accountable for others sins yet we all are held accountable for the apple trick.  Maybe it is time for the God thing to come back and give us a re-write so we can all be on the same page.  Kind of hard to play this God game with a whole bunch of different rules for playing.

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on January 05, 2016, 05:02:17 PM
Quote from: Goombah on January 04, 2016, 11:20:28 PM

As a Christian, it seems to me that you already pointed out the exact requirements:

"According to Christian belief, salvation is made possible by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, which in the context of salvation is referred to as the "atonement"."

I think this wiki article stated the above requirement ^^^ as the most basic of requirements needed for salvation.  In other words, most Christians would agree with this basic requirement.  However, Christians can have additional requirements than this most basic requirement. 

If you read this wiki article it is clear that there are differing views on Christian soteriology.   
My opinion is that the basic requirement means just that....the threshold we cross from non-believer to Christian.If there were other things necessary then that would expand the basic requirement.I usually reflect on the 'thief on the cross' to determine necessary requirements.

Quote from: Goombah on January 04, 2016, 11:20:28 PM
  If a person starts with the belief in the atonement as accepting " the life, death and resurrection of Jesus" ,they are a Christian.
Quote
Goombah, Christians have different views on the exact requirements needed for salvation.  My former pastor would disagree with your above statement because of his additional requirements needed for salvation.  He would say many people can accept the "life, death and resurrection of Jesus" and are still not true Christians.

What requirements?Are there exceptions?Until you perform those requirements we cannot be Christians?

Quote
I bet Jstwebbrowsing, as a JW, accepts the "life, death and resurrection of Jesus" but my former pastor would say he is not a true Christian because Jst. does not believe that Jesus is the one true God of the old testament.  This is according to my former pastor's interpretation of John 8:24.

My former pastor would also say one can accept the "life, death and resurrection of Jesus" but without repenting from the sins that separates one from God then they cannot be saved or be considered a true Christian.  I believe this was based on his interpretation of Luke 24:47.
what would one seek to have atonement for, then?Isn't that what one accepts the basic teaching to attain?
Quote
My wife's former pastor would also disagree with your above statement.  He says anyone who doesn't speak in tongues is not a true Christian.  This is according to his interpretation of Mark 16:17.

The original Apostles weren't Christians until Pentecost in his view?
Quote
In addition, when I was a teenager my old youth pastor said I had to be baptized in order to be saved according to his interpretation of Mark 16:16.

But the thief on the cross wasn't ?Who here on earth gets to determine the exceptions to these rules?

Quote
I could go on but this is just a sample of differing views on Christian soteriology.  Goombah, Christians have differing views on the exact requirements needed for salvation.

Christians should first hammer out the exact requirements of what a true Christian has to do or believe in order to be saved.  Then they can maybe say unbelievers struggle with this "biblical truth".   

I don't think unbelievers struggle with biblical truth,I just don't think they are capable, by power of human means, to experience it.I sure couldn't.
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

Andy S.

Quote from: Goombah on January 06, 2016, 12:50:48 AM

My opinion is that the basic requirement means just that....the threshold we cross from non-believer to Christian.

It's sad that you can only have an "opinion" on this topic.  It really is sad.  When I was a Christian, I was saddened when I found out different Christians had different views on the requirements needed for salvation.  All I really had when it came down to nailing down the requirements needed for salvation was what you have......an "opinion".  I honestly couldn't say I had the "truth" concerning salvation.  There are too many differing views.  I would have been arrogant to say I had the "truth" on what one must do or believe in order to be a true Christian. 

I appreciate your humbleness in saying you only have an "opinion".

In addition, the terms "basic requirement" and "Christian" can have multiple meanings depending on the Christian you are talking to. 

Quote from: Goombah on January 06, 2016, 12:50:48 AM

If there were other things necessary then that would expand the basic requirement.

Correct.  But like I said, "basic requirement" can mean different things to different Christians.  Like I pointed out earlier, my former Pastor would say repenting from your sins is a "basic requirement" for salvation.  Would you agree? 

Quote from: Goombah on January 06, 2016, 12:50:48 AM

I usually reflect on the 'thief on the cross' to determine necessary requirements.

Luke could have made this whole story up of the "thief on the cross" being kind to Jesus since the author of Matthew and Mark say both robbers that were crucified with Jesus were "insulting" him.

For the sake of argument, I'll lay that aside.

I remember my former pastor preaching a "thief on the cross" message.  Luke 23:40 says, "But the other answered, and rebuking him (the other thief) said, 'Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?'"  My pastor said something like, "even the thief on the cross knew that Jesus was "God"....in verse 40 the thief on the cross called Jesus "God". 

Now, granted, this was his own interpretation.  My former pastor would say one has to understand that Jesus is the one true God if they wanted to be saved.  If you "usually reflect on the 'thief on the cross' to determine necessary requirements" do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved?

If you say yes, then Jst. and Wilson are not saved.  If you say no, I will show you that some Christians believe this despite your "opinion".

Quote from: Goombah on January 06, 2016, 12:50:48 AM

Quote from: Goombah on January 04, 2016, 11:20:28 PM
  If a person starts with the belief in the atonement as accepting " the life, death and resurrection of Jesus" ,they are a Christian.
Quote
Goombah, Christians have different views on the exact requirements needed for salvation.  My former pastor would disagree with your above statement because of his additional requirements needed for salvation.  He would say many people can accept the "life, death and resurrection of Jesus" and are still not true Christians.

What requirements?

I laid them out in post #16.  You know....the requirement of having to believe that Jesus is the one true God and the requirement of having to repent from your sins.   

Quote from: Goombah on January 06, 2016, 12:50:48 AM

Are there exceptions?

My former pastor would say no.

Quote from: Goombah on January 06, 2016, 12:50:48 AM

Until you perform those requirements we cannot be Christians?

He would say yes.  He would say one is not truly saved until they believe Jesus is the one true God and they have repented from the sins that separate themselves from God.


Quote from: Goombah on January 06, 2016, 12:50:48 AM

Quote
I bet Jstwebbrowsing, as a JW, accepts the "life, death and resurrection of Jesus" but my former pastor would say he is not a true Christian because Jst. does not believe that Jesus is the one true God of the old testament.  This is according to my former pastor's interpretation of John 8:24.

My former pastor would also say one can accept the "life, death and resurrection of Jesus" but without repenting from the sins that separates one from God then they cannot be saved or be considered a true Christian.  I believe this was based on his interpretation of Luke 24:47.
what would one seek to have atonement for, then?Isn't that what one accepts the basic teaching to attain?

Goombah, you will have to forgive me.  It's late and I don't know if I quit understand these questions. 

I'll try to answer but sorry if I miss the mark.  Luke 24:47 says that, "...repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed...".  My former pastor interpreted that to mean one must "repent" in order to be forgiven (or saved).

Quote from: Goombah on January 06, 2016, 12:50:48 AM

Quote
My wife's former pastor would also disagree with your above statement.  He says anyone who doesn't speak in tongues is not a true Christian.  This is according to his interpretation of Mark 16:17.

The original Apostles weren't Christians until Pentecost in his view?

Good question.  Unfortunately, you can't ask him this good follow-up question as he has gone to be with the Lord (if he got the exact requirements right).

It's all about interpretation.  The bible says speaking in tongues is a "sign that will accompany those who have believed" (Mark 16:17).  You are entitled to your interpretation/opinion as he was entitled to his interpretation/opinion.  Hell, I know one opinion out there is that these verses at the end of Mark shouldn't even be in the bible. 

Opinions....opinions.....opinions.  If we could only have more "truth" and less uncertainty and confusion.   

Quote from: Goombah on January 06, 2016, 12:50:48 AM
 
Quote
In addition, when I was a teenager my old youth pastor said I had to be baptized in order to be saved according to his interpretation of Mark 16:16.

But the thief on the cross wasn't ?Who here on earth gets to determine the exceptions to these rules?

I remember as a teenager I was troubled with this view.  If I can remember correctly I think it was because my Grandpa said he was a Christian but I don't think he was ever baptized. 

It's funny you bring up these questions as I had similar questions.  I remember talking to a Church of Christ minister about this requirement.  I remember I also brought up the thief on the cross.  He said people can be "initially saved" but if they have the opportunity to get baptized but they refuse then they can lose their salvation because of their disobedience. 

This blew my mind because I had no idea that other Christians thought that one could lose their salvation.  I was always taught the doctrine of once saved always saved.  Different interpretations lead to different views on salvation.   

Quote from: Goombah on January 06, 2016, 12:50:48 AM

Quote
I could go on but this is just a sample of differing views on Christian soteriology.  Goombah, Christians have differing views on the exact requirements needed for salvation.

Christians should first hammer out the exact requirements of what a true Christian has to do or believe in order to be saved.  Then they can maybe say unbelievers struggle with this "biblical truth".   

I don't think unbelievers struggle with biblical truth,I just don't think they are capable, by power of human means, to experience it.I sure couldn't.

What "truth"?  Remember, you only have an "opinion" on this topic.  Opinions are like assholes....everyone has one and most of them stink. 

The definition to "truth" is "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality".  The only fact I see is that different Christians have different views on the requirements needed for salvation.  I'm not capable of grasping this "biblical truth" because Christians can't even agree on what this "truth" actually entails.  Christians have different views regarding the exact requirements needed for salvation.  Hell, Christians can't even agree if believers can lose their salvation.  These differing views bring uncertainty to the doctrine of salvation and all one really has to offer is an "opinion". 

I bet that if you laid out all of your beliefs regarding the doctrine of salvation I could find another Christian out there, bible in hand, that would think your "opinions" are stinky.   
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Boots

Quote from: Andy S. on January 06, 2016, 06:10:46 AM
Opinions....opinions.....opinions.  If we could only have more "truth" and less uncertainty and confusion.   

If only an omnipresent, omniscient, and/or omni-benevolent deity could provide such "truth"...
Religion=institutionalized superstition

Apologetics=the art of making s**t up to make other made-up s**t sound more plausible

"To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place."

~Sam Harris

80sChild

#22
Quote from: Boots on January 06, 2016, 03:19:31 PM
Quote from: Andy S. on January 06, 2016, 06:10:46 AM
Opinions....opinions.....opinions.  If we could only have more "truth" and less uncertainty and confusion.   

If only an omnipresent, omniscient, and/or omni-benevolent deity could provide such "truth"...

opinions is all anyone has. I can say "Its the truth that God is real!" and you would say, " that is your opinion, you can not prove it!" I can say, " Ronald Reagan was the best president ever!" and you could say, " thats your opinion, everyone knows Lincoln was the best president ever!" Or I could say, "John Elway was the best QB to ever play the game!" Then you could say, " your opinion! Everyone knows Dan Marino was the best QB ever!" Anything I say is only my opinion, I my see it as truth but doesn't mean anyone else does. If you want truth, open up your heart and take everyones opinions into consideration  instead of believing their wrong with out even truly listening to what they have to say, isn't that the whole idea of a  forum?


80sChild

Quote from: Boots on January 05, 2016, 05:49:20 PM
Here's the problem as i see it.

Quote from: eyeshaveit on December 21, 2015, 01:07:12 PM

?Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.? - Deuteronomy 24:16.


If this were true, then The Fall in the Garden of Eden is irrelevant; only A&E should suffer because of their sin (if one is to believe they sinned at all).  Then we don't need a Savior.

I think the fall in the green had to happen, its the only way we were ever going to acquire free will . The free will to choose right from wrong. We are free now to make these choices because of Adam and Eve. Sinning in the garden only made man mortal by not being able to eat from the tree of life anymore. When God said they would surely die by eating the forbidden fruit, he was saying they would no longer me immortal and would one day die. Every person since Adam and Eve has been born into sin and must try turn from it and make their way back to God on his own, by his choice. Deuteronomy 24 is talking bout he law of new marriages, the laws given concerning divorce, making merchandise of men, taking pledges, leprosy, oppression of servants, and leaving gleanings of crops. Verse 16 is talking about how many ancient nations like in the time of Daniel (Daniel 6:24) and Esther, (Esther 9:13) when the family was looked at as a moral unit, and the children were put to death along with their father for his crime.   

Andy S.

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 09:00:37 AM
Quote from: Boots on January 06, 2016, 03:19:31 PM
Quote from: Andy S. on January 06, 2016, 06:10:46 AM
Opinions....opinions.....opinions.  If we could only have more "truth" and less uncertainty and confusion.   

If only an omnipresent, omniscient, and/or omni-benevolent deity could provide such "truth"...

opinions is all anyone has.

I'm not too sure you know the definitions to the words "opinion" and "truth".  It is wrong to say "opinions is all anyone has".

Truth= "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality"

Opinion= "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."

"Truth" is based on fact.  "Opinions" are not necessarily based on fact.

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 09:00:37 AM
I can say, " Ronald Reagan was the best president ever!" and you could say, " thats your opinion, everyone knows Lincoln was the best president ever!"

Ronald Reagan was the US president from January 20, 1981 ? January 20, 1989 = Truth

Ronald Reagan was the best president ever = Opinion

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 09:00:37 AM
Or I could say, "John Elway was the best QB to ever play the game!" Then you could say, " your opinion! Everyone knows Dan Marino was the best QB ever!"

John Elway is the current General Manager and Executive Vice President of Football Operations for the Denver Broncos = Truth

John Elway was the best QB to ever play the game = Opinion

Do you see the difference?

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 09:00:37 AM
Anything I say is only my opinion, I my see it as truth but doesn't mean anyone else does.

No.  Anything you say is not only your opinion!  It would be more accurate to say, "Anything I say that is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge is only my opinion".

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 09:00:37 AM
If you want truth, open up your heart and take everyones opinions into consideration

Substitute the definitions to these words into this sentence and this is what your sentence sounds like.  If you want to know something that is true that is in accordance with fact or reality you should open up your heart and take everyone's views and judgments which are not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

You see, it's important to know definitions to words.

Since you now know the meaning to the words "truth" and "opinion" do you think your view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) is based on "truth" or "opinion"?

   
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Boots

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 09:47:08 AM
Quote from: Boots on January 05, 2016, 05:49:20 PM
Here's the problem as i see it.

Quote from: eyeshaveit on December 21, 2015, 01:07:12 PM

?Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.? - Deuteronomy 24:16.


If this were true, then The Fall in the Garden of Eden is irrelevant; only A&E should suffer because of their sin (if one is to believe they sinned at all).  Then we don't need a Savior.

I think the fall in the green had to happen, its the only way we were ever going to acquire free will .

what the what????
Religion=institutionalized superstition

Apologetics=the art of making s**t up to make other made-up s**t sound more plausible

"To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place."

~Sam Harris

80sChild

Quote from: Boots on January 07, 2016, 04:46:23 PM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 09:47:08 AM
Quote from: Boots on January 05, 2016, 05:49:20 PM
Here's the problem as i see it.

Quote from: eyeshaveit on December 21, 2015, 01:07:12 PM

?Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.? - Deuteronomy 24:16.


If this were true, then The Fall in the Garden of Eden is irrelevant; only A&E should suffer because of their sin (if one is to believe they sinned at all).  Then we don't need a Savior.

I think the fall in the green had to happen, its the only way we were ever going to acquire free will .

what the what????
that was suppose to say garden not green lol. my bad.

80sChild

Quote from: Andy S. on January 07, 2016, 03:48:36 PM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 09:00:37 AM
Quote from: Boots on January 06, 2016, 03:19:31 PM
Quote from: Andy S. on January 06, 2016, 06:10:46 AM
Opinions....opinions.....opinions.  If we could only have more "truth" and less uncertainty and confusion.   

If only an omnipresent, omniscient, and/or omni-benevolent deity could provide such "truth"...

opinions is all anyone has.

I'm not too sure you know the definitions to the words "opinion" and "truth".  It is wrong to say "opinions is all anyone has".

Truth= "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality"

Opinion= "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."

"Truth" is based on fact.  "Opinions" are not necessarily based on fact.

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 09:00:37 AM
I can say, " Ronald Reagan was the best president ever!" and you could say, " thats your opinion, everyone knows Lincoln was the best president ever!"

Ronald Reagan was the US president from January 20, 1981 ? January 20, 1989 = Truth

Ronald Reagan was the best president ever = Opinion

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 09:00:37 AM
Or I could say, "John Elway was the best QB to ever play the game!" Then you could say, " your opinion! Everyone knows Dan Marino was the best QB ever!"

John Elway is the current General Manager and Executive Vice President of Football Operations for the Denver Broncos = Truth

John Elway was the best QB to ever play the game = Opinion

Do you see the difference?

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 09:00:37 AM
Anything I say is only my opinion, I my see it as truth but doesn't mean anyone else does.

No.  Anything you say is not only your opinion!  It would be more accurate to say, "Anything I say that is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge is only my opinion".

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 09:00:37 AM
If you want truth, open up your heart and take everyones opinions into consideration

Substitute the definitions to these words into this sentence and this is what your sentence sounds like.  If you want to know something that is true that is in accordance with fact or reality you should open up your heart and take everyone's views and judgments which are not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

You see, it's important to know definitions to words.

Since you now know the meaning to the words "truth" and "opinion" do you think your view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) is based on "truth" or "opinion"?

   
Duh ! I was talking about God being real and the things that are said about him, if your just trying to make me look stupid go ahead, I don't really care. Anything I say about God is not facts to you, thats all i was saying. I wasn't saying that every thing is opinion just about ~God .

Andy S.

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 05:37:47 PM

Duh ! I was talking about God being real and the things that are said about him, if your just trying to make me look stupid go ahead, I don't really care.

Whoa whoa whoa.....easy there 80sChild.  I thought I was helping.  Judging by the way you used the words "truth" and "opinion" in your post, it really didn't seem like you knew what these words meant.  Sorry I offended. 

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 05:37:47 PM
Anything I say about God is not facts to you, thats all i was saying.

Anything you say about God is not "facts" to YOU either.

You said in another post, "God has always been possible and I hope that he is."

I'll refrain from defining the words "facts", "possible" and "hope" for you as you might think I'm making you look stupid.
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

80sChild

Quote from: Andy S. on January 07, 2016, 06:34:18 PM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 05:37:47 PM

Duh ! I was talking about God being real and the things that are said about him, if your just trying to make me look stupid go ahead, I don't really care.

Whoa whoa whoa.....easy there 80sChild.  I thought I was helping.  Judging by the way you used the words "truth" and "opinion" in your post, it really didn't seem like you knew what these words meant.  Sorry I offended. 

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 05:37:47 PM
Anything I say about God is not facts to you, thats all i was saying.

Anything you say about God is not "facts" to YOU either.

You said in another post, "God has always been possible and I hope that he is."

I'll refrain from defining the words "facts", "possible" and "hope" for you as you might think I'm making you look stupid.


No No No its ok. No you take me too literal . Yes to me God is fact, but to you he's not cus I can't prove he exist. Im only seeing your side when agreeing I can't prove it. I know what I believe, I just can see others side of things as well, and just saying I hope He is cus all this mess of a life and then dying seems so pointless. And sorry about the typos, my computer does what it wants! lol

Nam

It only seems pointless to those who already find it pointless. Living here doesn't seem pointless. Living on a planet that rains glass all the time would seem pointless unless we're glass ourselves.

-Nam
I'm on the road less traveled...

Creationism is the Hollywood version of Evolution - Nam

Andy S.

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 07:08:25 PM
Yes to me God is fact, but to you he's not cus I can't prove he exist.


It seems inconsistent for you to say out of one side of your mouth, "To me God is fact"......

And out of the other side, "God has always been possible and I hope that he is."

If God is "fact" to you then you should also say, "God indisputably exists and I am sure of this".  It seems inconsistent to use the words "possible" and "hope" if something is a "fact" to you.

Maybe I take you too "literal" though.  Maybe I should read one of your statements as a metaphor.  I just don't know which one.

No problem with the typos.  Actually, maybe I don't have to read one of your statements as a metaphor.  Maybe it was a typo.  Maybe you meant to say, "To me God is an act" instead of "God is a fact".   ||cheesy|| 
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

80sChild

Quote from: Andy S. on January 07, 2016, 10:42:34 PM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 07:08:25 PM
Yes to me God is fact, but to you he's not cus I can't prove he exist.


It seems inconsistent for you to say out of one side of your mouth, "To me God is fact"......

And out of the other side, "God has always been possible and I hope that he is."

If God is "fact" to you then you should also say, "God indisputably exists and I am sure of this".  It seems inconsistent to use the words "possible" and "hope" if something is a "fact" to you.

Maybe I take you too "literal" though.  Maybe I should read one of your statements as a metaphor.  I just don't know which one.

No problem with the typos.  Actually, maybe I don't have to read one of your statements as a metaphor.  Maybe it was a typo.  Maybe you meant to say, "To me God is an act" instead of "God is a fact".   ||cheesy|| 

No its not, I guess cus I don't  try and force my belief on you and Im not angry and pushy you are uncomfortable with me being open to listening to others opinions. I do not remember the comment you keep trying to tell me about, maybe I made a mistake in my writing or maybe I just can't be perfect enough with my words and can't explain myself well enough for you. Do not worry about my beliefs, they have been the same for a long time, maybe you should ask yourself why you have such a problem with me listening to you and trying to see your views as I wish others would see mine. There is nothing wrong with being respectful of others. You are mean and if you think God is an act that is your right to think that, you do not see me making fun of your logic.

Andy S.

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 11:21:42 PM
I do not remember the comment you keep trying to tell me about

Wow, what a short memory.  It was just over 12 hours ago.  In the thread "The best evidence of the Christian God that can be produced is..." you state, "God has always been possible and I hope that he is." (post #29)

I repeat, this is inconsistent with you saying "To me God is fact".

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 11:21:42 PM
maybe I made a mistake in my writing

Did you?

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 11:21:42 PM
Do not worry about my beliefs, they have been the same for a long time

Soooo.....your beliefs have been inconsistent for a long time?


Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 11:21:42 PM
maybe you should ask yourself why you have such a problem with me listening to you and trying to see your views as I wish others would see mine.

What???  I don't have a problem with you listening to me.  I'm trying to understand your views but from what I have gathered so far from this 12+ hour period is that some of your views are inconsistent.   


Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 11:21:42 PM
There is nothing wrong with being respectful of others.

I agree.


Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 11:21:42 PM
You are mean

Whoa.....what happened to being respectful to others?


Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 11:21:42 PM
if you think God is an act that is your right to think that

80sChild, that was a joke.  Hence the cheesy smiley face.  You said, "sorry for all my typos" and I tried to make a cheesy joke.  Sorry you missed the cheesy humor.  I never said, "I think God is an act".  I mentioned it as a possible typo to play off your unnecessary apology for your typos.   

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 11:21:42 PM
you do not see me making fun of your logic.

I was only pointing out the obvious inconsistencies in your views.  I'm all ears if you want to clear anything up for me.

There is a big difference between you and me.  When someone points out an inconsistency in my logic....I say thank you. 
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Boots

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 05:32:39 PM
Quote from: Boots on January 07, 2016, 04:46:23 PM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 05:32:39 PM
I think the fall in the green had to happen, its the only way we were ever going to acquire free will .

what the what????
that was suppose to say garden not green lol. my bad.

I knew what you meant.  My "what the what??" stands, because I find that a ridiculous non-sequitur.

Adam & Eve had to disobey God in order for me to have free will??  I say again, "what the what???"
Religion=institutionalized superstition

Apologetics=the art of making s**t up to make other made-up s**t sound more plausible

"To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place."

~Sam Harris

80sChild

Quote from: Boots on January 08, 2016, 07:39:11 PM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 05:32:39 PM
Quote from: Boots on January 07, 2016, 04:46:23 PM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 05:32:39 PM
I think the fall in the green had to happen, its the only way we were ever going to acquire free will .

what the what????
that was suppose to say garden not green lol. my bad.

I knew what you meant.  My "what the what??" stands, because I find that a ridiculous non-sequitur.

Adam & Eve had to disobey God in order for me to have free will??  I say again, "what the what???"

lol yeah I know!

80sChild

Quote from: Andy S. on January 08, 2016, 03:48:18 AM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 11:21:42 PM
I do not remember the comment you keep trying to tell me about

Wow, what a short memory.  It was just over 12 hours ago.  In the thread "The best evidence of the Christian God that can be produced is..." you state, "God has always been possible and I hope that he is." (post #29)

I repeat, this is inconsistent with you saying "To me God is fact".

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 11:21:42 PM
maybe I made a mistake in my writing

Did you?

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 11:21:42 PM
Do not worry about my beliefs, they have been the same for a long time

Soooo.....your beliefs have been inconsistent for a long time?


Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 11:21:42 PM
maybe you should ask yourself why you have such a problem with me listening to you and trying to see your views as I wish others would see mine.

What???  I don't have a problem with you listening to me.  I'm trying to understand your views but from what I have gathered so far from this 12+ hour period is that some of your views are inconsistent.   


Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 11:21:42 PM
There is nothing wrong with being respectful of others.

I agree.


Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 11:21:42 PM
You are mean

Whoa.....what happened to being respectful to others?


Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 11:21:42 PM
if you think God is an act that is your right to think that

80sChild, that was a joke.  Hence the cheesy smiley face.  You said, "sorry for all my typos" and I tried to make a cheesy joke.  Sorry you missed the cheesy humor.  I never said, "I think God is an act".  I mentioned it as a possible typo to play off your unnecessary apology for your typos.   

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 11:21:42 PM
you do not see me making fun of your logic.

I was only pointing out the obvious inconsistencies in your views.  I'm all ears if you want to clear anything up for me.

There is a big difference between you and me.  When someone points out an inconsistency in my logic....I say thank you. 
Thank you...

Andy S.

Quote from: 80sChild on January 09, 2016, 02:55:59 AM

Thank you...

Wow, a "thank you" for pointing out the inconsistency in your logic!  Maybe we aren't so different after all. 

I hope the "..." means you might want to further engage in dialogue.

Sorry we kind of got off to a rough start.  I'll take the blame as I can sometimes be harsh. 

Since you acknowledged your logic was inconsistent can I ask: 

1.  Do you still believe God is always "possible" and do you still "hope" that he is?

or

2.  Is God still a "fact" to you?

or

3.  Do you still hold to your inconsistent belief that God is "fact" and at the same time believe his existence is always "possible" and you "hope" that he is?   

"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

80sChild

Quote from: Andy S. on January 09, 2016, 02:09:40 PM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 09, 2016, 02:55:59 AM

Thank you...

Wow, a "thank you" for pointing out the inconsistency in your logic!  Maybe we aren't so different after all. 

I hope the "..." means you might want to further engage in dialogue.

Sorry we kind of got off to a rough start.  I'll take the blame as I can sometimes be harsh. 

Since you acknowledged your logic was inconsistent can I ask: 

1.  Do you still believe God is always "possible" and do you still "hope" that he is?

or

2.  Is God still a "fact" to you?

or

3.  Do you still hold to your inconsistent belief that God is "fact" and at the same time believe his existence is always "possible" and you "hope" that he is?   


I have no problem admitting I made a mistake.

1. I believe in God yes always will. He is always possible because I know He does exist, and I have hope because of Him.

better?

composer

Quote from: 80sChild on January 09, 2016, 06:52:23 PM
Quote from: Andy S. on January 09, 2016, 02:09:40 PM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 09, 2016, 02:55:59 AM

Thank you...

Wow, a "thank you" for pointing out the inconsistency in your logic!  Maybe we aren't so different after all. 

I hope the "..." means you might want to further engage in dialogue.

Sorry we kind of got off to a rough start.  I'll take the blame as I can sometimes be harsh. 

Since you acknowledged your logic was inconsistent can I ask: 

1.  Do you still believe God is always "possible" and do you still "hope" that he is?

or

2.  Is God still a "fact" to you?

or

3.  Do you still hold to your inconsistent belief that God is "fact" and at the same time believe his existence is always "possible" and you "hope" that he is?   


I have no problem admitting I made a mistake.

1. I believe in God yes always will. He is always possible because I know He does exist, and I have hope because of Him.

better?
Now show us the unambiguous proofs you refer to?

||popcorn||
Your alleged gods are very bad god persons, I am offering them the chance to become good god persons for the very first time, but only after they admit they are bad god persons and want to try again.

80sChild

 ||smileysad||  @composer

The things that prove God to me will only sound silly to you and you will pick them apart! I know you!

Andy S.

Quote from: 80sChild on January 09, 2016, 06:52:23 PM
Quote from: Andy S. on January 09, 2016, 02:09:40 PM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 09, 2016, 02:55:59 AM

Thank you...

Wow, a "thank you" for pointing out the inconsistency in your logic!  Maybe we aren't so different after all. 

I hope the "..." means you might want to further engage in dialogue.

Sorry we kind of got off to a rough start.  I'll take the blame as I can sometimes be harsh. 

Since you acknowledged your logic was inconsistent can I ask: 

1.  Do you still believe God is always "possible" and do you still "hope" that he is?

or

2.  Is God still a "fact" to you?

or

3.  Do you still hold to your inconsistent belief that God is "fact" and at the same time believe his existence is always "possible" and you "hope" that he is?   


I have no problem admitting I made a mistake.

1. I believe in God yes always will. He is always possible because I know He does exist, and I have hope because of Him.

better?

Better?  No not really.  This sentence is still inconsistent.

Like I said before, it is important to know definitions.  The word "know" has the words "fact", "truth" and "certainty" tied to it. 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know

So you are basically saying the same inconsistent thing as before.  I think it's inconsistent to use the words "possible" and "know" in the same sentence speaking of God's existence.

I would say a better word to use is "believe".  This word does not have the word "fact" or "certainty" tied to it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/believe

To make your sentence consistent I would change the word "know" to "believe".

 
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

80sChild

Quote from: Andy S. on January 10, 2016, 05:30:01 PM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 09, 2016, 06:52:23 PM
Quote from: Andy S. on January 09, 2016, 02:09:40 PM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 09, 2016, 02:55:59 AM

Thank you...

Wow, a "thank you" for pointing out the inconsistency in your logic!  Maybe we aren't so different after all. 

I hope the "..." means you might want to further engage in dialogue.

Sorry we kind of got off to a rough start.  I'll take the blame as I can sometimes be harsh. 

Since you acknowledged your logic was inconsistent can I ask: 

1.  Do you still believe God is always "possible" and do you still "hope" that he is?

or

2.  Is God still a "fact" to you?

or

3.  Do you still hold to your inconsistent belief that God is "fact" and at the same time believe his existence is always "possible" and you "hope" that he is?   


I have no problem admitting I made a mistake.

1. I believe in God yes always will. He is always possible because I know He does exist, and I have hope because of Him.

better?

Better?  No not really.  This sentence is still inconsistent.

Like I said before, it is important to know definitions.  The word "know" has the words "fact", "truth" and "certainty" tied to it. 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know

So you are basically saying the same inconsistent thing as before.  I think it's inconsistent to use the words "possible" and "know" in the same sentence speaking of God's existence.

I would say a better word to use is "believe".  This word does not have the word "fact" or "certainty" tied to it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/believe

To make your sentence consistent I would change the word "know" to "believe".

 

lol Ok!

I believe in God yes always will. He is always possible because I BELIEVE He does exist, and I have hope because of Him.

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on January 06, 2016, 06:10:46 AM
Quote from: Goombah on January 06, 2016, 12:50:48 AM

My opinion is that the basic requirement means just that....the threshold we cross from non-believer to Christian.

It's sad that you can only have an "opinion" on this topic.  It really is sad.  When I was a Christian, I was saddened when I found out different Christians had different views on the requirements needed for salvation.  All I really had when it came down to nailing down the requirements needed for salvation was what you have......an "opinion".

I had an experience after having met the "basic requirements' listed previously.You introduced the basic requirements from wiki, I think.
your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching in John3:5-6?

  5) Jesus answered, ?I assure you and most solemnly say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot [ever] enter the kingdom of God. 6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh [the physical is merely physical], and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.



Quote
  I honestly couldn't say I had the "truth" concerning salvation.  There are too many differing views.  I would have been arrogant to say I had the "truth" on what one must do or believe in order to be a true Christian. 

I appreciate your humbleness in saying you only have an "opinion".
Thank you.Your Christianity comes across to me as an intellectual exercise only , not a spiritual one.Would you have claimed to have been 'born-again'?
Quote
In addition, the terms "basic requirement" and "Christian" can have multiple meanings depending on the Christian you are talking to. 

That is why I used the ones you provided...nothing too complicated;believe in the life ,death and resurrection of Jesus as comprising the necessary requirements( basic) for the atonement.I've personally read hundreds of testimonies from around the world that peoples salvation was brought about by those requirements alone.


Quote from: Goombah on January 06, 2016, 12:50:48 AM

If there were other things necessary then that would expand the basic requirement.
Quote
Correct.  But like I said, "basic requirement" can mean different things to different Christians.  Like I pointed out earlier, my former Pastor would say repenting from your sins is a "basic requirement" for salvation.  Would you agree? 

That is met in our basic requirements when one is seeking "atonement".The individual wants something atoned for...call it what you will, Jesus provides it according to belief in  those requirements.

Quote from: Goombah on January 06, 2016, 12:50:48 AM

I usually reflect on the 'thief on the cross' to determine necessary requirements.
Quote
Luke could have made this whole story up of the "thief on the cross" being kind to Jesus since the author of Matthew and Mark say both robbers that were crucified with Jesus were "insulting" him.

For the sake of argument, I'll lay that aside.
It doesn't have much weight really in my opinion , after all the Roman soldier who proclaimed Him the son of god was in the process of crucifying Him and had a  revelation.
Quote
I remember my former pastor preaching a "thief on the cross" message.  Luke 23:40 says, "But the other answered, and rebuking him (the other thief) said, 'Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?'"  My pastor said something like, "even the thief on the cross knew that Jesus was "God"....in verse 40 the thief on the cross called Jesus "God". 

Now, granted, this was his own interpretation.  My former pastor would say one has to understand that Jesus is the one true God if they wanted to be saved.  If you "usually reflect on the 'thief on the cross' to determine necessary requirements" do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved?

The unrepentant thief referred to Jesus as "the Christ".The repentant one rebuked him.He may have meant that Jesus was God at that time or that they were about to answer to God.Not sure."The Christ" would certainly carry a great deal of significance.
Quote
If you say yes, then Jst. and Wilson are not saved.  If you say no, I will show you that some Christians believe this despite your "opinion".

I'm not qualified on the basis of my knowledge of these two to be able to disqualify them.

Quote from: Goombah on January 06, 2016, 12:50:48 AM

Quote from: Goombah on January 04, 2016, 11:20:28 PM
  If a person starts with the belief in the atonement as accepting " the life, death and resurrection of Jesus" ,they are a Christian.
Quote
Goombah, Christians have different views on the exact requirements needed for salvation.  My former pastor would disagree with your above statement because of his additional requirements needed for salvation.  He would say many people can accept the "life, death and resurrection of Jesus" and are still not true Christians.

What requirements?
Quote
I laid them out in post #16.  You know....the requirement of having to believe that Jesus is the one true God and the requirement of having to repent from your sins. 

Did he think you must be baptised?

Quote
I bet Jstwebbrowsing, as a JW, accepts the "life, death and resurrection of Jesus" but my former pastor would say he is not a true Christian because Jst. does not believe that Jesus is the one true God of the old testament.  This is according to my former pastor's interpretation of John 8:24.

My former pastor would also say one can accept the "life, death and resurrection of Jesus" but without repenting from the sins that separates one from God then they cannot be saved or be considered a true Christian.  I believe this was based on his interpretation of Luke 24:47.
Quote from: Goombah on January 04, 2016, 11:20:28 PM
what would one seek to have atonement for, then?Isn't that what one accepts the basic teaching to attain?
Quote
Goombah, you will have to forgive me.  It's late and I don't know if I quit understand these questions. 

I'll try to answer but sorry if I miss the mark.  Luke 24:47 says that, "...repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed...".  My former pastor interpreted that to mean one must "repent" in order to be forgiven (or saved).




This is the statement from wiki:
"According to Christian belief, salvation is made possible by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, which in the context of salvation is referred to as the "atonement"."

I don't know people who would link salvation with the beliefs laid out there then refer to it as the 'atonement' without it encompassing "sin'' as we call it or'bad behavior' or 'going down the wrong path' or whatever.It tells me an individual is seeking for something in their life to be atoned for and Jesus is the means.
Remember I'm only referring to necessary 'basic requirements" to originate ones life as a christian.

Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

Andy S.

Quote from: Goombah on January 11, 2016, 01:24:26 AM
Quote from: Andy S. on January 06, 2016, 06:10:46 AM
Quote from: Goombah on January 06, 2016, 12:50:48 AM

My opinion is that the basic requirement means just that....the threshold we cross from non-believer to Christian.

It's sad that you can only have an "opinion" on this topic.  It really is sad.  When I was a Christian, I was saddened when I found out different Christians had different views on the requirements needed for salvation.  All I really had when it came down to nailing down the requirements needed for salvation was what you have......an "opinion".

I had an experience after having met the "basic requirements' listed previously.You introduced the basic requirements from wiki, I think.

I'm going to interpret this as you "think" the basic requirements are revealed by wiki.

If so, then I thank you for using the words "I think" instead of "I know".  I commend you for your honesty.  However, from here on out I can't be certain you know what you are talking about because when you use the words "I think" it means you are not completely certain.  And not being completely certain what the basic requirements are for salvation should be a major concern.

Please let me know if my interpretation is wrong.


Quote from: Goombah on January 11, 2016, 01:24:26 AM
your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching in John3:5-6?

  5) Jesus answered, ?I assure you and most solemnly say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot [ever] enter the kingdom of God. 6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh [the physical is merely physical], and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

I have to be honest, I don't even know what Jesus is exactly teaching here.  These verses are really ambiguous to me. 

I don't know what "born of water" means.

I don't know what a "spirit" is exactly.

I'm not even too sure what the "kingdom of God" is exactly.  Is it present or future?

Quick side note: I asked my wife what these verses meant to her because I value her opinion and what she said amazed me.  I never thought of being "born of water" meant baptism but she said she heard verse 5 all the time in her pentecostal church as evidence that one must be baptized in order to be saved.  Her pastor said "born of water" was an idiom for being baptized.  I had no idea some pentecostal pastors made baptism a requirement.  I do remember going to her church quit a bit as a youth though and every time I went, there was someone getting baptized in the tub on stage.

I never thought it was a requirement for salvation within her church but I guess it was.  I'd like to hear your interpretation of what "born of water" means but I have a feeling you might be starting your sentence with "I think..." instead of "I know....".   


Quote from: Goombah on January 11, 2016, 01:24:26 AM
Your Christianity comes across to me as an intellectual exercise only , not a spiritual one.Would you have claimed to have been 'born-again'?


Yes, I claimed I was "born-again".  The day was June 8th, 2009.  I repented from the things I thought God was displeased with in my life.  In short, no more partying and I spent most of my "extra time" bible thumpin' and listening to Christian radio/podcasts.  My focus in life changed that day and I tried to be the best witness for Jesus as possible.  I wanted to not only talk the talk but also walk the walk.   

From childhood, I always believed in the "life, death and resurrection" of Jesus but on that day (June 8th) I would say I started my personal relationship with Jesus Christ as a "true Christian".   


Quote from: Goombah on January 11, 2016, 01:24:26 AM

That is why I used the ones you provided...nothing too complicated;believe in the life ,death and resurrection of Jesus as comprising the necessary requirements( basic) for the atonement.

You mean the ones that wiki used.  Sorry if you thought I said that these were the basic requirements.  Looking back, I can see why this would have been confusing.  I will clear the record now....I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE EXACT (BASIC) REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR SALVATION ARE WITHIN CHRISTIANITY!

I have heard too many different "basic requirements" from too many Christians.  There is no way I could ever say, "The bible clearly says the basic requirements for salvation are....".  I would have to be honest like you and say, "In my opinion, the basic requirements are....".

By the way, you say believing in the "life ,death and resurrection of Jesus is comprising the necessary requirements( basic) for the atonement".  I'm not too sure I could have even agreed with this when I was a Christian.  One argument off the top of my head would have been the story of Zaccheus (Luke 19:1-10).  I don't think Zaccheus had to believe in Jesus' resurrection in order to be saved.  Jesus said, "Today salvation has come to this house" after seeing that Zaccheus was a repentant man.  The text doesn't say Zaccheus had to first believe that Jesus was going to die and be resurrected in order to be saved.   

   


Quote from: Goombah on January 11, 2016, 01:24:26 AM
I've personally read hundreds of testimonies from around the world that peoples salvation was brought about by those requirements alone.

You can't be certain of this.  Remember, you only have an opinion.  You can't be certain that these people are saved. 


Quote from: Goombah on January 11, 2016, 01:24:26 AM
Quote from: Goombah on January 06, 2016, 12:50:48 AM

If there were other things necessary then that would expand the basic requirement.
Quote
Correct.  But like I said, "basic requirement" can mean different things to different Christians.  Like I pointed out earlier, my former Pastor would say repenting from your sins is a "basic requirement" for salvation.  Would you agree? 

That is met in our basic requirements when one is seeking "atonement".The individual wants something atoned for...call it what you will, Jesus provides it according to belief in  those requirements.

I'm not too sure you answered my question.  If you did can you be more clear.  My former Pastor (Calvary Chapel) would say repenting from all your sins that separate you from God is a "basic requirement" for salvation.  I repeat my question:  Would you agree?

In other words, can someone accept the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and not repent of all their sins that separate them from God and still be saved?  A yes or no will do.

Quote from: Goombah on January 11, 2016, 01:24:26 AM
Quote from: Goombah on January 06, 2016, 12:50:48 AM

I usually reflect on the 'thief on the cross' to determine necessary requirements.
Quote
Luke could have made this whole story up of the "thief on the cross" being kind to Jesus since the author of Matthew and Mark say both robbers that were crucified with Jesus were "insulting" him.

For the sake of argument, I'll lay that aside.
It doesn't have much weight really in my opinion , after all the Roman soldier who proclaimed Him the son of god was in the process of crucifying Him and had a  revelation.
Quote
I remember my former pastor preaching a "thief on the cross" message.  Luke 23:40 says, "But the other answered, and rebuking him (the other thief) said, 'Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?'"  My pastor said something like, "even the thief on the cross knew that Jesus was "God"....in verse 40 the thief on the cross called Jesus "God". 

Now, granted, this was his own interpretation.  My former pastor would say one has to understand that Jesus is the one true God if they wanted to be saved.  If you "usually reflect on the 'thief on the cross' to determine necessary requirements" do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved?

The unrepentant thief referred to Jesus as "the Christ".The repentant one rebuked him.He may have meant that Jesus was God at that time or that they were about to answer to God.Not sure."The Christ" would certainly carry a great deal of significance.
Quote
If you say yes, then Jst. and Wilson are not saved.  If you say no, I will show you that some Christians believe this despite your "opinion".

I'm not qualified on the basis of my knowledge of these two to be able to disqualify them.

Let me help you.  Jstwebbrowsing and Wilson don't believe that Jesus is the One True God.  Now you have this knowledge.  Are you at least qualified to have an interpretation of a verse?  If you are then what is your interpretation of John 8:24?

Now, I repeat my question that went unanswered:  Do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved? 

Quote from: Goombah on January 11, 2016, 01:24:26 AM
Quote from: Goombah on January 06, 2016, 12:50:48 AM

Quote from: Goombah on January 04, 2016, 11:20:28 PM
  If a person starts with the belief in the atonement as accepting " the life, death and resurrection of Jesus" ,they are a Christian.
Quote
Goombah, Christians have different views on the exact requirements needed for salvation.  My former pastor would disagree with your above statement because of his additional requirements needed for salvation.  He would say many people can accept the "life, death and resurrection of Jesus" and are still not true Christians.

What requirements?
Quote
I laid them out in post #16.  You know....the requirement of having to believe that Jesus is the one true God and the requirement of having to repent from your sins. 

Did he think you must be baptised?

No.  He was a Calvary Chapel pastor.  My Baptist youth pastor did but not this pastor.  However, he did say that if you gave your life to Christ but did not want to be baptized then you were being disobedient.  You were still saved though.  He believed in once saved always saved.   


Quote from: Goombah on January 11, 2016, 01:24:26 AM
This is the statement from wiki:
"According to Christian belief, salvation is made possible by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, which in the context of salvation is referred to as the "atonement"."

So how were people saved before Christ?  What were the exact requirements needed for salvation before Christ?

Quote from: Goombah on January 11, 2016, 01:24:26 AM
Remember I'm only referring to necessary 'basic requirements" to originate ones life as a christian.

The word "originate" seems ambiguous to me.  Goombah, do you believe in once saved always saved or can someone lose their salvation?
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on January 11, 2016, 10:28:07 PM
Quote from: Goombah on January 11, 2016, 01:24:26 AM
Quote from: Andy S. on January 06, 2016, 06:10:46 AM
Quote from: Goombah on January 06, 2016, 12:50:48 AM

My opinion is that the basic requirement means just that....the threshold we cross from non-believer to Christian.

It's sad that you can only have an "opinion" on this topic.  It really is sad.  When I was a Christian, I was saddened when I found out different Christians had different views on the requirements needed for salvation.  All I really had when it came down to nailing down the requirements needed for salvation was what you have......an "opinion".

I had an experience after having met the "basic requirements' listed previously.You introduced the basic requirements from wiki, I think.

I'm going to interpret this as you "think" the basic requirements are revealed by wiki.

If so, then I thank you for using the words "I think" instead of "I know".  I commend you for your honesty.  However, from here on out I can't be certain you know what you are talking about because when you use the words "I think" it means you are not completely certain.  And not being completely certain what the basic requirements are for salvation should be a major concern.

Please let me know if my interpretation is wrong.

That just meant that at the time I wasn't certain ' wiki' was the source.

Quote from: Goombah on January 11, 2016, 01:24:26 AM
your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching in John3:5-6?

  5) Jesus answered, ?I assure you and most solemnly say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot [ever] enter the kingdom of God. 6) That which is born of the flesh is flesh [the physical is merely physical], and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Quote
I have to be honest, I don't even know what Jesus is exactly teaching here.  These verses are really ambiguous to me. 

I don't know what "born of water" means.

one or more of these.
The water refers to the natural birth.
The water refers to the Word of God.
The water refers to the Holy Spirit.
The water refers to the ministry of John the Baptist.
The water refers to the water of baptism as a requirement for salvation.

Quote
I don't know what a "spirit" is exactly.

The Holy Spirit.For us, the deeper experience beyond the physical, mental or emotional.

Quote
I'm not even too sure what the "kingdom of God" is exactly. Is it present or future?
Yes

Quote

Quick side note: I asked my wife what these verses meant to her because I value her opinion and what she said amazed me.  I never thought of being "born of water" meant baptism but she said she heard verse 5 all the time in her pentecostal church as evidence that one must be baptized in order to be saved.  Her pastor said "born of water" was an idiom for being baptized.  I had no idea some pentecostal pastors made baptism a requirement.  I do remember going to her church quit a bit as a youth though and every time I went, there was someone getting baptized in the tub on stage.

I never thought it was a requirement for salvation within her church but I guess it was.  I'd like to hear your interpretation of what "born of water" means but I have a feeling you might be starting your sentence with "I think..." instead of "I know....".   
See above.....that's why I say "I think".That list is from men way more learned than I.


Quote from: Goombah on January 11, 2016, 01:24:26 AM
Your Christianity comes across to me as an intellectual exercise only , not a spiritual one.Would you have claimed to have been 'born-again'?

Quote
Yes, I claimed I was "born-again".  The day was June 8th, 2009.  I repented from the things I thought God was displeased with in my life.  In short, no more partying and I spent most of my "extra time" bible thumpin' and listening to Christian radio/podcasts.  My focus in life changed that day and I tried to be the best witness for Jesus as possible.  I wanted to not only talk the talk but also walk the walk.   

From childhood, I always believed in the "life, death and resurrection" of Jesus but on that day (June 8th) I would say I started my personal relationship with Jesus Christ as a "true Christian".   

Those basic beliefs then became your atonement.Were you immediately baptized or speak in tongues?Were you a Christian before you walked the walk as well as talking the talk?

I would like to continue this discussion but am pressed for time right now.
Thanks....iron sharpens iron.
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

Andy S.

Quote from: Goombah on January 12, 2016, 01:33:15 AM

Quote
I have to be honest, I don't even know what Jesus is exactly teaching here.  These verses are really ambiguous to me. 

I don't know what "born of water" means.

one or more of these.
The water refers to the natural birth.
The water refers to the Word of God.
The water refers to the Holy Spirit.
The water refers to the ministry of John the Baptist.
The water refers to the water of baptism as a requirement for salvation.

It seems like you are just spitballing here.  Soooo.....I see here that you don't really know what "born of water" means.  You say, that my "Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching in John3:5-6" but then you are not completely sure what John 3:5 really means.  In all due respect, next time you say, "your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching" you might want to give me a verse that YOU, YOURSELF, fully understand.   

Quote from: Goombah on January 12, 2016, 01:33:15 AM
Quote
I don't know what a "spirit" is exactly.

The Holy Spirit.For us, the deeper experience beyond the physical, mental or emotional.

Can you prove to me that the Holy Spirit is beyond the "mental or emotional"?

In addition,  John3:5 says, "unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot [ever] enter the kingdom of God".  So what you are saying is I have to be "born" with a "deeper experience beyond the physical, mental or emotional". 

How do I get this "deeper experience"?  Can you please define "deeper experience" for me?

Quote from: Goombah on January 12, 2016, 01:33:15 AM
Quote
Yes, I claimed I was "born-again".  The day was June 8th, 2009.  I repented from the things I thought God was displeased with in my life.  In short, no more partying and I spent most of my "extra time" bible thumpin' and listening to Christian radio/podcasts.  My focus in life changed that day and I tried to be the best witness for Jesus as possible.  I wanted to not only talk the talk but also walk the walk.   

From childhood, I always believed in the "life, death and resurrection" of Jesus but on that day (June 8th) I would say I started my personal relationship with Jesus Christ as a "true Christian".   

Those basic beliefs then became your atonement.

You can't be certain can you?

Quote from: Goombah on January 12, 2016, 01:33:15 AM
Were you immediately baptized or speak in tongues?

No.

Quote from: Goombah on January 12, 2016, 01:33:15 AM
Were you a Christian before you walked the walk as well as talking the talk?

Now that's a great question!  I have no idea if I was a "true Christian" before June 8th, 2009.  I did accept the "life, death and resurrection" of Jesus before June 8th, 2009 but I didn't feel like I had a personal relationship with Jesus until I repented of all my sins that I thought displeased the Christian God.

However, I will say that I definitely "talked the talk" before June 8th, 2009 but I don't feel like I "walked the walk".

What do you think?  I think I can find verses in the bible that say I was (and wasn't) a Christian before June 8th, 2009.  I'd like to hear your input on this conundrum even though I know you can only give me an opinion.       

Quote from: Goombah on January 12, 2016, 01:33:15 AM
I would like to continue this discussion but am pressed for time right now.

I completely understand.  I enjoy this conversation and hope it continues as well. 

I just wish more of my questions could be answered though.  Please take your time but when you get a chance can you answer the questions that went unanswered (below) as well as the ones I asked in this post?  Sorry I have a lot of questions but I am patient.  I will wait.

1.  Can someone accept the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and not repent of all their sins that separate them from God and still be saved?

2.  What is your interpretation of John 8:24?  Is the "I am" a title or is the "am" just a verb? (compare John 8:58) also (Ex. 3:14)

3.  Do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved?

4.  What were the exact requirements needed for salvation before Christ?

5.  Do you believe in once saved always saved or can someone lose their salvation? 
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

80sChild

John 3:5 teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, and the gift of the holy ghost.




1.  someone accept the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and not repent of all their sins that separate them from God and still be saved? No

2.  Can What is your interpretation of John 8:24?  Is the "I am" a title or is the "am" just a verb? (compare John 8:58) also (Ex. 3:14)
We must believe in Jesus to have our sins removed or we will die in sin. verb
3.  Do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved? You must believe in Jesus, John 3:16 says it all.
4.  What were the exact requirements needed for salvation before Christ? Since the fall of man the basis of salvation's always been the death of Christ, faith has always been part of salvation, Abraham had faith that God had a plan for sin.

5.  Do you believe in once saved always saved or can someone lose their salvation? You can lose it if you lose your faith.


Andy S.

Quote from: 80sChild on January 13, 2016, 07:29:47 AM
John 3:5 teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, and the gift of the holy ghost.




1.  someone accept the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and not repent of all their sins that separate them from God and still be saved? No

2.  Can What is your interpretation of John 8:24?  Is the "I am" a title or is the "am" just a verb? (compare John 8:58) also (Ex. 3:14)
We must believe in Jesus to have our sins removed or we will die in sin. verb
3.  Do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved? You must believe in Jesus, John 3:16 says it all.
4.  What were the exact requirements needed for salvation before Christ? Since the fall of man the basis of salvation's always been the death of Christ, faith has always been part of salvation, Abraham had faith that God had a plan for sin.

5.  Do you believe in once saved always saved or can someone lose their salvation? You can lose it if you lose your faith.


Thanks for chiming in 80s Child. 

I have a few follow-up questions for you.  But first, can you answer my question from post #24?  Cut and paste - Do you think your view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) is based on "truth" or "opinion"?

I'm also curious if Goombah (a Christian) agrees with all of this.  At the very least, I don't think he would agree with your first statement.  I don't think he would say baptism is necessary for salvation.

The majority of the time I bring up the topic of salvation on a forum I always find Christians disagreeing with one another.  Why do you think this is?

If I was your God and was the one who inspired people to write a book that laid out the exact requirements needed for salvation and the readers disagreed on what these requirements were.....I would be so ashamed of myself.   
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Goombah

#49
Quote from: Andy S. on January 13, 2016, 04:36:50 AM

I have to be honest, I don't even know what Jesus is exactly teaching here.  These verses are really ambiguous to me. 

I don't know what "born of water" means.

one or more of these.
The water refers to the natural birth.
The water refers to the Word of God.
The water refers to the Holy Spirit.
The water refers to the ministry of John the Baptist.
The water refers to the water of baptism as a requirement for salvation.
Quote
It seems like you are just spitballing here.  Soooo.....I see here that you don't really know what "born of water" means.  You say, that my "Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching in John3:5-6" but then you are not completely sure what John 3:5 really means.

It seems that there are differing views on the meaning 'born of water"Andy.My personal take on it would be one or all of the first three.1) because Nicodemis refers to re-entering the womb and Jesus' response is both water and "the Spirit" are necessary.He goes on to say that which is born of  flesh (physical)is flesh and contrasts it to Spiritual birth.The next two could occur at the same time as well.I don't know that the thief was baptized by John or his disciples and it doesn't seem possible that he participated in the last one...water baptism.
Quote
  In all due respect, next time you say, "your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching" you might want to give me a verse that YOU, YOURSELF, fully understand.   
You claim that you were born again; as was I.To me we both therefore met those requirements, whether knowingly or not, at least according to Jesus' definition of born-again in John 3.I'm certain now that I experienced the first three, Johns baptism I say no and the last one also no, at the time.I knew I was already saved when I finally was able to get baptized..which I think is a  thing  any believer ought to do.

Quote
I don't know what a "spirit" is exactly.

The Holy Spirit.For us, the deeper experience beyond the physical, mental or emotional.
Quote
Can you prove to me that the Holy Spirit is beyond the "mental or emotional"?

I can't say what would prove it to you, Andy, but multitudes of testimonies  like this one helped establish it for me:

! No longer available
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

80sChild

Quote from: Andy S. on January 13, 2016, 03:42:13 PM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 13, 2016, 07:29:47 AM
John 3:5 teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, and the gift of the holy ghost.




1.  someone accept the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and not repent of all their sins that separate them from God and still be saved? No

2.  Can What is your interpretation of John 8:24?  Is the "I am" a title or is the "am" just a verb? (compare John 8:58) also (Ex. 3:14)
We must believe in Jesus to have our sins removed or we will die in sin. verb
3.  Do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved? You must believe in Jesus, John 3:16 says it all.
4.  What were the exact requirements needed for salvation before Christ? Since the fall of man the basis of salvation's always been the death of Christ, faith has always been part of salvation, Abraham had faith that God had a plan for sin.

5.  Do you believe in once saved always saved or can someone lose their salvation? You can lose it if you lose your faith.


Thanks for chiming in 80s Child. 

I have a few follow-up questions for you.  But first, can you answer my question from post #24?  Cut and paste - Do you think your view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) is based on "truth" or "opinion"?

I'm also curious if Goombah (a Christian) agrees with all of this.  At the very least, I don't think he would agree with your first statement.  I don't think he would say baptism is necessary for salvation.

The majority of the time I bring up the topic of salvation on a forum I always find Christians disagreeing with one another.  Why do you think this is?

If I was your God and was the one who inspired people to write a book that laid out the exact requirements needed for salvation and the readers disagreed on what these requirements were.....I would be so ashamed of myself.   
Quote from: Andy S. on January 13, 2016, 03:42:13 PM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 13, 2016, 07:29:47 AM
John 3:5 teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, and the gift of the holy ghost.




1.  someone accept the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and not repent of all their sins that separate them from God and still be saved? No

2.  Can What is your interpretation of John 8:24?  Is the "I am" a title or is the "am" just a verb? (compare John 8:58) also (Ex. 3:14)
We must believe in Jesus to have our sins removed or we will die in sin. verb
3.  Do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved? You must believe in Jesus, John 3:16 says it all.
4.  What were the exact requirements needed for salvation before Christ? Since the fall of man the basis of salvation's always been the death of Christ, faith has always been part of salvation, Abraham had faith that God had a plan for sin.

5.  Do you believe in once saved always saved or can someone lose their salvation? You can lose it if you lose your faith.


Thanks for chiming in 80s Child. 

I have a few follow-up questions for you.  But first, can you answer my question from post #24?  Cut and paste - Do you think your view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) is based on "truth" or "opinion"?

I'm also curious if Goombah (a Christian) agrees with all of this.  At the very least, I don't think he would agree with your first statement.  I don't think he would say baptism is necessary for salvation.

The majority of the time I bring up the topic of salvation on a forum I always find Christians disagreeing with one another.  Why do you think this is?

If I was your God and was the one who inspired people to write a book that laid out the exact requirements needed for salvation and the readers disagreed on what these requirements were.....I would be so ashamed of myself.   
Post #24? About  Deuteronomy 24:16?

I believe it is based on truth.
Christians disagree because they all interpret the bible differently and all think there right.

Andy S.

Quote from: 80sChild on January 14, 2016, 03:10:42 AM

I believe it is based on truth.

Your view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) is based on "truth"???
 
Goombah would say baptism is NOT necessary for salvation.  Is his view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) based on his "opinion" only and not "truth"? 

Quote from: 80sChild on January 14, 2016, 03:10:42 AM
Christians disagree because they all interpret the bible differently and all think there right.

Why do you think Christians "all interpret the bible differently"?
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Andy S.

Quote from: Goombah on January 14, 2016, 12:52:51 AM

It seems that there are differing views on the meaning 'born of water"Andy.My personal take on it would be one or all of the first three.1) because Nicodemis refers to re-entering the womb and Jesus' response is both water and "the Spirit" are necessary.He goes on to say that which is born of  flesh (physical)is flesh and contrasts it to Spiritual birth.The next two could occur at the same time as well.I don't know that the thief was baptized by John or his disciples and it doesn't seem possible that he participated in the last one...water baptism.

Here are YOUR options to what "born of water" could mean:

The water refers to the natural birth.
The water refers to the Word of God.
The water refers to the Holy Spirit.
The water refers to the ministry of John the Baptist.
The water refers to the water of baptism as a requirement for salvation.

Soooo......you think "born of water" could refer to the "Holy Spirit"?

John 3:5 would then read "....unless one is born of the Holy Spirit and Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Talk about some redundant teaching!

Listen, it's clear you haven't really thought this through.  So I'm going to repeat what I said before:
 
Next time you say to me, "your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching" you might want to give me a verse that YOU, YOURSELF, fully understand.    

Quote from: Goombah on January 14, 2016, 12:52:51 AM

You claim that you were born again; as was I.To me we both therefore met those requirements, whether knowingly or not, at least according to Jesus' definition of born-again in John 3.I'm certain now that I experienced the first three, Johns baptism I say no and the last one also no, at the time.

Yes, I claimed I was "born again" but that doesn't mean I had the "Holy Spirit" or was born of "the Word of God" (whatever that means).  The only thing I can say is that, yes, I came from a natural birth.   

Wait, are you saying you know what Jesus' definition of "born-again" is but you are not certain what "born of water" means?

Quote from: Goombah on January 14, 2016, 12:52:51 AM
I knew I was already saved when I finally was able to get baptized..which I think is a  thing  any believer ought to do.

I think you mean to say, "IT IS MY OPINION that I was already saved when I finally was able to get baptized".

Quote from: Goombah on January 14, 2016, 12:52:51 AM
I can't say what would prove it to you, Andy, but multitudes of testimonies  like this one helped establish it for me:

! No longer available

You say "multitudes of testimonies" helped establish that the Holy Spirit is beyond the "mental or emotional" and then you give me a video entitled "Duncan Campbell's own account".

Ooooooookay.

At what point in this video do you think the Holy Spirit went beyond the "mental or emotional"?

Whatever your answer is to this question do you think, through the means of logic, your answer can be disputed?


Hey Goombah, would you be kind enough to answer my questions that went unanswered again:

1.  Can someone accept the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and not repent of all their sins that separate them from God and still be saved?

2.  What is your interpretation of John 8:24?  Is the "I am" a title or is the "am" just a verb? (compare John 8:58) also (Ex. 3:14)

3.  Do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved?

4.  What were the exact requirements needed for salvation before Christ?

5.  Do you believe in once saved always saved or can someone lose their salvation? 

And one more if you don't mind.  80s Child says baptism is necessary for salvation.  Is her view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) based on "opinion" or "truth"?

"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on January 14, 2016, 06:58:07 PM
Quote from: Goombah on January 14, 2016, 12:52:51 AM

It seems that there are differing views on the meaning 'born of water"Andy.My personal take on it would be one or all of the first three.1) because Nicodemis refers to re-entering the womb and Jesus' response is both water and "the Spirit" are necessary.He goes on to say that which is born of  flesh (physical)is flesh and contrasts it to Spiritual birth.The next two could occur at the same time as well.I don't know that the thief was baptized by John or his disciples and it doesn't seem possible that he participated in the last one...water baptism.

Here are YOUR options to what "born of water" could mean:

The water refers to the natural birth.
The water refers to the Word of God.
The water refers to the Holy Spirit.
The water refers to the ministry of John the Baptist.
The water refers to the water of baptism as a requirement for salvation.

Soooo......you think "born of water" could refer to the "Holy Spirit"?

John 3:5 would then read "....unless one is born of the Holy Spirit and Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Talk about some redundant teaching!
It is and I accept that rebuke.I was thinking of the water as "typical" of the Holy Spirit in different contexts.

I will get to your main questions as soon as time allows.
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

80sChild

Quote from: Andy S. on January 14, 2016, 05:15:10 PM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 14, 2016, 03:10:42 AM

I believe it is based on truth.

Your view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) is based on "truth"???
 
Goombah would say baptism is NOT necessary for salvation.  Is his view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) based on his "opinion" only and not "truth"? 

Quote from: 80sChild on January 14, 2016, 03:10:42 AM
Christians disagree because they all interpret the bible differently and all think there right.

Why do you think Christians "all interpret the bible differently"?
Yes truth as far as what the Bible says.
Goombahs is opinion, he must not read his scriptures before answering.
Christians interpret things differently I guess depending how they were taught, there state if mind at the time of reading the scriptures, and some just want the scriptures to mean whatever they want them to, to make whatever they are doing seem ok or right.   

Andy S.

Quote from: 80sChild on January 15, 2016, 03:14:11 AM

Yes truth as far as what the Bible says.
Goombahs is opinion, he must not read his scriptures before answering.
Christians interpret things differently I guess depending how they were taught, there state if mind at the time of reading the scriptures, and some just want the scriptures to mean whatever they want them to, to make whatever they are doing seem ok or right.   

How do you determine if your interpretation is correct if it depends on what you were taught and the state of mind you are in at the time of reading?
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

80sChild

Quote from: Andy S. on January 15, 2016, 10:28:02 PM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 15, 2016, 03:14:11 AM

Yes truth as far as what the Bible says.
Goombahs is opinion, he must not read his scriptures before answering.
Christians interpret things differently I guess depending how they were taught, there state if mind at the time of reading the scriptures, and some just want the scriptures to mean whatever they want them to, to make whatever they are doing seem ok or right.   

How do you determine if your interpretation is correct if it depends on what you were taught and the state of mind you are in at the time of reading?
Its kinda hard to misinterpret what is said about salvation, this is pretty cut and dry. I was talking about other parts of the bible that can be taken so many different ways.

(John 14:6), Jesus said to him, ?I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

(Mark 16:16), "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned".

(1Peter 3:21), "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

(Acts 22:16), "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name."

none

Quote from: 80sChild on January 15, 2016, 10:44:58 PM
Quote from: Andy S. on January 15, 2016, 10:28:02 PM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 15, 2016, 03:14:11 AM

Yes truth as far as what the Bible says.
Goombahs is opinion, he must not read his scriptures before answering.
Christians interpret things differently I guess depending how they were taught, there state if mind at the time of reading the scriptures, and some just want the scriptures to mean whatever they want them to, to make whatever they are doing seem ok or right.   

How do you determine if your interpretation is correct if it depends on what you were taught and the state of mind you are in at the time of reading?
Its kinda hard to misinterpret what is said about salvation, this is pretty cut and dry. I was talking about other parts of the bible that can be taken so many different ways.

(John 14:6), Jesus said to him, ?I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

(Mark 16:16), "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned".

(1Peter 3:21), "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

(Acts 22:16), "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name."
so far jesus is a character in a story
how long after I type amen do I get the money?
I'm lost, if you see me you are lost also
If Jesus believed in himself he wouldn't have been Jewish.

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on January 14, 2016, 06:58:07 PM

Listen, it's clear you haven't really thought this through.  So I'm going to repeat what I said before:
 
Next time you say to me, "your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching" you might want to give me a verse that YOU, YOURSELF, fully understand.    

You mention that as if I accused you when in reality it was put to you as a question.


Quote from: Goombah on January 14, 2016, 12:52:51 AM

You claim that you were born again; as was I.To me we both therefore met those requirements, whether knowingly or not, at least according to Jesus' definition of born-again in John 3.I'm certain now that I experienced the first three, Johns baptism I say no and the last one also no, at the time.
Quote
Yes, I claimed I was "born again" but that doesn't mean I had the "Holy Spirit" or was born of "the Word of God" (whatever that means).  The only thing I can say is that, yes, I came from a natural birth. 
If you thought at the time you were born-again I would think you would have learned of the concept through scripture; either by reading it or hearing it.I'm not familiar with the Biblical concept of' 'born-again' that doesn't involve the supernatural.
Quote
Wait, are you saying you know what Jesus' definition of "born-again" is but you are not certain what "born of water" means?
Only that of those options I've experienced coupled with being regenerated by the Holy spirit I'm born-again.

Quote
Quote from: Goombah on January 14, 2016, 12:52:51 AM
I knew I was already saved when I finally was able to get baptized..which I think is a  thing  any believer ought to do.

I think you mean to say, "IT IS MY OPINION that I was already saved when I finally was able to get baptized".

That would be incorrect.I said exactly what I meant to say.


Quote from: Goombah on January 14, 2016, 12:52:51 AM
I can't say what would prove it to you, Andy, but multitudes of testimonies  like this one helped establish it for me:

! No longer available
Quote
You say "multitudes of testimonies" helped establish that the Holy Spirit is beyond the "mental or emotional" and then you give me a video entitled "Duncan Campbell's own account".

Ooooooookay.

If first hand accounts of events pertinent to my point aren't acceptable , what is?


Thanks.I'll continue to your direct questions as well.
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

none

something empirical
give that a try, lay off the emotion ha
how long after I type amen do I get the money?
I'm lost, if you see me you are lost also
If Jesus believed in himself he wouldn't have been Jewish.

Andy S.

Quote from: 80sChild on January 15, 2016, 10:44:58 PM

Its kinda hard to misinterpret what is said about salvation, this is pretty cut and dry. I was talking about other parts of the bible that can be taken so many different ways.

(John 14:6), Jesus said to him, ?I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

(Mark 16:16), "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned".

(1Peter 3:21), "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

(Acts 22:16), "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name."

Cut and dry eh?  Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9Not by works, lest any man should boast."

I think getting baptized is a work isn't it?  I thought Paul said you just needed faith to be saved.
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Andy S.

Quote from: Goombah on January 16, 2016, 12:50:56 AM
Quote from: Andy S. on January 14, 2016, 06:58:07 PM

Listen, it's clear you haven't really thought this through.  So I'm going to repeat what I said before:
 
Next time you say to me, "your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching" you might want to give me a verse that YOU, YOURSELF, fully understand.    

You mention that as if I accused you when in reality it was put to you as a question.

Aaaahhhh, you're right.  I missed the "?".  Sorry, I did read that as an accusation.  My apologies.   

So, I guess your sentence should have started with, "Even though I don't have a complete understanding of John 3:5...."

Quote from: Goombah on January 16, 2016, 12:50:56 AM
If you thought at the time you were born-again I would think you would have learned of the concept through scripture; either by reading it or hearing it.I'm not familiar with the Biblical concept of' 'born-again' that doesn't involve the supernatural.

One example I see where salvation doesn't involve the supernatural is the story of Zaccheus (Luke 19).

Yes, you are right...either by reading it or hearing it (probably more of the latter).  I guess it would depend on the exact definition to the term "born-again".  I claimed I was "born-again" and the date was June 8th, 2009.  My focus in life changed on that day and I repented from the things I thought God was displeased with in my life.  I was a "new creation" as Paul would say so I had no problem saying I was "born again".

Now, when I was a Christian I probably would have given the supernatural (the Holy Spirit) a lot of credit for my conviction to repent but now looking back, I don't see good evidence of that being the case.   

Quote from: Goombah on January 16, 2016, 12:50:56 AM

That would be incorrect.I said exactly what I meant to say.

Sorry, it can only be your opinion.  Remember....reply #19:

"My opinion is that the basic requirement means just that....the threshold we cross from non-believer to Christian."

If you only have an opinion on what the basic requirement is then you can't KNOW you were already saved when you finally were able to get baptized.  Once you used the word "opinion" concerning the basic requirements then it would be inconsistent for you to use the word "KNEW".  Knowledge is facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education.  An opinion is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Even 80sChild, a Christian, says your view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) is based on "opinion" and not "truth".  She went as far as to say you don't even read your scriptures before answering.  I, myself, would never accuse you of this because I understand that people have different interpretations on salvation from the bible because of ambiguity.

Now, you can change your statement in reply #19 and say you have the "truth" concerning what the basic requirement is if you want to.  You can do as you please but I just ask that you remain consistent.

Your view on salvation (what someone has to do and believe in order to be saved) is based on either "opinion" or "truth".           

Quote from: Goombah on January 16, 2016, 12:50:56 AM
If first hand accounts of events pertinent to my point aren't acceptable , what is?


Once I lost my faith I was, for lack of a better word, "born-again" and became a skeptic because I never wanted to be hoodwinked ever again.  When I was a Christian I accepted many anectotal stories as fact without questioning the validity of the story through skepticism.  I take pride in my skepticism and am proud to say I do not accept "first hand accounts" or anecdotal evidence as fact.

Wiki states, "Anecdotal evidence (such as you presented) is considered the least certain type of scientific information.  Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

So, in short, anectodal evidence is not good evidence. When you claim the experience of the Holy Spirit goes "beyond the mental and emotional" try giving me something that can be investigated using the scientific method.
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

80sChild


@Andy S. Way to throw me under the bus man ! I wasn't meaning to sound like a know it all b***h that is saying this guy is an idiot that doesn't read his Bible ! Even tho thats how you made me sound . Look Everyone can disagree with me if they want, they usually do anyway, but baptism is only mentioned when talking about salvation or being saved, ints pretty clear, and I was only saying that I thought the gut didn't check and then double check before answering this question.
I feel like i am just getting set up over and over agin... The Book of Mormon thread has turned into a nightmare, everyone just wants to dig up dirt, no one is really interested in knowing about the great parts... Oh and there is a new thread, Will the real Jesus please stand up, just mocking and slander and disrespect . I know they do not see it that way but it hurts me, and I am ashamed for them, the human race respects nothing anymore unless it is something they value but nothing that others value is respected. Maybe coming back was a bad idea....Anyway, @Goombah I didn't mean to sound disrespectful and I am sorry if I did wasn't meant to be taken that way ! :)

Andy S.

Quote from: 80sChild on January 16, 2016, 06:46:30 AM

@Andy S. Way to throw me under the bus man ! I wasn't meaning to sound like a know it all b***h that is saying this guy is an idiot that doesn't read his Bible !

I'm sorry for your meltdown.  I didn't mean to hurt you in anyway. 

Did I say anything that was inaccurate?

How did I make you sound like a "know it all b***h".

I said that you said this guy is an "IDIOT" that doesn't read his bible?


Quote from: 80sChild on January 16, 2016, 06:46:30 AM
Even tho thats how you made me sound .

How so?  I used your own words.



Quote from: 80sChild on January 16, 2016, 06:46:30 AM
Look Everyone can disagree with me if they want, they usually do anyway, but baptism is only mentioned when talking about salvation or being saved, ints pretty clear

I think Goombah might disagree with this.

Quote from: 80sChild on January 16, 2016, 06:46:30 AM
and I was only saying that I thought the gut didn't check and then double check before answering this question. [/size]

Did I say anymore than this really?  Why accuse me of throwing you under the bus?



Quote from: 80sChild on January 16, 2016, 06:46:30 AM
The Book of Mormon thread has turned into a nightmare, everyone just wants to dig up dirt, no one is really interested in knowing about the great parts... Oh and there is a new thread, Will the real Jesus please stand up, just mocking and slander and disrespect . I know they do not see it that way but it hurts me, and I am ashamed for them, the human race respects nothing anymore unless it is something they value but nothing that others value is respected. Maybe coming back was a bad idea

Does any of this have anything to do with me?

Are you ashamed for me?

I think I've witnessed some misguided anger this morning.  I think you could have handled this a lot better.  You know....just tell me if I said something that was inaccurate or let me know if I didn't understand you correctly.

Quote from: 80sChild on January 16, 2016, 06:46:30 AM
....Anyway, @Goombah I didn't mean to sound disrespectful and I am sorry if I did wasn't meant to be taken that way ! :)[/size]

I didn't mean to make you sound disrespectful.  However, what you said could be seen as being disrespectful to him.  Concerning the necessary requirement of baptism needed for salvation, you say, "he must not read his scriptures before answering".  Similarily, in this post you say the guy didn't "check and then double check" before answering this question. 

This can be seen as an insult.  These are not my words....THEY ARE YOURS!  80's, you have to realize that people have different interpretations which lead to different opinions on doctrine.  It is unfair to say someone doesn't "read their scriptures" when they disagree with you. 

Goombah's understanding of scripture is just that....his understanding.  Your understanding of what scripture says is just that.....your understanding.  Goombah doesn't see baptism as being a requirement needed for salvation and you do.  The only difference I see between the two of you is you see your view as "truth" which, to me, seems a little arrogant.

You can say you didn't mean to sound disrespectful to Goombah but these are just words....not really an apology.  Saying Goombah's interpretation is wrong because "he doesn't read his scriptures" is disrespectful and instead of just saying, "I didn't mean to sound disrespectful" maybe you should take back what you said.

     
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on January 16, 2016, 06:01:33 AM
Quote from: Goombah on January 16, 2016, 12:50:56 AM
Quote from: Andy S. on January 14, 2016, 06:58:07 PM

Listen, it's clear you haven't really thought this through.  So I'm going to repeat what I said before:
 
Next time you say to me, "your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching" you might want to give me a verse that YOU, YOURSELF, fully understand.    

You mention that as if I accused you when in reality it was put to you as a question.

Aaaahhhh, you're right.  I missed the "?".  Sorry, I did read that as an accusation.  My apologies.   

So, I guess your sentence should have started with, "Even though I don't have a complete understanding of John 3:5...."

Ok, sure, and your responses could start with, " Even though I may not have have a complete understanding of what you wrote I might answer you in all CAPS , as if to show I'm yelling at you..."

I'll try to address your other concerns today.
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

Goombah



Andy S.,

Is there one or two questions you would like to respond to 1st.?
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

Andy S.

Quote from: Goombah on January 16, 2016, 04:27:26 PM
Quote from: Andy S. on January 16, 2016, 06:01:33 AM
Quote from: Goombah on January 16, 2016, 12:50:56 AM
Quote from: Andy S. on January 14, 2016, 06:58:07 PM

Listen, it's clear you haven't really thought this through.  So I'm going to repeat what I said before:
 
Next time you say to me, "your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching" you might want to give me a verse that YOU, YOURSELF, fully understand.    


You mention that as if I accused you when in reality it was put to you as a question.

Aaaahhhh, you're right.  I missed the "?".  Sorry, I did read that as an accusation.  My apologies.   

So, I guess your sentence should have started with, "Even though I don't have a complete understanding of John 3:5...."

Ok, sure, and your responses could start with, " Even though I may not have have a complete understanding of what you wrote I might answer you in all CAPS , as if to show I'm yelling at you..."

I'll try to address your other concerns today.

There is a difference. 

I thought I had a complete understanding of what you were saying.  Then I looked back and realized I missed the "?".

You knew all along you didn't have a complete understanding of John 3:5.  But you gave me the verse anyway and questioned if my Christianity reflected this verse. 

The difference is I thought I had an understanding and, in contrast, you knew you didn't have a complete understanding.

Furthermore, I was not yelling at you.  I put "YOU" and "YOURSELF" in all caps for emphasis.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And sure, all my responses could start with, "Even though I may not have have a complete understanding of what you wrote...".  It seems like an odd request but I'll do that if you want.  Do you want me too?

Saying that you should have started your sentence with, "Even though I don't have a complete understanding of John 3:5...." is more of a reasonable suggestion since you are asking if my Christianity reflected a certain verse when, YOU, YOURSELF, don't have a complete understanding of this verse. 

Just to clarify, "YOU" and "YOURSELF" is in all caps for emphasis.  I'm not yelling at you.   
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Goombah

Quote from: 80sChild on January 16, 2016, 06:46:30 AM

....Anyway, @Goombah I didn't mean to sound disrespectful and I am sorry if I did wasn't meant to be taken that way ! :)[/size]

Honestly 80sChild,

I hadn't read what you said and have just been  concentrating on my conversation with AndyS.Not an issue at all with me in any case.

Thank you.
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

Andy S.

Quote from: Goombah on January 16, 2016, 06:28:28 PM


Andy S.,

Is there one or two questions you would like to respond to 1st.?

Do you agree with 80s Child's answers to my questions in reply #47?  They were actually addressed to you.
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on January 16, 2016, 06:32:11 PM
Quote from: Goombah on January 16, 2016, 04:27:26 PM
Quote from: Andy S. on January 16, 2016, 06:01:33 AM
Quote from: Goombah on January 16, 2016, 12:50:56 AM
Quote from: Andy S. on January 14, 2016, 06:58:07 PM

Listen, it's clear you haven't really thought this through.  So I'm going to repeat what I said before:
 
Next time you say to me, "your Christianity never reflected Jesus' teaching" you might want to give me a verse that YOU, YOURSELF, fully understand.    


You mention that as if I accused you when in reality it was put to you as a question.

Aaaahhhh, you're right.  I missed the "?".  Sorry, I did read that as an accusation.  My apologies.   

So, I guess your sentence should have started with, "Even though I don't have a complete understanding of John 3:5...."

Ok, sure, and your responses could start with, " Even though I may not have have a complete understanding of what you wrote I might answer you in all CAPS , as if to show I'm yelling at you..."

I'll try to address your other concerns today.

There is a difference. 

I thought I had a complete understanding of what you were saying.  Then I looked back and realized I missed the "?".

You knew all along you didn't have a complete understanding of John 3:5.  But you gave me the verse anyway and questioned if my Christianity reflected this verse. 

The difference is I thought I had an understanding and, in contrast, you knew you didn't have a complete understanding.

Furthermore, I was not yelling at you.  I put "YOU" and "YOURSELF" in all caps for emphasis.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And sure, all my responses could start with, "Even though I may not have have a complete understanding of what you wrote...".  It seems like an odd request but I'll do that if you want.  Do you want me too?

Saying that you should have started your sentence with, "Even though I don't have a complete understanding of John 3:5...." is more of a reasonable suggestion since you are asking if my Christianity reflected a certain verse when, YOU, YOURSELF, don't have a complete understanding of this verse. 

Just to clarify, "YOU" and "YOURSELF" is in all caps for emphasis.  I'm not yelling at you.   
I was more reflecting on this response: # 44

"You mean the ones that wiki used.  Sorry if you thought I said that these were the basic requirements.  Looking back, I can see why this would have been confusing.  I will clear the record now....I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE EXACT (BASIC) REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR SALVATION ARE WITHIN CHRISTIANITY!"

I only said that you provided the information...not that you believed it.I didn't say I thought you said they were the basic requirements.
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

Goombah

#70
Quote from: Andy S. on January 16, 2016, 06:42:51 PM
Quote from: Goombah on January 16, 2016, 06:28:28 PM


Andy S.,

Is there one or two questions you would like to respond to 1st.?

Do you agree with 80s Child's answers to my questions in reply #47?  They were actually addressed to you.


John 3:5 teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, and the gift of the holy ghost.




1.  someone accept the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and not repent of all their sins that separate them from God and still be saved? No

2.  Can What is your interpretation of John 8:24?  Is the "I am" a title or is the "am" just a verb? (compare John 8:58) also (Ex. 3:14) We must believe in Jesus to have our sins removed or we will die in sin. verb
3.  Do you think one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved? You must believe in Jesus, John 3:16 says it all.
4.  What were the exact requirements needed for salvation before Christ? Since the fall of man the basis of salvation's always been the death of Christ, faith has always been part of salvation, Abraham had faith that God had a plan for sin.

5.  Do you believe in once saved always saved or can someone lose their salvation? You can lose it if you lose your faith.

A) Jn 3 :5 Baptism required for salvation.Idon't agree, in part because of the thief on the cross.

1)Agree

2)Title.Jn.8 :58 and John 18: 6 also factors in to that.

3)If you study scripture ,I do.To those without having had access to scripture,yes but indirectly( Romans 1: 19-20) and John 1:2-3

4) I agree that it was by faith.Looking ahead to Christ.Mt 13: 16-17 and God's promises like Ezekiel 36: 25-27 and Ezekiel 11: 19-20 for example.Then of course : Gen 15:6

5)I agree .
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

Andy S.

Quote from: Goombah on January 16, 2016, 06:49:22 PM

I was more reflecting on this response: # 44

"You mean the ones that wiki used.  Sorry if you thought I said that these were the basic requirements.  Looking back, I can see why this would have been confusing.  I will clear the record now....I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE EXACT (BASIC) REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR SALVATION ARE WITHIN CHRISTIANITY!"

I only said that you provided the information...not that you believed it.I didn't say I thought you said they were the basic requirements.



This is the same thing.  Caps are in the last sentence for EMPHASIS.  I was not yelling at you.  I'm sorry you felt that way it's just the way I write.  From now on, every time I use all Caps it is for EMPHASIS.  How about this, if I want to yell at you I will be sure to tell you before the sentence that I write.  Other than that, just assume that I am not yelling at you.

Can we move on?  Although I like to know what makes people so sensitive, I think this is some pretty petty stuff and I hope we can move on.
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on January 16, 2016, 11:05:21 PM
Quote from: Goombah on January 16, 2016, 06:49:22 PM

I was more reflecting on this response: # 44

"You mean the ones that wiki used.  Sorry if you thought I said that these were the basic requirements.  Looking back, I can see why this would have been confusing.  I will clear the record now....I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE EXACT (BASIC) REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR SALVATION ARE WITHIN CHRISTIANITY!"

I only said that you provided the information...not that you believed it.I didn't say I thought you said they were the basic requirements.



This is the same thing.  Caps are in the last sentence for EMPHASIS.  I was not yelling at you.  I'm sorry you felt that way it's just the way I write.  From now on, every time I use all Caps it is for EMPHASIS.  How about this, if I want to yell at you I will be sure to tell you before the sentence that I write.  Other than that, just assume that I am not yelling at you.

Can we move on?  Although I like to know what makes people so sensitive, I think this is some pretty petty stuff and I hope we can move on.

Exactly.
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

80sChild

Quote from: Andy S. on January 16, 2016, 04:08:10 PM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 16, 2016, 06:46:30 AM

@Andy S. Way to throw me under the bus man ! I wasn't meaning to sound like a know it all b***h that is saying this guy is an idiot that doesn't read his Bible !

I'm sorry for your meltdown.  I didn't mean to hurt you in anyway. 

Did I say anything that was inaccurate?

How did I make you sound like a "know it all b***h".

I said that you said this guy is an "IDIOT" that doesn't read his bible?


Quote from: 80sChild on January 16, 2016, 06:46:30 AM
Even tho thats how you made me sound .

How so?  I used your own words.



Quote from: 80sChild on January 16, 2016, 06:46:30 AM
Look Everyone can disagree with me if they want, they usually do anyway, but baptism is only mentioned when talking about salvation or being saved, ints pretty clear

I think Goombah might disagree with this.

Quote from: 80sChild on January 16, 2016, 06:46:30 AM
and I was only saying that I thought the gut didn't check and then double check before answering this question. [/size]

Did I say anymore than this really?  Why accuse me of throwing you under the bus?



Quote from: 80sChild on January 16, 2016, 06:46:30 AM
The Book of Mormon thread has turned into a nightmare, everyone just wants to dig up dirt, no one is really interested in knowing about the great parts... Oh and there is a new thread, Will the real Jesus please stand up, just mocking and slander and disrespect . I know they do not see it that way but it hurts me, and I am ashamed for them, the human race respects nothing anymore unless it is something they value but nothing that others value is respected. Maybe coming back was a bad idea

Does any of this have anything to do with me?

Are you ashamed for me?

I think I've witnessed some misguided anger this morning.  I think you could have handled this a lot better.  You know....just tell me if I said something that was inaccurate or let me know if I didn't understand you correctly.

Quote from: 80sChild on January 16, 2016, 06:46:30 AM
....Anyway, @Goombah I didn't mean to sound disrespectful and I am sorry if I did wasn't meant to be taken that way ! :)[/size]

I didn't mean to make you sound disrespectful.  However, what you said could be seen as being disrespectful to him.  Concerning the necessary requirement of baptism needed for salvation, you say, "he must not read his scriptures before answering".  Similarily, in this post you say the guy didn't "check and then double check" before answering this question. 

This can be seen as an insult.  These are not my words....THEY ARE YOURS!  80's, you have to realize that people have different interpretations which lead to different opinions on doctrine.  It is unfair to say someone doesn't "read their scriptures" when they disagree with you. 

Goombah's understanding of scripture is just that....his understanding.  Your understanding of what scripture says is just that.....your understanding.  Goombah doesn't see baptism as being a requirement needed for salvation and you do.  The only difference I see between the two of you is you see your view as "truth" which, to me, seems a little arrogant.

You can say you didn't mean to sound disrespectful to Goombah but these are just words....not really an apology.  Saying Goombah's interpretation is wrong because "he doesn't read his scriptures" is disrespectful and instead of just saying, "I didn't mean to sound disrespectful" maybe you should take back what you said.

     

I am sorry and I take it all back.... You are right as usual. Thank you.

Andy S.


Quote from: Goombah on January 16, 2016, 10:14:22 PM

A) Jn 3 :5 Baptism required for salvation.Idon't agree, in part because of the thief on the cross.

Wow, you only agreed with 80s child on two out of six of these.  That is worse than I thought.  What we see here with you and 80s child is a mini experiment I conducted that shows that the wiki article concerning Christian soteriology has some truth behind it.

Once again, this article states, "Variant views on salvation are among the main fault lines dividing the various Christian denominations".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology

As a Christian, I would have agreed with you about baptism not being a requirement needed for salvation.  However, maybe I had an emotional tie to this belief and that was because my Grandpa claimed he was a Christian but was never baptized.  I've got to say, depending on interpretation, 80s Child has some scripture to back her belief.  But then again.....who doesn't.


Quote from: Goombah on January 16, 2016, 10:14:22 PM
3)If you study scripture ,I do.To those without having had access to scripture,yes but indirectly( Romans 1: 19-20) and John 1:2-3

So if you study scripture, one has to believe that Jesus is the one true god but if one does not have access to scripture they still have to believe that Jesus is the one true god in order to be saved but "indirectly"???

John 1:2-3 states, "He (the "Word") was in the beginning with God.  All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

I hate to point out the obvious but....people won't INDIRECTLY know that the "Word" (the one true God) was in the beginning with God if they don't have access to scripture. 

By the way, according to your answer to this question, Jstwebbrowsing and Wilson are not saved.  Not only that, but all these people from all these denominations who don't buy into the Trinity and don't believe that Jesus is the one true god are not saved according to your interpretation:


    American Unitarian Conference
    Arianism
    Assemblies of Yahweh
    Bible Students
    Christadelphians
    Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Scientists)[121][122]
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)
    Church of the Blessed Hope (sometimes called "Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith")
    Doukhobors
    Friends of Man
    Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ)
    Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ
    Jehovah's Witnesses
    Members Church of God International
    Molokan
    Monarchianism
    Muggletonianism
    New Church
    Many members of the Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland
    Oneness Pentecostals
    Polish Brethren
    Some Quakers
    Shakers
    Socinianism
    Swedenborgianism
    The Way International
    Two by Twos (sometimes called The Truth or Cooneyites)[123]
    Unification Church
    Unitarian Christians
    Unitarian Universalism
    United Church of God
    Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah
    Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua
   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism

I think I know what you are thinking right about now but it is a logical fallacy.  It is called the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Hey Goombah, I have a lot going on in my head and I can't remember if you answered this question or not.  Can you please answer it again if you haven't?:

Is your view of salvation (the necessary requirements needed for salvation) based on your "opinion" or is it based on "truth" (fact)?

 
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on January 17, 2016, 07:10:09 AM

Quote from: Goombah on January 16, 2016, 10:14:22 PM

A) Jn 3 :5 Baptism required for salvation.Idon't agree, in part because of the thief on the cross.

Wow, you only agreed with 80s child on two out of six of these.  That is worse than I thought.  What we see here with you and 80s child is a mini experiment I conducted that shows that the wiki article concerning Christian soteriology has some truth behind it.

'Some truth'? So?
Quote
Once again, this article states, "Variant views on salvation are among the main fault lines dividing the various Christian denominations".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology

The opening sentence also says: "In Christianity salvation is the saving of the soul from sin and its consequences.[5] It may also be called "deliverance" or "redemption" from sin and its effects."

That sounds like a unifying view, something Christians have in common.

The closing sentence reads:

While some of the differences are as widespread as Christianity itself, the overwhelming majority agrees that salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying on the cross.

"Overwhelming majority agrees"Doesn't sound as disjointed as you want to paint it,Andy.



Quote
As a Christian, I would have agreed with you about baptism not being a requirement needed for salvation.  However, maybe I had an emotional tie to this belief and that was because my Grandpa claimed he was a Christian but was never baptized.  I've got to say, depending on interpretation, 80s Child has some scripture to back her belief.  But then again.....who doesn't.
Not only 80s. I have read several compelling defenses of the 'baptism argument'.I just found the other side more compelling still.


Quote from: Goombah on January 16, 2016, 10:14:22 PM
3)If you study scripture ,I do.To those without having had access to scripture,yes but indirectly( Romans 1: 19-20) and John 1:2-3
Quote
So if you study scripture, one has to believe that Jesus is the one true god but if one does not have access to scripture they still have to believe that Jesus is the one true god in order to be saved but "indirectly"???

John 1:2-3 states, "He (the "Word") was in the beginning with God.  All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

I hate to point out the obvious but....people won't INDIRECTLY know that the "Word" (the one true God) was in the beginning with God if they don't have access to scripture. 

Of course not.That's why I didn't say that.I just pointed out He, who is the "Word"( the one true God),was the source of everything that came into being.
And gave this referense as well,
19 For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.20 For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification].

If man is to understand God through His handiwork (Creation) then they would be indirectly knowing the the One responsibile for the creation,,,John says that is Jesus.
Quote

By the way, according to your answer to this question, Jstwebbrowsing and Wilson are not saved.  Not only that, but all these people from all these denominations who don't buy into the Trinity and don't believe that Jesus is the one true god are not saved according to your interpretation:


    American Unitarian Conference
    Arianism
    Assemblies of Yahweh
    Bible Students
    Christadelphians
    Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Scientists)[121][122]
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)
    Church of the Blessed Hope (sometimes called "Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith")
    Doukhobors
    Friends of Man
    Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ)
    Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ
    Jehovah's Witnesses
    Members Church of God International
    Molokan
    Monarchianism
    Muggletonianism
    New Church
    Many members of the Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland
    Oneness Pentecostals
    Polish Brethren
    Some Quakers
    Shakers
    Socinianism
    Swedenborgianism
    The Way International
    Two by Twos (sometimes called The Truth or Cooneyites)[123]
    Unification Church
    Unitarian Christians
    Unitarian Universalism
    United Church of God
    Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah
    Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua
   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism

Were those the types of things you focused on in your own Christian walk, Andy?
Paraphrasing  an old Christian golf instructor " Notice , God reserves eternal judgement to Himself....and waits to the very end to do it".

Quote
I think I know what you are thinking right about now but it is a logical fallacy.  It is called the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
Not even close.
Quote
Hey Goombah, I have a lot going on in my head and I can't remember if you answered this question or not.  Can you please answer it again if you haven't?:

Is your view of salvation (the necessary requirements needed for salvation) based on your "opinion" or is it based on "truth" (fact)?
what difference would it have on anyone other than myself?
I'd like to leave you with a quote fron Charles Spurgeon (Calvinist) regarding John Wesley  (Arminian)"

" Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley.

The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one ?of whom the world was not worthy.?"

That's how it's done ,Andy.




Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

Andy S.

Quote from: Goombah on January 18, 2016, 12:28:25 AM
Quote from: Andy S. on January 17, 2016, 07:10:09 AM

Quote from: Goombah on January 16, 2016, 10:14:22 PM

A) Jn 3 :5 Baptism required for salvation.Idon't agree, in part because of the thief on the cross.

Wow, you only agreed with 80s child on two out of six of these.  That is worse than I thought.  What we see here with you and 80s child is a mini experiment I conducted that shows that the wiki article concerning Christian soteriology has some truth behind it.

'Some truth'? So?

Well....then a Christian's view on salvation shouldn't be considered a "biblical truth".  If Christians can't even agree what the "biblical truth" of salvation really is then someone's view on salvation shouldn't be called a "biblical truth".     

Quote from: Goombah on January 18, 2016, 12:28:25 AM
Quote
Once again, this article states, "Variant views on salvation are among the main fault lines dividing the various Christian denominations".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology

The opening sentence also says: "In Christianity salvation is the saving of the soul from sin and its consequences.[5] It may also be called "deliverance" or "redemption" from sin and its effects."

That sounds like a unifying view, something Christians have in common.

The closing sentence reads:

While some of the differences are as widespread as Christianity itself, the overwhelming majority agrees that salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying on the cross.

"Overwhelming majority agrees"Doesn't sound as disjointed as you want to paint it,Andy.

Goombah, judging from your answer #3 you might not even agree with this sentence in its entirety.  You would say salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the One True God, dying on the cross.

And who cares if the the majority of Christians agree that salvation is MADE POSSIBLE by the death of Jesus?  I'm talking about Christians disagreeing over the REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR SALVATION. 

Do you understand the difference?

I'll spell it out for you.  A Jehovah's Witness would agree that "salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying on the cross".  However, they would disagree with you over one of the requirements needed for this salvation.  You say one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved.  They would disagree. 

I could give you another example, like with 80s child and her belief that baptism is necessary for salvation, but I think you get the point.  At least I'm hoping.

There is a difference between Jesus making salvation possible through doing something and the requirements one has to do (or believe) to achieve this salvation.  Christians can agree that Jesus made salvation possible through his death on the cross but Christians disagree on the requirements needed to attain this salvation.

I hope this is clear.  It is an important difference.  If this doesn't make sense then let me know and I'll try to give you a better explanation.


Quote from: Goombah on January 18, 2016, 12:28:25 AM
Quote
As a Christian, I would have agreed with you about baptism not being a requirement needed for salvation.  However, maybe I had an emotional tie to this belief and that was because my Grandpa claimed he was a Christian but was never baptized.  I've got to say, depending on interpretation, 80s Child has some scripture to back her belief.  But then again.....who doesn't.
Not only 80s. I have read several compelling defenses of the 'baptism argument'.I just found the other side more compelling still.

So thinking that baptism is not a necessary requirement needed for salvation is just your opinion right?  You can't say your view is a "biblical truth" right?

 

Quote from: Goombah on January 18, 2016, 12:28:25 AM
Quote

By the way, according to your answer to this question, Jstwebbrowsing and Wilson are not saved.  Not only that, but all these people from all these denominations who don't buy into the Trinity and don't believe that Jesus is the one true god are not saved according to your interpretation:


    American Unitarian Conference
    Arianism
    Assemblies of Yahweh
    Bible Students
    Christadelphians
    Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Scientists)[121][122]
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)
    Church of the Blessed Hope (sometimes called "Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith")
    Doukhobors
    Friends of Man
    Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ)
    Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ
    Jehovah's Witnesses
    Members Church of God International
    Molokan
    Monarchianism
    Muggletonianism
    New Church
    Many members of the Non-subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland
    Oneness Pentecostals
    Polish Brethren
    Some Quakers
    Shakers
    Socinianism
    Swedenborgianism
    The Way International
    Two by Twos (sometimes called The Truth or Cooneyites)[123]
    Unification Church
    Unitarian Christians
    Unitarian Universalism
    United Church of God
    Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah
    Yahweh's Assembly in Yahshua
   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism



Were those the types of things you focused on in your own Christian walk, Andy?

Yes, I told you......I wanted to be the best witness for Jesus.  I wanted to share with everyone the good news and tell everyone what they had to do and believe to inherit eternal life.  And yes, I showed people they could be "mislead".   


Quote from: Goombah on January 18, 2016, 12:28:25 AM
Paraphrasing  an old Christian golf instructor " Notice , God reserves eternal judgement to Himself....and waits to the very end to do it".

So your God is going to lay out requirements needed for salvation in his holy book but in the end these requirements might not even matter?  Is that what you are trying to say?  What is your point in paraphrasing this golf instructor?


Quote from: Goombah on January 18, 2016, 12:28:25 AM
Quote
I think I know what you are thinking right about now but it is a logical fallacy.  It is called the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
Not even close.

Oh really?  Is someone who is going to "die in their sins" (John 8:24) a Christian?  Please answer this question with a "yes" or "no".

Quote from: Goombah on January 18, 2016, 12:28:25 AM
Quote
Hey Goombah, I have a lot going on in my head and I can't remember if you answered this question or not.  Can you please answer it again if you haven't?:

Is your view of salvation (the necessary requirements needed for salvation) based on your "opinion" or is it based on "truth" (fact)?
what difference would it have on anyone other than myself?
I'd like to leave you with a quote fron Charles Spurgeon (Calvinist) regarding John Wesley  (Arminian)"

" Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley.

The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one ?of whom the world was not worthy.?"

That's how it's done ,Andy.

How what's done?  How one inherits eternal life?  What were the requirements needed for salvation in these paragraphs?

Can you please give me any evidence that Charles Spurgeon disagreed with John Wesley over the exact requirements needed for salvation?

Goombah, can you please just answer my question?

"what difference would it have on anyone other than myself?" is not an answer.  I don't understand why answering the following question would be so hard for you. 

Is your view of salvation (the necessary requirements needed for salvation) based on your "opinion" or is it based on "truth" (fact)? 
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on January 18, 2016, 06:13:49 AM
Quote from: Goombah on January 18, 2016, 12:28:25 AM
Quote from: Andy S. on January 17, 2016, 07:10:09 AM

Quote from: Goombah on January 16, 2016, 10:14:22 PM

A) Jn 3 :5 Baptism required for salvation.Idon't agree, in part because of the thief on the cross.

Wow, you only agreed with 80s child on two out of six of these.  That is worse than I thought.  What we see here with you and 80s child is a mini experiment I conducted that shows that the wiki article concerning Christian soteriology has some truth behind it.

'Some truth'? So?

Well....then a Christian's view on salvation shouldn't be considered a "biblical truth".  If Christians can't even agree what the "biblical truth" of salvation really is then someone's view on salvation shouldn't be called a "biblical truth".     

So, in order to be a "biblical truth" in your view it must be understood exactly the same by every single person who claims to be a Christian?Do you know what parts of the wiki article are truth and which aren't?
Quote from: Goombah on January 18, 2016, 12:28:25 AM
Quote
Once again, this article states, "Variant views on salvation are among the main fault lines dividing the various Christian denominations".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology

The opening sentence also says: "In Christianity salvation is the saving of the soul from sin and its consequences.[5] It may also be called "deliverance" or "redemption" from sin and its effects."

That sounds like a unifying view, something Christians have in common.

The closing sentence reads:

While some of the differences are as widespread as Christianity itself, the overwhelming majority agrees that salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying on the cross.

"Overwhelming majority agrees"Doesn't sound as disjointed as you want to paint it,Andy.
Quote
Goombah, judging from your answer #3 you might not even agree with this sentence in its entirety.  You would say salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the One True God, dying on the cross.
I certainly wouldn't interject " the One True God" into every mention of Jesus and the  atonement and am fine with the sentence the way it reads.

Quote

And who cares if the the majority of Christians agree that salvation is MADE POSSIBLE by the death of Jesus?  I'm talking about Christians disagreeing over the REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR SALVATION. 

Do you understand the difference?

The death of Jesus was one of the basic requirements....agreement of a majority points to unity.

Quote

I'll spell it out for you.  A Jehovah's Witness would agree that "salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying on the cross".  However, they would disagree with you over one of the requirements needed for this salvation.  You say one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved.  They would disagree. 
I do  have to believe it , based on my understanding of scripture,which is why I can't in good conscience become a JW.They stand or fall on their own, Andy.Exactly how they will be judged is a matter above my pay scale.
Quote
I could give you another example, like with 80s child and her belief that baptism is necessary for salvation, but I think you get the point.  At least I'm hoping.
I explained my view as well.If she sincerely believes her take on baptism then by all means 80s should be sure to partake of it.I did as well,but not for as compelling a reason as she would.
Quote
There is a difference between Jesus making salvation possible through doing something and the requirements one has to do (or believe) to achieve this salvation.  Christians can agree that Jesus made salvation possible through his death on the cross but Christians disagree on the requirements needed to attain this salvation.

I hope this is clear.  It is an important difference.  If this doesn't make sense then let me know and I'll try to give you a better explanation.

Can a person be saved by what Jesus did and not know they wanted it applied to their own life?Do you think 'believe' , scripturally speaking, is akin to saying something like" if the weather is nice Saturday ,I believe I'll go golfing?

I hope to continue tomorrow.
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

Andy S.

Quote from: Goombah on January 19, 2016, 01:15:03 AM

So, in order to be a "biblical truth" in your view it must be understood exactly the same by every single person who claims to be a Christian?

Yes.....according to the definition to "TRUTH".   

Truth:

1. the true or actual state of a matter.

2. conformity with fact or reality; verity.

3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/truth

1 + 1 = 2 right?

Do you know of some mathematician who disagrees with this?

Then it is a "mathematical truth".  Do you see now why "biblical truth" is not the proper phrase to use?  I repeat: "If Christians can't even agree what the "biblical truth" of salvation really is then someone's view on salvation shouldn't be called a "biblical truth".

Listen to how silly your question sounds when the example of math is applied:

"So, in order to be a "mathematical truth" in your view, a solution to a math problem must be understood exactly the same by every single person who claims to be a mathematician?




Quote from: Goombah on January 19, 2016, 01:15:03 AM
Do you know what parts of the wiki article are truth and which aren't?

This is true:

"Soteriology (/s??t??ri??l?d?i/; Greek: ??????? s?t?ria "salvation" from ????? s?t?r "savior, preserver" and ????? logos "study" or "word"[1]) is the study of religious doctrines of salvation."

I would also say this is true:

"Variant views on salvation are among the main fault lines dividing the various Christian denominations".

This sentence does not say salvation is exclusively the fault line dividing the various Christian denominations so I see this statement as truth.  Variant views on salvation are definitely AMONG the main fault lines. 

I didn't read the entire article on all the different religions but did you see anything in it that you would say is false?


Quote from: Goombah on January 19, 2016, 01:15:03 AM

I certainly wouldn't interject " the One True God" into every mention of Jesus and the  atonement and am fine with the sentence the way it reads.

Goombah, fill in the blank.  You have to believe that Jesus is _____________ in order to be saved!


Quote from: Goombah on January 19, 2016, 01:15:03 AM
Quote

And who cares if the the majority of Christians agree that salvation is MADE POSSIBLE by the death of Jesus?  I'm talking about Christians disagreeing over the REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR SALVATION. 

Do you understand the difference?

The death of Jesus was one of the basic requirements....agreement of a majority points to unity.

Who really cares if the majority of Christians believe that the death of Jesus is a belief that is a basic requirement needed for salvation.  The majority of people would say getting rid of a turd at the bottom of a pool is necessary and, yes, I guess you can say this agreement of a majority points to unity.  But who cares.   

Some Christian Universalists would say this requirement is one requirement too many.  According to you, and many other Christians, there are more requirements than just believing in the death of Jesus.  These extra requirements bring disagreements and division.  I wouldn't think this would be so hard for you to understand.  I conducted an experiment with you and 80s Child.....remember?  Did you agree with all of her requirements needed for salvation?

You and 80's might both agree that getting a turd out of a pool is necessary but you might disagree on how clean the pool has to be before jumping back in.  80's might say the pool has to be completely drained and refilled and you might just jump right back in once the turd is removed.  People can be united in ways but that doesn't point to complete unity.

Quote from: Goombah on January 19, 2016, 01:15:03 AM
Quote

I'll spell it out for you.  A Jehovah's Witness would agree that "salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying on the cross".  However, they would disagree with you over one of the requirements needed for this salvation.  You say one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved.  They would disagree. 
I do  have to believe it , based on my understanding of scripture,which is why I can't in good conscience become a JW.They stand or fall on their own, Andy.Exactly how they will be judged is a matter above my pay scale.

I understand in good conscience why you can't become a JW.  You think they are going to "die in their sins" according to your interpretation of John 8:24.   

And you don't know how people who don't think Jesus is the "I AM" (title) will be judged???? 

What????

THEY ARE GOING TO "DIE IN THEIR SINS" ACCORDING TO YOUR INTERPRETATION OF JOHN 8:24!  Do you think your interpretation might be wrong or what? 

Quote from: Goombah on January 19, 2016, 01:15:03 AM
Quote
I could give you another example, like with 80s child and her belief that baptism is necessary for salvation, but I think you get the point.  At least I'm hoping.
I explained my view as well.If she sincerely believes her take on baptism then by all means 80s should be sure to partake of it.I did as well,but not for as compelling a reason as she would.

If you saw her witnessing to a non-believer and she was laying out all the requirements needed for salvation and mentioned that baptism was necessary for salvation....would you correct her?  Would you mention to this non-believer that Christians disagree on some of the requirements needed for salvation? 


Quote from: Goombah on January 19, 2016, 01:15:03 AM
Can a person be saved by what Jesus did and not know they wanted it applied to their own life?

I have no idea.  I'm the wrong person to ask.  I can't even refer you to anyone because there is no overall consensus as to what a person has to exactly do or believe in order to be saved. 

I do think many Universalists would say yes to this question. 

Quote from: Goombah on January 19, 2016, 01:15:03 AM
Do you think 'believe' , scripturally speaking, is akin to saying something like" if the weather is nice Saturday ,I believe I'll go golfing?


Sure, I guess.  Kinda like "Christians disagree on what the exact requirements needed for salvation are, but if I somehow get all these requirements right, I believe I'll go to heaven".


Edit: I have really enjoyed this conversation!  Things might get busy for me this week so I might be a little delayed in getting back to your next response.   
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

80sChild

@Andy S.

I am laughing my ass off right now!!
I can't believe you used the word"turd"
Totally cracking up right now!! lol OK! That was good!! Never a dull moment with you Andy!!

Airyaman

Christians have argued the necessity of water baptism for a long time. Shame Jesus doesn't show up to clear things up.
Please take a moment to remember the victims of the terrorist attacks in Bowling Green, Atlanta, and Sweden.

nateswift

Quote from: Airyaman on January 19, 2016, 12:10:29 PM
Christians have argued the necessity of water baptism for a long time. Shame Jesus doesn't show up to clear things up.
It should now be clear that early Christians still thought that forms were important as opposed to the event the forms symbolized.  I'm afraid this goes back to the question of authority; book or Spirit.
The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do-  Kerouac

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on January 19, 2016, 04:57:23 AM
Quote from: Goombah on January 19, 2016, 01:15:03 AM

So, in order to be a "biblical truth" in your view it must be understood exactly the same by every single person who claims to be a Christian?

Yes.....according to the definition to "TRUTH".   

Truth:

1. the true or actual state of a matter.

2. conformity with fact or reality; verity.

3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/truth

1 + 1 = 2 right?

Do you know of some mathematician who disagrees with this?

Then it is a "mathematical truth".  Do you see now why "biblical truth" is not the proper phrase to use?  I repeat: "If Christians can't even agree what the "biblical truth" of salvation really is then someone's view on salvation shouldn't be called a "biblical truth".

Listen to how silly your question sounds when the example of math is applied:

"So, in order to be a "mathematical truth" in your view, a solution to a math problem must be understood exactly the same by every single person who claims to be a mathematician?
The Bible isn't making a mathematical claim, though.It would be more like the " I love my wife" claim that is not absolutely verifiable or defined the same universally yet love is believed to exist universally.It very well may be understood by you and be "true' in your case but you can't get a 100% consensus of what love means in your case.



Quote from: Goombah on January 19, 2016, 01:15:03 AM
Do you know what parts of the wiki article are truth and which aren't?
Quote
This is true:

"Soteriology (/s??t??ri??l?d?i/; Greek: ??????? s?t?ria "salvation" from ????? s?t?r "savior, preserver" and ????? logos "study" or "word"[1]) is the study of religious doctrines of salvation."

I would also say this is true:

"Variant views on salvation are among the main fault lines dividing the various Christian denominations".

This sentence does not say salvation is exclusively the fault line dividing the various Christian denominations so I see this statement as truth.  Variant views on salvation are definitely AMONG the main fault lines. 

I didn't read the entire article on all the different religions but did you see anything in it that you would say is false?

I didn't read the whole thing either; you mentioned that it contained "some truth" so I wondered if you had in fact found something you thought might be false.I guess it was just an expression.

Quote from: Goombah on January 19, 2016, 01:15:03 AM

I certainly wouldn't interject " the One True God" into every mention of Jesus and the  atonement and am fine with the sentence the way it reads.
Quote
Goombah, fill in the blank.  You have to believe that Jesus is _____________ in order to be saved!

I could fill it in with several things I have to believe but I don't claim universal knowledge nor the ability to judge other people.While I think the supernatural was involved in Zacchaeus'
conversion,if in fact that's what happened, I can't pinpoint why Christ made the declaration in this case ...at least not off-hand.
What fits the blank in that case?What would fill in the blank in the case of the thief on the cross?
BTW, my first thought was" resurrected".

Quote

And who cares if the the majority of Christians agree that salvation is MADE POSSIBLE by the death of Jesus?  I'm talking about Christians disagreeing over the REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR SALVATION. 

Do you understand the difference?

I'd hoped you see that the final requirements are Jesus' to decide...The thief didn't get baptized or speak in tongues yet he was promised paradise with Jesus.If one is convinced that they must meet a requirement and don't  do it to them it is sin.

James 4 Amplified Bible (AMP)

17 So any person who knows what is right to do but does not do it, to him it is sin.

I'm concentrating on my own Christianity and am ever  learning more and more as I submit and am obedient ( to the light I have been given).


Quote
Who really cares if the majority of Christians believe that the death of Jesus is a belief that is a basic requirement needed for salvation.  The majority of people would say getting rid of a turd at the bottom of a pool is necessary and, yes, I guess you can say this agreement of a majority points to unity.  But who cares.   

Some Christian Universalists would say this requirement is one requirement too many.  According to you, and many other Christians, there are more requirements than just believing in the death of Jesus.  These extra requirements bring disagreements and division.  I wouldn't think this would be so hard for you to understand.  I conducted an experiment with you and 80s Child.....remember?  Did you agree with all of her requirements needed for salvation?
We agree that we both need to be saved and Jesus is the way to obtain it.That seemed to be sufficient for the thief.
Quote
You and 80's might both agree that getting a turd out of a pool is necessary but you might disagree on how clean the pool has to be before jumping back in.  80's might say the pool has to be completely drained and refilled and you might just jump right back in once the turd is removed.  People can be united in ways but that doesn't point to complete unity.

We both agree that we are going back into the pool.
You come across like  the Pharisees who turned  10 Commandments into 613.
Quote from: Goombah on January 19, 2016, 01:15:03 AM
Quote

I'll spell it out for you.  A Jehovah's Witness would agree that "salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying on the cross".  However, they would disagree with you over one of the requirements needed for this salvation.  You say one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved.  They would disagree. 
I do  have to believe it , based on my understanding of scripture,which is why I can't in good conscience become a JW.They stand or fall on their own, Andy.Exactly how they will be judged is a matter above my pay scale.
Quote
I understand in good conscience why you can't become a JW.  You think they are going to "die in their sins" according to your interpretation of John 8:24.   
Incorrect,Andy.Only God can judge the intent of their heart.If I was to deny it , based on my take on several scriptures,I would be in danger.I can't judge their sincerity Andy , only Jesus will.And as long as they continue posting ,it ain't over anyway as far as I can tell.That's what the golf pro meant...Jesus waits 'til the very end.
Quote
And you don't know how people who don't think Jesus is the "I AM" (title) will be judged???? 

What????

THEY ARE GOING TO "DIE IN THEIR SINS" ACCORDING TO YOUR INTERPRETATION OF JOHN 8:24!  Do you think your interpretation might be wrong or what? 
See above

Quote
I could give you another example, like with 80s child and her belief that baptism is necessary for salvation, but I think you get the point.  At least I'm hoping.

If you saw her witnessing to a non-believer and she was laying out all the requirements needed for salvation and mentioned that baptism was necessary for salvation....would you correct her?  Would you mention to this non-believer that Christians disagree on some of the requirements needed for salvation? 

I was saved in part by people who were less than stellar theologians but extremely sincere Christians.I remember they spoke of having a living relationship with Jesus,it showed in how they treated me that they lived it. It created a hunger for what they had.
I'm not too picky about the way people witness.

Paul had a great attitude toward that sort of thing:

Phillipians 1: 15-18

15 Some, it is true, are [actually] preaching Christ out of envy and rivalry [toward me?for no better reason than a competitive spirit or misguided ambition], but others out of goodwill and a loyal spirit [toward me]. 16 The latter [preach Christ] out of love, because they know that I have been put here [by God on purpose] for the defense of the gospel; 17 but the former preach Christ [insincerely] out of selfish ambition [just self-promotion], thinking that they are causing me distress in my imprisonment. 18 What then [does it matter]? So long as in every way, whether in pretense [for self-promotion] or in all honesty [to spread the truth], Christ is being preached; and in this I rejoice.

Quote

Edit: I have really enjoyed this conversation!  Things might get busy for me this week so I might be a little delayed in getting back to your next response.

I've been busy, too, and short-handed.

Thanks.
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

Andy S.

Quote from: Goombah on January 28, 2016, 12:30:36 AM
Quote from: Andy S. on January 19, 2016, 04:57:23 AM
Quote from: Goombah on January 19, 2016, 01:15:03 AM

So, in order to be a "biblical truth" in your view it must be understood exactly the same by every single person who claims to be a Christian?

Yes.....according to the definition to "TRUTH".   

Truth:

1. the true or actual state of a matter.

2. conformity with fact or reality; verity.

3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/truth

1 + 1 = 2 right?

Do you know of some mathematician who disagrees with this?

Then it is a "mathematical truth".  Do you see now why "biblical truth" is not the proper phrase to use?  I repeat: "If Christians can't even agree what the "biblical truth" of salvation really is then someone's view on salvation shouldn't be called a "biblical truth".

Listen to how silly your question sounds when the example of math is applied:

"So, in order to be a "mathematical truth" in your view, a solution to a math problem must be understood exactly the same by every single person who claims to be a mathematician?
The Bible isn't making a mathematical claim, though.

You are right!!! 

The bible CAN'T.  The doctrine of salvation is too ambiguous and contradictory.

Due to the ambiguity of the bible, Christians have different interpretations which result in different numbers of requirements needed for salvation.

For instance: 

1st requirement + 2nd requirement = salvation for some

1st requirement + 2nd requirement + 3rd requirement = salvation for others

Because there is not a 100% consensus on the exact formula for salvation we can see that the doctrine of salvation cannot be compared to anything like a mathematical formula.  Therefore, Christians should refrain from using the word "truth" when discussing what a person has to do or believe in order to be saved. 


Quote from: Goombah on January 28, 2016, 12:30:36 AM
It would be more like the " I love my wife" claim that is not absolutely verifiable or defined the same universally yet love is believed to exist universally.It very well may be understood by you and be "true' in your case but you can't get a 100% consensus of what love means in your case.

This is what your sentence is going to sound like if this is a correct comparison:

The biblical "truth" of how one is saved is not absolutely verifiable or defined the same universally yet salvation exists universally.  The biblical "truth" of how one is saved may be 'true' in my case but you can't get a 100% consensus of what this biblical "truth" means.

Now, if I heard this sales pitch from the get go....there is no way I would have become a Christian in the first place.  I could have saved a looooot of time and money.  I would have called BS right out of the gates.  I hope you don't lead with this "comparison" when you witness to others.  If you do, my guess is your conversion rate is 0%. 

If you use this, you would sound like a door-to-door salesman for large safes but you are trying to sell safes when you are not entirely sure what the combination to the safe is.     

BTW, this comparison is inconsistent.  If this is your comparison then....like I said....Christians can't use the word "truth".  If something is not "absolutely verifiable" then....by definition....it can't be "truth".  See definition #3 to the word "truth" above.

And who cares if salvation exists universally among Christians?  Who cares if this is one of the only beliefs that unites Christians?  Let's pretend I was a gullible customer who bought one of your large safes with a questionable combination attached to it.  I invite many people into my house and people universally agree that this safe exists in my house.  They even universally think this safe could be opened with the right combination.  Big deal.....what good is a safe in my house if I am uncertain what the combination is? 

Because I was gullible enough to buy your safe I am left with a guessing game in getting the safe open.  Now, to really make this analogy applicable, I would choose a combination to the safe but I wouldn't be able to find out if the combination works until I die.  I could use your questionable combination but there are many other combinations I could use.  So who cares if people universally agree that this safe exists in my house and, with the right combination, it can be opened? 

The fact that the exact requirements needed for salvation are not "absolutely verifiable" is....well....tragic.

I will play off of Epicurious' quote:

?Is God willing to make the exact requirements needed for salvation 'absolutely verifiable', but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then why can't all Christians 'absolutely verify' what the exact requirements needed for salvation are?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God??

Quote from: Goombah on January 28, 2016, 12:30:36 AM
Quote from: Goombah on January 19, 2016, 01:15:03 AM


Goombah, fill in the blank.  You have to believe that Jesus is _____________ in order to be saved!

I could fill it in with several things I have to believe but I don't claim universal knowledge

THEN LEAVE IT BLANK!  Why would you even think to say that one HAS TO believe that Jesus is THE ONE TRUE GOD in order to be saved if you don't have "universal knowledge"?

Quote from: Goombah on January 28, 2016, 12:30:36 AM

I'd hoped you see that the final requirements are Jesus' to decide...The thief didn't get baptized or speak in tongues yet he was promised paradise with Jesus.If one is convinced that they must meet a requirement and don't  do it to them it is sin.

Jstwebbrowsing and Wilson are NOT convinced that one has to believe that Jesus is the ONE TRUE GOD in order to be saved and they claim they are Christians who believe in salvation.  You ARE convinced that one has to believe Jesus is the ONE TRUE GOD in order to be saved and you also claim you are a Christian who believes in salvation. 

Very important question: Who is doing the convincing?


Quote from: Goombah on January 28, 2016, 12:30:36 AM
Quote
Who really cares if the majority of Christians believe that the death of Jesus is a belief that is a basic requirement needed for salvation.  The majority of people would say getting rid of a turd at the bottom of a pool is necessary and, yes, I guess you can say this agreement of a majority points to unity.  But who cares.   

Some Christian Universalists would say this requirement is one requirement too many.  According to you, and many other Christians, there are more requirements than just believing in the death of Jesus.  These extra requirements bring disagreements and division.  I wouldn't think this would be so hard for you to understand.  I conducted an experiment with you and 80s Child.....remember?  Did you agree with all of her requirements needed for salvation?
We agree that we both need to be saved and Jesus is the way to obtain it.That seemed to be sufficient for the thief.

NO!  You don't completely agree!!!  I'll use the same example as above.  You have said one must believe Jesus is the ONE TRUE GOD in order to obtain salvation.  Other people who claim they are Christians don't think you have to believe this in order to obtain salvation.  Jesus might be the way but people disagree on what one has to believe about this character in order to be saved.   

   

Quote from: Goombah on January 28, 2016, 12:30:36 AM
Quote
You and 80's might both agree that getting a turd out of a pool is necessary but you might disagree on how clean the pool has to be before jumping back in.  80's might say the pool has to be completely drained and refilled and you might just jump right back in once the turd is removed.  People can be united in ways but that doesn't point to complete unity.

We both agree that we are going back into the pool.

Wrong.  80's is not going back into the pool until it is completely drained and refilled.  If you only just remove the turd then 80's is not getting back into the pool.  If you tell 80's to hop in after the turd is removed she is going to say "NO" because she is not going back into the pool until her requirement of draining the pool is met.  You are not in agreement on the requirements needed to hop back into the pool just like you are not in agreement on the exact requirements needed for salvation.   

Quote from: Goombah on January 28, 2016, 12:30:36 AM
You come across like  the Pharisees who turned  10 Commandments into 613.

Now that's funny.  From what I gathered from you so far...I do KNOW this.  You have at least one more requirement needed for salvation than I had as a Christian.  I did not think one had to believe that Jesus was the ONE TRUE GOD in order to be saved.  I would have said, as a Christian, that you have added to the gospel with this EXTRA requirement of yours.     


Quote from: Goombah on January 28, 2016, 12:30:36 AM
Quote from: Goombah on January 19, 2016, 01:15:03 AM
Quote

I'll spell it out for you.  A Jehovah's Witness would agree that "salvation is made possible only by the work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dying on the cross".  However, they would disagree with you over one of the requirements needed for this salvation.  You say one has to believe that Jesus is the one true God in order to be saved.  They would disagree. 
I do  have to believe it , based on my understanding of scripture,which is why I can't in good conscience become a JW.They stand or fall on their own, Andy.Exactly how they will be judged is a matter above my pay scale.
Quote
I understand in good conscience why you can't become a JW.  You think they are going to "die in their sins" according to your interpretation of John 8:24.   
Incorrect,Andy.Only God can judge the intent of their heart.If I was to deny it , based on my take on several scriptures,I would be in danger.

Be in danger of what?

Quote from: Goombah on January 28, 2016, 12:30:36 AM
I can't judge their sincerity Andy , only Jesus will.And as long as they continue posting ,it ain't over anyway as far as I can tell.That's what the golf pro meant...Jesus waits 'til the very end.

I don't understand.  Are you saying there is still hope for Jstwebbrowsing and Wilson to become Christians? 

BTW, can you answer my question from before?  Is someone who is going to "die in their sins" (John 8:24) a Christian?

Quote from: Goombah on January 28, 2016, 12:30:36 AM
Quote
And you don't know how people who don't think Jesus is the "I AM" (title) will be judged???? 

What????

THEY ARE GOING TO "DIE IN THEIR SINS" ACCORDING TO YOUR INTERPRETATION OF JOHN 8:24!  Do you think your interpretation might be wrong or what? 
See above

Ok, I saw above and I don't see an answer to my question.  I repeat:  "Do you think your interpretation of John 8:24 might be wrong?


Quote from: Goombah on January 28, 2016, 12:30:36 AM
I was saved in part by people who were less than stellar theologians but extremely sincere Christians.

I think you meant to say, "I THINK I was saved....".  You can't KNOW that you were saved if the biblical "truth" of salvation is not "absolutely verifiable".   

Quote from: Goombah on January 28, 2016, 12:30:36 AM
I remember they spoke of having a living relationship with Jesus,it showed in how they treated me that they lived it. It created a hunger for what they had.

I had the same experience.  So what?

Quote from: Goombah on January 28, 2016, 12:30:36 AM
I'm not too picky about the way people witness.

Paul had a great attitude toward that sort of thing:

Phillipians 1: 15-18

15 Some, it is true, are [actually] preaching Christ out of envy and rivalry [toward me?for no better reason than a competitive spirit or misguided ambition], but others out of goodwill and a loyal spirit [toward me]. 16 The latter [preach Christ] out of love, because they know that I have been put here [by God on purpose] for the defense of the gospel; 17 but the former preach Christ [insincerely] out of selfish ambition [just self-promotion], thinking that they are causing me distress in my imprisonment. 18 What then [does it matter]? So long as in every way, whether in pretense [for self-promotion] or in all honesty [to spread the truth], Christ is being preached; and in this I rejoice.

Goombah, I'm sure Paul is talking about these people preaching the same requirements needed for salvation that he, himself, believed.  The same requirements needed for salvation can be preached through envy, rivalry, goodwill, love, or selfish ambition.

What's your point?

Sure, Paul was probably not too picky how people witnessed as long as they preached what he preached?

Galatians 1:8,9: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."

I think you should be picky about how one witnesses!

Hell, I'd even rethink your gospel.  If you think one has to believe that Jesus is the ONE TRUE GOD then your gospel sounds like this:

"For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes that this Son is actually the ONE TRUE GOD shall not perish, but have eternal life. 

Is this contrary to the gospel Paul preached?  I guess you'll have to ask yourself if Paul made it a requirement that one has to believe that Jesus is THE ONE TRUE GOD IN ORDER TO BE SAVED in any of his writings.     


Quote from: Goombah on January 28, 2016, 12:30:36 AM
Quote

Edit: I have really enjoyed this conversation!  Things might get busy for me this week so I might be a little delayed in getting back to your next response.

I've been busy, too, and short-handed.

Thanks.

Well, think of being busy as a blessing.  "Idle hands are the devil's workshop" (Prov. 16:27).

I used to get that saying all the time from my parents.  I know....really annoying!   

Anyway, thanks for responding and I hope things slow down enough for you to respond again.  Looking forward to it!
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

80sChild

@Andy S.

+1 and you are correct not going back in that pool till the "turd" is out and pool have been drained and refilled!! Lol yuck!!  ||wink||

Andy S.

Quote from: Goombah on January 28, 2016, 12:30:36 AM

You come across like  the Pharisees who turned  10 Commandments into 613.

I know this is off-topic but I just wanted you to know that the Pharisees did not "turn" 10 commandments into 613.  The 10 commandments are part of the 613 commandments.  The 613 commandments are in the bible.  The Pharisees just didn't make all these laws up. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

Furthermore, I don't even know which 10 commandments you are talking about.  Are you talking about the commandments in Exodus 20 or these "ten commandments" in Exodus 34:14-28? :

1. Thou shalt worship no other god.

2.Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3.The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.

4. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.

5. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks.

6. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God.

7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.

8. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning.

9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Which commandments are more important to follow?  The commandments in Exodus 20 or the "ten commandments" in Exodus 34?

You sound like it was a bad thing for the Pharisees to want to please their God by keeping other commandments that were not part of the "10".  But listen to what Jesus says:

?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.  For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19,20)

According to Jesus, the Pharisees were "righteous" in trying to keep the entire law.

Now, Jesus did rebuke the Pharisees for neglecting some of the law but they were not rebuked for keeping other commandments that were not in the "10".  For instance, Matthew 23:23 states:

""Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others."

Notice Jesus didn't say, "Why are you tithing and turning the 10 commandments into new commandments?"  One thing you have to understand is the Pharisees DID NOT "TURN" 10 COMMANDMENTS INTO 613.  The Pharisees were tithing because the bible told them to.  Tithing is one of the 613 commandments.

You don't have to respond to any of this as derailing the thread was not my intention.  I just wanted to let you know that you were misinformed if you thought the Pharisees "TURNED" 10 commandments into 613.       

 


"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on January 30, 2016, 11:12:59 PM
Quote from: Goombah on January 28, 2016, 12:30:36 AM

You come across like  the Pharisees who turned  10 Commandments into 613.

I know this is off-topic but I just wanted you to know that the Pharisees did not "turn" 10 commandments into 613.  The 10 commandments are part of the 613 commandments.  The 613 commandments are in the bible.  The Pharisees just didn't make all these laws up. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

I was talking more along these lines Andy:

Aseret ha-Dibrot: The "Ten Commandments"

? There are 613 commandments, not 10
? The "Ten Commandments" are categories
? The 10 are divided into duties to G-d and duties to people
? Different religions divide the 10 in different ways

The Aseret ha-Dibrot are not understood as individual mitzvot; rather, they are categories or classifications of mitzvot. Each of the 613 mitzvot can be subsumed under one of these ten categories, some in more obvious ways than others. For example, the mitzvah not to work on Shabbat rather obviously falls within the category of remembering the Sabbath day and keeping it holy. The mitzvah to fast on Yom Kippur fits into that category somewhat less obviously: all holidays are in some sense a Sabbath, and the category encompasses any mitzvah related to sacred time. The mitzvah not to stand aside while a person's life is in danger fits somewhat obviously into the category against murder. It is not particularly obvious, however, that the mitzvah not to embarrass a person fits within the category against murder: it causes the blood to drain from your face thereby shedding blood.

http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm

Quote
Furthermore, I don't even know which 10 commandments you are talking about.  Are you talking about the commandments in Exodus 20 or these "ten commandments" in Exodus 34:14-28? :

1. Thou shalt worship no other god.

2.Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3.The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.

4. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.

5. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks.

6. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God.

7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.

8. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning.

9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Which commandments are more important to follow?  The commandments in Exodus 20 or the "ten commandments" in Exodus 34?
The jewish site from above draws froms Exodus 20 for their article.

1. Belief in G-d
This category is derived from the declaration in Ex. 20:2 beginning, "I am the L-rd, your G-d..."
2. Prohibition of Improper Worship
This category is derived from Ex. 20:3-6, beginning, "You shall not have other gods..." It encompasses within it the prohibition against the worship of other gods as well as the prohibition of improper forms of worship of the one true G-d, such as worshiping G-d through an idol.
3. Prohibition of Oaths
This category is derived from Ex. 20:7, beginning, "You shall not take the name of the L-rd your G-d in vain..." This includes prohibitions against perjury, breaking or delaying the performance of vows or promises, and speaking G-d's name or swearing unnecessarily.
4. Observance of Sacred Times
This category is derived from Ex. 20:8-11, beginning, "Remember the Sabbath day..." It encompasses all mitzvot related to Shabbat, holidays, or other sacred time.
5. Respect for Parents and Teachers
This category is derived from Ex. 20:12, beginning, "Honor your father and mother..."
6. Prohibition of Physically Harming a Person
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not murder."
7. Prohibition of Sexual Immorality
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not commit adultery."
8. Prohibition of Theft
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not steal." It includes within it both outright robbery as well as various forms of theft by deception and unethical business practices. It also includes kidnapping, which is essentially "stealing" a person.
9. Prohibition of Harming a Person through Speech
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." It includes all forms of lashon ha-ra (sins relating to speech).
10. Prohibition of Coveting
This category is derived from Ex. 20:14, beginning, "You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."

Quote

You sound like it was a bad thing for the Pharisees to want to please their God by keeping other commandments that were not part of the "10".  But listen to what Jesus says:

?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.  For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19,20)

According to Jesus, the Pharisees were "righteous" in trying to keep the entire law.

If you can't get into The Kingdom without surpassing the righteousness of the pharisees  it sounds more like 'close but no cigar' for the pharisees.

Quote
Now, Jesus did rebuke the Pharisees for neglecting some of the law but they were not rebuked for keeping other commandments that were not in the "10".  For instance, Matthew 23:23 states:

""Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others."

Notice Jesus didn't say, "Why are you tithing and turning the 10 commandments into new commandments?"  One thing you have to understand is the Pharisees DID NOT "TURN" 10 COMMANDMENTS INTO 613.  The Pharisees were tithing because the bible told them to.  Tithing is one of the 613 commandments.
So is " be fruitful and multiply".Are childless couples living in sin?
Quote
You don't have to respond to any of this as derailing the thread was not my intention.  I just wanted to let you know that you were misinformed if you thought the Pharisees "TURNED" 10 commandments into 613.       



I think that the pharisees put undue complications ( based on the Ten Commandments) upon the people which they themselves couldn't keep...as per your example above.As James pointed out ....Ja 2:10

10) For whosoever keeps the Law [as a] whole but stumbles and offends in one [single instance] has become guilty of [breaking] all of it.

Thanks...I'll get back to the other posts soon.
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

Andy S.

Quote from: Goombah on February 03, 2016, 11:53:30 PM


Aseret ha-Dibrot: The "Ten Commandments"

? There are 613 commandments, not 10
? The "Ten Commandments" are categories
? The 10 are divided into duties to G-d and duties to people
? Different religions divide the 10 in different ways

The Aseret ha-Dibrot are not understood as individual mitzvot; rather, they are categories or classifications of mitzvot. Each of the 613 mitzvot can be subsumed under one of these ten categories, some in more obvious ways than others.

Really....the 10 commandments are "categories"???  Challenge for Goombah:

PLEASE GIVE ME A VERSE IN THE BIBLE THAT SAYS EACH OF THE 613 LAWS ARE "SUBSUMED" IN A CATEGORY UNDER ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?

I'll give you another challenge just to see if you think (like I do) this is all nonsense:

WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #601 UNDER (Do not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations)?

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

Another Challenge:

WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #132 UNDER (The rapist must marry his victim if she is unwed)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

Quote from: Goombah on February 03, 2016, 11:53:30 PM
It is not particularly obvious, however, that the mitzvah not to embarrass a person fits within the category against murder: it causes the blood to drain from your face thereby shedding blood.

What???  Embarrassing a person fits within the category against murder???  It causes the blood to drain from your face thereby shedding blood???

Really???  You believe this???  This is absolute nonsense!

You should be embarrassed if you believe this!  Are you embarrassed?

Do you feel blood draining from your face right about now?  ||cheesy||

Should I now be charged with murder?


Quote from: Goombah on February 03, 2016, 11:53:30 PM
Quote
Furthermore, I don't even know which 10 commandments you are talking about.  Are you talking about the commandments in Exodus 20 or these "ten commandments" in Exodus 34:14-28? :

1. Thou shalt worship no other god.

2.Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3.The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.

4. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.

5. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks.

6. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God.

7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.

8. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning.

9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Which commandments are more important to follow?  The commandments in Exodus 20 or the "ten commandments" in Exodus 34?
The jewish site from above draws froms Exodus 20 for their article.

Why did the Jewish site draw from the "Ten commandments" in Exodus 20 and not the "Ten Commandments" in Exodus 34?  The "Ten Commandments" in Exodus 34 actually has the words "Ten Commandments" attached to it (Ex. 34:28).




Quote from: Goombah on February 03, 2016, 11:53:30 PM
If you can't get into The Kingdom without surpassing the righteousness of the pharisees  it sounds more like 'close but no cigar' for the pharisees.

Wait a second, Romans 3:10 says, "As it is written, 'THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE.'"  Jesus is saying the Pharisees are righteous (to a degree) but Paul says there is "none righteous". 

Hmmmm.

Quote from: Goombah on February 03, 2016, 11:53:30 PM
Quote
Now, Jesus did rebuke the Pharisees for neglecting some of the law but they were not rebuked for keeping other commandments that were not in the "10".  For instance, Matthew 23:23 states:

""Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others."

Notice Jesus didn't say, "Why are you tithing and turning the 10 commandments into new commandments?"  One thing you have to understand is the Pharisees DID NOT "TURN" 10 COMMANDMENTS INTO 613.  The Pharisees were tithing because the bible told them to.  Tithing is one of the 613 commandments.
So is " be fruitful and multiply".Are childless couples living in sin?

I don't know.  You tell me.  Jesus said in the above example that the Pharisees "should" be tithing.  If God says you "should" do something and you don't are you living in sin? 

Matt. 5:19 states:

"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."

Law #63 of the of the 613 laws says "To be fruitful and multiply".

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

The question:  Is a couple living in sin if they "annul" the commandment to be fruitful and multiply?  The couple who can have children but don't might be the least in the kingdom of heaven but I'm the wrong person to ask if you want to know if this couple is "living in sin".  From the above verse I guess I would say yes but at least they get into the "kingdom of heaven" even though they will be called "least". 


Quote from: Goombah on February 03, 2016, 11:53:30 PM


I think that the pharisees put undue complications ( based on the Ten Commandments) upon the people which they themselves couldn't keep.

Well, for goodness sake, I'm glad the Pharisees couldn't keep the whole law.  If this is true, I commend the Pharisees for not keeping the whole law.  I mean...for instance....I'm glad the Pharisees might have thought it is unjust for someone to have to marry the virgin girl they raped.  Maybe the Pharisees thought it would be messed up for a woman to have to live with their rapist for the rest of their lives for the price of fifty shekels (Deut. 22:29)

This is just one example of some of the unjust laws that are found within the 613.

Quote from: Goombah on February 03, 2016, 11:53:30 PM
Thanks...I'll get back to the other posts soon.

Great, looking forward to it! 

This "Ten Commandment" thing was a serious derail.  However, I can't believe you think all 613 laws fit into categories of the 10 commandments.  In addition, all of your last post did not explain how the Pharisees "turned 10 commandments into 613".  I really don't know why you even responded to my last post.  Your response only created more tough questions for you to answer.   

I'm looking forward to your answers to this post but I totally understand if you want to avoid answering any of these questions and want to get back on topic.     
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on February 05, 2016, 07:01:49 AM
Quote from: Goombah on February 03, 2016, 11:53:30 PM


Aseret ha-Dibrot: The "Ten Commandments"

? There are 613 commandments, not 10
? The "Ten Commandments" are categories
? The 10 are divided into duties to G-d and duties to people
? Different religions divide the 10 in different ways

The Aseret ha-Dibrot are not understood as individual mitzvot; rather, they are categories or classifications of mitzvot. Each of the 613 mitzvot can be subsumed under one of these ten categories, some in more obvious ways than others.

Really....the 10 commandments are "categories"???  Challenge for Goombah:

PLEASE GIVE ME A VERSE IN THE BIBLE THAT SAYS EACH OF THE 613 LAWS ARE "SUBSUMED" IN A CATEGORY UNDER ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?
Quote
It wouldn't be in the Bible.

There is no biblical reference to 613 commandments, although the later rabbinic leaders claimed that all 613 commandments are alluded to within the Ten Commandments. The first actual reference to 613 commandments is found in a lengthy Talmudic passage. There, Rabbi Simlai (third century A.D.) is quoted as saying, ?Six hundred and thirteen precepts were communicated to Moses, three hundred and sixty-five negative precepts, ?and two hundred and forty-eight positive precepts?? (b. Makkot 23b-24a; we will return to this passage at the end of this answer). Based on this comment, medieval Jewish scholars, sought to come to agreement as to the exact enumeration and delineation of the 613 commandments, since there is a good deal of ambiguity in counting. - See more at: https://askdrbrown.org/portfolio/are-there-really-613-commandments-in-the-torah/#sthash.vNE0yKlj.dpuf

Quote

I'll give you another challenge just to see if you think (like I do) this is all nonsense:

WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #601 UNDER (Do not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations)?

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm
I have no idea what they listed it under.
Quote
Another Challenge:

WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #132 UNDER (The rapist must marry his victim if she is unwed)?
Coveting? Stealing?
Again, I have no idea.

Quote

Quote from: Goombah on February 03, 2016, 11:53:30 PM
It is not particularly obvious, however, that the mitzvah not to embarrass a person fits within the category against murder: it causes the blood to drain from your face thereby shedding blood.

What???  Embarrassing a person fits within the category against murder???  It causes the blood to drain from your face thereby shedding blood???

Really???  You believe this???  This is absolute nonsense!

You should be embarrassed if you believe this!  Are you embarrassed?

Do you feel blood draining from your face right about now?  ||cheesy||

Should I now be charged with murder?

OF COURSE it's ridiculous! That's my point.The Jewish leaders insisted on complicating the Law beyond anything remotely reasonable.Which is why I compared what you were attempting to do( add requirements to salvation ,like speaking in tongues and water baptism,) which Jesus didn't hold the thief on the cross to.That exception needs an explanation before the other requirements become universally mandatory for salvation.I can't hold someone to a requirement that Christ Himself didn't .


Quote
Furthermore, I don't even know which 10 commandments you are talking about.  Are you talking about the commandments in Exodus 20 or these "ten commandments" in Exodus 34:14-28? :

1. Thou shalt worship no other god.

2.Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3.The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.

4. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.

5. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks.

6. Thrice in the year shall all your menchildren appear before the Lord God.

7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.

8. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning.

9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk.

Which commandments are more important to follow?  The commandments in Exodus 20 or the "ten commandments" in Exodus 34?



Why did the Jewish site draw from the "Ten commandments" in Exodus 20 and not the "Ten Commandments" in Exodus 34?  The "Ten Commandments" in Exodus 34 actually has the words "Ten Commandments" attached to it (Ex. 34:28).


Maybe because as wiki describes it:

The Ten Commandments, also known as the Decalogue, are a set of commandments which the Bible describes as having been given to the Israelites by God at biblical Mount Sinai. The Ten Commandments are listed twice in the Hebrew Bible, first at Exodus 20:1?17, and then at Deuteronomy 5:4?21. Both versions state that God inscribed them on two stone tablets, which he gave to Moses. According to New Testament writers, the Ten Commandments are clearly attributed to Moses (Mark 7:10, see also John 7:19).



Quote from: Goombah on February 03, 2016, 11:53:30 PM
If you can't get into The Kingdom without surpassing the righteousness of the pharisees  it sounds more like 'close but no cigar' for the pharisees.
Quote
Wait a second, Romans 3:10 says, "As it is written, 'THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE.'"  Jesus is saying the Pharisees are righteous (to a degree) but Paul says there is "none righteous". 

Hmmmm.

Exactly! If it's keeping the Law that gets  one into The Kingdom, then, as James points out, it's 100% or bust.
I see the purpose of the Law as this:
Gal 3:24
24)Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
Matthew Henry:
"The law did not teach a living, saving knowledge; but, by its rites and ceremonies, especially by its sacrifices, it pointed to Christ, that they might be justified by faith."


Quote
Now, Jesus did rebuke the Pharisees for neglecting some of the law but they were not rebuked for keeping other commandments that were not in the "10".  For instance, Matthew 23:23 states:

""Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others."

Notice Jesus didn't say, "Why are you tithing and turning the 10 commandments into new commandments?"  One thing you have to understand is the Pharisees DID NOT "TURN" 10 COMMANDMENTS INTO 613.  The Pharisees were tithing because the bible told them to.  Tithing is one of the 613 commandments.

What numbers are justice ,mercy and faithfulness?Do you happen to know if they are part of the list?

What I'm saying is simply that the 10 commandments were expanded to 613 and the fact that the '10' was the 'mother sauce' if you will was claimed by various Jewish teachers and the Talmud writers. With the destruction of the Temple they have Laws that they are not now even able to keep for example.

Quote

Matt. 5:19 states:

"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."

Law #63 of the of the 613 laws says "To be fruitful and multiply".

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

The question:  Is a couple living in sin if they "annul" the commandment to be fruitful and multiply?  The couple who can have children but don't might be the least in the kingdom of heaven but I'm the wrong person to ask if you want to know if this couple is "living in sin".  From the above verse I guess I would say yes but at least they get into the "kingdom of heaven" even though they will be called "least". 


Not that cut and dry if you continue on to the very next verse:

20 ?For I say to you that unless your righteousness (uprightness, moral essence) is more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Quote from: Goombah on February 03, 2016, 11:53:30 PM


I think that the pharisees put undue complications ( based on the Ten Commandments) upon the people which they themselves couldn't keep.
Quote
Well, for goodness sake, I'm glad the Pharisees couldn't keep the whole law.  If this is true, I commend the Pharisees for not keeping the whole law.  I mean...for instance....I'm glad the Pharisees might have thought it is unjust for someone to have to marry the virgin girl they raped.  Maybe the Pharisees thought it would be messed up for a woman to have to live with their rapist for the rest of their lives for the price of fifty shekels (Deut. 22:29)

This is just one example of some of the unjust laws that are found within the 613.

I agree but you don't know what parts of the whole law they didn't keep.The ones you find unjust may have been the ones they kept.I'm sure an extensive knowledge of the Ancient Near East culture would help...I obviously don't have that.

Quote
This "Ten Commandment" thing was a serious derail.  However, I can't believe you think all 613 laws fit into categories of the 10 commandments.  In addition, all of your last post did not explain how the Pharisees "turned 10 commandments into 613".  I really don't know why you even responded to my last post.  Your response only created more tough questions for you to answer.   


You're giving me credit for a claim I'm not making, Andy.I pointed out Jewish writers and the Talmud which claim the 613 can be traced back to the 10. I only brought it up to show how easily the simplicity of Scripture is weighed down by man-made regulations....example : the blood from the cheeks thing = murder.
Quote
I'm looking forward to your answers to this post but I totally understand if you want to avoid answering any of these questions and want to get back on topic.   

We can lay this  to rest, for certain.Let's get back to the other subjects.
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

Andy S.

Goombah, I am not going to even attempt to piece ^^^ apart into separate quotes.  You messed up the quoting format and I have a hard enough time trying to get a correct format when it is done correctly.  I'll respond to a few things by using a lot of cut and paste.

You claimed that the 10 commandments are categories.  Each of the 613 laws can be subsumed under one of these ten categories (the 10 commandments). 

You admitted your claim cannot be found in the bible and then I challenged you by simply giving you two laws that seemed to be impossible to be subsumed under one of the categories of the ten categories and you failed to meet my challenges.

Well, I take that back.  I challenged you with the law that says a rapist must marry his victim if she is unwed and you said you have no idea but this law might be subsumed under the category of "coveting" or "stealing".  Now that is really funny Goombah!!!  Thanks for the laugh today!

So you basically have no idea what categories these two laws fall under.  These are just two out of many I could have given you.  Listen, it isn't convincing to me whatsoever that the 613 commandments can be subsumed into 10.  It shouldn't be convincing to you either!  You make a claim that can't be found in the bible and then you don't know what the answers are to my challenges.  This should be a good sign that this claim of yours is BS. 

So your claim was tested and your claim failed.  So, if you have any intellectual integrity you shouldn't really believe that the 613 laws can be subsumed into the 10 categories of the 10 commandments anymore. 

But then you write these things later in your post:

"the 10 commandments were expanded to 613"

and....

"Jewish writers and the Talmud which claim the 613 can be traced back to the 10. I only brought it up to show how easily the simplicity of Scripture is weighed down by man-made regulations."

UNBELIEVABLE!  Listen, the 10 commandments were NOT expanded to 613!  You definitely can't prove this and it should have been evident in the fact that you failed to meet my challenges.  And what are you talking about?  "Weighed down by man-made regulations"???  Are the laws of the bible "man-made regulations"?  Now this might be something we can agree on.


You then state:

"The Jewish leaders insisted on complicating the Law beyond anything remotely reasonable.  Which is why I compared what you were attempting to do( add requirements to salvation ,like speaking in tongues and water baptism,)."

First, I don't think the Jewish leaders "complicated the Law".  If anything, they were reprimanded for neglecting part of the law (Matt. 23:23).  I believe when Jesus says ?For I say to you that unless your righteousness (uprightness, moral essence) is more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:20) he is saying one has to be more righteous than the Pharisees who have neglected part of the law. 

Second, I never "attempted" to add the requirements of speaking in tongues or water baptism to salvation.  I repeat: I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE EXACT REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR SALVATION ARE!  The bible is too ambiguous.  And listen, I told you that when I was a Christian I would be accusing YOU of adding an extra requirement needed for salvation.  I did not think one had to believe Jesus was the One True God in order to be saved and you do. 

BTW, since you like using the thief on the cross as an example can you prove with 100% certainty that the thief thought Jesus was the One True God before he died?  If you can't then should this requirement be universally mandatory?


Lastly, you quote Gal 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith."

OK, How does the law that says a rapist must marry his victim if she is unwed lead someone to Christ?


You finished your post with "we can lay this to rest" and that is fine.  We can get back to other "subjects".  You are spinning your wheels anyway with this 10 commandment thing.  Next time you make such a dogmatic claim you should do more research to make sure your claim is valid.  The challenges I gave you should have been easily answered if your claim was correct.

Sorry if this post was disjointed but I didn't want to try to piece your last post apart since you didn't quote properly.

Looking forward to another response!         

"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on February 09, 2016, 04:03:24 AM


You claimed that the 10 commandments are categories.  Each of the 613 laws can be subsumed under one of these ten categories (the 10 commandments). 

I linked to this site which made that claim: http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm. You may recognize the organization as you also provided a link to it in one of your posts.

The Aseret ha-Dibrot are not understood as individual mitzvot; rather, they are categories or classifications of mitzvot. Each of the 613 mitzvot can be subsumed under one of these ten categories, some in more obvious ways than others.


  List of the Aseret ha-Dibrot
1. Belief in G-d
This category is derived from the declaration in Ex. 20:2 beginning, "I am the L-rd, your G-d..."
2. Prohibition of Improper Worship
This category is derived from Ex. 20:3-6, beginning, "You shall not have other gods..." It encompasses within it the prohibition against the worship of other gods as well as the prohibition of improper forms of worship of the one true G-d, such as worshiping G-d through an idol.
3. Prohibition of Oaths
This category is derived from Ex. 20:7, beginning, "You shall not take the name of the L-rd your G-d in vain..." This includes prohibitions against perjury, breaking or delaying the performance of vows or promises, and speaking G-d's name or swearing unnecessarily.
4. Observance of Sacred Times
This category is derived from Ex. 20:8-11, beginning, "Remember the Sabbath day..." It encompasses all mitzvot related to Shabbat, holidays, or other sacred time.
5. Respect for Parents and Teachers
This category is derived from Ex. 20:12, beginning, "Honor your father and mother..."
6. Prohibition of Physically Harming a Person
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not murder."
7. Prohibition of Sexual Immorality
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not commit adultery."
8. Prohibition of Theft
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not steal." It includes within it both outright robbery as well as various forms of theft by deception and unethical business practices. It also includes kidnapping, which is essentially "stealing" a person.
9. Prohibition of Harming a Person through Speech
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." It includes all forms of lashon ha-ra (sins relating to speech).
10. Prohibition of Coveting
This category is derived from Ex. 20:14, beginning, "You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."

Quote

You admitted your claim cannot be found in the bible and then I challenged you by simply giving you two laws that seemed to be impossible to be subsumed under one of the categories of the ten categories and you failed to meet my challenges.
I provided you with this from a Jewish scholar.

my response:

"It wouldn't be in the Bible.

There is no biblical reference to 613 commandments, although the later rabbinic leaders claimed that all 613 commandments are alluded to within the Ten Commandments. The first actual reference to 613 commandments is found in a lengthy Talmudic passage. There, Rabbi Simlai (third century A.D.) is quoted as saying, ?Six hundred and thirteen precepts were communicated to Moses, three hundred and sixty-five negative precepts, ?and two hundred and forty-eight positive precepts?? (b. Makkot 23b-24a; we will return to this passage at the end of this answer). Based on this comment, medieval Jewish scholars, sought to come to agreement as to the exact enumeration and delineation of the 613 commandments, since there is a good deal of ambiguity in counting. - See more at: https://askdrbrown.org/portfolio/are-there-really-613-commandments-in-the-torah/#sthash.vNE0yKlj.dpuf "

You may have noticed that the 613 commandments, according to Dr. Brown,weren't even referenced until the third century AD.It wouldn't have been possible to , as you put it:
"PLEASE GIVE ME A VERSE IN THE BIBLE THAT SAYS EACH OF THE 613 LAWS ARE "SUBSUMED" IN A CATEGORY UNDER ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?"

As I previously stated....IT WOULDN'T BE IN THE BIBLE.

Where the Rabbis linked them is of no consequence to me...the bottom line is still the same; nobody was able to keep them all , be it 10 or 613.

Quote

Well, I take that back.  I challenged you with the law that says a rapist must marry his victim if she is unwed and you said you have no idea but this law might be subsumed under the category of "coveting" or "stealing".  Now that is really funny Goombah!!!  Thanks for the laugh today!

You disagree with the categorization?They were educated guesses but I haven't looked into where the Rabbis would link that .My thought was based in part on this:
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, For the abuse of his daughter; and besides this was obliged to give her her dowry also, as Philo (d) says, which is commonly said to be fifty more:
Quote


So you basically have no idea what categories these two laws fall under.  These are just two out of many I could have given you.  Listen, it isn't convincing to me whatsoever that the 613 commandments can be subsumed into 10.  It shouldn't be convincing to you either!  You make a claim that can't be found in the bible and then you don't know what the answers are to my challenges.  This should be a good sign that this claim of yours is BS. 
Take it up with the people who are making the claim .I'm just using them as references and saw no reason not to accept what they said.Here's another one:

By the first century of the Common Era, a number of Jewish texts interpreted the Decalogue as representing all of the commandments. Philo of Alexandria saw the Ten Commandments as inclusive of all of the mitzvot of the Torah (Decalogue 154).

The Ten Commandments loom large in rabbinic literature, where Shavuot is reinterpreted as a festival commemorating the revelation at Sinai. Following the pattern found in Philo and others, the Ten Commandments are often presented as the basis for all 613 commandments.


http://shma.com/2012/05/ten-or-613-the-commandments/
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

Andy S.

Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 12:56:31 AM

Where the Rabbis linked them is of no consequence to me...the bottom line is still the same; nobody was able to keep them all , be it 10 or 613.

Goombah says nobody was able to keep them all but Jesus says whoever keeps and teaches the commandments will be "called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).

Listen.  You have to understand that the Pharisees did not "turn" 10 commandments into 613.  Is tithing one of the ten commandments?  The answer is no.  There is a reason why Jesus said the Pharisees "should" be tithing (Matt. 23:23).  It is because it is one of the many laws in the old testament. 
 

 

Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 12:56:31 AM
Quote
So you basically have no idea what categories these two laws fall under.  These are just two out of many I could have given you.  Listen, it isn't convincing to me whatsoever that the 613 commandments can be subsumed into 10.  It shouldn't be convincing to you either!  You make a claim that can't be found in the bible and then you don't know what the answers are to my challenges.  This should be a good sign that this claim of yours is BS. 
Take it up with the people who are making the claim .I'm just using them as references and saw no reason not to accept what they said.

Really?  You saw "no reason not to accept what they said".  THEN WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #601 UNDER (Do not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations)?

If your answer is still "I have no idea" then you should potentially have one reason to not accept what they say.  You should test and investigate claims before accepting what people say.   

"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on February 11, 2016, 05:26:31 AM
Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 12:56:31 AM

Where the Rabbis linked them is of no consequence to me...the bottom line is still the same; nobody was able to keep them all , be it 10 or 613.

Goombah says nobody was able to keep them all but Jesus says whoever keeps and teaches the commandments will be "called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).

Which commandments?All 613?The ones in the Sermon on the Mount?

Obviously the Pharisees and Scribes couldn't do it or Jesus wouldn't say this:

Matthew 5: 19

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Does keeping the Law justify anyone?not according to Romans 3 :

?19)Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20)because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

How can one exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees?

22even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;?


Quote
Listen.  You have to understand that the Pharisees did not "turn" 10 commandments into 613.  Is tithing one of the ten commandments?  The answer is no.  There is a reason why Jesus said the Pharisees "should" be tithing (Matt. 23:23).  It is because it is one of the many laws in the old testament. 

Would NOT TITHING break one of the Ten Commandments?
  Malachi 3:
8)"Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, 'How have we robbed You?' In tithes and offerings. 9)"You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me,......
 
8. Prohibition of Theft
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not steal." It includes within it both outright robbery as well as various forms of theft by deception and unethical business practices.

Quote
So you basically have no idea what categories these two laws fall under.  These are just two out of many I could have given you.  Listen, it isn't convincing to me whatsoever that the 613 commandments can be subsumed into 10.  It shouldn't be convincing to you either!  You make a claim that can't be found in the bible and then you don't know what the answers are to my challenges.  This should be a good sign that this claim of yours is BS. 
Take it up with the people who are making the claim .I'm just using them as references and saw no reason not to accept what they said.
Quote
Really?  You saw "no reason not to accept what they said".  THEN WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #601 UNDER (Do not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations)?

If your answer is still "I have no idea" then you should potentially have one reason to not accept what they say.  You should test and investigate claims before accepting what people say.   
I thought you vetted them....you linked to the same site as I did.

Can you explain the reason that commandment was given?The circumstances surrounding it?

If it involved preventing the Israelites from practicing the same religion as the Canaanites then the connection is obvious....

1. Belief in G-d
This category is derived from the declaration in Ex. 20:2 beginning, "I am the L-rd, your G-d..."
2. Prohibition of Improper Worship
This category is derived from Ex. 20:3-6, beginning, "You shall not have other gods..." It encompasses within it the prohibition against the worship of other gods as well as the prohibition of improper forms of worship of the one true G-d, such as worshiping G-d through an idol.

sexual immorality? equally obvious.

7. Prohibition of Sexual Immorality
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not commit adultery."

Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

Andy S.

Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
Quote from: Andy S. on February 11, 2016, 05:26:31 AM
Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 12:56:31 AM

Where the Rabbis linked them is of no consequence to me...the bottom line is still the same; nobody was able to keep them all , be it 10 or 613.

Goombah says nobody was able to keep them all but Jesus says whoever keeps and teaches the commandments will be "called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).

Which commandments?All 613?The ones in the Sermon on the Mount?

How should I know?  You ask Jesus which ones he meant in Matt. 5:19.  John 14:13 states, ""Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son."  I asked him before I started this post but he didn't answer.  Now you try.

If he doesn't answer you, my guess would be just the ones in the old testament because just two verses earlier Jesus states in vs. 17, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets". 


Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
Obviously the Pharisees and Scribes couldn't do it or Jesus wouldn't say this:

Matthew 5: 19

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

That verse doesn't mean the Pharisees and Scribes COULDN'T do it.  Where do you see that?  All it says is one's righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees.  According to the author of Matthew, it's not that the Scribes and Pharisees couldn't keep the Law....it's that they were NEGLEGTING part of the law and that's why they weren't considered righteous enough. 

I repeat....Matt. 23:23....."For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have NEGLECTED the weightier provisions of the law"

I don't think you will find in the book of Matthew the claim that people CAN'T keep the commandments or that it's IMPOSSIBLE to keep the commandments. 

I don't know if I told you my belief about the books and authors of the bible.  If I did then I'm sorry you have to hear it again. 

After careful consideration and investigation, my belief is that the bible is not inspired by a God but by men.  The bible is made up of different authors, writing different books, at different times, for different purposes with different theologies.  I don't see any divine inspiration after my investigation.  It's a lot easier explaining all the contradictions and descrepancies in the bible with this belief.

So you might be able to give me a verse from a different author that points to it being impossible for people to keep the Law but I don't think the author of Matthew believed this.     

Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
Does keeping the Law justify anyone?not according to Romans 3 :

Well, if keeping the Law means "works" then the answer is yes according to the author of James.

James 2:24,25 states, "4 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

It seems like the author of Romans and the author of James would disagree on this.  The author of Romans (chap. 3) says, "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight" and the author of James would disagree and say "a man is justified by works".

Hey Goombah, I'm just wondering.  Is there a bible translation out there that says, "If you love me you will TRY TO keep my commandments EVEN THOUGH IT'S IMPOSSIBLE" (John 14:15).


Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
How can one exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees?

Well, according to Matthew, one can exceed the righteous of the Pharisees by not "neglecting the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness" (Matt. 23:23). 


Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
Quote
Listen.  You have to understand that the Pharisees did not "turn" 10 commandments into 613.  Is tithing one of the ten commandments?  The answer is no.  There is a reason why Jesus said the Pharisees "should" be tithing (Matt. 23:23).  It is because it is one of the many laws in the old testament. 


Would NOT TITHING break one of the Ten Commandments?
  Malachi 3:
8)"Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, 'How have we robbed You?' In tithes and offerings. 9)"You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me,......
 
8. Prohibition of Theft
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not steal." It includes within it both outright robbery as well as various forms of theft by deception and unethical business practices.

I have a question Goombah.  You said the Pharisees turned 10 commandments into 613.  Would it be correct to say that the Pharisees should turn 613 commandments into 10?


Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
Quote
Really?  You saw "no reason not to accept what they said".  THEN WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #601 UNDER (Do not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations)?

If your answer is still "I have no idea" then you should potentially have one reason to not accept what they say.  You should test and investigate claims before accepting what people say.   
I thought you vetted them....you linked to the same site as I did.

This assumption of yours is wrong.  You think I "vetted" them because I linked to the same site???  I just got one of the 613 commandments off their site.   

Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
Can you explain the reason that commandment was given?The circumstances surrounding it?

Would it matter?  God commands his people to not murder and then he commands them to murder.  Why would the circumstances surrounding it matter? 

Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
If it involved preventing the Israelites from practicing the same religion as the Canaanites then the connection is obvious....

1. Belief in G-d
This category is derived from the declaration in Ex. 20:2 beginning, "I am the L-rd, your G-d..."
2. Prohibition of Improper Worship
This category is derived from Ex. 20:3-6, beginning, "You shall not have other gods..." It encompasses within it the prohibition against the worship of other gods as well as the prohibition of improper forms of worship of the one true G-d, such as worshiping G-d through an idol.

sexual immorality? equally obvious.

7. Prohibition of Sexual Immorality
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not commit adultery."

If you "prevent" by murdering then I'm sorry, this commandment to "not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations" goes against the commandment to murder.  Try again.

By the way, to not keep alive ANY INDIVIDUAL of the seven Canaanite nations means the murdering of children.  The category of belief in God, Prohibition of Improper Worship, and Prohibition of Sexual Immorality is just laughable.

If these are correct categories then you would have to explain why the women and children were sparred in Deut. 20:14 and not sparred in Deut. 20:16. 

Oh, and the reason why the children were not spared is alluded to in verse 18.  It is because God is scared that children will teach the Israelites  the detestable things which they have done for their non-existent gods.  Your God is scared of the influence of children on his people.  This God of yours that supposedly exists wants children murdered because of the things they have done for their non-existent god. 

In reading this wonderful story in Deut. 20, I was wondering what category of the 10 commandments you would put Deut. 20:11.  It says if the Israelites go into a city to fight against it and the city agrees to the offer of peace then you shall take all the people as "forced labor" and they shall "serve" them. 

What category of the 10 commandments would you put slavery under?   
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Goombah

#94
Quote from: Andy S. on February 11, 2016, 10:48:49 PM
Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
Quote from: Andy S. on February 11, 2016, 05:26:31 AM
Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 12:56:31 AM

Where the Rabbis linked them is of no consequence to me...the bottom line is still the same; nobody was able to keep them all , be it 10 or 613.

Goombah says nobody was able to keep them all but Jesus says whoever keeps and teaches the commandments will be "called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).

Which commandments?All 613?The ones in the Sermon on the Mount?

How should I know?  You ask Jesus which ones he meant in Matt. 5:19.

You are using that scripture to make your point.I assumed you knew.

Quote
John 14:13 states, ""Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son."  I asked him before I started this post but he didn't answer.  Now you try.

So, you prayed to God by the authority of Jesus' name so that God could receive glory from His Son?

Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
Obviously the Pharisees and Scribes couldn't do it or Jesus wouldn't say this:

Matthew 5: 19

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Quote
That verse doesn't mean the Pharisees and Scribes COULDN'T do it.  Where do you see that?  All it says is one's righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees.  According to the author of Matthew, it's not that the Scribes and Pharisees couldn't keep the Law....it's that they were NEGLEGTING part of the law and that's why they weren't considered righteous enough. 

I repeat....Matt. 23:23....."For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have NEGLECTED the weightier provisions of the law"

I don't think you will find in the book of Matthew the claim that people CAN'T keep the commandments or that it's IMPOSSIBLE to keep the commandments. 

I agree with you Andy, to a point.. it seems as if we can keep any of the commandments we should be able to keep all of them...but we don't.I see here that the pharisees already blew it and more so later on in Matthew. for example:

Eight Woes

13 ?But woe (judgment is coming) to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven in front of people; for you do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow those who are [in the process of] entering to do so. 14 [d][Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you swallow up widows? houses, and to cover it up you make long prayers; therefore you will receive the greater condemnation.]

15 ?Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel over sea and land to make a single proselyte (convert to Judaism), and when he becomes a convert, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

16 ?Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ?Whoever swears [an oath] by the sanctuary of the temple, that is nothing (non-binding); but whoever swears [an oath] by the gold of the temple is obligated [as a debtor to fulfill his vow and keep his promise].? 17 You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the sanctuary of the temple that sanctified the gold? 18 And [you scribes and Pharisees say], ?Whoever swears [an oath] by the altar, that is nothing (non-binding), but whoever swears [an oath] by the offering on it, he is obligated [as a debtor to fulfill his vow and keep his promise].? 19 You [spiritually] blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? 20 Therefore, whoever swears [an oath] by the altar, swears both by it and by everything [offered] on it. 21 And whoever swears [an oath] by the sanctuary of the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells within it. 22 And whoever swears [an oath] by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.

23 ?Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you give a tenth (tithe) of your mint and dill and cumin [focusing on minor matters], and have neglected the weightier [more important moral and spiritual] provisions of the Law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the [primary] things you ought to have done without neglecting the others. 24 You [spiritually] blind guides, who strain out a gnat [consuming yourselves with miniscule matters] and swallow a camel [ignoring and violating God?s precepts]!

25 ?Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and robbery and self-indulgence (unrestrained greed). 26 You [spiritually] blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the plate [examine and change your inner self to conform to God?s precepts], so that the outside [your public life and deeds] may be clean also.

27 ?Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which look beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men?s bones and everything unclean. 28 So you, also, outwardly seem to be just and upright to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29 ?Woe to you, [self-righteous] scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build tombs for the prophets and decorate and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and you say, ?If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have joined them in shedding the blood of the prophets.? 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the [allotted] measure of the guilt of your fathers? sins. 33 You [e]serpents, you spawn of vipers, how can you escape the penalty of hell?
Quote
I don't know if I told you my belief about the books and authors of the bible.  If I did then I'm sorry you have to hear it again. 

After careful consideration and investigation, my belief is that the bible is not inspired by a God but by men.  The bible is made up of different authors, writing different books, at different times, for different purposes with different theologies.  I don't see any divine inspiration after my investigation.  It's a lot easier explaining all the contradictions and descrepancies in the bible with this belief.

So you might be able to give me a verse from a different author that points to it being impossible for people to keep the Law but I don't think the author of Matthew believed this.     

I wouldn't venture an opinion on all of  the author's beliefs but I can accept that you didn't find direct mention of the impossibility of keeping the Law in this book.
I wouldn't discount the meaning the author would take from the purpose of the Messiah's crucifixion, though.


Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
Does keeping the Law justify anyone?not according to Romans 3 :
Quote
Well, if keeping the Law means "works" then the answer is yes according to the author of James.

James 2:24,25 states, "4 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

He doesn't discount being saved by faith; the verse previous states this:

23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, ?Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness

James says... Faith alone, he isn't saying faith isn't required."Show me faith" how do you SEE faith? Works shows it to you.

Quote
It seems like the author of Romans and the author of James would disagree on this.  The author of Romans (chap. 3) says, "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight" and the author of James would disagree and say "a man is justified by works".

A living faith will be followed by works, it is evidence of it as James stated:

18 But someone will say, ?You have faith; I have deeds.?
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.

Quote
Hey Goombah, I'm just wondering.  Is there a bible translation out there that says, "If you love me you will TRY TO keep my commandments EVEN THOUGH IT'S IMPOSSIBLE" (John 14:15).

Not that I'm aware of but there are lots of them that say "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,:as well as "10) as it is written:

?None is righteous, no, not one;.


Quote

I have a question Goombah.  You said the Pharisees turned 10 commandments into 613.  Would it be correct to say that the Pharisees should turn 613 commandments into 10?

Perhaps.

For a fascinating passage in the Talmud that states that Habakkuk ultimately reduced the 613 commandments to one ? namely, Habakkuk 2:4, the just will live by faith ? (see Talmud, Makkoth 24a, - See more at: http://askdrbrown.org/portfolio/are-there-really-613-commandments-in-the-torah/#sthash.pFb3WnUF.dpuf

Yes, the concluding comment is that the 613 commandments were reduced to one, as expressed in Habakkuk 2:4, ?The just shall live by faith?-a favorite text of Paul! (See Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11.) Of course, this is not to say that the Talmudic rabbis were Christians, but it is to say that when Paul boiled everything down to the just living by faith, he was in good company. - See more at: http://askdrbrown.org/portfolio/are-there-really-613-commandments-in-the-torah/#sthash.pFb3WnUF.dpuf


Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
Quote
Really?  You saw "no reason not to accept what they said".  THEN WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #601 UNDER (Do not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations)?

If your answer is still "I have no idea" then you should potentially have one reason to not accept what they say.  You should test and investigate claims before accepting what people say.   
I thought you vetted them....you linked to the same site as I did.
Quote
This assumption of yours is wrong.  You think I "vetted" them because I linked to the same site???  I just got one of the 613 commandments off their site.   

Your # 601. THEN WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #601 UNDER (Do not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations)?

Their #601http://www.the613commandments.com/The-List-of-the-613-Commandments.html
601   Do not dwell permanently in Egypt
 

could we maybe do the whole 'evil God' thing at a later time? There are probably tons of threads like that in here already.
I'm hoping to resume our original conversation at some point.


















Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

Andy S.

Quote from: Goombah on February 13, 2016, 11:48:08 PM
Quote from: Andy S. on February 11, 2016, 10:48:49 PM
Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
Quote from: Andy S. on February 11, 2016, 05:26:31 AM
Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 12:56:31 AM

Where the Rabbis linked them is of no consequence to me...the bottom line is still the same; nobody was able to keep them all , be it 10 or 613.

Goombah says nobody was able to keep them all but Jesus says whoever keeps and teaches the commandments will be "called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).

Which commandments?All 613?The ones in the Sermon on the Mount?

How should I know?  You ask Jesus which ones he meant in Matt. 5:19.

You are using that scripture to make your point.I assumed you knew.

Once again, your assumption is wrong.  If you read the last post.....I made an educated guess.

Why would Jesus say, "whoever keeps the commandments and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" if it's impossible to keep them all?   


Quote from: Goombah on February 13, 2016, 11:48:08 PM
Quote
John 14:13 states, ""Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son."  I asked him before I started this post but he didn't answer.  Now you try.

So, you prayed to God by the authority of Jesus' name so that God could receive glory from His Son?

No, I didn't.  I am not a believer.  I just "ASKED" him to reveal this information to me.  He didn't.  One verse before John 14:13 states, "...he who believes..." and that's why I figured this passage is for BELIEVERS ONLY which is why I thought YOU should try asking your God for the answer.     

Quote from: Goombah on February 13, 2016, 11:48:08 PM
Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
Obviously the Pharisees and Scribes couldn't do it or Jesus wouldn't say this:

Matthew 5: 19

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Quote
That verse doesn't mean the Pharisees and Scribes COULDN'T do it.  Where do you see that?  All it says is one's righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees.  According to the author of Matthew, it's not that the Scribes and Pharisees couldn't keep the Law....it's that they were NEGLEGTING part of the law and that's why they weren't considered righteous enough. 

I repeat....Matt. 23:23....."For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have NEGLECTED the weightier provisions of the law"

I don't think you will find in the book of Matthew the claim that people CAN'T keep the commandments or that it's IMPOSSIBLE to keep the commandments. 

I agree with you Andy, to a point.. it seems as if we can keep any of the commandments we should be able to keep all of them...but we don't.I see here that the pharisees already blew it and more so later on in Matthew. for example:

So the Pharisees "blew it" right?  Were they not "living in faith"?  There is a line then between "living in faith" and NOT "living in faith" then.  What's that line?


Quote from: Goombah on February 13, 2016, 11:48:08 PM
I wouldn't venture an opinion on all of  the author's beliefs but I can accept that you didn't find direct mention of the impossibility of keeping the Law in this book.

Good.  I'm glad you accept.  If you start with the presupposition that different authors have different theologies then things make a lot more sense.....biblically speaking.

I know you like the thief on the cross story.  It's very telling that the author of Matthew left the "be with me in paradise" part out.  In fact, it doesn't even show that one of the thieves was even repentant in Matthew.  Either Matthew excluded this part of the story for a certain reason or this story of the repentant thief didn't even happen and Luke made the whole thing up.

If the story about the repentant thief really happened you have to ask yourself why Matthew would leave the story at, "the robbers who had been crucified with Him were also insulting Him with the same words".  And that's it.

Don't you think Matthew would have at least mentioned that one of the thieves was going to be with Jesus in paradise?  Noooo.....instead Matthew wasted his ink on bodies being raised after an earthquake an appearing to people 8 verses later. 

This is one example out of many that shows ME that different authors had different theologies.   

   

Quote from: Goombah on February 13, 2016, 11:48:08 PM
I wouldn't discount the meaning the author would take from the purpose of the Messiah's crucifixion, though.

OK, what was Matthew's "purpose" for the crucifixion?   

I'm going to make another educated guess.  The purpose of the crucifixion according to this author was NOT to show that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep.

One reason (out of many) is because of the last verse in the book of Matthew says...."observe all that I commanded you".

I doesn't say, "I know it's impossible, but observe all that I commanded you".

It sure sounds like this author is a big proponent of people being justified by works.

I'm open to being wrong.  I think the author of Matthew thought keeping the law justified people just like the author of James thought.  Do you have any scriptural evidence from the book of Matthew that shows otherwise?  I just don't see Matthew agreeing with the author of Romans as to the purpose of the crucifixion being that it was impossible for people to follow the law.           

Quote from: Goombah on February 13, 2016, 11:48:08 PM
Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
Does keeping the Law justify anyone?not according to Romans 3 :
Quote
Well, if keeping the Law means "works" then the answer is yes according to the author of James.

James 2:24,25 states, "4 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

He doesn't discount being saved by faith; the verse previous states this:

23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, ?Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness

James says... Faith alone, he isn't saying faith isn't required."Show me faith" how do you SEE faith? Works shows it to you.

Listen. You claimed that the Law didn't justify anyone according to Rom. 3.  All I did was show you how the author of James disagreed with that notion.  Sure the author of James says that faith is required also.  So what?  I never said James requirement was NO FAITH.  It's faith + works.  Furthermore, Galatians 2:16 would also disagree with this: "...so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified".

James says people can be justified by works (+ faith) and Paul says people can't be justified by the works of the Law.     


Quote from: Goombah on February 13, 2016, 11:48:08 PM
Quote

I have a question Goombah.  You said the Pharisees turned 10 commandments into 613.  Would it be correct to say that the Pharisees should turn 613 commandments into 10?

Perhaps.

This is an answer where it is telling TO ME that you have no idea what you are talking about.  I was expecting a more dogmatic answer.  Sorry Goombah, I am not convinced AT ALL with the idea that 613 laws can be "subsumed" into 10.


Quote from: Goombah on February 13, 2016, 11:48:08 PM
For a fascinating passage in the Talmud that states that Habakkuk ultimately reduced the 613 commandments to one ? namely, Habakkuk 2:4, the just will live by faith ? (see Talmud, Makkoth 24a, - See more at: http://askdrbrown.org/portfolio/are-there-really-613-commandments-in-the-torah/#sthash.pFb3WnUF.dpuf

Yes, the concluding comment is that the 613 commandments were reduced to one, as expressed in Habakkuk 2:4, ?The just shall live by faith?-a favorite text of Paul! (See Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11.) Of course, this is not to say that the Talmudic rabbis were Christians, but it is to say that when Paul boiled everything down to the just living by faith, he was in good company. - See more at: http://askdrbrown.org/portfolio/are-there-really-613-commandments-in-the-torah/#sthash.pFb3WnUF.dpuf

Goombah, I hate to break it to you but Habakkuk 2:4 is not one of the 10 commandments unless there is a third set of 10 commandments I am not aware of.  I'm surprised you used this to support your claim. 

And if this is the case, you will have to explain why there are "weightier provisions" like justice and mercy ALONG WITH faithfulness.  It seems like if this is the case Jesus would have just said in Matt. 23:23, "why are you neglecting the most important provision of just living by faith"?

Furthermore, you would have to really figure out what "living by faith" really means.  In other words, are the Jews "living in faith" when they believe Samuel is telling them the truth when he gives the command from God to murder all the men, women and children of Amalek in 1 Samuel 15:3?  Or is a Jew "living in faith" if he does NOT believe Samuel because of one of the ten commandments that says "do not murder?

I see a looooot of gray area to this "living in faith" business.
 

Quote from: Goombah on February 13, 2016, 11:48:08 PM
Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
Quote
Really?  You saw "no reason not to accept what they said".  THEN WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #601 UNDER (Do not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations)?

If your answer is still "I have no idea" then you should potentially have one reason to not accept what they say.  You should test and investigate claims before accepting what people say.   
I thought you vetted them....you linked to the same site as I did.
Quote
This assumption of yours is wrong.  You think I "vetted" them because I linked to the same site???  I just got one of the 613 commandments off their site.   

Your # 601. THEN WHAT CATEGORY OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD YOU PUT LAW #601 UNDER (Do not keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations)?

Their #601http://www.the613commandments.com/The-List-of-the-613-Commandments.html
601   Do not dwell permanently in Egypt

Who cares?  This law is classified as #597 on the website you provided.  Is it still one of the 613 commandments or not?

If you cannot answer then you should potentially have ONE reason to NOT accept what they say. 
 
Quote from: Goombah on February 13, 2016, 11:48:08 PM
could we maybe do the whole 'evil God' thing at a later time? There are probably tons of threads like that in here already.


I was just bringing up scripture.  If scripture makes you want to conclude that your God is "evil" then that is your prerogative. 

I was just wondering what category of the 10 commandments slavery would be put under but that's fine, you don't have to answer.  Maybe I'll get this answer at this "later time" you speak of.


Quote from: Goombah on February 13, 2016, 11:48:08 PM
I'm hoping to resume our original conversation at some point.

OK, I agree.

Like I said before, I'm surprised you even brought up this 10 commandment thing.  When pressed with follow-up questions it's obvious that you are stuck in a ditch and can't completely support the websites claim that the 613 laws are "subsumed" within the 10.
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

RegalSin

Wanna set the record straight on this

Jesus was the downfall of the Roman empire.
The Romans made a religion called Catholicism and thus
the Holy Roman Empire Church was created.

Rome was divided among people, and they separated based on many things. Primarily it was families and thieves no different then feuds and organized crime.

The baseline is that Rome was toppled by Religious god belonging to the Jews and Muslims.

Guess what? Even When Europe was peaceful they had a massive amount of Islamic worshipers who contributed to the construction of many of our religious and current day architecture.

Problem is that people forget about God, they forget about the Goths, they forget about everything. They blame everything on things not pointing the rational facts.

Jesus was and is real, because of the many recordings. So it must be proof. I am not talking about your X-religious books and writings. I am talking about History.

What happen during that time is only in few recordings but Jesus was real.

In my opinion just to agree with atheists. I could assume that mental asylums was not created, and thus free thinking was more abundant. Imagine a society were nutters had the money and the weapons, and was reproducing.

What went wrong? Why did mental institutions go up?
Because that way of living could not exist inside a decaying Roman empire.

What is sane, what is insane? I do not know. You know what I want to write, but I am not going to type it, since my fingers are becoming numb from thinking about it.

We had law and as time went by, we created the evil known as money. Without money we had bartering and thus sharing. So what was the problem. Nowadays we have innocent lambs of people being taken advantage of due to money.

Andy S.

Quote from: RegalSin on February 16, 2016, 12:51:56 AM
Wanna set the record straight on this

Jesus was the downfall of the Roman empire.
The Romans made a religion called Catholicism and thus
the Holy Roman Empire Church was created.

Rome was divided among people, and they separated based on many things. Primarily it was families and thieves no different then feuds and organized crime.

The baseline is that Rome was toppled by Religious god belonging to the Jews and Muslims.

Guess what? Even When Europe was peaceful they had a massive amount of Islamic worshipers who contributed to the construction of many of our religious and current day architecture.

Problem is that people forget about God, they forget about the Goths, they forget about everything. They blame everything on things not pointing the rational facts.

Jesus was and is real, because of the many recordings. So it must be proof. I am not talking about your X-religious books and writings. I am talking about History.

What happen during that time is only in few recordings but Jesus was real.

In my opinion just to agree with atheists. I could assume that mental asylums was not created, and thus free thinking was more abundant. Imagine a society were nutters had the money and the weapons, and was reproducing.

What went wrong? Why did mental institutions go up?
Because that way of living could not exist inside a decaying Roman empire.

What is sane, what is insane? I do not know. You know what I want to write, but I am not going to type it, since my fingers are becoming numb from thinking about it.

We had law and as time went by, we created the evil known as money. Without money we had bartering and thus sharing. So what was the problem. Nowadays we have innocent lambs of people being taken advantage of due to money.

Hey RegalSin,

I think your fingers were "becoming numb" for no reason. 

What record were you setting straight?  I have no idea what claim you were even responding to. 

"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on February 14, 2016, 09:50:06 PM

Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 12:56:31 AM

Where the Rabbis linked them is of no consequence to me...the bottom line is still the same; nobody was able to keep them all , be it 10 or 613.

Goombah says nobody was able to keep them all but Jesus says whoever keeps and teaches the commandments will be "called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).

Which commandments?All 613?The ones in the Sermon on the Mount?
Quote
How should I know?  You ask Jesus which ones he meant in Matt. 5:19.

You are using that scripture to make your point.I assumed you knew.
Quote
Once again, your assumption is wrong.  If you read the last post.....I made an educated guess.

Why would Jesus say, "whoever keeps the commandments and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" if it's impossible to keep them all?   

If you don't know what commandments Jesus was referring to do you know what the definition of "kingdom of heaven" in that verse is?

Quote
John 14:13 states, ""Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son."  I asked him before I started this post but he didn't answer.  Now you try.

So, you prayed to God by the authority of Jesus' name so that God could receive glory from His Son?
Quote
No, I didn't.  I am not a believer.  I just "ASKED" him to reveal this information to me.  He didn't.  One verse before John 14:13 states, "...he who believes..." and that's why I figured this passage is for BELIEVERS ONLY which is why I thought YOU should try asking your God for the answer. 
You are an unbeliever and the passage is for BELIEVERS ONLY and yet you still ASKED HIM
( God) for a revelation of scripture?

Quote from: Goombah on February 13, 2016, 11:48:08 PM
Quote from: Goombah on February 11, 2016, 08:24:11 PM
Obviously the Pharisees and Scribes couldn't do it or Jesus wouldn't say this:

Matthew 5: 19

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Quote
That verse doesn't mean the Pharisees and Scribes COULDN'T do it.  Where do you see that?  All it says is one's righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees.  According to the author of Matthew, it's not that the Scribes and Pharisees couldn't keep the Law....it's that they were NEGLEGTING part of the law and that's why they weren't considered righteous enough. 

I repeat....Matt. 23:23....."For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have NEGLECTED the weightier provisions of the law"

I don't think you will find in the book of Matthew the claim that people CAN'T keep the commandments or that it's IMPOSSIBLE to keep the commandments. 

I agree with you Andy, to a point.. it seems as if we can keep any of the commandments we should be able to keep all of them...but we don't.I see here that the pharisees already blew it and more so later on in Matthew. for example:
Quote
So the Pharisees "blew it" right?  Were they not "living in faith"?  There is a line then between "living in faith" and NOT "living in faith" then.  What's that line?

They blew it for one thing because:

?Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.


Quote from: Goombah on February 13, 2016, 11:48:08 PM
I wouldn't venture an opinion on all of  the author's beliefs but I can accept that you didn't find direct mention of the impossibility of keeping the Law in this book.
Quote
Good.  I'm glad you accept.  If you start with the presupposition that different authors have different theologies then things make a lot more sense.....biblically speaking.

Not for me it doesn't.
Quote
I know you like the thief on the cross story.  It's very telling that the author of Matthew left the "be with me in paradise" part out.  In fact, it doesn't even show that one of the thieves was even repentant in Matthew.  Either Matthew excluded this part of the story for a certain reason or this story of the repentant thief didn't even happen and Luke made the whole thing up.

If the story about the repentant thief really happened you have to ask yourself why Matthew would leave the story at, "the robbers who had been crucified with Him were also insulting Him with the same words".  And that's it.

Don't you think Matthew would have at least mentioned that one of the thieves was going to be with Jesus in paradise?  Noooo.....instead Matthew wasted his ink on bodies being raised after an earthquake an appearing to people 8 verses later. 

This is one example out of many that shows ME that different authors had different theologies.   

And for me how the Bible is integrated to fill in details and explanations.


   

Quote from: Goombah on February 13, 2016, 11:48:08 PM
I wouldn't discount the meaning the author would take from the purpose of the Messiah's crucifixion, though.
Quote
OK, what was Matthew's "purpose" for the crucifixion?   

I'm going to make another educated guess.  The purpose of the crucifixion according to this author was NOT to show that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep.
He introduces Jesus as the subject of Isiah 53.

8:17

17)This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."


is 53

5)But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.?
Quote
One reason (out of many) is because of the last verse in the book of Matthew says...."observe all that I commanded you".

I doesn't say, "I know it's impossible, but observe all that I commanded you".

It sure sounds like this author is a big proponent of people being justified by works.

What do you think it was that He commanded them to do?Which commands?


Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

Andy S.

Quote from: Goombah on February 18, 2016, 12:45:58 AM


If you don't know what commandments Jesus was referring to do you know what the definition of "kingdom of heaven" in that verse is?

Based on the context, I already made an educated guess as to which commandments Jesus was referring to.  Bottom line, it is evident that the moral of Matthew 5:17-20 is NOT that "a man is justified by faith and not by works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28).

As for "kingdom of heaven"....it is a place you "enter" (Matt. 5:20).  The author of Matthew says people will sit down with Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac in the "kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 8:11) so unless Abraham, Jacob and Isaac are resurrected to earth before eternity in heaven, I am going to guess it's the afterlife in this kingdom called heaven.

Quote from: Goombah on February 18, 2016, 12:45:58 AM
Quote
John 14:13 states, ""Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son."  I asked him before I started this post but he didn't answer.  Now you try.

So, you prayed to God by the authority of Jesus' name so that God could receive glory from His Son?
Quote
No, I didn't.  I am not a believer.  I just "ASKED" him to reveal this information to me.  He didn't.  One verse before John 14:13 states, "...he who believes..." and that's why I figured this passage is for BELIEVERS ONLY which is why I thought YOU should try asking your God for the answer. 
You are an unbeliever and the passage is for BELIEVERS ONLY and yet you still ASKED HIM
( God) for a revelation of scripture?

I thought this God, who may or may not exist, might make an exception.  I was wrong.

Did Jesus answer you?  What commandments exactly was he talking about in Matt. 5:19?

Quote from: Goombah on February 18, 2016, 12:45:58 AM

Quote
So the Pharisees "blew it" right?  Were they not "living in faith"?  There is a line then between "living in faith" and NOT "living in faith" then.  What's that line?

They blew it for one thing because:

?Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.

How much "greed" and "self-indulgence" can someone have before they are excluded from the "kingdom of heaven"? 

Quote from: Goombah on February 18, 2016, 12:45:58 AM
Quote from: Goombah on February 13, 2016, 11:48:08 PM
I wouldn't venture an opinion on all of  the author's beliefs but I can accept that you didn't find direct mention of the impossibility of keeping the Law in this book.
Quote
Good.  I'm glad you accept.  If you start with the presupposition that different authors have different theologies then things make a lot more sense.....biblically speaking.

Not for me it doesn't.

I'd like to explore this more with you.  In addition to the works vs. faith contradiction, I'll give another example.  Did you know the author of John places Jesus' death on a different day than Mark (comp. Jn. 18.29,19.14 to Mk. 14:12, 15.25)?

I'm going to say it's because John changed the day Jesus died to make a theological point.  Why do you think John placed Jesus' death on a different day?

Quote from: Goombah on February 18, 2016, 12:45:58 AM
Quote
I know you like the thief on the cross story.  It's very telling that the author of Matthew left the "be with me in paradise" part out.  In fact, it doesn't even show that one of the thieves was even repentant in Matthew.  Either Matthew excluded this part of the story for a certain reason or this story of the repentant thief didn't even happen and Luke made the whole thing up.

If the story about the repentant thief really happened you have to ask yourself why Matthew would leave the story at, "the robbers who had been crucified with Him were also insulting Him with the same words".  And that's it.

Don't you think Matthew would have at least mentioned that one of the thieves was going to be with Jesus in paradise?  Noooo.....instead Matthew wasted his ink on bodies being raised after an earthquake an appearing to people 8 verses later. 

This is one example out of many that shows ME that different authors had different theologies.   

And for me how the Bible is integrated to fill in details and explanations.

Well, you can believe whatever you want.  I don't buy it.  It doesn't make sense to me why Matthew (and Mark) would leave out the story of the repentant thief.  It's a good story but the author of Matthew (and Mark) didn't like it.....or the story never happened.  I can't imagine retelling a story and saying both thieves were mocking Jesus (Matt. 27:44) when only one was mocking Jesus (Luke 23:49).  Especially if I am supposed to be an eye witness.   

The only "explanation" to me is a contradiction but you can make something up that's not in the text if you want in order to harmonize this contradiction.  You know.....you can "fill in the details" yourself. 

Related question: Why do you think Matthew was the only one who mentioned the story of the resurrection of fallen saints who visited people in Jerusalem (Matt. 27)?  Don't you think another author would have mentioned this?  Do you really think Matthew added this story just to "fill in details and explanations". 

Hell, not even a secular source mentions this story.  The bible could be "integrated to fill in details and explanations" but it seems some "details and explanations" are false.

Quote from: Goombah on February 18, 2016, 12:45:58 AM
Quote from: Goombah on February 13, 2016, 11:48:08 PM
I wouldn't discount the meaning the author would take from the purpose of the Messiah's crucifixion, though.
Quote
OK, what was Matthew's "purpose" for the crucifixion?   

I'm going to make another educated guess.  The purpose of the crucifixion according to this author was NOT to show that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep.
He introduces Jesus as the subject of Isiah 53.

8:17

17)This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."


is 53

5)But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.?

So what?....The author of Matthew thinks Jesus came to take away physical infirmities and carry away diseases. 

Did you read the verses leading up to Matthew 8:17?

A leaper is cleansed, the centurion's servant is healed, Peter's mother-in-law was healed, Jesus casted out demons and healed "all that were ill".  Then Matthew says, "This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."

The first word in this verse...."this"....is talking about Jesus' previous physical healings.  It doesn't say anything about the purpose of the crucifixion.  You can somehow read into all this that shows Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep if you want.  However, this is not a literal interpretation.  In other words, I don't think this was the author's intention to make you think this. 

I think it would be a huge stretch to make this connection using this verse.  It WOULD HAVE BEEN a good place for the author of Matthew to say that Jesus was sacrificed because keeping the commandments are impossible for humans to keep....but those words are just not in the text. 

Matthew 8:17 is literally talking about physical healings with a small dose of relieving people from demon possession.  Nothing about not being able to keep commandments.     

Quote from: Goombah on February 18, 2016, 12:45:58 AM
Quote
One reason (out of many) is because of the last verse in the book of Matthew says...."observe all that I commanded you".

I doesn't say, "I know it's impossible, but observe all that I commanded you".

It sure sounds like this author is a big proponent of people being justified by works.

What do you think it was that He commanded them to do?Which commands?

"Observe ALL that I commanded you"......my guess would be "ALL". 
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on February 18, 2016, 06:59:00 AM



As for "kingdom of heaven"....it is a place you "enter" (Matt. 5:20).  The author of Matthew says people will sit down with Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac in the "kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 8:11) so unless Abraham, Jacob and Isaac are resurrected to earth before eternity in heaven, I am going to guess it's the afterlife in this kingdom called heaven.

I believe there is more than one interpretations for 'kingdom of heaven" and agree with those that take the expression in verse 19 to mean the present "kingdom'...the Church and verse 20 to the afterlife, where I will get to see Abraham,Isaac and Jacob.
I believe this makes more sense
I think I saw that the author of Matthew used the term 'kingdom of heaven' around 30 times.
Quote
How much "greed" and "self-indulgence" can someone have before they are excluded from the "kingdom of heaven"? 

greed1
/?r?d/ 
noun
intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.
synonyms:   avarice, cupidity, acquisitiveness, covetousness, rapacity;  More
Powered by OxfordDictionaries ? ? Oxford University Press

Since greed and covetousness are synonyms ,I'd say any amount will do.

Exodus 20:17King James Version (KJV)

17) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Quote
I'd like to explore this more with you.  In addition to the works vs. faith contradiction, I'll give another example.  Did you know the author of John places Jesus' death on a different day than Mark (comp. Jn. 18.29,19.14 to Mk. 14:12, 15.25)?

I'm going to say it's because John changed the day Jesus died to make a theological point.  Why do you think John placed Jesus' death on a different day?

Let's take that up at a later time if you like.It will only serve to confuse our present discussion even more.

Quote
I know you like the thief on the cross story.  It's very telling that the author of Matthew left the "be with me in paradise" part out.  In fact, it doesn't even show that one of the thieves was even repentant in Matthew.  Either Matthew excluded this part of the story for a certain reason or this story of the repentant thief didn't even happen and Luke made the whole thing up.

It's only 'telling if it wasn't covered elsewhere.I'm not an adherent to the 'each author has a different theology" theory.
Quote
If the story about the repentant thief really happened you have to ask yourself why Matthew would leave the story at, "the robbers who had been crucified with Him were also insulting Him with the same words".  And that's it.

Don't you think Matthew would have at least mentioned that one of the thieves was going to be with Jesus in paradise?  Noooo.....instead Matthew wasted his ink on bodies being raised after an earthquake an appearing to people 8 verses later. 

This is one example out of many that shows ME that different authors had different theologies.   

It shows me that the Holy Spirit included what He wanted , where He wanted it.

And for me how the Bible is integrated to fill in details and explanations.
Quote
Well, you can believe whatever you want.  I don't buy it.  It doesn't make sense to me why Matthew (and Mark) would leave out the story of the repentant thief.  It's a good story but the author of Matthew (and Mark) didn't like it.....or the story never happened.  I can't imagine retelling a story and saying both thieves were mocking Jesus (Matt. 27:44) when only one was mocking Jesus (Luke 23:49).  Especially if I am supposed to be an eye witness.   

The only "explanation" to me is a contradiction but you can make something up that's not in the text if you want in order to harmonize this contradiction.  You know.....you can "fill in the details" yourself. 

Related question: Why do you think Matthew was the only one who mentioned the story of the resurrection of fallen saints who visited people in Jerusalem (Matt. 27)?  Don't you think another author would have mentioned this?  Do you really think Matthew added this story just to "fill in details and explanations". 

If every author included every detail the same you'd be crying COLLUSION!! by now.


Quote
OK, what was Matthew's "purpose" for the crucifixion?   

I'm going to make another educated guess.  The purpose of the crucifixion according to this author was NOT to show that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep.
He introduces Jesus as the subject of Isiah 53.

8:17

17)This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."


is 53

5)But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.?
Quote

So what?....The author of Matthew thinks Jesus came to take away physical infirmities and carry away diseases. 

Did you read the verses leading up to Matthew 8:17?

A leaper is cleansed, the centurion's servant is healed, Peter's mother-in-law was healed, Jesus casted out demons and healed "all that were ill".  Then Matthew says, "This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."

The first word in this verse...."this"....is talking about Jesus' previous physical healings.  It doesn't say anything about the purpose of the crucifixion.  You can somehow read into all this that shows Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep if you want.  However, this is not a literal interpretation.  In other words, I don't think this was the author's intention to make you think this. 

I think it would be a huge stretch to make this connection using this verse.  It WOULD HAVE BEEN a good place for the author of Matthew to say that Jesus was sacrificed because keeping the commandments are impossible for humans to keep....but those words are just not in the text. 

Matthew 8:17 is literally talking about physical healings with a small dose of relieving people from demon possession.  Nothing about not being able to keep commandments.     
He introduces Jesus as the subject of the Isaiah 53 which includes


5But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned?every one?to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Everybody's iniquity...nobody keeps the commandments in their entirety.

Quote
One reason (out of many) is because of the last verse in the book of Matthew says...."observe all that I commanded you".

I doesn't say, "I know it's impossible, but observe all that I commanded you".

It sure sounds like this author is a big proponent of people being justified by works.

What do you think it was that He commanded them to do?Which commands?

Quote
"Observe ALL that I commanded you"......my guess would be "ALL".

ALL the commandments?He gave them?.That would make Him co-equal with the One True God of The Universe, then.
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

RegalSin

Everything that happen from the fall of the Roman Empire to the start of Catholicism is the end of the Biblical age. Everything after the hanging of Christ is human theater meant to devoid and mislead and abuse religion.

Andy S.

Quote from: Goombah on March 03, 2016, 12:56:52 AM
Quote from: Andy S. on February 18, 2016, 06:59:00 AM

As for "kingdom of heaven"....it is a place you "enter" (Matt. 5:20).  The author of Matthew says people will sit down with Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac in the "kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 8:11) so unless Abraham, Jacob and Isaac are resurrected to earth before eternity in heaven, I am going to guess it's the afterlife in this kingdom called heaven.

I believe there is more than one interpretations for 'kingdom of heaven" and agree with those that take the expression in verse 19 to mean the present "kingdom'...the Church and verse 20 to the afterlife, where I will get to see Abraham,Isaac and Jacob.
I believe this makes more sense
I think I saw that the author of Matthew used the term 'kingdom of heaven' around 30 times.


What?  "Kingdom of Heaven" means "the Church" in Matthew 5:19 and one verse later the "Kingdom of Heaven" means "the afterlife"?  If this is true then Jesus is a crappy communicator. 

How would Jesus explain to us today that Bison from Buffalo, New York, who are intimidated by other bison in their community, also happen to intimidate other bison in their community?  Would he explain this to us by saying, "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo

Quote from: Goombah on March 03, 2016, 12:56:52 AM
Quote from: Goombah on March 03, 2016, 12:56:52 AM
How much "greed" and "self-indulgence" can someone have before they are excluded from the "kingdom of heaven"? 
greed1
/?r?d/ 
noun
intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.
synonyms:   avarice, cupidity, acquisitiveness, covetousness, rapacity;  More
Powered by OxfordDictionaries ? ? Oxford University Press

Since greed and covetousness are synonyms ,I'd say any amount will do.

Wait....what?  Any amount of greed will exclude people from entering the "Kingdom of Heaven"?  Are you sure about this?


Quote from: Goombah on March 03, 2016, 12:56:52 AM
Quote
I'd like to explore this more with you.  In addition to the works vs. faith contradiction, I'll give another example.  Did you know the author of John places Jesus' death on a different day than Mark (comp. Jn. 18.29,19.14 to Mk. 14:12, 15.25)?

I'm going to say it's because John changed the day Jesus died to make a theological point.  Why do you think John placed Jesus' death on a different day?

Let's take that up at a later time if you like.It will only serve to confuse our present discussion even more.

What are you talking about?  Confuse the present discussion?  I gave you this AS AN EXAMPLE that different authors have different theologies.  I asked for your reasoning.  How can it confuse the present discussion when part of the present discussion includes exploring different author's different theologies?

This shouldn't be that hard for you to answer.

 
Quote from: Goombah on March 03, 2016, 12:56:52 AM
Quote
I know you like the thief on the cross story.  It's very telling that the author of Matthew left the "be with me in paradise" part out.  In fact, it doesn't even show that one of the thieves was even repentant in Matthew.  Either Matthew excluded this part of the story for a certain reason or this story of the repentant thief didn't even happen and Luke made the whole thing up.

It's only 'telling if it wasn't covered elsewhere.I'm not an adherent to the 'each author has a different theology" theory.

If you are not an adherent to author's having different theologies then answering my above question about the day Jesus died should not be that hard for you to answer.  You say answering this is only going to confuse the present conversation but I think you are hesitant to answer because you....yourself....are confused. 


Quote from: Goombah on March 03, 2016, 12:56:52 AM
Quote
If the story about the repentant thief really happened you have to ask yourself why Matthew would leave the story at, "the robbers who had been crucified with Him were also insulting Him with the same words".  And that's it.

Don't you think Matthew would have at least mentioned that one of the thieves was going to be with Jesus in paradise?  Noooo.....instead Matthew wasted his ink on bodies being raised after an earthquake an appearing to people 8 verses later. 

This is one example out of many that shows ME that different authors had different theologies.   

It shows me that the Holy Spirit included what He wanted , where He wanted it.

And for me how the Bible is integrated to fill in details and explanations.

Ok.  Lucky for us we can actually test if you can be 100% sure on this.  Let me think of another contradiction.....ok.....got it.  That sure didn't take long.

Did Jesus command his disciples to take a staff or not on their journey (comp Mark 6:8-9 to Luke 9:1-3)?  If you can't answer this then can you be so sure that "the Bible is integrated to fill in details and explanations".?


Quote from: Goombah on March 03, 2016, 12:56:52 AM
Quote
Well, you can believe whatever you want.  I don't buy it.  It doesn't make sense to me why Matthew (and Mark) would leave out the story of the repentant thief.  It's a good story but the author of Matthew (and Mark) didn't like it.....or the story never happened.  I can't imagine retelling a story and saying both thieves were mocking Jesus (Matt. 27:44) when only one was mocking Jesus (Luke 23:49).  Especially if I am supposed to be an eye witness.   

The only "explanation" to me is a contradiction but you can make something up that's not in the text if you want in order to harmonize this contradiction.  You know.....you can "fill in the details" yourself. 

Related question: Why do you think Matthew was the only one who mentioned the story of the resurrection of fallen saints who visited people in Jerusalem (Matt. 27)?  Don't you think another author would have mentioned this?  Do you really think Matthew added this story just to "fill in details and explanations". 

If every author included every detail the same you'd be crying COLLUSION!! by now.

Would I?  How can you be so sure that I would cry "COLLUSION"?

I would expect some historian in the first century to mention this incident if it were true.....including another biblical author.     


Quote from: Goombah on March 03, 2016, 12:56:52 AM
Quote
OK, what was Matthew's "purpose" for the crucifixion?   

I'm going to make another educated guess.  The purpose of the crucifixion according to this author was NOT to show that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep.
He introduces Jesus as the subject of Isiah 53.

8:17

17)This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."


is 53

5)But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.?
Quote

So what?....The author of Matthew thinks Jesus came to take away physical infirmities and carry away diseases. 

Did you read the verses leading up to Matthew 8:17?

A leaper is cleansed, the centurion's servant is healed, Peter's mother-in-law was healed, Jesus casted out demons and healed "all that were ill".  Then Matthew says, "This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."

The first word in this verse...."this"....is talking about Jesus' previous physical healings.  It doesn't say anything about the purpose of the crucifixion.  You can somehow read into all this that shows Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep if you want.  However, this is not a literal interpretation.  In other words, I don't think this was the author's intention to make you think this. 

I think it would be a huge stretch to make this connection using this verse.  It WOULD HAVE BEEN a good place for the author of Matthew to say that Jesus was sacrificed because keeping the commandments are impossible for humans to keep....but those words are just not in the text. 

Matthew 8:17 is literally talking about physical healings with a small dose of relieving people from demon possession.  Nothing about not being able to keep commandments.     
He introduces Jesus as the subject of the Isaiah 53 which includes


5But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned?every one?to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Everybody's iniquity...nobody keeps the commandments in their entirety.

How can you be so sure that the author of Matthew meant that all of Isaiah 53 should be attributed to Jesus?  It is evident that this author combed through the old testament and tried to shoehorn Jesus into texts. 

For instance, the author of Matthew said Jesus was the "son" in Hosea 11:1 (Matt. 2:15).  It is obvious that Israel should be considered the "son" in Hosea 11:1 and not Jesus.  Hosea used "son" to speak of Israel like the author of Exodus used "son" to speak of Israel (Ex. 4:22,23).  I mean, with your logic should I figure that Jesus is the subject of all of Hosea 11 and conclude that Jesus (the "son" = Israel) surrounds God with deceit (Hosea 11:12)?

This is just silly.  Furthermore, you can't be certain that the author of Isaiah even meant for the suffering "SERVANT" (Is. 53:11) to be the coming Messaiah.  There is good evidence that Isaiah equated "Israel" or "Jacob" to the "SERVANT" (Is. 41:8, 44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20, and 49:3).....NOT JESUS! 

It appears to me that the author of Matthew is just cherry picking out of the old testament.  Furthermore, you are cherry picking this verse in Matthew (8:17) and saying that the reason for the crucifixion is because "nobody can keep the commandments in their entirety".  However, nowhere in Matthew 8:17 does it say anything like this.  You are assuming this is what this author thinks of Jesus but, in all honesty, you have to go back and ask yourself what the "this" means in Matthew 8:17. 

The "this" in Matthew 8:17 has nothing to do with the crucifixion so what you are doing is reading too much into the text which means you can't be completely certain that the author of Matthew intended Jesus to be the subject of the entirety of Isaiah 53.  For all we know, Matthew cherry picked a verse in Isaiah just like he cherry picked a verse in Hosea.                 


Quote from: Goombah on March 03, 2016, 12:56:52 AM
What do you think it was that He commanded them to do?Which commands?

Quote
"Observe ALL that I commanded you"......my guess would be "ALL".

ALL the commandments?He gave them?.That would make Him co-equal with the One True God of The Universe, then.

Wow.  You sure like to jump to conclusions.  According to Matthew, Jesus said for his disciples to follow the commandments of the old testament.  He told them he did not come to "abolish the Law" (Matt. 5:17). 

Let's say that I was hired where you work and you are my supervisor.  The CEO is your boss.  You tell me to follow the commandments of the CEO.  By your logic should I conclude that you are co-equal with the CEO?
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on March 08, 2016, 12:33:38 AM
Quote from: Goombah on March 03, 2016, 12:56:52 AM
Quote from: Andy S. on February 18, 2016, 06:59:00 AM

As for "kingdom of heaven"....it is a place you "enter" (Matt. 5:20).  The author of Matthew says people will sit down with Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac in the "kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 8:11) so unless Abraham, Jacob and Isaac are resurrected to earth before eternity in heaven, I am going to guess it's the afterlife in this kingdom called heaven.

I believe there is more than one interpretations for 'kingdom of heaven" and agree with those that take the expression in verse 19 to mean the present "kingdom'...the Church and verse 20 to the afterlife, where I will get to see Abraham,Isaac and Jacob.
I believe this makes more sense
I think I saw that the author of Matthew used the term 'kingdom of heaven' around 30 times.

Quote

What?  "Kingdom of Heaven" means "the Church" in Matthew 5:19 and one verse later the "Kingdom of Heaven" means "the afterlife"?  If this is true then Jesus is a crappy communicator. 

But the best you could do was venture a guess at the meaning.

Here the Kingdom of Heaven referred to:  "  47)Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: 48)Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. 49)So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
Here the Kingdom allows for good and bad together...'til the end.Not so in the afterlife as the bad are cast away.That sounds like some don't make it into the " Kingdom of Heaven" that you guessed at or there is more than one interpretation of "Kingdom of Heaven"
Quote
How would Jesus explain to us today that Bison from Buffalo, New York, who are intimidated by other bison in their community, also happen to intimidate other bison in their community?  Would he explain this to us by saying, "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo
I'm not sure He would be speaking " American English" but  you seemed surprised that a phrase can have two different meanings a verse apart then demonstate how a single word can have three different meanings in the same sentence.

Quote from: Goombah on March 03, 2016, 12:56:52 AM
Quote from: Goombah on March 03, 2016, 12:56:52 AM
How much "greed" and "self-indulgence" can someone have before they are excluded from the "kingdom of heaven"? 
greed1
/?r?d/ 
noun
intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food.
synonyms:   avarice, cupidity, acquisitiveness, covetousness, rapacity;  More
Powered by OxfordDictionaries ? ? Oxford University Press

Since greed and covetousness are synonyms ,I'd say any amount will do.
Quote
Wait....what?  Any amount of greed will exclude people from entering the "Kingdom of Heaven"?  Are you sure about this?
If greed and covetousness are synonyms then I'd say yes.


 
Quote from: Goombah on March 03, 2016, 12:56:52 AM

It shows me that the Holy Spirit included what He wanted , where He wanted it.

And for me how the Bible is integrated to fill in details and explanations.
Quote
Ok.  Lucky for us we can actually test if you can be 100% sure on this.  Let me think of another contradiction.....ok.....got it.  That sure didn't take long.

Did Jesus command his disciples to take a staff or not on their journey (comp Mark 6:8-9 to Luke 9:1-3)?  If you can't answer this then can you be so sure that "the Bible is integrated to fill in details and explanations".?

http://christianthinktank.com/nostaff.html

Someone wrote in:
Hi, glen--
I don't know how tough a question this is, but would appreciate your input. Regarding the sending out of the 12, could they take a staff (Mark 6:8), or not (Matt. 10:10; Luke 9:1-6)?

This was a GREAT question because it highlights one of the MAIN sources of 'mistaken contradictions'--morphological similarity.


The easiest explanation I could find quickly is that article.




Quote
Well, you can believe whatever you want.  I don't buy it.  It doesn't make sense to me why Matthew (and Mark) would leave out the story of the repentant thief.  It's a good story but the author of Matthew (and Mark) didn't like it.....or the story never happened.  I can't imagine retelling a story and saying both thieves were mocking Jesus (Matt. 27:44) when only one was mocking Jesus (Luke 23:49).  Especially if I am supposed to be an eye witness.   

The only "explanation" to me is a contradiction but you can make something up that's not in the text if you want in order to harmonize this contradiction.  You know.....you can "fill in the details" yourself. 

Well you can hold any opinion you like Andy,but because something doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it can't make sense.

Quote
Related question: Why do you think Matthew was the only one who mentioned the story of the resurrection of fallen saints who visited people in Jerusalem (Matt. 27)?  Don't you think another author would have mentioned this?  Do you really think Matthew added this story just to "fill in details and explanations". 
I think Matthew added it for a reason.Showing the resurrection of the saints is a pretty edifying inclusion for me.
Quote
.....  How can you be so sure that I would cry "COLLUSION"?

I would expect some historian in the first century to mention this incident if it were true.....including another biblical author.     

How do you know a historian didn't record it?Or several?We don't have everything written in ancient times.


Quote
OK, what was Matthew's "purpose" for the crucifixion?   

I'm going to make another educated guess.  The purpose of the crucifixion according to this author was NOT to show that Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep.
He introduces Jesus as the subject of Isiah 53.

8:17

17)This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."


is 53

5)But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.?
Quote

So what?....The author of Matthew thinks Jesus came to take away physical infirmities and carry away diseases. 

Did you read the verses leading up to Matthew 8:17?

A leaper is cleansed, the centurion's servant is healed, Peter's mother-in-law was healed, Jesus casted out demons and healed "all that were ill".  Then Matthew says, "This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."

The first word in this verse...."this"....is talking about Jesus' previous physical healings.  It doesn't say anything about the purpose of the crucifixion.  You can somehow read into all this that shows Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross because keeping the commandments were impossible for humans to keep if you want.  However, this is not a literal interpretation.  In other words, I don't think this was the author's intention to make you think this. 

I think it would be a huge stretch to make this connection using this verse.  It WOULD HAVE BEEN a good place for the author of Matthew to say that Jesus was sacrificed because keeping the commandments are impossible for humans to keep....but those words are just not in the text. 

Matthew 8:17 is literally talking about physical healings with a small dose of relieving people from demon possession.  Nothing about not being able to keep commandments.     
He introduces Jesus as the subject of the Isaiah 53 which includes


5But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned?every one?to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Everybody's iniquity...nobody keeps the commandments in their entirety.

How can you be so sure that the author of Matthew meant that all of Isaiah 53 should be attributed to Jesus?  It is evident that this author combed through the old testament and tried to shoehorn Jesus into texts. 

Virtually every Biblical authority I've looked at attributes the servant in Is. 53  to either one person,( Messiah) or one nation(Israel) in its entirety.The author of Matthew would logically conclude the same thing...and he attributes Is. 53 to Jesus...the Messiah.
Is, 53 : 5 links Him to the two aspects of the prophesy about the Messiah,

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.
Quote
For instance, the author of Matthew said Jesus was the "son" in Hosea 11:1 (Matt. 2:15).  It is obvious that Israel should be considered the "son" in Hosea 11:1 and not Jesus.  Hosea used "son" to speak of Israel like the author of Exodus used "son" to speak of Israel (Ex. 4:22,23).  I mean, with your logic should I figure that Jesus is the subject of all of Hosea 11 and conclude that Jesus (the "son" = Israel) surrounds God with deceit (Hosea 11:12)?

What I can conclude is that the author of Matthew believed Hosea 11:1 refers to Jesus.


Quote
This is just silly.  Furthermore, you can't be certain that the author of Isaiah even meant for the suffering "SERVANT" (Is. 53:11) to be the coming Messaiah.  There is good evidence that Isaiah equated "Israel" or "Jacob" to the "SERVANT" (Is. 41:8, 44:1, 44:2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20, and 49:3).....NOT JESUS! 
Matthew's author took the prophesy to be about Jesus.There were many 'messianic references in the Old testament and Jesus mentioned that fact Himself.
Luke 24:25-27
25
o And he said to them, ?Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke!
26
Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer* these things and enter into his glory??
27
Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures.
Quote from: Goombah on March 03, 2016, 12:56:52 AM
What do you think it was that He commanded them to do?Which commands?

Quote
"Observe ALL that I commanded you"......my guess would be "ALL".

ALL the commandments?He gave them?.That would make Him co-equal with the One True God of The Universe, then.
Quote
Wow.  You sure like to jump to conclusions.  According to Matthew, Jesus said for his disciples to follow the commandments of the old testament.  He told them he did not come to "abolish the Law" (Matt. 5:17). 

He said to follow the commandment HE had given them.
Quote
Let's say that I was hired where you work and you are my supervisor.  The CEO is your boss.  You tell me to follow the commandments of the CEO.  By your logic should I conclude that you are co-equal with the CEO?

But that in not what we see happening here.You pointed out Jesus said to do all HE commanded them to do.Furthermore He takes it upon Himself to alter what the Old Testament Law even said...based on His own say-so...
one example:
Matthew 5:22

21"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' 22"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
He makes His authority equal to the ceo(Law-giver) several times.

Andy ,I realize the time it's taking to respond is excessive. I fyou choose to close this conversation I would understand completely.
Goombah
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

Andy S.

Goombah,

I don't have the time to respond in depth.  I would like to respond to everything but your quoting abilities need some work.  You should really hit "preview" before you hit "post".  This last post of yours was a mess....to say the least.

The time of your responses have been extremely extensive as well.  I'm sure you are busy and my posts tend to be lengthy so I give you a pass on that. 

I don't think I want to continue this conversation mainly because I'm in over my head with work.  I will say, despite your inability to "quote" properly, that I have enjoyed this conversation.

I have really laughed a lot throughout this conversation.  For instance...like this last post of yours.  You say you are not sure Jesus would be speaking "American English" to you today.  That is really funny!  You are proving my point.  Your God, if he exists, is really a crappy communicator.

This really has been fun Goombah and I wish you all the best.  Oh yeah....what do you think the "This" means in my previous sentence?  Do you think it has been the conversation we have had or do you think it means something else?  The way you read the word "This" into Matthew 8:17 I have no clue what you think when I start a sentence that starts with "This".   

Listen Goombah, the "this" in Matthew 8:17 has nothing to do with the crucifixion so what you are doing is reading too much into the text which means you can't be completely certain that the author of Matthew intended Jesus to be the subject of the entirety of Isaiah 53.  For all we know, Matthew cherry picked a verse in Isaiah just like he cherry picked a verse in Hosea 11:1.

With all honesty, it has been fun Goombah and I do wish you all the best.  I look forward to seeing you on the forum in the future.  I just know for me and my work schedule, it won't be the near future.

   
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

Goombah

Quote from: Andy S. on April 09, 2016, 03:15:23 AM
Goombah,

I don't have the time to respond in depth.  I would like to respond to everything but your quoting abilities need some work.  You should really hit "preview" before you hit "post".  This last post of yours was a mess....to say the least.

The time of your responses have been extremely extensive as well.  I'm sure you are busy and my posts tend to be lengthy so I give you a pass on that. 

I don't think I want to continue this conversation mainly because I'm in over my head with work.  I will say, despite your inability to "quote" properly, that I have enjoyed this conversation.

I have as well, thank you.
Quote
I have really laughed a lot throughout this conversation.  For instance...like this last post of yours.  You say you are not sure Jesus would be speaking "American English" to you today.  That is really funny!  You are proving my point.  Your God, if he exists, is really a crappy communicator.

The "American English" is a quote from the wiki article you posted:""Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" is a grammatically correct sentence in American English...
Seeing as how Jesus's ministry on earth would be centered in the Middle East ,I doubt "American English "would be His language of choice.
I think it proves my point, actually.You call Jesus a crappy communicator for using the same phrase in two different verses to mean two different things then proceed to show a 'single' word used in one sentence to mean three different things.I 'm of the opinion the problem lies in comprehension and not communication.

Quote

This really has been fun Goombah and I wish you all the best.  Oh yeah....what do you think the "This" means in my previous sentence?  Do you think it has been the conversation we have had or do you think it means something else?  The way you read the word "This" into Matthew 8:17 I have no clue what you think when I start a sentence that starts with "This". 

That identifies Jesus specifically with the "He" of Isaiah 53.
8:16 identifies Him as Isaiah's 'healer' and in Isaiah 53: 5 :But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.[/i]
not only shows Him as the healer but links Him in the same sentence as our substitute.
Quote
Listen Goombah, the "this" in Matthew 8:17 has nothing to do with the crucifixion so what you are doing is reading too much into the text which means you can't be completely certain that the author of Matthew intended Jesus to be the subject of the entirety of Isaiah 53.  For all we know, Matthew cherry picked a verse in Isaiah just like he cherry picked a verse in Hosea 11:1.
Virtualy every version of Is 53 :5 starts withe "but" ....it's a continuous thought.What rules of prophesy apply to Hosea 11:1 I'm not sure of but Isaiah is pretty plainly understood IMO.Every expert in the necessary disciplines take the prophecy to be about one person or one nation as far as I can find.
Quote
With all honesty, it has been fun Goombah and I do wish you all the best.  I look forward to seeing you on the forum in the future.  I just know for me and my work schedule, it won't be the near future.

Same here Andy, seriously.As a former 'world -class' backslider I always enjoy this type of conversation.I can relate on several different levels,and always learn from them.
Thanks again

   
Fuggetaboutit.

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done.
C.S. Lewis

QuestionMark

@Andy S.

Quote from: Andy S. on December 30, 2015, 06:21:51 PM
If there are so many differing opinions concerning "soteriology" within the Christian faith it kinda seems like the study of salvation is....well....pointless.

How can unbelievers "struggle" with this "biblical truth" of salvation when Christians can't even agree what the "biblical truth" of salvation really is?

It seems like this "struggle" (past and present) is amongst Christians....not unbelievers.  Maybe Christians should first hammer out the exact requirements needed for salvation and completely agree on Christian soteriology before saying an unbeliever "struggles" with some "biblical truth" concerning salvation.   
The study of salvation is pointless if you think that difficult pursuits are pointless.

When you say Christians can't agree on what salvation really is, I think you are forgetting that Christians have no authority to say what salvation is. That's like, unfortunately, asking democrats what republicans think or republicans what democrats think, or people who like red what people who like pink think. A Christian's thoughts don't matter unless they are reasonable. So don't ask Christians what they think, look at what Christians have thought since the beginning. For that you go to the books. So if you know how to read, then trying to find out what Christians believed in the beginning is not pointless. It's really simple.

If you believe that Jesus rose from the dead, you are in 100% agreement with the Bible. If you believe that he rose from the dead for your salvation, you are in 100% agreement with the Bible. If he rose from the dead for your salvation, then you have the most pointed part of salvation already figured out, the rest is details. So all you need to find out is if Jesus rose from the dead for your salvation. It's the only fact that matters, to start with. Everything else hinges on it and proceeds from it.

Did Jesus rise from the dead for your salvation?

Protip: If you can make sense of it, it's because God is helping you and it will actually be pretty easy.
καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει

QuestionMark

Quote from: Boots on January 05, 2016, 05:49:20 PM
If this were true, then The Fall in the Garden of Eden is irrelevant; only A&E should suffer because of their sin (if one is to believe they sinned at all).  Then we don't need a Savior.
You don't suffer for Adam and Eve's sin, you may not even now suffer for your sin, but you will because that is just. God will not let the guilty go unpunished.
καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει

QuestionMark

Quote from: nick on January 05, 2016, 06:47:55 PM
So what it comes down to, which it always does, is that you need the "magic decoder ring" to know what the bible really says or meant. Fathers shall not be held accountable for others sins yet we all are held accountable for the apple trick.  Maybe it is time for the God thing to come back and give us a re-write so we can all be on the same page.  Kind of hard to play this God game with a whole bunch of different rules for playing.
No, you will be held accountable for your sin. In some cases, your sin is the same as your father's. In the case of Adam, we all do the same thing as Adam: We take the place of God, taking things that don't belong to us, neglecting our duties.
καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει

QuestionMark

Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 09:00:37 AM
opinions is all anyone has. I can say "Its the truth that God is real!" and you would say, " that is your opinion, you can not prove it!" I can say, " Ronald Reagan was the best president ever!" and you could say, " thats your opinion, everyone knows Lincoln was the best president ever!" Or I could say, "John Elway was the best QB to ever play the game!" Then you could say, " your opinion! Everyone knows Dan Marino was the best QB ever!" Anything I say is only my opinion, I my see it as truth but doesn't mean anyone else does. If you want truth, open up your heart and take everyones opinions into consideration  instead of believing their wrong with out even truly listening to what they have to say, isn't that the whole idea of a  forum?
Opinions... can be correct or incorrect. A judge can have an opinion that some law violates the constitution. That judge can be wrong, or right, or the matter is not settled.

So we can all have opinions, but this opinion is right: Jesus is risen from the dead, for my salvation.
καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει

80sChild

Quote from: QuestionMark on April 24, 2016, 12:22:50 AM
Quote from: 80sChild on January 07, 2016, 09:00:37 AM
opinions is all anyone has. I can say "Its the truth that God is real!" and you would say, " that is your opinion, you can not prove it!" I can say, " Ronald Reagan was the best president ever!" and you could say, " thats your opinion, everyone knows Lincoln was the best president ever!" Or I could say, "John Elway was the best QB to ever play the game!" Then you could say, " your opinion! Everyone knows Dan Marino was the best QB ever!" Anything I say is only my opinion, I my see it as truth but doesn't mean anyone else does. If you want truth, open up your heart and take everyones opinions into consideration  instead of believing their wrong with out even truly listening to what they have to say, isn't that the whole idea of a  forum?
Opinions... can be correct or incorrect. A judge can have an opinion that some law violates the constitution. That judge can be wrong, or right, or the matter is not settled.

So we can all have opinions, but this opinion is right: Jesus is risen from the dead, for my salvation.

Nice! :)

Andy S.

Quote from: QuestionMark on April 24, 2016, 12:18:30 AM
A Christian's thoughts don't matter unless they are reasonable. So don't ask Christians what they think, look at what Christians have thought since the beginning. For that you go to the books. So if you know how to read, then trying to find out what Christians believed in the beginning is not pointless.

Well....this is weird.  I'd ask you what you "think" about John 8:24 but you say that I shouldn't ask Christians "what they think".  I have no idea if I have to believe that Jesus is the One True God in order to be saved or not according to John 8:24.  Christians interpret John 8:24 differently.  Some say you do have to believe that Jesus is the One True God and others say you don't. 

Just curious....what "books" are you referring to?  QuestionMark, I know how to read.  I'm surprised you haven't drawn that conclusion from this thread alone as there is really good evidence that I have read what people have posted and have responded to their posts.  It appears to me that you are not very good at looking at evidence and drawing conclusions based on the evidence.   
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

QuestionMark

@Andy S.
You pointed out that Christians disagree, and I am telling you that's not a problem if you want to find the truth because you have your own brain and you don't have to trust someone else to tell you what the truth is. If you want my opinion, I will try to make your search more efficient, but I can't make you believe or disbelieve, it's not in my power (and I would argue it is not even in your power). Read for yourself what John 8:24 says. Meditate on it, study the language, the different interpretations, study the faithfulness of the translation to the originals, study its consistency with the author and the author's cohorts, study whether the worldview is rational, study study study and when you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt then you will know. You won't need anyone's opinions, if you go hard after the truth that's all you can do.

Sometimes people can be helpful, so since you've asked my opinion I'll try to help you.

So he said to them again, ?I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.? So the Jews said, ?Will he kill himself, since he says, ?Where I am going, you cannot come??? He said to them, ?You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.? So they said to him, ?Who are you?? Jesus said to them, ?Just what I have been telling you from the beginning. I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him.? They did not understand that he had been speaking to them about the Father. So Jesus said to them, ?When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him.? As he was saying these things, many believed in him.

Taken on its own, this is not a pronouncement of the world, but only some Jews. So this does not mean that you personally will die in your sins. It also depends on whether you are a sinner, because if you are a Jew and not a sinner then you won't die in your sins.

Are you a Jew? Are you a sinner?
καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει

Andy S.

Quote from: QuestionMark on May 08, 2016, 01:58:44 AM
@Andy S.
Meditate on it, study the language, the different interpretations, study the faithfulness of the translation to the originals

Question Mark, thanks for your opinion but I can't take you seriously anymore.  I cannot believe you think there are "originals" out there of the New Testament.  QM, there is no "original" of any book in the whole bible.  All you have are copies of copies of copies to go off of.  You cannot even be 100% certain that John 8:24 (for instance) isn't an interpolation.  To say I should "study the faithfulness of the translation to the originals" is just laughable.  There are no "originals". 

Thanks for your opinion but in the end....it's just that....AN OPINION!  Even if I was to assume that John 8:24 was not an interpolation I couldn't even trust that you have the right interpretation.  You appear as someone who does not know much about textual criticism or even how the bible was put together....especially since you think there are "originals" out there.

Thanks for the laugh though! 
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!"
- Homer Simpson

Quote from: kevin on February 23, 2015, 08:19:43 AM

you're still a christian, andy, just a non-believing one.

QuestionMark

καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει