Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till ----ALL---- be fulfilled. Got a news flash. Heaven and earth have not passed away. And not ALL has been fulfilled. Drop your guard and let Jesus' teaching in. The Jewish covenant has not gone anywhere. The law and the prophets still stand.
Again, “ALL” in ‘the Law’…which is specifically what this passage is referring to…WAS clearly fulfilled. Thereby negating the quantifiers in the statement. And the ‘real’ Old Covenant hasn’t been practiced since 70 AD when the destruction of the Temple…as Jesus clearly foretold…made it impossible to do so; even though some still claim to abide by pretend versions of it that are clearly tremendously cherry-picked and made-up ~ they’re clearly not the ‘real’ Old Covenant, which was an agreement between God and the ancient Israelites, and no one else…!
I see I'm not making any headway with you, but I was not really addressing you personally. Maybe someone with reading comprehension and no preconceived ideas will be quietly reading these posts and decide to look into what did Jesus actually say. And wonder if Paul was aware of Jesus' teachings. I think whoever wrote those letters was trying to subvert Jesus. Remember neither heaven or earth have yet passed away.
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Truths are demonstrable and testable, faith is neither.
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
How are you going to demonstrate and test history?
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Not all can be repeated – we have historians doing investigations to try and determine the likelihood of the accuracy of the information. They compare with other writings and whatever other archaeological data there may be – still no guarantees though.
Originally Posted by There_Ya_Go
One-off events by definition cannot be replicated and tested.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Some can, some can’t. If they can’t then there is no reason to believe that they are true.
If it can’t then there’s no reason to believe that it’s true. The time to believe that something is true is when it has been proven to be true.
"If you can't show it, then you don't know it."
Nonsense. There's a lot that I have done, that you have done, that others have done in their lives, that can't be documented and that there aren't any eyewitnesses to. Doesn't mean those things didn't happen. They may be insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but they are real, they are truth.
It's unfortunate that you weren't around during Jesus' ministry, because apparently you only believe things you can see for yourself. After the resurrection, you probably would have been like Thomas, who said that he would not believe unless he could see and feel the nail scars in Jesus' hands. For Thomas, the extraordinary claim that Jesus was alive required extraordinary evidence, and he got it. Thomas was lucky enough to have had that experience while alive on earth, but the rest of us have to rely on his testimony as to the nail scars. I believe Thomas. I don't believe you.
Difference is that you believe the bullshit, and I don't.
That would make you gullible and with no regard for wanting of the truth.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk.
That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied.
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till ----ALL---- be fulfilled. Got a news flash. Heaven and earth have not passed away. And not ALL has been fulfilled. Drop your guard and let Jesus' teaching in. The Jewish covenant has not gone anywhere. The law and the prophets still stand.
Again, “ALL” in ‘the Law’…which is specifically what this passage is referring to…WAS clearly fulfilled. Thereby negating the quantifiers in the statement. And the ‘real’ Old Covenant hasn’t been practiced since 70 AD when the destruction of the Temple…as Jesus clearly foretold…made it impossible to do so; even though some still claim to abide by pretend versions of it that are clearly tremendously cherry-picked and made-up ~ they’re clearly not the ‘real’ Old Covenant, which was an agreement between God and the ancient Israelites, and no one else…!
I see I'm not making any headway with you, but I was not really addressing you personally. Maybe someone with reading comprehension and no preconceived ideas will be quietly reading these posts and decide to look into what did Jesus actually say. And wonder if Paul was aware of Jesus' teachings. I think whoever wrote those letters was trying to subvert Jesus. Remember neither heaven or earth have yet passed away.
Antler's version of Christianity is contingent on dismissing the old testament (creation, fall from grace etc) irregardless.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk.
That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied.
I see I'm not making any headway with you, but I was not really addressing you personally. Maybe someone with reading comprehension and no preconceived ideas will be quietly reading these posts and decide to look into what did Jesus actually say. And wonder if Paul was aware of Jesus' teachings. I think whoever wrote those letters was trying to subvert Jesus. Remember neither heaven or earth have yet passed away.
You ask specific questions of others pertaining to these same matters on these type of threads…over and over…and many others typically respond directly to your specific questions (over and over). And then you typically ignore the majority of them completely, or sometimes you resort to the type of response above. Your interpretation of what Jesus actually did say, and mean, is clearly very different from the overwhelming majority of those who have chosen to respond to your specific questions on these same matters on these type of threads, over and over. Clearly. But that’s OK. Differing opinions are OK.
But we are all likely guilty…to some degree…of confirmation bias. You, me, and everyone else here who posts on these type of threads. All of us almost invariably arrive at our beliefs not only on the basis of proof, but also on the basis of what we find attractive. In other words, when something is attractive to us, we go looking for reasons to substantiate our belief. And we sometimes…or always…negate nearly everything to the contrary, regardless of how factual and true it is. Also you, me, and everyone else here who posts on these type of threads have a tendency to discount the reliability of information based on the source of the information rather than on the merits of the information.
I see I'm not making any headway with you, but I was not really addressing you personally. Maybe someone with reading comprehension and no preconceived ideas will be quietly reading these posts and decide to look into what did Jesus actually say. And wonder if Paul was aware of Jesus' teachings. I think whoever wrote those letters was trying to subvert Jesus. Remember neither heaven or earth have yet passed away.
You ask specific questions of others pertaining to these same matters on these type of threads…over and over…and many others typically respond directly to your specific questions (over and over). And then you typically ignore the majority of them completely, or sometimes you resort to the type of response above. Your interpretation of what Jesus actually did say, and mean, is clearly very different from the overwhelming majority of those who have chosen to respond to your specific questions on these same matters on these type of threads, over and over. Clearly. But that’s OK. Differing opinions are OK.
But we are all likely guilty…to some degree…of confirmation bias. You, me, and everyone else here who posts on these type of threads. All of us almost invariably arrive at our beliefs not only on the basis of proof, but also on the basis of what we find attractive. In other words, when something is attractive to us, we go looking for reasons to substantiate our belief. And we sometimes…or always…negate nearly everything to the contrary, regardless of how factual and true it is. Also you, me, and everyone else here who posts on these type of threads sometimes…or always…have a tendency to discount the reliability of information based on the source of the information rather than on the merits of the information.
That sounds like a confession.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Originally Posted by Raspy
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk.
That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied.
Antler's version of Christianity is contingent on dismissing the old testament (creation, fall from grace etc) irregardless.
Christianity began with the resurrection of Jesus, not the Old Testament (creation, fall from grace, etc.). Christianity began when Jesus’ earliest followers saw Him alive from the dead. And just as His resurrection served as the reason they would later give for the hope that was alive in them, so His resurrection should also serve as the reason for our hope as well.
But I don’t believe it because “the Bible says.” I believe it because Jesus rose. And I don’t believe Jesus rose because “the Bible says.” I believe Jesus rose because Matthew’s separate and independent account says so; and Mark’s separate and independent account says so; and Luke’s separate and independent account says so; and so does John’s, and so does Peter’s; and James, the brother of Jesus believed it to be so and documented about it; and the fire-breathing, Christian-hating Pharisee Paul came to believe it was so, and documented about it.
Eventually the church leaders collected these separate and individual accounts and declarations of faith and bound them together and titled it the New Testament. And once someone accepts the historicity of the resurrection, they typically become interested in the backstory ~ the Hebrew Scriptures.
But nobody has to accept the Old Testament as reliable or even the New Testament as inspired ‘before’ embracing Jesus as their Savior. Nobody has to accept the authority of a book ‘before’ accepting the historicity of the resurrection.
But many of us were taught to believe that everything in the Bible was true ‘because’ it was in the Bible. We inherited a text-based faith and we grew up believing that Jesus rose from the dead ‘because’ the Bible said so.
But the faith of the earliest Christians was event-based.
I see I'm not making any headway with you, but I was not really addressing you personally. Maybe someone with reading comprehension and no preconceived ideas will be quietly reading these posts and decide to look into what did Jesus actually say. And wonder if Paul was aware of Jesus' teachings. I think whoever wrote those letters was trying to subvert Jesus. Remember neither heaven or earth have yet passed away.
You ask specific questions of others pertaining to these same matters on these type of threads…over and over…and many others typically respond directly to your specific questions (over and over). And then you typically ignore the majority of them completely, or sometimes you resort to the type of response above. Your interpretation of what Jesus actually did say, and mean, is clearly very different from the overwhelming majority of those who have chosen to respond to your specific questions on these same matters on these type of threads, over and over. Clearly. But that’s OK. Differing opinions are OK.
But we are all likely guilty…to some degree…of confirmation bias. You, me, and everyone else here who posts on these type of threads. All of us almost invariably arrive at our beliefs not only on the basis of proof, but also on the basis of what we find attractive. In other words, when something is attractive to us, we go looking for reasons to substantiate our belief. And we sometimes…or always…negate nearly everything to the contrary, regardless of how factual and true it is. Also you, me, and everyone else here who posts on these type of threads have a tendency to discount the reliability of information based on the source of the information rather than on the merits of the information.
You are right. I keep saying the same things over and over. I guess I should give up but you can never tell who is reading and checking it out for themselves. I am not any where near the first to question Paul. That has be going on for hundreds of years.
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
The assertion that we should rank the words of Jesus as more important than the rest of the New Testament seems problematic to me, especially given the fact that the only reason we have the words of Jesus recorded is because those who wrote the rest of the New Testament are the one’s who recorded the words of Jesus in the first place…!
The writers of the New Testament…the one’s who were eyewitness…provide the very basis for the authoritative New Testament claims about Jesus’ life (including the resurrection). They followed Jesus for two to three years and eventually documented their eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings, and their decisions to write down what they witnessed are the only reason we have the four Gospel’s (including the words of Jesus) at all.
These eyewitnesses, especially those who were Apostle’s, documented not only Jesus’ teachings and His deeds…in addition to the words that He spoke…but also the meaning and the context of it all for those who came after them. So how do we separate the words of Jesus from the other eyewitness testimony…? To detach His words from their context and apply em’ to our lives in whatever way suits us seems more than a little bit disingenuous to me.
These New Testament writers were likely in a way better position to understand the context of Jesus’ words than we are. They were His students and His friends, and they understood the Aramaic language that He spoke. John’s Gospel makes it crystal clear that we don’t have all of Jesus’ words; not even close. It’s likely that Jesus told more parables, preached more, and gave further instructions to these eyewitnesses that we know nothing about.
To diminish what they wrote about Jesus, in deference to our interpretation of ‘just’ the words of Jesus (which ‘they’ also recorded for us), seems thoughtless and reckless to me. We sure as heck don’t have a better understanding of Him and His will for us than they did. Many people believe that God Himself moved these writers to document and testify to ALL of what they wrote (not ‘just’ the words of Jesus).
Unfortunately, nothing is that simple or straightforward.
For instance:
"The genre of the gospels is essential in understanding the intentions of the authors regarding the historical value of the texts.
New Testament scholar Graham Stanton states that "the gospels are now widely considered to be a sub-set of the broad ancient literary genre of biographies."[31]
Charles H. Talbert agrees that the gospels should be grouped with the Graeco-Roman biographies, but adds that such biographies included an element of mythology, and that the synoptic gospels also included elements of mythology.[2]
E.P. Sanders states that "these Gospels were written with the intention of glorifying Jesus and are not strictly biographical in nature."[19]
Ingrid Maisch and Anton Vögtle writing for Karl Rahner in his encyclopedia of theological terms indicate that the gospels were written primarily as theological, not historical items.[32]
Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis notes that "we must conclude, then, that the genre of the Gospel is not that of pure 'history'; but neither is it that of myth, fairy tale, or legend. In fact, 'gospel' constitutes a genre all its own, a surprising novelty in the literature of the ancient world."[3] - Wiki
Readers of the Bible are of 1 of 2 types: spirit filled, not spirit filled. Those with the Holy Spirit will understand what it says much better and will believe what it says. Those without the spirit will call it myth, untrue, or anything other than the true word of God. The writers of this quoted post were clearly of the 2d type.
The red letter Bibles really aren't doing us any good. Jesus gave us his words, but in his own manner, so does the Spirit. The spirit doesn't speak in a verbal manner, he speaks from inside. We come to realize that understanding has been planted in our heads that could only come from God. The Spirit will NOT give us anything that isn't God's truth so calling the truth 'mythology' has to come from the deceiver.
Yet there are different interpretations of verse and theology amongst Christians denominations, groups and individuals.
Scholars base their inquiry on what is written in context of the times and the beliefs that were held during that period, keeping personal interpretation out of it as much as possible.
What is taken to be guidance by the Holy Spirit may be one's own hopes and dreams coming into play.
Can any of you show the correctness of Paul's assertions of salvation by faith alone
Paul never said that.
Somebody said it;
Ephesians 2:8-9 - ''For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.''
Can any of you show the correctness of Paul's assertions of salvation by faith alone
Originally Posted by Tyrone
Paul never said that.
Quote
Somebody said it; Ephesians 2:8-9 - ''For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.''
No they didn’t. Tyrone is correct. The operative preposition for faith is “through,” which refers to the means by which we are saved. Paul clearly said that we are saved by God's grace (grace is the basis and power of our salvation) through faith, which is the means by which we receive the gift of salvation. Prepositions matter.
Many of us grew up being taught that the Bible was true ‘before’ we ever read anything in it, and that order of things presents a problem as to why the church sometimes has difficulty reaching those who are outside of the faith. If the church is gonna regain the first-century status of its attractiveness, then maybe they oughta change the way they talk about the Bible (and present it) to those outside of the faith.
Most educated people have an educated opinion about what the Bible is and isn’t, and they don’t walk into a church or a biblical discussion with clean slates; they walk in with full slates. So maybe the church oughta shift its approach to that of its first-century precedent.
When scientific claims or archeological discoveries (or lack of em’) threaten to undermine the credibility of the Old Testament…instead of feeling compelled to either get bowed up and defend it, or just ignore it, maybe those in the church oughta realize that Christianity doesn’t hang by a thread based on science or the archeology or the history of the Old Testament.
Anybody who walked away from following Jesus because they don’t have faith in the scientific or the historical or the archeological credibility of the Old Testament, then they walked away from Jesus for reasons that don’t have anything to do with the foundation of Christianity.
The earliest Christians didn’t rest their faith in Jesus on a historically or archaeologically or scientifically accurate Old Testament, and people nowadays shouldn’t either. When atheists and anti-theists and skeptics…or anybody else outside of the faith…point out the violence, and the scientifically and archeologically and historically unverifiable claims of the Old Testament…instead of trying to defend those things…those within the body of believers oughta realize that their Christian faith isn’t based on ‘any’ of that…because it isn’t, or it shouldn’t be…and maybe point that out.
Probably 90% of Christians have no idea of what is in their bible because they don't and never have read it. They certainly have never made an in depth analysis of Jesus' teachings versus Paul. Paul versus James, Peter, etcetera. If they have read it, it was after indoctrination by the likes of Jimmy Swaggart, Billy Graham, or the Catholic Church, or whoever. If you set Jay Leno up outside a Baptist church or a Catholic Church and he did a Jay Walking segment it would be worse than when he set up at a college asking the students who fought in the Spanish American War.
That being the case they accept whatever a preacher tells them and don't realize that some of the bible (mostly in the New Testament) has been doctored, redacted, added to, and even forged. When you find something in a writing that doesn't fit or make sense it is time to wonder who put it there and why.
There are several letters attached to the gospel that are attributed to a single writer that while they contain a good bit of truth, the main gist of which was to corrupt the doctrine of Jesus as was noted by no less than Thomas Jefferson.
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Well many of the Christians here…from what I’ve read of their posts…don’t fit at all into your 90% mentioned above. And they most certainly don’t fit under your assertion that they’ve never made an in-depth analysis of Jesus’ teachings versus Paul’s. Or Paul’s teachings versus James, or Peter, etc.. There’re some clearly smart and insightful men here when it comes to Biblical knowledge, and nearly every single one of them that have responded to your posts have refuted your continued assertions regarding the Old Covenant, the Law and the Prophets, the divinity of Jesus, and most especially the teachings of Jesus versus the teachings of Paul; or Paul’s teachings versus those of James, or Peter, etc.. Regarding the last example, nearly every single one of them have pointed out to you that there are no contradictions at all…none…between Jesus’ teachings and those of Paul (or those of Paul versus James, or Peter, etc.). There are only things that people fail to grasp.
You continue to see things differently regarding these matters. But that’s OK. Differing opinions are OK. I certainly have my share of em’.
Probably 90% of Christians have no idea of what is in their bible because they don't and never have read it. They certainly have never made an in depth analysis of Jesus' teachings versus Paul. Paul versus James, Peter, etcetera. If they have read it, it was after indoctrination by the likes of Jimmy Swaggart, Billy Graham, or the Catholic Church, or whoever. If you set Jay Leno up outside a Baptist church or a Catholic Church and he did a Jay Walking segment it would be worse than when he set up at a college asking the students who fought in the Spanish American War.
That being the case they accept whatever a preacher tells them and don't realize that some of the bible (mostly in the New Testament) has been doctored, redacted, added to, and even forged. When you find something in a writing that doesn't fit or make sense it is time to wonder who put it there and why.
There are several letters attached to the gospel that are attributed to a single writer that while they contain a good bit of truth, the main gist of which was to corrupt the doctrine of Jesus as was noted by no less than Thomas Jefferson.
Are you questioning the power and authority of the Holy Spirit to provide discernment to the true believer?
Well many of the Christians here…from what I’ve read of their posts…don’t fit at all into your 90% mentioned above. And they most certainly don’t fit under your assertion that they’ve never made an in-depth analysis of Jesus’ teachings versus Paul’s. Or Paul’s teachings versus James, or Peter, etc.. There’re some clearly smart and insightful men here when it comes to Biblical knowledge, and nearly every single one of them that have responded to your posts have refuted your continued assertions regarding the Old Covenant, the Law and the Prophets, the divinity of Jesus, and most especially the teachings of Jesus versus the teachings of Paul; or Paul’s teachings versus those of James, or Peter, etc.. Regarding the last example, nearly every single one of them have pointed out to you that there are no contradictions at all…none…between Jesus’ teachings and those of Paul (or those of Paul versus James, or Peter, etc.). There are only things that people fail to grasp.
You continue to see things differently regarding these matters. But that’s OK. Differing opinions are OK. I certainly have my share of em’.
Of course most of the commenters here have read the bible thoroughly. Many after an indoctrination in the inerrancy of scripture and after being told that the NT writers' opinions are inerrant and are in fact scripture.
But I know Baptist deacons that could not name you 4 of Jesus' apostles or name more than two of the tribes of Israel or maybe even half the 10 commandments.
By the way I'm a Southern Baptist and a registered Democrat but I know that both groups are full of crap on some things.
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Well I’m screwed. I came here for information on how to be saved. Way to many different theories here. I’ve been telling my wife for years that all the. Other hundreds of religions that people practice are just as sure they are right as she does about Christianity. A bunch of them are so sure they willing die for it. Edk
Well I’m screwed. I came here for information on how to be saved. Way to many different theories here. I’ve been telling my wife for years that all the. Other hundreds of religions that people practice are just as sure they are right as she does about Christianity. A bunch of them are so sure they willing die for it. Edk
Yes, exclusivity is a common tenant to any belief system. The wonderful part of having free will is being able to seek out and find for yourself what is true inner peace and contentment. May you find it in your search!
Well I’m screwed. I came here for information on how to be saved. Way to many different theories here. I’ve been telling my wife for years that all the. Other hundreds of religions that people practice are just as sure they are right as she does about Christianity. A bunch of them are so sure they willing die for it. Edk
There is a book called "Jesus and Mohamad". The author was second in a class of 6,000 who graduated from Cairo University. He memorized the Koran by age twelve and became an Imam. After he earned his PhD in world religions, he became a Christian. He maintains none have the credentials of the original Christian history. Only Jesus has documented legal historical evidence of His resurrection from the dead.
You seriously seek Jesus, He will come to you.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
