Am I saved from the Christian point of view?
- Thread starter garyflet
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
Don't try to force me into a corner that you are trying to create.
The word "gospel" simply means "good news" and there are plenty of "good news'" in the Bible. Note that every time that you see "THE GOSPEL OF ..." in scripture, this is qualifying which "good news" it's talking about.
It's a shame that you don't know, since you seem to think that you know at least one of them. Just search for "THE GOSPEL OF" in the Bible and you can find them for yourself.
No clue what you're talking about.
Then you've never opened a Bible and done any serious reading of it.
That's Jesus' business... read the Bible and maybe you can find out.
Because the present gospel for today was not instituted until Israel rejected their king and God raised up another, different apostle with a new message. NOTE: This does not mean that everything that Paul preached was new.
You are bordering on blaspheme. You should be careful.
Irrelevant.
Because you are trying to tilt the playing field in your favor. I don't fall for those kinds of tactics.
Irrelevant once again.
Because those books properly record history and the things that God was doing at those times.
Because Peter was not given that information; Paul was.
Because Luke was not given that information. This is pretty simple.
Don't you find it odd that in all of the scripture recording Jesus' earthly ministry that not ONCE does He use the word "grace".
In some sense, yes. But the context was always Christ's relationship with the nation of Israel.
In the gospel of the grace of God, Israel is not relevant.
You seem quite confused. "Forgiveness of the Father" (whatever you might mean by that) was nothing new at the time of Christ's earthly ministry.
Ps 32:1 (AKJV/PCE)
(32:1) [A] [Psalm] of David, Maschil. Blessed [is he whose] transgression [is] forgiven, [whose] sin [is] covered.
As RD mentioned, He was talking about the Gospel of the Kingdom of Israel.
Quite literally Matthew 28:20, "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you..."
You see, Jesus was talking about commands, rules, "The Law," all of which were given strictly to Israel.
Law is not grace.
Because everything was on track for the Kingdom of Israel to be established (again) with Jesus on the throne.
Did you ever notice that there was a period of about a year between the resurrection and when Paul was chosen as an Apostle?
Supra.
Reread the verse.
"...that through this Man (Jesus)..."
Through Him. Not BY Him.
Note that "forgiveness of sins" is not mentioned once in the four Gospels. Only ONCE by Peter, and it wasn't in Acts 2, but rather in chapter 5.
No, not "through what Jesus preached."
"...through this Man..."
It's kind of hard to teach something if you don't call it by it's name. Again, not once is the phrase "forgiveness of sins" found in the four gospels. Meaning Jesus did not teach it through what He preached (i.e. said).
When was the debt paid?
It depends on the context (as with pretty much every other thing in scripture).
I'll let RD handle this.
Because, as I said above, things were on track for the establishment of the eternal Kingdom of Israel. The gospel of grace was still a mystery, a secret kept since the foundation of the world.
He didn't.
This assumes there is only one "correct/true" gospel, period.
This is not the case.
God expressly forbid human sacrifice for a reason.
With that reasoning, why would anyone record any past events?
Because it's a matter of history...
The entire Bible is a record of God's interactions with Man, quite literally "His-story." And like all good stories, the Bible has a plot, and like the best stories, it also has a plot twist.
Again, because the Gospel of the Kingdom was still in effect.
Luke wrote about past events within the context of when they happened, like any good historian does who writes about the past. Otherwise things get VERY confusing.
You've noticed something important.
The covenant of law given to Israel was undergirded by grace. Without God's grace, many people in ancient Israel would still be in Hell.
You can't have forgiveness without repentance.
Yeah, as if I wrote the bible.
You should understand that such emotionally based arguments will have no effect on me other than to convince me that you have nothing of substance to respond with.
I Corinthians 4:15 For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you, imitate me
I Corinthians 11:1 Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.
If Jesus' gospel is THE gospel then there's a bigger problem than you realize because the gospel that Paul preached IS NOT the gospel that Jesus preached! In fact, Paul's gospel is not preached by ANY other biblical author - not Jesus, not Peter, James or John, not Moses or any other prophet. Paul's message of salvation by grace alone through faith alone apart from the Law is entirely unique to Paul.
In fact, Jesus had spent three years training his disciples and the Twelve. When He left them, He promised that the Holy Spirit would come and He also gave them the authority to act in His absence, even to the forgiveness or retention of sins. With this authority they chose Matthias to replace Judas. A choice that God Himself directly endorsed when all twelve of them where filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (a Jewish Feast day, by the way).
If, as you rightly point out, Jesus commanded "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.", why would Paul have received his gospel by direct divine revelation and why would Paul need to be sent "by revelation" to Jerusalem where he explained "his gospel" to the Twelve and why did they agreed with Paul to stay in Jerusalem and minister to "the Circumcision" while he (Paul) went to the rest of the world? Or weren't you even aware that any such thing happened? Indeed, why would Paul's ministry exist at all?
Those are NOT a rhetorical questions, Rhema. Answer them.
Clete
Last edited:
Yes, the point of the example was not to suggest that you have said that, rather the point is moot, because I was worried that you were offended by my questions, but you tell me you are not. I was fascinated by this idea of children not needing to be saved, but you didn't seem to want to go into it. It seems that for you to explain the reasons for your answer would be long and complicated and not readily apparent from the Bible. But so many questions arise, such as, how old does one need to be in order to need to be saved? It would appear that even toddlers can sin, so why don't their sins send them to hell should they die immediately?
Unless the answer was that God is just and babies aren't innocent.
Actually, my objections about hell were not based on ignorance, but my knowledge of what hell is going to be from the Bible. It has been a curiosity to me to notice that on this thread that there have been many attempts to discount the horrors of hell as described in the Bible. Some have suggested that some might want to go to hell. In contrast, the Bible goes into excruciating detail! It's a "furnace of fire" or a "lake of fire" that people are thrown into. The fires are eternal. And it would be better to poke out your eye if that would save you from hell. One doesn't need any more to know that hell is pretty bad and involuntary! As far as the severity of the crime, if you say that coveting a cookie is very severe crime, I can accept that as part of your theology.
I wrote that I thought you had said that you didn't accept annihilationism. In fact, I looked back on the notes and you stated it "throughout most of Christendom, to be heretical (i.e. historically speaking)."
Irrelevant? Maybe for you, you'll be sitting up there in heaven enjoying the luxuries of your heavenly mansion! I'll be down in hell screaming in agony in the flames, begging for God to just kill me. But no, God will insure that I cannot die to ensure my eternal suffering. But if it turns out that annihilationsim is right, and I don't have to go through all that, it would literally make an infinite difference.
While I'm in excruciating agony, I doubt that it will be much comfort to know that hell is what it ought to be.
I wrote, "...we cannot possibly understand what God knows and understands, we cannot judge what God does; in any case God is just."
No contradiction. Just like the example in Job, he and his friends do not understand what the Creator of the universe understands, and therefore simply do not have the knowledge (perhaps including brainpower) to judge God's actions. On the other hand, they should accept that God is just, he is telling them directly, and tells us in the Bible.
Right back atcha! I'm not sure what you don't understand about what I'm saying. For example, above you say that I'm contradicting myself, when in fact I'm just repeating ideas we've already discussed and agreed upon.
There are a lot of fools out there trying to understand how the Supreme Court hands out justice with their opinions! I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "justice" or what you mean by "justice is a matter of opinion". Philosophers are unable to come up with a definition of justice that covers all the varieties of meaning of the word. Certainly if someone is on trial for murder, at the simplest level, the court needs to determine if the accused did it or not, and that would not be a matter of opinion. But whether it's 1st degree or2nd degree or manslaughter, etc., how long the sentence should be, now we're getting into the realm of opinion. But maybe for you, it's never a matter of opinion, because there is always, ideally, an absolute truth, which, of course, God knows. So God embodies perfect justice and carries out justice. Perhaps that's what you mean by "justice", the ideal of perfect justice known and delivered by God. But does that mean that the opinions of humans, humans that are imperfect but are nevertheless trying to approximate perfect justice, have nothing to do with justice? I would say no.
Well, if I had "NOTHING" to do with justice, I wouldn't be able to conceive of it, much less use the word in a sentence. We may even consider whether an action is just or not. What I think you mean is one's personal sense of justice is an approximation of perfect justice by finite, imperfect minds. The personal sense of justice may be wrong.
I wrote: "As I've said many times, "God is just". Of course I agree that whether we see God as just or not makes no difference to the fact that God is just.
There's no contradiction and, in fact, the statements seem trivially obvious. God is just whether we see Him that way or not. Maybe you are still thinking that I'm arguing that God is not just? (By the way, I never argued that God is unjust. I said from the very beginning that eternal punishment for finite crimes would appear to be unjust.) If so, how many times to I have to write, "God is just"? For some time now I have accepted that God is just, and that there are two solutions to the appearance of injustice with regard to hell: (1) annihilationism and (2) we simply don't have the capability being finite humans nor the information to judge God's actions. The "Job" solution. Either solution works, and the Bible says, "God is just", so there you are.
Goodness what a revulsion to a class of humans! I hope the revulsion is not part of your theology.
Interesting.
I never said that perfect or ideal justice was a matter of personal opinion. I said that the idea of eternal punishment for finite crimes has the appearance of being unjust. And that that appearance would apply to God throwing people into hell. But I never said that the appearance was necessarily fact. I never said that my personal sense of justice was necessarily correct.
Thanks for that info.
Is there a book somewhere that explains this line of thought? Surely there should be, if indeed it is "the only rationally consistent worldview that exists"!
Of course, in trying to understand your theology, I have to accept the basic premises.
Have you ever studied quantum mechanics?
There's no rush. It might be days, even, before I can get a chance to reply.
Right Divider
Body part
There is nothing irrational about quantum mechanics. That you believe that there is... Is a poor reflection on your thinking.
Have you studied quantum mechanics at a collegiate level?
I'm not. I'm asking a question. (When have questions stopped being questions?)
Yes, but much more. The word "twelve" might simply mean an enumeration of the quantity of disciples that Jesus first selected, but when used in the New Testament, it has taken on a significance beyond a mere number, to mean a body of persons in whom Ecclesiastical Authority was vested. "Bible" might simply mean "book," but ... C'mon man, who uses it that way? I would contend that this is the same thing for the word "Gospel."
So it would be helpful if you could actually answer the question, instead of dodging it.
When you hear the word "Gospel" you don't think? "The Gospel of Salvation that the Father sent his Son, Jesus the Messiah, to preach"? I would find it strange for you to hear good news (e.g. about your job) and you think "Hey what great gospel...." In essence, in order for me to understand what you mean, I'm trying to determine your Definitional Framework for the term Gospel (how you use it).
It's a shame that you apparently can't list them, but feel the need to scold me.
Okay, and I've taken some time to do this.
First, the word "Gospel" doesn't appear in the Old Testament at all. But I'm certain that you would not claim that there is no "good news" in the Old Testament.
It's obvious that one finds the phrase "Gospel of the Kingdom," and it would be absurd to think that I denied this. But do you truly think that this "Gospel of the Kingdom" refers to something different than:
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
(Mark 1:1 KJV)I don't think you do. So with the assumption (and my apologies) that the word Gospel in the Gospels refers to only one singular message of "Good News," then we are left with the rest of the New Testament to find these "other" gospels.
Now I have found these phrases:
- the gospel of the grace of God.
- the gospel of God
- the gospel of his Son
- the gospel of Christ (ten times)
- the gospel of peace
- the gospel of the uncircumcision
- the gospel of your salvation
- the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ
Are you truly saying that Paul meant several different "good news"es when he used the word "gospel"?
From what I understand (until you explain) there would seem to be two gospels that you believe are preached.... the Gospel of the Kingdom (aka The Gospel of Jesus, cf. Mark 1:1) and the Gospel of Grace. But that's puzzling, since the exact phrase "Gospel of Grace" cannot actually be found (just the gospel of the Grace of God).
Let me just try searching on "Gospel" and see what I get.
(Okay... 104 instances of the word "Gospel.")
This might take some time.
It's just puzzling that after his resurrection, Jesus would command his disciples to preach a Gospel that he knew was null and void (a Gospel that was defunct and useless for salvation) to ALL the world, and to the Gentiles.
Were the disciples in error when preaching the Gospel here?
And they, when they had testified and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem, and preached the gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.
(Acts 8:25 KJV)What Gospel did Peter preach to the Gentile Cornelius? Was the angel of God wrong in telling Cornelius to go find Peter instead of Paul? (cf. Acts 10:3-5)
And did Paul and Barnabas preach a different gospel here?
They were ware of it, and fled unto Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about: And there they preached the gospel.
(Acts 14:6-7 KJV)I'm asking these in all seriousness, so it would be sad for you to "read in" any sarcasm here.
Rhema
The Gospel Message, the Good News, as opposed to the Gospel books. Sorry to have confused you.
RD... I've translated the New Testament, and have worked with Hebrew Scholars on certain OT passages. Your accusation is ... surprising. (Technically baseless.)
I'm not the one stating that Jesus didn't preach a saving Gospel. (And it would be spelled blasphemy, when used as a noun.)
Why would I need to be careful when embracing the Gospel that Jesus, the Son of God, the Resurrected Messiah preached?
Right Divider
Body part
I wasn't born yesterday.
- The number of apostles that Jesus called for His earthly ministry was based on the number of tribes of Israel.
That is the significance of the number twelve. - The "Ecclesiastical Authority" was also over Israel.
Luke 22:30 (AKJV/PCE)(22:30) That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Your contention is wrong.
I already have.
The gospel of my salvation is the gospel of the grace of God.
I know enough to know that there is more than one gospel, so clarification is needed when someone like you says "gospel".
I don't think that I need to hold your hand at every moment.
The word "gospel" is translated from a Greek word... so duh.
There is much "good news" in the "Old Testament", it just does not use that exact word.
When God told Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation, that was "good news".
When God told Abraham that he would be the father of many nations, that was "good news".
The "gospel of the kingdom" was about the nation of Israel.
You missed the gospel of the circumcision.
Again, you must ask yourself why Jesus is never quoted as using the word "grace" during His earthly ministry to Israel. Paul uses the word over EIGHTY times in his thirteen epistles. Was Jesus preaching the gospel of the grace of God without ever using the word "grace"?
Yes, that is clear to anyone reading the Bible without blinders on.
The term "gospel of grace" is quite obviously shorthand for the "gospel of the grace of God".
The gospel of the kingdom is also quite obviously something different.
Note that when Jesus sent the twelve to preach the gospel of the kingdom to Israel, they did not even know that Christ would die.
It's puzzling because you are misconstruing the whole thing.
They continued to preach the gospel that Christ gave them to preach. Why is that so hard to understand?
Besides, in Acts 8, God had NOT yet called Paul and given him the gospel of the grace of God.
Peter continued to preach what Christ has given him to preach. Again, what is so hard to understand here?
Paul preached the gospel that God gave him to preach (which was NOT the gospel of the kingdom).
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
No. But I know that there nothing irrational about it.
No. I think it's because you rarely ever run into someone that is honest at face value.
"Never attribute to malice that which can easily be understood as naivete."
Your "tone of voice" seems really hostile, and while I might be incisive in my questions, I am not your enemy. It's sad to think that you need to (or typically do) react this way. (And it doesn't say much for your saviour either.) Again, I am not your enemy. And while I know my next point is rather "off-point," I'm hoping it will help you understand me better.
I'm sure you know this verse:
Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
(Luke 10:36 KJV)On the surface, it's been likely preached to death in Sunday school and sermons galore, but ... it may surprise you to find out that the Greek text does not read this way. In the phrase "was neighbour" the verb "to be" is γίνομαι (GINOMAI - "caused to be"), not εἰμί (EIMI - "was") and "neighbor" is an adverb. When it all shakes out, I read, "caused himself to be neighbor" (or made himself neighborly)... And I take my saviour's council in this regard very seriously. You might not like what I'm asking, but it shouldn't make me your enemy. I am trying my best to "make myself a neighbor" in our conversation. (But receive it however you wish.)
How could this possibly be irrelevant? It goes to the very heart of what I understand you to believe being "saved" would mean.
Here's what I said...
I think offering up the blood of a human sacrifice to the gods (okay, just one God) in order to pay for sins might be thought of as a silly idea. It certainly seems that this theme is rather prevalent in demonic religions such as the Aztecs and the Pagan Romans, is it not?
Whatever your reaction might be, my view here is certainly not "irrelevant." Isn't this what you believe? (It might not be.) But don't you believe that the blood of a human sacrifice is made to the gods (okay, just one God) to pay for your sins, or to appease the gods (okay, just one God) so that his wrath does not fall on you? Is it not your belief that the sacrificial blood of Jesus when offered up to God through faith makes an appeasement so that his wrath of hell does not fall upon you?
Please, it would be most helpful if you could rephrase this in your own words so that I know what you believe, but again, this part of my post is most certainly not "irrelevant." Then again, maybe you're unable to take the time to post a more in-depth explanation.
The synoptic gospels only record history? I don't think so. What Christian would say that Doctrine cannot be found in the Gospel books? The following command by Jesus isn't, "Go forth and preach this history..." It LITERALLY says, "shall be saved." And it doesn't say, "just the nation of Israel," but LITERALLY says "every creature."
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
(Mark 16:15-16 KJV)Until you tell me better, I can only conclude that somehow God changed his mind after Jesus gave this command. But wouldn't the author of Mark know this?
And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
(Mark 16:20 KJV)In this verse, how is "the word being preached" not "the word preached by Jesus"? It even says that the Lord was working with them, and the the word was confirmed. In essence this distills down to a single question.
Isn't the one who believes the Gospel that Jesus preached become saved?
Rhema
(More as I can....)
I find it odd that you don't know that Jesus DID use the word "grace."
Are you seriously going to hold that position?
I guess you are.
Rhema
(I would gently direct you to the Sermon on the Plain.)
I'm fairly sure I understand the scope of the problem.
What puzzles me is that you would reject the teachings of Jesus before men. And instead preach a Gospel that came from someone else (if indeed it is a different gospel).
That should tell you something.
And the message of salvation from Paul is the one you believe. (Just making sure I'm understanding this correctly.)
Am I to also understand, then, that this is the only message of salvation that's correct? (The one from Paul.)
And that is a VERY good question.
I understand that these are not rhetorical. But from your posts, I'm pretty sure you're trying to get me banned.
Why?
(Also not a rhetorical question.)
But for me to answer your questions, I think I need to clarify a number of things here. (If you could be so kind.)
You say that Paul was sent "by revelation" to Jerusalem where he explained "his gospel" to the Twelve.
I am politely asking what scripture passage tells you this (though I think I know, I wish not to presume). From what I understand....there's nothing in the following passage to indicate that the gospel preached by the disciples was different from what Paul preached.
And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.
(Acts 9:26-28 KJV)And from what I can tell, in this sermon, Paul preaches the exact same thing as Jesus preached:
Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
(Acts 13:38 KJV)Paul was declaring that through the preaching of Jesus, the forgiveness of sins is made known to them.
And isn't the theme of the following passage about circumcision?
Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
(Galatians 2:1-3 KJV)I don't recall anything in Acts 10 about Peter demanding Cornelius be circumcised.
Again, I would politely ask what scripture passage tells you this (and though I think I know, I'd still rather not presume).
Doesn't the passage in Galatians 2 refer to the synod in Acts 15?
And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. ... But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
(Galatians 2:2,7 KJV)Perhaps not, because we have this contradiction.
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
(Acts 15:7 KJV)I'm reluctant to think that the author of Acts misspoke, given his account in Acts 10.
On the face of it, though, Galatians 2:7 in the KJV does seem to present that there are two gospels. I wonder if this is because the KJV translators never knew about Koine Greek.
On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised
(Galatians 2:7 NRSV)But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
(Galatians 2:7 NKJV)Bear with me....
Interesting. When reading the Greek it comes across as "had been entrusted with the evangelism of the uncircumcision" (πεπιστευμαι το ευαγγελιον της ακροβυστιας) in both traditions (TR and NA). It doesn't present as two different gospels being enumerated. But I can see how that mistake could be made.
However, there being one single gospel would agree with Peter's assertion here:
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
(Acts 15:9 KJV)Nor does it seem that Peter differentiates between how a Jew and Gentile would be saved....
But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they (i.e. in the same way - in the same manner - ον τροπον κακεινοι).
(Acts 15:11 KJV)But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they.
(Acts 15:11 RV)My apologies if I cause you to lose your composure. That's rather not my intention.
Rhema
Not during his earthly ministry He didn't.
Not once did Jesus utter the word "grace" during His life on earth.
The ONLY Biblical answer to The Age of Accountability
Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that babies are innocent. The ONLY reason anyone would ever postulate that God sends babies to Hell or even suggests that such a possibility exists at all is to imply that God is unjust.
No, they are based in ignorance because the bible doesn't give sufficient information for your objections to be valid.
Do you not remember the whole discussion about topics that are disputed even among believers, yada, yada, yada? Why do we have to go over the same ground over and over and over again? I feel like I'm talking to a teenager.
I flat out does not go into "excruciating detail"! It does quite completely the opposite. The bible speaks of Hell mostly in terms of analogy and the language varies in terms of context as well. It is people like you, who want to talk about God's justice out of both sides of their mouth who tend to over generalize and over interpret. As I've said over and over again, you DO NOT know what you're talking about. You DO NOT know what Hell is going to be like and you flip flop back and forth about justice so I very much doubt that you know what justice is either! In fact, the longer this goes, the less convinced I get that you're here actually trying to understand anything. This feels more and more like you're playing some sort of game.
See what I mean? You're playing some sort of game. This was literally stupidity on a level I don't know how to respond too!
NO! There isn't any such thing. Not in this context anyway. Something is either relevant or it is not. It is not a matter of opinion. "It is irrelevant for you." is a statement that only the uneducated and propagandist would ever use.
No, Gary, it would not. Again, the longer this goes the more I become convinced that you're lying to me. You haven't studied this topic with 10% of the time and effort you've implied and you very clearly have no education whatsoever in the field of philosophy. You seem to be incapable of distinguishing between what one knows vs. what one believes. You probably think, for example, that the Big Bang is an established scientific fact and that Dark Matter is real. Not that either of those things are relevant to a discussion about Hell, but merely to demonstrate that you don't know how to think clearly, which is not intended as an insult but merely an observation of fact. You would do well to read a book on epistemology and maybe one on the effects of confirmation bias and paradigm blindness.
I know that you won't do that but be that as it may....
It wouldn't make any difference at all because, and read the rest of this sentence slowly and think it through....
IF - IF you end up "in hell screaming in agony in the flames, begging for God to just kill me" then that is what you will deserve!
Do you understand? You will have earned it! Not only that but you will understand just how and why you deserve it. You may beg God for death for ten thousand years and every time you do it, you will also know that it isn't coming and that you deserve for it not to come because your annihilation would be UNJUST!
You say annihilation is just but I don't care what you say because you aren't God, Gary! You can't even speak consistently about what justice is past two sentences and you openly declare yourself an unbeliever! Why would ANYONE give an ounce of weight to anything you have to say about it?
Hell is not about giving you comfort, Gary.
Stupidity.
Don't disagree for the sake of disagreement. Try at least to think about what have been said before responding.
Irrelevant! Good greif! This is really getting boring and tedious.
Let me walk you though it.
Declaring that someone is just or righteous (same thing) is a judgment that you are making. It requires the the word "righteous" and/or "just" has a specific meaning. It also requires that the person has conducted themselves in a manner consistent with that meaning. It further requires that you are aware of the meaning of the words, the person's conduct and that you have the ability to correlate to two in a process we call "judgment".
THEREFORE....
The statement, "We cannot judge what God does; in any case God is just." is a flagrantly self-contradictory statement because, inside of one single sentence, you do precisely what you say cannot be done.
Saying it doesn't make it so, Gary.
Again, please try to think before just flowing some mindless something on the screen for the pure sake of saying it.
I have explicitly explained it.
Repeated contradictions are still contradictions, Gary and no, you really aren't simply repeating what you said before. You, on the one hand, accept a very clear definition of justice and then on the other talking about justice in terms of personal opinions. You can't have it both ways. That is, you can pretend to have it both ways but just because you don't acknowledge the contradiction doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The Supreme Court?
That's a total laugh. Is you own sentence enough to convince you that what the Supreme Court does have almost nothing at all to do with actual justice?
I respond directly to your own words, Gary and I'm sufficiently tired of repeating myself that I'm perfectly content to leave you in the dark, if that's where you really are on this.
I agree that words have spheres of meaning that vary depending on the context but arbitrarily changing the context is one way to contradict yourself. We have already had this discussion and agreed on a definition of what justice is. Why oh why do we have to do it over and over again?
Exactly! So what makes you think the punishment should be left to someone's opinion?
NO WE ARE NOT!
So, if nothing else, this nearly complete waste of time post of yours has yielded proof positive that you DO NOT know what justice is! The very concepts of "degrees" of murder is fundamentally unjust - BY DEFINITION!
Honestly, how is that sentence even possible?
"For me" its not a matter of opinion but of absolute truth"?
Do you serious just say that to me?
Who gives a damn what "you say"? Who are you?
Again, you prove that you do not know what justice is. Much of the confusion here has come from my thinking that you did. I won't make the same mistake again.
Justice is not complicated (usually). Most of the time its very obvious and even intuitive. But I grant that saying such a thing presumes that a person hasn't had their mind poisoned by our modern society which has forgotten what justice looks like so long ago that if they were to see real justice, it would be repulsive to them.
So, you're are without excuse, is that what you're saying?
You Calvinism is showing through again. Even if this "finite, imperfect mind" crap were valid, which it isn't (How would you know ANYTHING if it were valid, Gary? A little epistemology there for you!), God Himself tells us what justice looks like. All we have to do is read it and act upon it. No "infinite, perfect mind" is required beyond that One that wrote it down for our benefit.
Saying it doesn't make it so. I clearly explained the contradiction.
Impossible.
Then on what grounds do you complain about the nature of Hell, whatever it happens to be?
There's just not any way that you're stupid enough not to see the contradiction there! Not only that, but you've just made a statement that is an objective absolute, not but a very few sentences away from talking about Supreme Court "opinions" and degrees of murder and sentencing and how all of that is a matter of opinion.
You simply do not get to have it both ways.
Right, as I've said over and over. You can't have it both ways. Either God is just or He isn't. It is not a matter of opinion. If someone thinks otherwise, they are wrong - period.
Thus, IF Hell is eternal torment and you don't think that's just then you're wrong. You either don't understand what justice is or don't understand the severity of the offense, or, as in your case, both!
Think of it from the other direction. You think that eternal torment "appears to be unjust". The guy next to you at the bar thinks that annihilation appears to be unjust. Why would one of you be more right or wrong than the other?
I have a similar revulsion to several other classes of humans! Murderers, child molesters, rapist, etc.
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, [n]maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
Psalms 139:21 Do I not hate them, O Lord, who hate You?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
22 I hate them with perfect hatred;
I count them my enemies.
There isn't any other kind of justice, Gary. Justice is and ideal.
Progress!
BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.
Read, hear, and study Scripture at the world's most-visited Christian website. Grow your faith with devotionals, Bible reading plans, and mobile apps.
It doesn't seem to me like you're even consistently accepting your own premises much less mine! Indeed, you have to tacitly accept MY premises to even be having conversation! The abolute second you start talking about whether or not Hell is just is the moment you start presupposing the veracity of MY worldview!
Not formally but enough to be conversational on the topic.
I stand firmly behind what I said and will repeat it. You're every objection to it, whether its overtly stated or merely implied, affirms the truth of it.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN IRRATIONAL TRUTH!
Clete
"Twelve" is a number directly associated in Scripture with the nation of Israel, as shown here:
The Saving results of the Death of Christ !
Not to be confused with the Twelve Apostles... Not to be confused with the first twelve apostles. Did you notice that scripture specifically ties the number twelve to the men who were baptized here? 12 is the number DIRECTLY associated with Israel. Big deal. Are we supposed too think of...
theologyonline.com
Why do you limit this to the four gospels?
In case you haven't picked up on it yet, we've been saying that the Gospel of the Kingdom of Israel was preached all the way up until Paul's conversion (and a bit afterwards) in Acts 9.
In other words...
He also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none.Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it.And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’ ” - Luke 13:6-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke13:6-9&version=NKJV
There are more than two in the entire Bible, but there are two in particular that are relevant to this discussion, yes.
He didn't do that, because it wasn't null and void (and has never been).
He commanded His disciples to preach the gospel of the coming Kingdom of Israel to the world, because, as I've stated already in post #175, and as Jesus stated explicitly prior to his crucifixion, the kingdom of heaven was indeed at hand.
The gospel of the Kingdom of Israel has never been "defunct" or "useless for salvation." It's simply been put on hold, you cannot achieve salvation by it, for it is not currently in effect.
But it WILL BE in the future. That's the reason the Bible doesn't end with Philemon, but with Hebrews, James', Peter's, John's, Jude's Epistles, and Revelation. Those books are directed at future Israel, when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
No, they were not in error.
Translating scripture is not the same as reading scripture as a book, as a story.
Neither are we.
A great general is preparing to invade the enemy controlled territory, so he tells his troops to dig a trench along the border of this area, and they start digging. A few weeks pass while supply stocks are built up, and eventually the day of the invasion arrives, so the general gives the command to stop digging the trench, and to charge into enemy territory!
You're like a soldier in that army who refuses the order to charge into enemy territory, because "the general gave the order to dig a trench, so I'm going to continue to dig the trench."
I've never made any attempt to get anyone banned. You're either stupid or a liar or both.
It's the one that explicitly states that such is the case - verbatim - which you could have found in ten seconds with a simple search of the phrase, "by revelation", which I had in quotes. It's the very passage that you yourself quote later on in this same post! How are people so blind to this passage that they can read it and not see what it plainly states!
Galatians 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,...
Had you done such a search you might have also noticed the following passage...
Ephesians 3:1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, 7 of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power.
Yeah, wrong passage.
Oh wow! You quoted one whole sentence of Paul's ministry!
You are far to far ahead of yourself. Stop trying to read into what I say and just answer the question(s).
Whether it does or not is irrelevant. It is NOT necessary to know one syllable of Greek to read the bible and understand it.
Further, the only reason to say that you're "politely" asking is to suggest that you're actually not being so polite. Not that I care whether you're polite or not.
And once again you quote the very passage that you KNEW I was referring to when you "politely" asked the question.
No, I'm not going to bear with you.
Answer the questions I asked or admit that you cannot.
Right Divider
Body part
You're not fooling anyone.
It was irrelevant that you heard about a church in Virginia.
I never said any such thing. If you think that my "tone of voice" is bad, perhaps it's due to your dishonesty.
Again, this is all relates to Israel and NOT to the body of Christ.
Israel was to be the spiritual leader for the gentiles, but NOT until Israel repented and believed their gospel.
Yes, Israel could be saved that way. That is not the same gospel that is to be preached today, per Christ's revelation to and through Paul.
So many Christians today are fixated on Jesus' earthly ministry that He said was only to Israel. Paul confirms this.
Matt 15:24 (AKJV/PCE)
(15:24) But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Rom 15:8 (AKJV/PCE)
(15:8) Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises [made] unto the fathers:
2Cor 5:16 (AKJV/PCE)
(5:16) Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more.
Until you rightly divide, you will continue to be confused.
Right Divider
Body part
What I said, which you again dishonestly distort, is that the Bible does not record Jesus using that word during His earthly ministry to Israel.
Please show me where in the Bible that He did.