Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why did God forgive our sins?
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 346 of 479 (492766)
01-02-2009 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 334 by DevilsAdvocate
01-02-2009 12:32 PM


Re: Your flat wrong ICANT! And I can prove it.
Furthermore, if this "destruction" is not hell than what is it?
Destruction is to lose the soul For Jesus taught whoever wants to save his soul shall lose it. Whoever loses his soul for Christ's sake shall find it.
This may not be restricted to eternal punishment. The soul life is the independent self loving life, self centered life, centered on the enjoyment of the world, the flesh, and the vanity of this passing age.
Since the God rejecting world as we know it going to pass away, indeed, be destroyed, and since it is going to be replaced with a world centered on Christ and God, the soul attached in its effections and loves to this present world will be deprived its enjoyment.
This will be a destruction of the self life. This will be losing yourself. This will be to be deprived of what you have feasted on in the way of enjoyment in an indulgent way. Christ was set aside. The need for salvation and sanctification were spurned. Instead the person enjoyed the self rather than the Spirit of Christ.
When He comes that person will lose his soul. It may not be eternal perdition. But it will not be pleasant.
For the Christian, he should consider this as being forced to go to summer school when others enjoy a wonderful graduation. You still have to learn your lessons. But the flavor will not be the same.
Suppose you are a Christian and you have a grudge against another Christian brother. You actually enjoy not forgiving. You enjoy keeping that axe grinded. You are saving your soul and shoning the kingdom. When Christ returns you will lose your soul. You will learn a harsh lesson to forgive your brother from your heart.
If on the other hand you deny your grudge, you forgive that offending brother in the name of Jesus, that will cause you to lose the enjoyment of holding a grudge against him today. But in the future you will gain your soul. You will enjoy a reward of reigning with Christ in the new world.
It is better to lose today and gain then. It is inferior to gain today and lose in the end.
To lose the soul when Jesus comes back will be counted as a destruction of your soul life. It may not be eternal punishment but it will not be pleasant.
To lose the soul today is simply to enioy Christ today. You deny your self enjoyment and turn to enjoy the living Jesus. Unless you have receive Jesus as your indwelling Lord and Savior, this makes no sense.
The Christian life is a life of enjoying Jesus in every kind of situation. He is living and enjoyable to be one with. You enjoy Jesus and lose your soul today. Then when He comes you will find the delight of your soul in His kingdom in the new world.
Our enjoyment of Christ should start. And it should deepen and deepen. The GRACE of the Lord is actually the ENJOYMENT of the Lord.
Many non-believers will live nice cushy lives in this life and never go through this "destruction" spoken about by Jesus.
Not true.
The non-believer will perish forever. That is really the ultimate destruction.
The sloppy believer may undergo a destruction in losing their self centered soul life. But that punishment is temporary. It cannot last longer than one thousand years. It may be some portion of that. I am not too sure.
But I do know that the eternal age does not begin as soon as Jesus returns to the earth. There is first the 1,000 year millennial kingdom. After that 1,000 years THEN there is the eternal age of the new heaven and the new earth.
The former - the 1,000 year kingdom, is a REWARD for willing cooperation. The latter, the eternal age of the new heaven and the new earth, is a GIFT.
Before the enjoyment of the GIFT is the REWARD set by God for an incentive. That is once having received the GIFT of eternal life, will that recipient cooperate with Christ's santification process to transform them.
The REWARD is recompense for work and is temporary. The GIFT is eternal and is free.
We cannot improve upon God's way.
Thus we can logically infer (and backed up by the context of the rest of the Biblical scripture) that what he is referring to is some type of judgement and condition occurring after death.
Some Christian teachers recognize that God can deal with His naughty children in this age. Some other Christian teachers realize that He can ALSO deal with some sloppy ones in the next age to come before the eternal age.
Some Christian teachers recognize that in the age to come there are degrees of reward for cooperation to believers. Some other Christian teachers realize, correspondingly, there are also degrees of discipline to disciples who were not cooperative.
Matthew's gospel has a number of warning to disciples who will not cooperate in the age of grace.
Now whether this is the correct interpretation of these scriptures, you will have to collaborate with your fellow Christians on this forum and determine but from attending litterally tens of dozens of churchs (Southern and Independent Baptist, Methodist, Church of Christ, Christian Church, Episopalian, etc) as well as attending Bible college and being the son, grandson and nephew of ordained ministers, I can unequivocally tell you that you are wrong in stating that Caldron is incorrect to interpret the scripture this way. It seems that you are diametrically opposed to 99% of the protestant Christian interpretation of this scripture. Just curious what sect of Christianity do you represent?
This quetion was not directed to me. I am submitting comments though.
A Christian can be dead right or livingly wrong. The right interpretation does not garuantee a cooperative heart. Nor does a wrong interpretation insist that one is not right in heart before God.
Christ wants to conform us to His image. Of course it is good to have sound interpretations. But one has a conscience in the Holy Spirit. The way one talks to his spouse, treats his fellow beleivers, treats his fellow man, conducts himself, and lives can be sanctified even if one has some wrong interpretations.
It is the living PERSON of Jesus Christ that the heart must be fully turned to. We can do that in spite of the fact that we have varying interpretations and understandings of passages.
We can be wrong and be livingly wrong in the Holy Spirit. And we can be right but in a spiritually dead way - "dead right".
The safest way forward is to keep telling the Lord Jesus "Lord, I just love you. I love you Lord Jesus. I simply love you."
Loving the Lord Jesus is the safest way forward. We can have different understanding of Bible passages but intensly love the Lord Jesus and enjoy His ever present indwelling.
You must have read First Corinthians 13 on the greatest of these is love.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-02-2009 12:32 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by caldron68, posted 01-02-2009 5:51 PM jaywill has not replied

  
caldron68
Member (Idle past 3841 days)
Posts: 79
From: USA
Joined: 08-26-2007


Message 347 of 479 (492769)
01-02-2009 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by ICANT
01-02-2009 2:50 PM


Re: Perfect
Since you perfer up to the minute estimated stats rather than cold hard facts which I gave you source for, try this one.
This website gives quite a bit of up to the second information concerning births deaths and abortions along with a lot of other things.
The first 2437 minutes of 2009 there were an average of 87 abortions per minute.
You can either refute the information there or you can ignore all sources as you have previously.
I offer no comments.
Nice eye candy, But I see that the actual data for the spinning clock comes from Wikipedia, which also just happens to use the same obsolete data from 2003 that you used in the first place. Sorry.
I presented you with facts about the number of actual and estimated abortions reported between 1922 and 2008 and you come back with a spinning clock totaling up an unsubstantiated number of abortions that have happened within the last 36 hours! Based on data from numbers collected in 2003! Please.
The information stands refuted. The data is obsolete and your numbers don't stand.
Oh, and the fact that this site has an obvious religious bent to it did not go unnoticed.
Cheers,
--Caldron68

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2009 2:50 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2009 9:26 PM caldron68 has replied

  
caldron68
Member (Idle past 3841 days)
Posts: 79
From: USA
Joined: 08-26-2007


Message 348 of 479 (492774)
01-02-2009 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by jaywill
01-02-2009 5:08 PM


Re: Your flat wrong ICANT! And I can prove it.
Jaywill writes:
When He comes that person will lose his soul. It may not be eternal perdition. But it will not be pleasant.
Can you quote scripture to support this or are you just making it up?
Jaywill writes:
For the Christian, he should consider this as being forced to go to summer school when others enjoy a wonderful graduation. You still have to learn your lessons. But the flavor will not be the same.
Really? Why the unnecessary intermediate step? If the person has accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior either he means it or he doesn't. Does God see that this person talks the talk but does not walk the walk and allows that person into summer school anyway? Are we playing fast and loose with the rules now? Doesn't this beg the question about good works vs. blind faith? Is this the hook that saves the Hindus, Muslims and all those Sunday morning Christians?
Why the intermediate step? If God is going to remove all knowledge of sin, then why not just get on with it. Maybe summer school is only reserved for those of other faiths. Oh! and those silly Sunday morning Christians. You know the ones. They're the ones that smile at you in church and then cut you off and give you the finger in the parking lot. Gotta love those guys.
Jaywill, you've done a hell-of-a lot of dancing around a really simple question. Does Matt 7:13-14 ultimately describe the narrow gate through to Heaven and the wide easy road to destruction (hell) or not? This question requires a simple yes or no answer. If your answer is no, then your belief and that of ICANT falls outside of the mainstream of Christian thinking, as pointed out by myself and DevilsAdvocate.
Cheers,
--Caldron68

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by jaywill, posted 01-02-2009 5:08 PM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2009 9:44 PM caldron68 has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 349 of 479 (492777)
01-02-2009 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by ICANT
01-02-2009 4:32 PM


Re: Maybe I am But.
This is interpretation.
And so is your interpretation of this scripture. Now where does that get us? Further more this interpretation I quoted previously is held by the vast majority of born-again Christians.
BTW, what do you think Jesus was talking about when he mentions destruction here besides the souls damnation to hell i.e. spiritual as well as physical death?
Here you decided means hell which your primary meaning defines as ruin or loss.
You always have to look at the context of the surrounding passage to determine the exact meaning of words when they are translated from one language into another. Words in one language (especially one nearly 2000 years old) do not translate into another language with all the meaning intact. We have to infer somethings like I said previously in surround text as well as how it is used in other passages as shown below.
The greek word litteraly spelled in english characters apoleian from which we derive the words appolyon and appocoplyptic litteraly translates "to destroy fully" in nearly every context it is used in the Bible.
Here are some more definitions of the word from Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament:
Thayer writes:
1) destroying, utter destruction
1a) of vessels
2) a perishing, ruin, destruction
2a) of money
2b) the destruction which consists of eternal misery in hell
Well obviously it is not 1 or 2. Unless Jesus was talking about about #3 right?
Also here is some other scripture that uses the word or derivitive .
Again Strong's take on the word apoleia (684):
Strong writes:
damnation, destruction, perish, waste
From a presumed derivative of apollumi (622); ruin or loss (physical, spiritual or eternal): - damnable (-nation), destruction, die, perdition, X perish, pernicious ways, waste
Strong on the word apollumi (622):
Strong writes:
And From apo and the base of olethros; to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively -- destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.
Strong on the word olethros (3639):
Strong writes:
From a primary ollumi (to destroy; a prolonged form); ruin, i.e. Death, punishment -- destruction.
Hmm, to destroy fully i.e. death? Where and how would that occur, I wonder? So are you still going to argue against Strong's and Thayer's translation of these words? Or against the entirity of protestant Christianity?
Philippians 1:28 writes:
Only worthily of the good news of the Christ conduct ye yourselves, that, whether having come and seen you, whether being absent I may hear of the things concerning you, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one soul, striving together for the faith of the good news, and not terrified in anything by those opposing, which to them indeed is a token of destruction, and to you of salvation, , and that from God; because to you it was granted, on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in him, but also on behalf of him to suffer; the same conflict having, such as ye saw in me, and now hear of in me.
and
2 Peter 3:7 writes:
By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
So again what is this "ruin" or "loss" you are talking about if not the ultimate destination of hell? Do you believe in pergatory? Again I have yet to hear from you ICANT what this passage exactly means. And if the way is wide for this ruin or loss for unbelievers and many are inflicted by it would it not stand to reason that they would be going to judgement and hell as spelled out by the verse above?
This is not interpretation.
Here you are giving the Greek words and the definition of them.
Do you see the difference?
You have never studies hermeneutics or linguistics have you? Translation from one language to another automatically incurrs interpretation errors. For example a Greek words such as was originally translated into English by scholars in the middle ages (and now modern scholars) both directly from Greek as well as throgh Greek to Latin translated manuscripts into Old/Middle/Modern English. When they did so they had to determine which words in English came closest to the meaning of the Greek words by determining in what context these words were used i.e. interpretation. Interpretation goes hand in hand with translation.
If he meant destruction in hell in 7:13, why did he use which means ruin or loss instead of which means hell?
Strong translates the word (geena) as follows:
Strong writes:
Of Hebrew origin ([H1516] and [H2011]); valley of (the son of) Hinnom; gehenna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerusalem, used (figuratively) as a name for the place (or state) of everlasting punishment: - hell.
Maybe because the word is the act and is the place in which occurs as shown here:
Matthew 10:28 writes:
Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy (‘-apolesai) both soul and body in Gehenna(‘).
You really are stretching this out to absurdity to try to prove your illogical point.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2009 4:32 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2009 8:57 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 350 of 479 (492784)
01-02-2009 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by DevilsAdvocate
01-02-2009 6:05 PM


Re: Maybe I am But.
Hi DA,
Thanks for presenting my case so clear.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Well obviously it is not 1 or 2. Unless Jesus was talking about about #3 right?
Why is it obviously not 1 or 2?
I got no problem with either one of those definitions being used in Matthew 7:13 for the word destruction.
Jesus was talking about something that will be totaly destroyed.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Hmm, to destroy fully i.e. death? Where and how would that occur, I wonder? So are you still going to argue against Strong's and Thayer's translation of these words? Or against the entirity of protestant Christianity?
I got no problem with Thayer or Strong definitions.
My problem is that nowhere is everlasting punishment mentioned or infered. Hell is not mentioned or infered in Matthew 7:13.
Neither is the lake of fire mentioned which is the final resting place of death hell and the grave.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
So again what is this "ruin" or "loss" you are talking about if not the ultimate destination of hell?
In Message 236 I stated:
ICANT writes:
Jesus was talking to his disciples about their daily walk in life.
So since you are such a great theologian explain what word in the sentence in Matthew 7:14 that says or infers heaven.
Matthew 7:14 does say:
Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to (abundant) life.
It does not say or infer everlasting or eternal life.
Matthew 7:13 does say:
Enter ye in at the strait gate. Talking to His disciples telling them who are already born again, having possession of eternal life.
For wide is the gate. Real easy to get through this gate.
And broad is the way. Lots of ways to mess up.
Many will go in at this gate. Most will mess up.
And lest I forget it says this way ledeth to destruction.
I see many posters here at EvC that put forth people who claim to be christians as reasons for not believing in God. Most so called christians are people who have never been saved.
But sad to say that many of those being held up as bad examples are people who have made shipwreck of their life and testimony for Christ.
Paul admonished Timothy to hold faith in a good conscience because some had put away concerning faith and had made shipwreck. I Tim. 1:19.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Do you believe in pergatory?
No.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Again I have yet to hear from you ICANT what this passage exactly means.
Matthew 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
5:2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
Jesus is speaking to His disciples.
He does not say one word pertaining to anyone other than saved, born again disciples (followers) of His from Matthew 5:1 to 7:13.
Where did the lost people come in that He is talking to.
He is still addressing His disciples.
Since they have everlasting life He would not be talking about them being destroyed in hell as you and caldron68 wants everyone to believe.
Matthew who was there understood Jesus to be talking about something other than hell (everlasting punishment)or he would have used which was a picture of the city dump where the fires never went out.
For some 46 years as pastor I have walked that straight and narrow path. Keeping my nose clean and doing what I am supposed to do. I could go out tomorrow and have an affair with the church secretary and destroy my testimony and ruin it forever.
There are a lot of other things I could do that would amount to the same thing.
Jesus says few can walk that narrow road.
But just look around you at the number of people who claim to be a christian and you can tell no difference in them and anyone else in the world. I have read where many on this site point to those christians. Saying we are better than them. Guess what they are right.
It is just as easy for a born again child of God to mess up as it is for a lost person to mess up.
The only difference is that the born again child of God only kills his testimony.
The lost person does not change anything.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
And if the way is wide for this ruin or loss for unbelievers and many are inflicted by it would it not stand to reason that they would be going to judgement and hell as spelled out by the verse above?
Matthew 7:13 is not speaking to or about unbelievers and has absolutly nothing to do with them.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
You have never studies hermeneutics or linguistics have you?
My major was Greek and Hebrew.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Translation from one language to another automatically incurrs interpretation errors. For example a Greek words such as was originally translated into English by scholars in the middle ages (and now modern scholars) both directly from Greek as well as throgh Greek to Latin translated manuscripts into Old/Middle/Modern English. When they did so they had to determine which words in English came closest to the meaning of the Greek words by determining in what context these words were used i.e. interpretation. Interpretation goes hand in hand with translation.
But that I did not do.
I used the Textus Receptus Greek words.
I used the definitions from Strong. I have a couple of lexicons I like better but they are not online.
If I use the Text and the definitions that are accepted, why is that me interpeting?
Now if I start interpeting what those meanings are saying as you seem to be doing to back up caldron68 you could rightly accuse me of interpertation. caldron68 let the people that translated the NLT do his for him.
Do not get me wrong I have only held this view since we started this discussion about Matthew 7:13 and 14.
I like everyone had never questioned what was generally taught on this passage. I never use it or refer to it. I did use it in a sermon 23 years ago and preached narrow is the gate to heaven and broad is the way to the lake of fire. Had to go through several boxes to find that outline, no computers then. I taught a false teaching when I preached that message. I have heard many messages preached and those two verses used to portray heaven and hell.
It preaches good but it is a lie. And thanks to caldron68 me teaching that lie will never happen again.
But I am presently teaching a course I took in college of Bible Analysis and when I got into this with caldron68 I applied the rules I am teaching and this passage has nothing to do with unsaved people.
Here are the two rules:
A. The Five Point Question Rule.
(1) Who is speaking or writing?
(2) To whom or about whom is he speaking or writing?
(3) About what subject is he speaking or writing?
(4) When or about what time is he speaking or writing?
(5) What is the occasion for the speaking or writing?
B. The Proper Application Rule.
(1) The general application of a truth or deed to every person.
(2) The particular application of a truth or deed to an individual or particular group.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
You really are stretching this out to absurdity to try to prove your illogical point.
You are the one streaching to make a scripture say something it does not say.
It does not say hell but you trying to make it say hell.
I am not trying to make it say anything.
I am trying to let the words from the Bible speak what they intended.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-02-2009 6:05 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-02-2009 10:23 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 359 by caldron68, posted 01-03-2009 11:00 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 351 of 479 (492785)
01-02-2009 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by DevilsAdvocate
01-02-2009 4:48 PM


Re: Perfect
Hi DA,
DevilsAdvocate writes:
What you fail to disclose ICANT, is this statement on Peter Russell's World Clock:
I did qualify my information.
ICANT writes:
Since you perfer up to the minute ESTIMATED STATS rather than cold hard facts which I gave you source for, try this one.
This was my first sentence in the message you are quoting I bolded and capitalized a couple of things you missed when you read at it.
If you had look up the numbers I had used in my post to caldron68 you would have found that my information came from The Guttmacher Institute.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-02-2009 4:48 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 352 of 479 (492786)
01-02-2009 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by caldron68
01-02-2009 5:23 PM


Re: Perfect
Hi caldron68,
caldron68 writes:
Nice eye candy, But I see that the actual data for the spinning clock comes from Wikipedia, which also just happens to use the same obsolete data from 2003 that you used in the first place. Sorry.
I am sorry you don't like to wait for the real data. But the world reporting system is kinda slow. They don't give a rap about what you want or don't want.
caldron68 writes:
I presented you with facts about the number of actual and estimated abortions reported between 1922 and 2008
I am well aware that you presented estimated abortions for 2008 and other years.
But I will trust The Guttmacher Institute, over your source.
You can find that source in Message 299.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by caldron68, posted 01-02-2009 5:23 PM caldron68 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by caldron68, posted 01-03-2009 10:33 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 353 of 479 (492787)
01-02-2009 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by caldron68
01-02-2009 5:51 PM


Re: Outside.
Hi caldron68,
caldron68 writes:
ICANT falls outside of the mainstream of Christian thinking, as pointed out by myself and DevilsAdvocate.
I had to comment on this. I know what I am saying falls outside of what has always been preached.
But when did the masses believing something make it true.
God's Word is true.
What I believe is not always true.
In the final analysis the only thing that matters is what God says.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by caldron68, posted 01-02-2009 5:51 PM caldron68 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-02-2009 10:25 PM ICANT has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 354 of 479 (492789)
01-02-2009 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by ICANT
01-02-2009 8:57 PM


Re: Maybe I am But.
Myself writes:
Thayer writes:
1) destroying, utter destruction
1a) of vessels
2) a perishing, ruin, destruction
2a) of money
2b) the destruction which consists of eternal misery in hell
ICANT writes:
Why is it obviously not 1 or 2?
Sorry I probably was not clear on this. I meant that because #1 indicates "destroying/utter destruction" + "of vessles" and #2 "a perishing, ruin, destruction" + "of money". That is why #3 should be used in this context.
I got no problem with either one of those definitions being used in Matthew 7:13 for the word destruction.
Ok, again what is this destruction Jesus is talking about. You still are skirting around this issue.
Jesus was talking about something that will be totaly destroyed. What was it?
And what would that something be?
Jesus is speaking to His disciples.
Who is disputing this?
He does not say one word pertaining to anyone other than saved, born again disciples (followers) of His from Matthew 5:1 to 7:13.
Are you certain everyone in this band of disciples were saved? Even 1 of his own hand picked apostles turned against him and then hung himself. I seriously doubt all these disciples were saved hense the reason for his moral disertation on the sermon on the mount. In fact the word disciple used in Matthew 5:1 in greek is (mathtai) litteraly means pupil or one who learns. There is no indications that they were all saved or why would Jesus give this warming just a few verses after his warning of the narrow and wide gate:
Matthew 7:19 writes:
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
ICANT writes:
Matthew 7:13 is not speaking to or about unbelievers and has absolutly nothing to do with them.
I think the vast majority of born again Christians and ministers would disagree with you. To me it makes no difference since I think this is all fabricated anyways.
My major was Greek and Hebrew.
Than I am surprised in your ignorance that interpretation of the meaning of words is inherent to the translation process.
Myself writes:
Translation from one language to another automatically incurrs interpretation errors. For example a Greek words such as was originally translated into English by scholars in the middle ages (and now modern scholars) both directly from Greek as well as throgh Greek to Latin translated manuscripts into Old/Middle/Modern English. When they did so they had to determine which words in English came closest to the meaning of the Greek words by determining in what context these words were used i.e. interpretation. Interpretation goes hand in hand with translation.
ICANT writes:
But that I did not do.
I used the Textus Receptus Greek words.
And how are you translating the now unspoken Koine Greek words into modern English? What sources are you using to translate these words?
Yes, it is still interpretation. The only way it would not be interpretation is if Jesus came down to you and in-depth told you face to face what he meant by what he said in this passage.
If I use the Text and the definitions that are accepted, why is that me interpeting?
Because I gave you a laundry list of the meanings of the word and you chose to only pick one vague meaning "ruin" vice the other meanings more commonly used definitions such as "utter destruction" that fits the context and is adopted by 99% of born-again Christians.
Now if I start interpeting what those meanings are saying as you seem to be doing to back up caldron68 you could rightly accuse me of interpertation. caldron68 let the people that translated the NLT do his for him.
We are actually both interpreting this word, just differently. I just choose to accept this fact and you keep standing on your soap box insisting you aren't.
A. The Five Point Question Rule.
(1) Who is speaking or writing?
(2) To whom or about whom is he speaking or writing?
(3) About what subject is he speaking or writing?
(4) When or about what time is he speaking or writing?
(5) What is the occasion for the speaking or writing?
B. The Proper Application Rule.
(1) The general application of a truth or deed to every person.
(2) The particular application of a truth or deed to an individual or particular group.
Yes, those are the rules of hermeneutics i.e. theories of correct interpretation of biblical scripute. I have been to Bible college as well.
You are the one streaching to make a scripture say something it does not say.
It does not say hell but you trying to make it say hell.
I am not trying to make it say anything.
I am trying to let the words from the Bible speak what they intended.
We are both interpreting the scripture using the original text. You interpret the words one way and I another.
You are so stuborn in your denial of this that you would argue the moon is made of green cheese. I am done with this.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2009 8:57 PM ICANT has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 355 of 479 (492791)
01-02-2009 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by ICANT
01-02-2009 9:44 PM


Re: Outside.
In the final analysis the only thing that matters is what God says.
So now you are the only one who speaks for the voice of God? What arrogance!

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2009 9:44 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by ICANT, posted 01-03-2009 12:28 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 356 of 479 (492799)
01-03-2009 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by DevilsAdvocate
01-02-2009 10:25 PM


Re: Outside.
Hi DA,
DevilsAdvocate writes:
So now you are the only one who speaks for the voice of God? What arrogance!
How did you get that from this:
ICANT writes:
But when did the masses believing something make it true.
God's Word is true.
What I believe is not always true.
In the final analysis the only thing that matters is what God says.
It doesn't matter what you say.
It doesn't matter what I say.
God is the final authority, therefore the only thing that matters is what He says, whether I say the same thing or not.
In Message 354you said:
DevilsAdvocate writes:
I am done with this.
I agree this is a done turkey.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-02-2009 10:25 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-03-2009 4:47 AM ICANT has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 357 of 479 (492825)
01-03-2009 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 356 by ICANT
01-03-2009 12:28 AM


Re: Outside.
God is the final authority, therefore the only thing that matters is what He says, whether I say the same thing or not.
So you admit you could be wrong in this whole debate? I am fallible I admit I could be wrong as well. I just look to where the evidence is pointing me. Can you do the same?

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by ICANT, posted 01-03-2009 12:28 AM ICANT has not replied

  
caldron68
Member (Idle past 3841 days)
Posts: 79
From: USA
Joined: 08-26-2007


Message 358 of 479 (492859)
01-03-2009 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by ICANT
01-02-2009 9:26 PM


Re: Perfect
ICANT writes:
I am sorry you don't like to wait for the real data. But the world reporting system is kinda slow. They don't give a rap about what you want or don't want.
It's not that I can't wait for the data, it is you that can't wait for the data. I have already pointed out to you the real data for the years 1922 through to 2008 and the ACTUAL and ESTIMATED figures do no support your claims.
ICANT writes:
I am well aware that you presented estimated abortions for 2008 and other years.
I noticed that you didn't mention the actual data that I presented to you but only mentioned the estimated number of abortions. More deceit on your part.
Cheers,
--Caldron68

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2009 9:26 PM ICANT has not replied

  
caldron68
Member (Idle past 3841 days)
Posts: 79
From: USA
Joined: 08-26-2007


Message 359 of 479 (492862)
01-03-2009 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by ICANT
01-02-2009 8:57 PM


Re: Maybe I am But.
ICANT writes:
Jesus is speaking to His disciples.
He does not say one word pertaining to anyone other than saved, born again disciples (followers) of His from Matthew 5:1 to 7:13.
Where did the lost people come in that He is talking to.
He is still addressing His disciples.
Jesus IS talking to the disciples. Now let's examine what role the disciples play in their relationship to Jesus. From WikiAnswers we have these two definitions:
The same as ours. To witness about Jesus and win people to Christ.
They were like Jesus's posse. They helped spread the word of God and the news of Jesus and forgiveness. They also stood as witness to his life, and wrote of his story.
So yes, Jesus was talking to the disciples. He is teaching them the word of God with the full expectation that they will go out and teach the word of God to those that have not heard it.
You contention that the message of Matt 7:13-14 was not meant for anybody other than the disciples is flat out wrong.
I wouldn't go changing any sermons yet if I were you.
ICANT writes:
But just look around you at the number of people who claim to be a christian and you can tell no difference in them and anyone else in the world. I have read where many on this site point to those christians. Saying we are better than them. Guess what they are right.
This is mighty arrogant of you to claim that you are better than all the other Christians out there. Considering the way that you have presented yourself in this thread, I would say that you are no better than any other Christian that I have ever met.
ICANT writes:
Matthew 7:13 is not speaking to or about unbelievers and has absolutly nothing to do with them.
Yes he was. Not directly, but he was. He was teaching the teachers with the direct expectation that those teachers would go out and spread the word of God to those that had not heard the message. So yes, he was speaking to the unbelievers and you know it.
ICANT writes:
You are the one streaching to make a scripture say something it does not say.
It does not say hell but you trying to make it say hell.
I am not trying to make it say anything.
I am trying to let the words from the Bible speak what they intended.
On the contrary, you are boxing the scripture into a very tight and narrow definition. Something that you don't do for other scriptures, I'm sure. You're not letting the Bible speak what was intended at all. Only if you look at these scriptures as a very narrow conversation between Jesus and his disciples does your definition fit your needs. If viewed in a wider context, Jesus teaching the teachers, your assetion falls flat on its face.
Cheers,
--Caldron68

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by ICANT, posted 01-02-2009 8:57 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 360 of 479 (492869)
01-03-2009 12:32 PM


Transformers - more than meets the eye.
Thank you for the exchange.
This passage seems to implicate more than one application in reality. The disciples may expect in what way their mini "kingdom's o' God" (apostolic churches) would flourish or fail, depending on their resolve to the Way as teachers, and founders, of the Faith. The Great Rabbi seems to be inferencing the lack of progress His ancestors made thus far in regards to creating a more prosperous method of civilization on Earth; one that better reflects the joys associated to Heavens. A wider application certainly appears available. Perhaps our money is no good here, yet here is our 2 cents ...
‘‘ —‘‘ 7:13 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed. with Strong's Numbers
13  · [ , ‘‘ ·
The leading thought of the whole discourse is the 'kingdom of Heaven' and its conditions. Hence, when the rabbi Jesus says, Enter ye in or Arise through, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest He is regarding, at least, the kingdom of Heaven. Consider, if you will, nearly every town in Palestine is surrounded by walls and is entered by gates. The principal ones are wide, with double doors, closed with locks and fastened with iron bars. The strait gates are in retired corners, are narrow, and are only opened to those who knock.
"The righteousness of the kingdom," so amply described, both in principle and in detail, would be seen to involve self-sacrifice at every step. Would multitudes ever face this? But it must be faced, else the consequences will be fatal (see armeggedon/species suicide thread). This would divide all within the sound of these Truths into two classes, within which a dichotomy between athiests and religious folk is not found any quicker than one entertaining agnostics and philosophers. There is only a dichotomy between many and few. We have the many, who will follow the path of ease and self-indulgence - end where it might; and the few, who, bent on eternal safety above everything else, take the way that leads to it - at whatever cost. Enter ye in at the strait gate - as if hardly wide enough to admit one at all. This expresses the difficulty of the first right step in overcoming religious thought, involving, as it does, a triumph over all our natural inclinations; we become not as we were, and even less religious.
The great concern and duty of every one of us, in consideration of all this; Enter ye in at the strait gate. The matter is fairly stated; good and evil, save your brother or save yourself, continuous Life and temporal life are set before us; both the ways, and both the ends: now let the matter be taken entire, and considered impartially, and then choose, each of us, which we will walk in; otherwise may the matter determine itself, and not admit of a debate.
No man, in his wits, would choose to go to 'the gallows', because it is a smooth, pleasant way to it, nor refuse the offer of a Palace and a Throne, because it is a rough, dirty way to it; yet such absurdities as these do many esteem, in the concerns of their souls. Delay not, therefore; deliberate not any longer, instead enter ye in at the strait gate if you will; knock at it by sincere communication and constant endeavor, and it shall be opened; the Truth shall open a wide door, and an effectual one. It is likely true what they say, we can neither go in, nor go on, without the assistance of divine Grace; but it is as True, that Grace is freely offered, and shall not be found wanting to those that seek it, and cleave unto it.
'Conversion', or frequently placing others needs before your own, is at times hard work, as are most things that better the world. Nevertheless, it is necessary in these days, as much if not more than in any other time before us, and it is not impossible if we strive (Lu. 13:24, reality).
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : grammar

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas.
My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself.
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 01-03-2009 2:39 PM Bailey has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024