Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thou Shalts and Thou Shalnts
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 121 of 204 (253030)
10-19-2005 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by iano
10-19-2005 5:13 AM


Re: Blessing, not Condemnation
In Message 117, I said:
quote:
He (Jesus)was talking about everybody who hears His sayings - and not just those who hear His sayings from His own lips either - everybody who hears His sayings, from whatever source.
and you quote-mined me:
..who hears His sayings, from whatever source.
I used the word "everybody" because Jesus used the word "whosoever":
quote:
Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man....
Whoseover = everybody. That's why I included the word. Don't leave it out when you quote me.
Jesus clearly said that His message was directed at everybody.
Why is Jesus not repeating himself and Paul not repeating himself seen as different.
Because Jesus made a general statement that He specifically said applied to everybody. Paul was making specific satements that he specifically said were directed to specific people - e.g. to the church at Rome.
Since you seem reluctant to answer my question, I'll given our loyal readers a hint: You quoted Paul talking to the Romans about condemnation, but Paul seems to have very little to say to the other churches about condemnation. He mentions it to the Corinthians, and to some of his individual correspondents - e.g. Timothy - but (to my knowledge) nothing to the Galatians, Ephesians, etc. If condemnation is the "sole purpose" of the law, as you claim, and if the message was as universal as you claim, why was Paul himself so silent about it in much of his writing?
He never said it was simple. He never said it was hard. He just said "do". If anyone want to imply 'simple' or that he meant 'try' then by all means make a (biblical) case
The mere fact that Jesus didn't mention any complications is a Biblical case for simplicity.
You haven't addressed the issue. Both are the word of God. The deliverer in one case is Matthew, in the other Paul. How do you rank one word of God over another?
But that isn't the issue.
The issue here is whether or not the "sole purpose" of the law is to condemn. You claim that it is, using one or two specific references to the Romans as your evidence. I'm saying that the first-hand words of Jesus (to everybody) ought to be our primary source, not the second-hand words of Paul to somebody else.
Also could you address the God-decreed "all nations" aspect of the apostleship when they weren't going to get to all nations in their lifetimes?
Do you mean:
quote:
Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
(It would help our readers if you would quote the Bible - i.e. cut and paste. Not everybody has the ability or the inclination to do it for you. )
Notice that Jesus was speaking privately to the eleven disciples - not Paul.
Also notice that "the end" has not come yet, 2000 years later. Clearly, Jesus expected the Gospel to be spread by others - including Paul - not just the disciples or the "apostles" who had met Him personally.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 5:13 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 1:16 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 122 of 204 (253032)
10-19-2005 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by iano
10-19-2005 9:44 AM


iano writes:
So how does one live up to this command. Note it is a command. There is no "try" in here.
Asked and answered: Any command to an imperfect human being is predicated on the human being trying to do the best that he/she can.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 9:44 AM iano has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 123 of 204 (253040)
10-19-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by iano
10-19-2005 5:16 AM


Re: There's only one Reality
Speaking of seed. Any of all this landing on fertile soil?
Legend and Ringo316 are both making more sense than you are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 5:16 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 1:22 PM nwr has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 124 of 204 (253066)
10-19-2005 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by ringo
10-19-2005 11:15 AM


Re: Blessing, not Condemnation
Ringo writes:
I used the word "everybody" because Jesus used the word "whosoever":
Yeah I know he did, but we've establised that at the time he was addressing limited group of people as Paul was addressing a limited group of people.
You've made Jesus words universal on the basis of a word: "whosoever". Whosoever, according to you, transcends the immediate addressees. If I can find a ' whosoever' or an 'everybody' or and 'anybody' in Pauls writings does that imply universality too? And if not why not?
He mentions it to the Corinthians, and to some of his individual correspondents - e.g. Timothy - but (to my knowledge) nothing to the Galatians, Ephesians, etc. If condemnation is the "sole purpose" of the law, as you claim, and if the message was as universal as you claim, why was Paul himself so silent about it in much of his writing?
Did you miss what I said about eg: Galatians? That he was writing a letter to people who he had already been with personally. He had (as the bollicking he gave them demonstrates) explained the gospel to them when he was there. Why would he repeat the whole lot when there was just specific issues to be dealt with? He explained the gospel to the Romans because he had not been there yet. They hadn't heard it explained.
iano writes:
He never said it was simple. He never said it was hard. He just said "do". If anyone want to imply 'simple' or that he meant 'try' then by all means make a (biblical) case
Ringo writes:
the mere fact that Jesus didn't mention any complications is a Biblical case for simplicity.
You are drawing a conclusion from something someone *didn't* say?? When I asked for a biblical case for try/simple to be made I meant biblical not "a biblical case for simplicity" (whatever that means)
iano writes:
You haven't addressed the issue. Both are the word of God. The deliverer in one case is Matthew, in the other Paul. How do you rank one word of God over another?
]-->
ringo or should that be wrongo < !--UB writes:
-->
ringo or should that be wrongo writes:
< !--UE-->But that isn't the issue. The issue here is whether or not the "sole purpose" of the law is to condemn. You claim that it is, using one or two specific references to the Romans as your evidence. I'm saying that the first-hand words of Jesus (to everybody) ought to be our primary source, not the second-hand words of Paul to somebody else.
I'm afraid it is very much the issue. You earlier agreed:
Ringo writes:
for the purpose of this discussion, you and I are both assuming that the Bible has been handed down to us, word-for-word, as if dictated by God Herself.
But you are deciding that one word of God is now above another word of God. How do you figure that?
iano writes:
Also could you address the God-decreed "all nations" aspect of the apostleship when they weren't going to get to all nations in their lifetimes?
Ringo writes:
It would help our readers if you would quote the Bible - i.e. cut and paste. Not everybody has the ability or the inclination to do it for you.
I don't presume any other readers. If there are they can do a little work themselves. I gave the references to you earlier. Start of Romans not Matthew. 5: "Apostleship..among all nations" with the question as to how this would be achieved by dead apostles.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by ringo, posted 10-19-2005 11:15 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 10-19-2005 1:42 PM iano has replied
 Message 128 by ringo, posted 10-19-2005 2:44 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 125 of 204 (253068)
10-19-2005 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by nwr
10-19-2005 11:32 AM


Re: There's only one Reality
nwr writes:
Legend and Ringo316 are both making more sense than you are.
Pity. Pearls to swine and all that
But just to see for yourself whether you are blindly siding with your buddies, maybe you could do an exposition on this gem.
ringo writes:
The mere fact that Jesus didn't mention any complications is a Biblical case for simplicity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by nwr, posted 10-19-2005 11:32 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by nwr, posted 10-19-2005 2:19 PM iano has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 126 of 204 (253078)
10-19-2005 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by iano
10-19-2005 1:16 PM


On Romans
He explained the gospel to the Romans because he had not been there yet. They hadn't heard it explained.
Except, of course, the Romans had heard the Gospel. Paul acknowledges that fact early in Romans.
7: To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8: First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
The Christians in Rome had the Scriptures and Gospel, what they didn't have was Paul's personal version of what the Franchise should be. Romans is Paul trying to impose his version of Christianity on the Christians in Rome.
edited to fix the subtitle before the moose bites
This message has been edited by jar, 10-19-2005 12:47 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 1:16 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 4:16 PM jar has replied
 Message 150 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 10-21-2005 3:11 AM jar has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 127 of 204 (253088)
10-19-2005 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by iano
10-19-2005 1:22 PM


What Jesus didn't mention
quote:
But just to see for yourself whether you are blindly siding with your buddies, maybe you could do an exposition on this gem.
ringo writes:
The mere fact that Jesus didn't mention any complications is a Biblical case for simplicity.

Sorry. I don't want to touch that one. I have no idea what Jesus didn't mention. At best I could tell what he is not reported as having mentioned. However, the gospel reports are far from a complete record of his life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 1:22 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 4:00 PM nwr has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 128 of 204 (253091)
10-19-2005 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by iano
10-19-2005 1:16 PM


iano writes:
... we've establised that at the time he was addressing limited group of people as Paul was addressing a limited group of people.
No we haven't.
Look at the prepositions: Jesus was speaking to a specific group of people, but He was speaking about "everybody". Paul was also speaking to a specific group of people, but where does it say he was speaking about "everybody"?
If I can find a ' whosoever' or an 'everybody' or and 'anybody' in Pauls writings does that imply universality too?
Yes it does, and that's what I've been asking you to do. If you can find a "whosoever" or an "anybody" (in the appropriate context) in Romans, I'll be glad to hear about it.
Did you miss what I said about eg: Galatians? ... Why would he repeat the whole lot when there was just specific issues to be dealt with?
You're speculating on why Paul didn't say the same thing to the Galatians as he said to the Romans?
Fact is, he didn't say it. No evidence of universality.
You are drawing a conclusion from something someone *didn't* say??
Absolutely. If Jesus didn't say, "It's complicated," why should I conclude that it's complicated?
I said:
quote:
I'm saying that the first-hand words of Jesus (to everybody) ought to be our primary source, not the second-hand words of Paul to somebody else.
to which you replied:
... you are deciding that one word of God is now above another word of God.
In case it has escaped your notice, Jesus is God and Paul was not.
We are assuming (for the purpose of this discussion ) that the words of Jesus and the words of Paul have both been represented accurately in the Bible. But that doesn't mean that the words themselves are of equal value. It doesn't mean that what they were talking about was of equal importance - or equally universal.
Jesus' words are more important than Paul's. Period.
I don't presume any other readers. If there are they can do a little work themselves
Sigh. Why do I have to keep repeating this? The debate is for the benefit of the audience, not the debators. If you give references, most readers won't - or can't - look then up. If you paste a quote, they'll read it.
For example:
I gave the references to you earlier. Start of Romans not Matthew. 5
If you had pasted it instead of referring to an "earlier" reference, I would have known you meant Romans.
But, since you mention it, let's compare Jesus and Paul once again:
quote:
Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
Rom 1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures,)
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Rom 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Rom 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name;
Nice concise piece of writing there, Paul (and that's only the front half of the sentence ).
And actually, I quoted Matthew 24, not Matthew 5, about apostleship:
quote:
Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Simple. And universal.
... the question as to how this would be achieved by dead apostles.
Jesus said that "the end will come" after the gospel has been preached to "all nations". The end has not come yet, has it? Therefore, the preaching of the gospel is not finished yet (iano still doesn't get it ). Therefore, the injuction, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" was not directed only at those present or even at those then living.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 1:16 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 4:47 PM ringo has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 129 of 204 (253105)
10-19-2005 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by nwr
10-19-2005 2:19 PM


Re: What Jesus didn't mention
nwr writes:
Sorry. I don't want to touch that one. I have no idea what Jesus didn't mention
A wise move m8. Not that I was looking to trap you or nuffink

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by nwr, posted 10-19-2005 2:19 PM nwr has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 130 of 204 (253107)
10-19-2005 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by jar
10-19-2005 1:42 PM


Re: On Romans
Jar writes:
Except, of course, the Romans had heard the gospel. Paul acknowledges that fact early in Romans.
How do you know this? Your quote says they had faith which is not the same thing as the gospel. Abraham had faith long before the gospel was spoken by Jesus.
The Christians in Rome probably had the OT. I see nothing to suggest they had any NT scripture nor that they were eyewitness to Christ on earth.
Your talk of Pauls franchise is an assertion.
Speaking of assertion, I'm waiting for biblical backup for "trying/not trying to fulfill Jesus commands" having anything to do with salvation/damnation. I'm paraphrasing but you know I hope, what I mean by now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 10-19-2005 1:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by jar, posted 10-19-2005 4:29 PM iano has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 131 of 204 (253110)
10-19-2005 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by iano
10-19-2005 4:16 PM


Re: On Romans
iano, you really can't be as dense as your posts make you appear, so I'll try once again.
How do you know this? Your quote says they had faith which is not the same thing as the gospel. Abraham had faith long before the gospel was spoken by Jesus.
I know that because I didn't check my brains at the door and actually have read the damn Manual. Not just Romans 1-8, but the whole damn Manual.
I say that Paul is writing to an established Christian Church in Rome because he's written a damn letter to SOME ORGANIZED BODY, they are called the SAINTs, and because he goes on to describe that FAITH mentioned earlier as being shared by Paul and the Church in Rome.
11: For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
12: That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
iano, I have got to ask you before we draw this out much further,
have you ever even read the Bible?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 4:16 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 5:08 PM jar has replied
 Message 134 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 5:12 PM jar has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 132 of 204 (253114)
10-19-2005 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by ringo
10-19-2005 2:44 PM


Look at the prepositions: Jesus was speaking to a specific group of people, but He was speaking about "everybody". Paul was also speaking to a specific group of people, but where does it say he was speaking about "everybody"?
Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable O man, whosoever thou art that judgest...
Romans 2: 6 "who will render to every man according to his deeds"
Whaddya think Ringo: universal or no?
You're speculating on why Paul didn't say the same thing to the Galatians as he said to the Romans?
Your wiggling again Ringo
Galations 8" But though we, or an angel from heaven,(or Jar) preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Seems they had the 'Roman' gospel already Ringo.
Absolutely. If Jesus didn't say, "It's complicated," why should I conclude that it's complicated?
C'mon Ringo, your better than this If Jesus didn't say it was simple why should..etc, etc. He said nothing neither simple/nor comlplicated. All we have to go on is "do this/that/the other"
Do you "do" Ringo ..or do you just "try your best to do". If the latter, lets see 'try' biblically - not speculatively
In case it has escaped your notice, Jesus is God and Paul was not.
In case it has escaped your notice, it is ALL - according to our earlier agreement "as if dictated by God" (your words).
I'll hold off going further here because I sense that we might be at an impasse. God's word recorded by eg: Matthew vs. Gods word expressed through Paul. Same author using different typewriters yet you say different authority. How?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by ringo, posted 10-19-2005 2:44 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by ringo, posted 10-19-2005 6:11 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 133 of 204 (253121)
10-19-2005 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by jar
10-19-2005 4:29 PM


Re: On Romans
Jar writes:
Except, of course, the Romans had heard the gospel. Paul acknowledges that fact early in Romans.
iano writes:
How do you know this? Your quote (verse 8) says they had faith which is not the same thing as the gospel. Abraham had faith long before the gospel was spoken by Jesus.
Jar writes:
(A bit of rant then)...I say that Paul is writing to an established Christian Church in Rome because he's written a damn letter to SOME ORGANIZED BODY, they are called the SAINTs, and because he goes on to describe that FAITH mentioned earlier as being shared by Paul and the Church in Rome.
But that doesn't answer the question I asked of your claim at the top of the post.
"SOME ORGANIZED BODY" means what precisely? Is a bunch of Christians meeting in someones house an organized body. If so, so what?
Every Christian is a SAINT but lets not digress...
FAITH is not the Gospel. Them sharing faith is not to say they've heard the gospel.
I appreciate your patience. It ain't easy for me either. (You wouldn't use your pull Jar and get them so we can highlight and press a QUOTE button so we can speed things up)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by jar, posted 10-19-2005 4:29 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by jar, posted 10-19-2005 5:14 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 134 of 204 (253125)
10-19-2005 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by jar
10-19-2005 4:29 PM


Re: On Romans
Jar writes:
have you ever even read the Bible?
Most of the NT, heavy study of John/Acts/Romans (up to 8:14 to date) and I got to Numbers in the OT then smatterings of the rest. I'm a Christian 4 years.
But if your going to pull rank on that basis I'd request respectfully that you do so biblically.
'Try' Jar. Where is it? Biblically

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by jar, posted 10-19-2005 4:29 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by jar, posted 10-19-2005 5:30 PM iano has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 135 of 204 (253127)
10-19-2005 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by iano
10-19-2005 5:08 PM


Re: On Romans
Every Christian is a SAINT...
Thank you. QED
When Paul speaks to those known as Saints in Rome he's speaking to the Church in Rome. To Christians. If they are Christians they've heard the Gospel.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 5:08 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 5:40 PM jar 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