If you really need detailed instructions on how to ask a question or how to knock on a door, you're going to have to ask somebdy with a lot more patience than me.
What question should we ask and who should we address it to - specifically
Seek what and how do we do that - specifically
Knock on what-specifically?
iano writes:
Hear and do... how?
ringo writes:
I have a feeling I've mentioned this before, but: Love thy neighbour as thyself. No rocket science involved.
So how does one live up to this command. Note it is a command. There is no "try" in here. On what basis is 'try' inserted, if inserted by you (biblical basis I mean..not self-generated 'common sense').
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.
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.
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?
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)
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.
You're a nubee. I suspected as much and in the future, I'll try to keep that in mind. I welcome you on the journey and hope to be along as you begin learning more and more about this marvelous religion.
Cheers. It truly is the best thing in the world. Although I'd have to disagree a little on 'religion'. "Religon" means "concerning the law". But Christianity primarily concerns grace. But lets not worry about it for now...
I'm what can best be described as a Creedal Christian.
Whats that in a nutshell.
Try, is inherent in every single part of the Biblical message. I've pointed this out to you many times but I'll try once more.
I'm a sola scripturalist Christian so I really only understand it if it could be spelt out biblically. It seems to me that as soon as you get off scripture you can wander down a load of man-made paths. I have them knocking at my door all the time already.
If that is really true, which I most fervently doubt, then you would agree that GOD is truly stupid, far more stupid than anyone could imagine.If you really are a sola scripturalist Christian you can hold know other honest opinion. See Genesis 2:18-20.
That was my last bleedin qs for today....
If you are pointing (obliquely) to God being on the verge of making woman then I'd have to agr....oops better not...disagree
If your making some reference to the good ship evolution then I'd point out that sola scripturalist doesn't mean literalist.
If your making some other reference then you'll have to elaborate
You've got Jesus addressing specific people and a word "whosoever" I've got Paul addressing specific people and a word "whosoever"
What contextual comparison to you pose next to separate them into univeresal/non-universal. Cos at the moment they are the same.
Ringo writes:
But we're not talking about "the gospel". I asked you where Paul said to the Galatians, etc. anything about condemnation under the law.
Galatians 10 "cursedis everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them"
Galatians 13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law.."
In your work as a mechanical engineer, do you delberately put in needless complications?
Needless. No. I put in as much complication as I need to achieve the result I want to achieve. Simple and complex are completely relative terms. What seems simple to me usually seems impossibly complex to the customer. If the purpose of the law was that we could follow it then it would have been made simple enough for us to follow it. If the purpose of the law was that we couldn't follow it then complex enough it would have been made to ensure that.
The discussion is about which is it. You can't just presume the purpose. Here, you have the chance to demonstrate it. Jesus said 'do'. A command. That's all he said. Demonstrate biblically how you can fulfill it or that you don't have to fulfill it all... or whatever. But none of this subjective "it must be because that's what makes sense to me". Biblical Ringo biblical.
You're still not getting it, are you? Read my lips: We are assuming that Jesus' words are accurate and that Paul's words are accurate. We are not assuming that every word in the Bible is of equal importance.
We're assuming (at least we agreed to earlier) that all scripture is the word of God. Even Jesus said this of his own teaching on a number of occasions "My teaching is not my own but is from him who sent me" John 7:16. Jesus words are from God, Pauls words are from God, Johns words are from God. So none of it can contradict itself. Only complement itself, explain itself, exposit on itself.
Paul doesn't contradict anything Jesus says. Paul is as permissable as Jesus.
What Jesus says is more important than what Paul said. Learn that
Jesus is the lamp. But a lamp don't run without a fuse in the plug. The bulb is more important that the 2c fuse but the fuse is as essential as the bulb. You can't have one without the other.
Neither were we meant to
This message has been edited by iano, 20-Oct-2005 12:56 PM
I'm glad you did, we might be getting somewhere. I said "might"
Jesus: speaking to a specific group of people, says "whosoever heareth these sayings...." He doesn't limit that to the people present. Iano has heard his sayings. Ringo has heard His sayings. What He is saying is universal.
Jesus is addressing "whosoever hears...". If universal its universal only to whoever hears...
(I know you're going tp say that everybody judges, but that's a whole other topic. My point is that Jesus is clearly speaking universally. Paul's "universality" has not been established.
....like universal to whoever judges
AbE:
Just to keep track:
Jesus, specific address in time, "whoever hears", universal to whoseover hears
Paul, specific address in time, "whoever judges", universal to whoever judges
I'll hold off on the rest of your post for now. We obviously need to get something established here. One can hardly talk about what the bible says if what constitutes the bible is open to such detailed debate
This message has been edited by iano, 20-Oct-2005 06:05 PM
Surely you're not so much of a literalist as to insist that "hears" means only "hears". I think it reasonably applies to people who "hear" the same words spoken by an apostle or a priest or a pastor. And I think it reasonably applies to people who "hear" the words via radio or television. And I think it reasonably applies to people who read the words - whether in the Bible or on a billboard. And I think it reasonably applies to blind people who read the words in Braille and to deaf people who "read" the words in sign language.
argumentitive: possibly, obtuse: hopefully not. I grant hearing would mean hearing from whoever and reading whereever. But you seem to exclude the possibility of debate re: judging but proceed to carry out a one man debate above.
How many of the world population past and present has been part of the hearing group: many. How many haven't: many.
who judges? many who doesn't judge? many (I'll grant though I don't believe it for a second)
Neck and neck so far on universality Ringo - superflous and self-ordained weighting such as deciding who can debate and when - nothwithstanding
Re: the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Colossians....
Ringo writes:
No. I said the debate on judging is not one that we want to get into here. Start an appropriate topic.
You had a verb (whosoever...hear) and I had a verb (whosoever judges). You decided debate on judging wasn't a route to be followed yet carried out a one man debate on what constitutes hearing: reading, being told his words by another etc. Stating that the result of your own debate is the conclusion of universality and no debate permissible on judging is somewhat weighting the discusson in your favor.
I reject this approach on the grounds of whats good for the goose is good for the gander. You havn't demonstrated why your approach is valid. You just assume it.
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
But now we have some supporting evidence for your view. If Paul makes any "all the world"/"all nations" references then we are back at neck and neck it would appear. And he does. Romans 3:19 "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God"
To sum up to date:
Jesus , "whosoever hears", specific address in time, "all the world (universality)" Paul, "whosoever judges", specific address in time, "all the world (universality)"
Or are you suggesting that Jesus' message isn't universal?
I'm not suggesting it's not. I'm suggesting that the reason we can assume (for the sake of discussion) that it is must be provided from the text - not our own baseless opinion about what makes sense to us.
And I hold that Paul is speaking universally too. His statement above applies to every man whereas his "judgeth" statement obviously only refers universally to whoever judges - just likes Jesus "heareth" only applies universally to whoever hears (the gospel being preached to all the world is not the same as everyone hearing. Just reading or hearing words is not the same as hearing what's being said - as our respective posts often demonstrate
On the other hand, you have yet to show us that Paul's message was universal even among his own epistles. Show us what Paul said about condemnation under the law to the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Colossians....
This is a fallacious argument. As I have pointed out before, there is no need for Paul to write an exact copy of every letter to every church in order to make the message universal. This would require Paul to be solely responsible for spreading the gospel which he patently wasn't. It can be seen from the epistles and Acts that many others were doing the same. Paul expounding on the basis as required. Milk for the church in Rome, meat for the Galatians who were forgetting the message they had already achieved. There is no reason to repeat Romans if the Galatians already had it - which Paul says they had.
And we can use his letters in the same way. Romans for milk, Galations for a little further down the path
]-->
™ Version 4.2