I'm trying: a stairway to heaven?

Hi ian,I think it's the trying that matters, for two reasons:--------------------------------------------------------------------(1) All the things that Jesus said, that you mention above, are non-quantifiable. Therefore, the only plausible interpretation is that Jesus expects us to do them to the best of our ability . The qualifier 'with all your heart' implies exactly that.I say to you "Run as fast as you can and I'll buy you a beer".Does that imply that you can't do what I ask you ? Of course not - you certainly can run as fast as *you* can. You might run at 2 mph or you might run at 20 mph, fact remains you can run with *all your might*, whatever that may be.I love my wife with all my heart and soul; we may quarrel occasionally and I sometimes let her down but I still love her with all my heart. It's not impossible.That's what Jesus tells us: love God and your neighbour as much as you can, You may sometimes falter but it's the trying that matters.--------------------------------------------------------------------(2) And probably the most important reason :On most of the occasions you state above, Jesus says these actions lead to salvation when addressing an audience and when directly asked how to get saved.If what he said couldn't be achieved, then Jesus would have lied or intentionally mislead the audience and the man who asked him the question.If someone stops me on the street and asks me how to get to London, I'll say 'take the first left, get on the M4 and drive east for 100 miles'.If I *know* that the M4 is closed due to road works and I still give the same directions when asked, then the person who asked me will never get to London. I would have lied to them, and mislead them.If you think that the directions Jesus gave to the man on how to get saved weren't going to lead him there then Jesus lied to the man. It's as simple as that!The rich man wanted to be saved; Jesus told him 'love God, love your neighbour and you'll be saved'.It's as simple as that.To interpret it any other way is to impose pre-conceptions and theology that doesn't exist within the synoptics.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

That's but wild extrapolation. Says who? you? It doesn't matter what you think, it's what Jesus thinks - after all he's the judge, right ?and that is my point: How do you measure love ? behaviour? You can't! It's not a quantifiable attribute. Which is why Jesus says 'with all *your* heart. You love as much as *you* can. Jesus doesn't say he'll measure you against his standard of love or any other's standard of love. He doesn't say that it's impossible to love God and your neighbour. Maybe. I suppose that would be the perfect husband. Perfectly good, all the time.But you know what? Jesus says that only God is perfectly good (Matt 19:17).And guess what ? Jesus, in the same verse, goes on to say that you don't have to be perfectly good to gain eternal life (Matt 19:17).Just follow the commandments to the best of your ability. It's simple. People who don't even bother trying, I'd imagine. I know a few of those. Sure we could. But don't you think Jesus would have a way of knowing who tried his best and who didn't even bother ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Maybe you're confused about what a sequitur is. Here's a definition from Merriam-Webster online:

quote:

---

sequitur: the conclusion of an inference

---

Your inference : Jesus gave the man directions that didn't lead to where the man wanted to go.My conclusion : Jesus lied to the man.Now, are you *sure* this is a non-sequitur ?!--------------------------------------------------------------- And if I know that the person cannot read yet I still give him written directions then that means that I don't want this person to get to London. Is that it ? Jesus didn't want the man to get saved ?!Let me re-iterate my point: When the rich man asks Jesus how to get saved, he's not asking a hypothetical question. He's not saying "what would one do in the unlikely event one would want to get saved ?" If that was the case, then you might have a point that Jesus would give him the general directions without caring about whether they could be followed or not.But that's not the case. The man wants to get saved. He's asking Jesus a direct and immediate question. He says "tell me what to do to get saved". And Jesus tells him. If he knew the directions he gave couldn't be followed then he lied to the man. Do you think Jesus was a liar ?Let me ask you again: Someone wants to get to London and he asks me for directions. If I tell him "get on the M4, etc" knowing full well that the M4 is closed, then haven't I just mislead the man ?Yes or No ?This message has been edited by Legend, 10-30-2005 02:55 PM

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

the part where the command is supposed to be absolute, total and measurable. True, but you know what - it doesn't matter! Jesus doesn't say "love your neighbour like God does", he says "love your neighbour like yourself". He says "love with all your heart and soul". *Yours*, not Gods. How's the command total ?!?Does it say "Love your neighbour as yourself, totally and without fault" ??Does it say "Love your neighbour like God does" ??It simply says "Love your neighbour as yourself". Clear and simple.You're the one who's claiming that this implies total and unfaltering success.You're the one who'll have to show me that it means "totally, continously and faultlessly".

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

ian, are you backpedaling now ? You've been saying all along that Jesus's directions can never lead the man to where he wants to go. Now you're saying that they can ?!Jesus knows that the man will never get there following his directions.Yet, he tells the man to follow directions that won't lead him to where he wants to go.Jesus lied to the man. You've totally ignored part of my previous post. Let me repeat myself : To put it in the context of your analogy, it's like me ringing up the Yamaha dealer and saying "how do I adjust the valve clearances on a fazer 1000? By the way, I'm blind."The dealer says "No problem, I'll show you". And he posts me the manual!!There only three possible explanations I can think of in this case :A. The dealer lied to me
B. The dealer misled me (intentionally or unintentionally).
C. The dealer doesn't give a toss whether I adjust the valve clearances on my bike.Which one do you think it is ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I'm sorry but I read this as "Maybe I should quit using analogies when they illustrate a point opposite to the one I'm making" No, no, no - *You* decided the M4 was closed, *you* are the one claiming that the man cannot gain eternal life by following Jesus' directions. *You* are the one claiming that the man cannot get to London following the M4. .....and maybe you just changed your mind....so, can someone love their neighbour as themselves ? yes or no ?
by extension can someone get through the blocked M4, yes or no ? But you're the one saying that the driver cannot get there by these directions. Never. Ever.You're the one saying noone can love their neighbour as themselves.You're the one saying the M4 is closed - noone can get through to London that way. But the giver of the deadly accurate instructions is also a giver of patently false instructions. Because he knows that they cannot be followed.Let me ask you again: Someone wants to get to London and he asks me for directions. If I tell him "get on the M4, etc" knowing full well that the M4 is closed, then haven't I just mislead the man ?Yes or No ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

* That's the whole point * : if he gave the man directions he knew couldn't be followed then he WAS dishonest.Let me ask you yet again: Someone wants to get to London and he asks me for directions. If I tell him "get on the M4, etc" knowing full well that the M4 is closed, then haven't I just mislead the man ?Yes or No ? what IS there is that someone asks Jesus for directions. And Jesus gives him directions. It's clear and it's simple.* You * are the one who's assuming that the directions can't be followed.* You * are the one who's failing to support your assumptionIf you think noone can love God and love their neighbour as themselves, now would be a good time to tell us why you think so (in the right context please). It's harder for a rich man, as he's got more to give up. Jesus says *harder*, not *impossible*. You're the one who says it's impossible. You're contradicting Jesus. ...??...sorry, you lost me there! Jesus says that only he is the Judge. What's that got to do with the topic here ?? this is a FALSE analogy.this is the right analogy :Q: "How do I buy a F1 racing car? I've only got $1000."
A: "sorry mate, the car costs $5,000,000. You can't buy it." (Honest answer)
or
A: "invest your money in shares and when you get $5,000,000 you can buy the car" (Honest answer)
or
A: "sure, $1000 will buy you the car!" (Dishonest answer - the car costs $5,000,000)Which do you think is the answer Jesus have to the rich man ? (Hint: it's the last one)

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

You are the one who's asking us to discard any shred of common sense and reasoning and assume that when Jesus was directly asked for directions he gave directions that coudln't be followed AND he wasn't being dishonest! oh.... I hadn't realized the Bible was OUTSIDE LOGIC !!here I was thinking we could make sense of it.....should have known better!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Excellent point and I concur.It seems to me that iano is discarding basic reasoning and common sense in order to shoehorn his theological pre-conceptions into the synoptics.To most of us, if someone knowingly gives us false directions then we conclude that this person lied or misled us.Not so for iano. According to iano, it's ok to knowingly give false directions, there's nothing wrong with it.Biblical Logic 101, any suggestions please ??

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Please don't misrepresent me.....I always said that the problem is with the giver of the instructions!If I give the driver directions that cannot be followed by any driver who's causing the problem: me or the driver ?If Jesus gives the rich man directions that cannot be followed by any man (as you claim) who's causing the problem: Jesus or the rich man ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

...??..err... how can I answer the pre-answered question ?? So, in your view, asking Jesus how to gain eternal life is a ridiculous question ?! The man turned away because he had to give away his (significant) possessions. This is why Jesus goes on to say that it's much more difficult for rich men to be saved. If faith was all that was needed to get saved then it wouldn't be any more difficult for a rich man than it would be for a poor man. Somehow that makes you think that the answer Jesus gave was impossible to achieve. Jesus doesn't say it's impossible to achieve, just much harder if you're rich. The implication being that it's easier if you're not rich. It's therefore, achievable. another FALSE analogy. Here Jesus is using a metaphor. Nicodemus doesn't understand it. That's all.
In the synoptics, Jesus is directly asked what to do to gain eternal life. And Jesus tells him. No metaphors there. It's clear and it's simple. But if the M4 isn't closed there's a chance the driver can get to London, right ?
If someone can 'love God and love their neighbour'as themselves' they can gain eternal life, no ? But Jesus knows that the man is blind. He knows that the man cannot follow these directions. Yet he still gives them. What does that make Jesus ?If a blind man stops you in the street and asks you for directions do you give him written directions ? do you tell him to read the signs ? Only if you're dishonest or don't care about whether the man gets to his destination. If you're honest you either admit that you can't help him or you give him directions he can follow.Do you agree with this, yes or no ? Agreed. And Biblically there are a number of passages where Jesus says that doing good and loving God and your fellow man will gain you salvation. You choose to interpret these 'commands' to be absolute, continuous and total.You interpret 'good' to mean 'perfectly good all the time'. But Jesus says that only God is perfectly good (Matt 19:17).And guess what - you don't have to be perfectly good to be saved - just follow the commandments. (Matt 19:17)He says that within Matthew, where he also says that the greatest commandments are loving God and your fellow man (Matt 22:38) and that will gain you salvation.So, to recap : Jesus knows that noone's perfect; he also acknowledges that you don't have to be perfect to be saved and he proceeds to tell us exactly what to do to get saved.There's your biblical 'proof' right there!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

No, that's Paulian theology in a nutshell.Can you show me where in Mark, Matthew or Luke you base your inferences above ? I don't.You made the assumption that it's impossible to follow Jesus's directions. Can you show me where in the synoptics you base your assumption on ? it's not an illusion. It's what Jesus effectively says in the synoptics. 'the eye of a needle' is just a proverbial expression - it means 'very difficult'.
just like 'born again' you mentioned earlier, it's not literal. It just illustrates a point.You're clutching at straws now iano. Jesus just told them that it's difficult to get saved, especially if you're rich. They are amazed by this and ask him who can get then saved. How does that concur with your position that noone can love God and love their neighbour as theirselves ? Where exactly does he do that ? The problem is that Jesus knows what the man's got in his wallet. The man isn't asking how much it costs (theoretical question) he's asking what he needs to do to get the car! He wants to get the car - this is the crux of his question! Yet when asked, Jesus doesn't say " sorry mate, you can't afford this", neither does he suggest an alternative way of getting the car. He just says "what you have in your wallet will do" (all your heart and soul)! .You're claiming that what the man has in his wallet is not enough.That would make Jesus a liar and a deceiver.Do you think Jesus lied and deceived the man ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Why, thank you . This further illustrates my point. Not what can be done. Not what must one do. He asks "What must I do?" This is personal and direct. The rich man wants to gain salvation. He asks Jesus what he must do to gain it.Note that Jesus doesn't say "sorry, there's nothing you can do".
Note that Jesus doesn't say "believe in me and you'll gain life".
Note that Jesus says "Love God with all your heart, soul and mind and your neighbour as yourself".Now put down your copy of Romans for a minute and look at the text here. It's clear and it's simple.Jesus told the man what to do to get saved. If Jesus told him what to do knowing full well that the man couldn't do it, then he lied to the man.I rest my case on this one. funny how most of these verses are Paul's teachings.Also funny how all the Jesus quotes you gave in your OP are from the synoptics...mmm...You're not using Paul's theology in order to justify the teachings of the synoptics by any chance, are you ?!surely not, didn't you say in a previous thread that context is everything ?and guess what? - the context of Mark, Matt & Luke is NOT Paul's teachings. what do you mean by 'universalise' it ? I've explained this before. Jesus just told them that it's not easy to get saved, especially if you're rich. They're wondering if not even rich men can get saved, who then can? What is your point with this ? You don't honestly expect me to explain to you why the phrase 'born again' cannot be taken literally and is just a metaphor for spiritual 'rebirth', do you ??!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Please show me where in Luke 10 or Matthew 19 (the passages where the man asks Jesus how to get eternal life) , does Jesus do that ?? I've shown you in Message 104 biblically that Jesus knows that noone's perfect; he also acknowledges that you don't have to be perfect to be saved and he proceeds to tell us exactly what to do to get saved.Therefore, there is no reason -biblical ot commonsensical- to interpret Jesus's instructions as total, continuous and absolute, like you do.If *you* think there is a reason (biblical or otherwise) that when Jesus says 'love your neighbour as yourself' he means continously, totally and without fault then NOW is a good time to tell us. Read Matt 19:17"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is , God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."The first point is where he says "there is none good but God".The second point simply says "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments".Just like it says in the text!!Jesus says 'if you want salvation, keep the commandments'!why would Jesus say that you can gain salvation by keeping the commandments if it cannot be done ?Is Jesus a deceiver ?
Is Jesus a liar ?eagerly awaiting your explanation. funny how things you say jump up and bite you sometimes! Bearing your quote above into mind, it's your turn to show me where in the synoptics you can infer that 'keep the commandments = perfection'.Biblically iano, Biblically!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This has nothing to do with whether Matthew, Mark and Luke stand above or below Paul.This has to do with your OP where you wanted to discuss Jesus's 'commands' : as you can see ALL the instructions you wanted to discuss are from the synoptics. Therefore, it's only fitting that we keep this into context.And the context of the synoptics is NOT Paul! for heaven's sake man...nwr just told you where the expression comes from. Purpleyouko even gave you a link to look it up yourself. It's just an expression....let go....it's over. It's irrelevant here because it's not in the synoptics which are the context of this debate. Translation: 'There's little point in continuing if I can't shoehorn contradictory theology from one book of the bible into another.' Ok, here's the trick:
- just look at what the text says.
- don't try to superimpose inferences from other contexts into the current context.
- don't make assumptions that are not justified by the context.
- don't make assumptions that are not justified by common sense and reasoning.
- avoid mental gymnastics - the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.you think you can do that ??

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."