I'm trying: a stairway to heaven?

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."

Note that the rich man asked "What must I do?" I.There are two options: Attempt to do it yourself and start a serious slimming campaign for that eye of a needle trick you need to pull off. Add a few more verses just to get the fuller picture:"Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees"
"All your righteousness are as filthy rags"
"By the deeds of the law shall no man be seen as righteous in his sight"
"Unless a man is born of the spirit (try that DIY) he shall not see the kingdom of heaven
"All who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Presumably the converse is also true)
"It is by faith you are saved - not by works lest any man should boast"
"Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness"
"...but if he stumbles on even the smallest piece of the law he is guilty of breaking ALL of it"So:Clue 1: Commands: do/follow/obey or else....no trying impliedClue 2: Works dismissed as being a part of the means of salvationClue 3: "The law is a school teacher to lead you to ChristIf you don't do all of the law then you are damned
You can't do all of the law
You are thus damned - eek!!
But I don't want to be damned...
You do the only thing left to do. Cry out for mercy.
Gods plan of salvation has worked. Man back where he belongs - dependant on God.
Paradise Lost through man choosing independance becomes Paradise regained by man choosing for dependance. In Adam (independant, under law) In Christ (man dependant, under Grace)
You find out you are saved and that whilst the law couldn't save you in itself - it pointed you to the way of salvation (or dragged you by the neck in my case)
You are thankful. Very thankful. You receive the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit enables you to follow the law. Not for salvation though. God wants you to follow the law for much better reasons than that.. But the disciples and Jesus subsequently universalise it. Who then can be saved? Says who? In the same way as a room full of chimps typing away will produce the bible then yeah..Maybe... Your desire to argue your point makes you miss the patently obvious thing any decent person would do if faced with giving a blind man a bewildering set of direction. They would offer to bring them there themselves. To lead the way.Which Jesus of course did.. "I am the way..." Produce one which doesn't appear in command form. If a command word it used then it is a command until shown otherwise. It's you interpreting trying when no trying or implication of trying is there.The implication is only in your head. Its not in the pages. And thats where we're looking Legend. Biblical backup for the first point? And what is the second point saying if not perfection. Where can you insert into "follow the commandment" the word try. How does trying to do something eqaute to doing something. Biblically Legend, Biblically.If it ain't in the bible then you can't claim it to be so based on your own subjective thinking. CommandThis message has been edited by iano, 01-Nov-2005 07:10 PM

If you can tell me why Matthew, Mark and Luke somehow stand above Paul then I might entertain this. Is it not all the word of God or just bits of it. And if bits, could you tell me on what basis the bits you choose are the right bits? Ditto above Ditto above Reverting at this juncture, Ringo-like, to the old Pauline Theology vs The Synoptic card is clutching at thin air. Give me straw any day This one has a snowflakes chance in Hell of standing... And which point is born again illustrating?There's little point in continuing when the Matt/Mark/Luke Synoptic escape hatch has been deployed. But do delve a little into it if you like. I am curious as to how this trick is performed

quote:

---

PY writes:

​

I always took it to mean that it was difficult but not impossible.

---

Hi iano.I had the same understanding as PurpleYouko, that the needles eye was a geographic reference. I'm not sure where I picked that up, but I do know that it was not from a Roman Catholic source.

quote:

---

If it is necessary to go googling and understanding the original greek and having a theology degree then patently only the smart will get to heaven...

---

Jesus was not talking to you and me. He was talking to the people of his time. He often spoke in metaphors which were well understood by the people of his time. I expect that they understood what he meant without needing to use Google nor to have a theology degree.If you were to listen to a sermon being preached today, you would likely find that sermon filled with metaphors which are relevant to people of our time, but might have little relevance to people of other times or from other places. Why would you expect that it was different in the time of Jesus?We can learn from what Jesus said. But in order to learn, we need to understand that he was talking to the people of his time and his country.

quote:

---

Old Randman has got a bit of a toasting from you of late so you better be off doing the rounds.

---

Heh. Him and CanadianSteve. I foresee a very warm afterlife. Or at least an extended stay in Purgatory.I assure you that any insults that went your way were intended to be jokes, not actually meant to be offensive.-

quote:

---

Hows the Ph.D gig by the way CP.

---

I gave up on it. It just wasn't coming together, and they were putting up too many extra hurdles to remain in the program. So it isn't going to be Dr. Chiroptera, at least not in this life.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

The clue that you need to get here is that a "command" is not, never was and never will be an "obey or else" proposition.As in your own analogy of the soldiers: Do your best to go over the top. If you get killed trying, you're a hero, not a traitor. There is no punishment for failure, as long as you do your best.

---

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

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."

eh. i can't rely on a document with no outside verification to be accurate.

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."

yahweh is an egocentric prick. Does He (you really should use a capital 'H')?So, what gives you the impression that God forgives 'whom he desires'?Brian.

ephesians 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.he picks those he likes and makes them his own.i refuse to capitalize. i think it's foolish. he's not an omnipotent being, he's just a really cool dude.

Besides, isn't capitalizing personal pronouns referring to the deity a relatively recent phenomenon?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

i think so. it's silly really. context clues, people. it's like capitalizing the word god. it's not a name.

You really should read the whole of the first chapter, it clearly states that those who will be saved shall believe in Christ. Apparently, they are already picked, but they will accept the Gospel before they die. It is nothng to do with God being a 'cool dude', it is a grammatical point based on the fact that when talking about a monotheistic faith there is only one God.Brian.