Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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:   Salvation by faith and works : intellectually ridiculous?
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 91 of 172 (305401)
04-20-2006 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by anglagard
04-19-2006 10:05 PM


Re: Love thine enemy..
Could you be a little more specific about what it is that disgusted you AG. It is a serious charge your packing there and if I have the slightest notion that it is accurate then apologise and withdraw the comment or post I will.
My gut reaction is to suppose you are misreading something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by anglagard, posted 04-19-2006 10:05 PM anglagard has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 92 of 172 (305416)
04-20-2006 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by anglagard
04-19-2006 10:05 PM


Admin Alert
Caution Anglagard, iano and others pushing into the personal zone,
Please debate the position pertaining to the topic of the OP. Mimcry and/or commentary on an opponents debating style or lack there of gets into the personal realm and doesn't further the topic of discussion. Don't go there.
All participants: Please try to make the subtitles post appropriate.
Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Thank you Purple

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by anglagard, posted 04-19-2006 10:05 PM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by iano, posted 04-20-2006 7:22 AM AdminPD has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 93 of 172 (305418)
04-20-2006 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by AdminPD
04-20-2006 7:11 AM


Impending personal attack!!
All participants: Please try to make the subtitles post appropriate.
You mean like this? But then how could anyone engage in a personal attack if they wanted to?
PS: your boss got away with a parody of Randman a while back. So good apparently, it even made post of the month
This message has been edited by iano, 20-Apr-2006 12:23 PM
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message. --AdminPD Magic Wand
This message has been edited by AdminPD, 04-20-2006 07:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by AdminPD, posted 04-20-2006 7:11 AM AdminPD has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 94 of 172 (305426)
04-20-2006 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by ringo
04-19-2006 8:43 PM


"Our Father..." but since when did 'our' mean everybody
10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
Ah memories. I remember my very first bible study. Like a rabbit caugt in the headlight I was (don't Ringo...it will belittle you not me my friend ) This stuff was dynamite.
It still is.
Right Ringo: verse 12 above. Children of God > conditional on something that not all of humanity does. How does "God is everyones Father" accomodate this?
"God created us all > he is everyones father" is only the case if that is what he says. If he denys paternity then to which court do you appeal?
Jesus addressed his disciples when he said "Pray like this: Our Father who art in heaven. Hallowed by thy name" He wasn't necessarily addressing all the disciples. Any of them for whom God was their father (who have 'fulfilled' the condition shown above) could naturally address their father thus.
Anyone who wasn't could simply parrot the words.
This message has been edited by iano, 20-Apr-2006 01:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ringo, posted 04-19-2006 8:43 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by AdminPD, posted 04-20-2006 8:50 AM iano has not replied
 Message 98 by ringo, posted 04-20-2006 12:27 PM iano has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 95 of 172 (305433)
04-20-2006 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by iano
04-20-2006 8:11 AM


Admin Alert 2
Stop Iano,
I specifically warned against going to the personal zone. Putting a smilie beside it doesn't really help it any.
One more and an appropriate timeout will be given.
I also suggest that if you wish to comment about these admin msgs, that you direct any comments to the Moderation Thread.
Responding to the admin message in this thread will also earn you an appropriate timeout.
Thank you

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by iano, posted 04-20-2006 8:11 AM iano has not replied

  
kongstad
Member (Idle past 2869 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 96 of 172 (305465)
04-20-2006 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
04-18-2006 6:15 AM


Salvation in itself is lunacy
Its not self influenced salvation that is lunacy, its the concept.
Lets assume you are right, that it indeed is lunacy to imagine salvation by what you do, lets imagine the alternative.
Only faith saves. We know for a fact that noone is born believing in Jesus Christ and his ressurection. The faith must come later in life. For some it comes early, but for others late.
Now dead can seize you at any time, so logically it can come before you come to believe, or after.
It follows that some people who were indeed close to believing having died, and others dying just after reaching belief. So a matter of vere short time must seperate some people who spend eternity in a loving gods light, and some who a tortured for an eternity by sadistic god.
Given the number of people, the last person to earn his way to hell, died just a microsecond before achieving faith, and the last person in heaven died a microsecond after.
This is clearly lunacy!
We have now showed that both earning your way into heaven, and entering by grace alone is lunacy, thus the concept of salvation itself is clearly lunacy!
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
This message has been edited by AdminPD, 04-20-2006 12:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 04-18-2006 6:15 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by iano, posted 04-20-2006 12:04 PM kongstad has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 97 of 172 (305473)
04-20-2006 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by kongstad
04-20-2006 11:49 AM


Amazing Grace.
A nice piece of logical work Kong. Good stuff.
Of course, from a non-strawman saved-by-grace viewpoint we are faced with God predestining those who are to be saved. If they are predestined then God is going to call them before they die (whether a long time or a second before they do so). Similarily if the are not going to be called then the same applies. There is no close shave about it if it was sure to happen in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by kongstad, posted 04-20-2006 11:49 AM kongstad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by kongstad, posted 04-21-2006 3:45 AM iano has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 98 of 172 (305476)
04-20-2006 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by iano
04-20-2006 8:11 AM


Re: "Our Father..." but since when did 'our' mean everybody
iano writes:
If he denys paternity then to which court do you appeal?
God does not "deny" paternity.
Remember the prodigal son? He took his inheritance and left home to "do his own thing". He denied his father. His father never denied him.
When he was destitute, at "rock bottom", the son returned home in the hope of receiving a handout from his father. Deep down, he knew that his father was a good man who would not deny a crust of bread to a hungry person - even a son who had denied him.
But his father didn't just feed him. He welcomed him back as the son he had always been.
That is what John was talking about.
"Becoming" the children of God doesn't mean that we have not always been the children of God. It doesn't mean that God has "denied" us or disinherited us. Our inheritance is there, it's a done deal - all we have to do is use it. All we have to do is return home.
We were all created the children of God. He has never denied us.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by iano, posted 04-20-2006 8:11 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by iano, posted 04-20-2006 12:43 PM ringo has replied
 Message 106 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-20-2006 2:13 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 112 by Buzsaw, posted 04-21-2006 8:27 PM ringo has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 99 of 172 (305478)
04-20-2006 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by iano
04-19-2006 4:01 PM


Karpal? Pass the Calpol
Whats do you reckon would have been the everyday Hebrew word for the section of the body that joins the hand to the wrist? The bit through which the median nerve passes.
The Hebrew word for hand is ”yod’, I have no idea if there was a different word for ”wrist’, but since the Gospel of John was written in Greek then the Hebrew is irrelevant.
Without googling it, what is the common English name today? Me I call that area my wrist.
I call it my wrist as well, but what does this have to do with anything?
As I understand it, nailing a person through their hand would result in the nail ripping through fairly boneless, insubstantial hand flesh and working its way up and out between the bones of the fingers. This due to the weight of a body ill-supported by knees nailed in the crooked position.
But, the wrists would be bound to the cross to stop this happening, the wiki article you cited from even explains this.
The support under the feet was sloped downwards too.
This is contrary to everything I have read about crucifixion. I was under the impression that the wooden plinth was there to extend the life and suffering of the victim:
The Lutterworth Bible Dictionary ’crucifixion’ page 185
Crucifixion was a form of punishment in the ancient world in which a person was suspended on a vertical shaft by being bound and/or nailed to it.
So as to ensure that the victim had to push against the nails pinning him there (presumably these were as strategically placed for maximum pain as those through the wrists)
Do you have a reference for this Ian, as I said I have never heard of this form of crucifixion and would appreciate a reference thanks.
And maximise pain for much longer than you would were people with ripped-through hands to continually fall off their crosses.
Being tied to the cross, plus having a plinth to stand on, would ensure the victims wouldn’t slide off.
Since the Gospel of John was written in Greek, wouldn’t the author use the Greek word ”karpal’ if he meant the wrist? That word ”karpal’ looks very familiar, wonder where I have seen that before
Brian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by iano, posted 04-19-2006 4:01 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by iano, posted 04-20-2006 1:00 PM Brian has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 100 of 172 (305479)
04-20-2006 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by robinrohan
04-19-2006 4:26 PM


Re: Yahweh has attack of the guilts
I didn't know He did that.
Well, we all learn something new everyday.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by robinrohan, posted 04-19-2006 4:26 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 101 of 172 (305481)
04-20-2006 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Phat
04-19-2006 5:32 PM


Re: Yahweh has attack of the guilts
Phat,
If there was some sort of celestial social work department, Yahweh would be put in jail long ago and all of His children taken into care.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Phat, posted 04-19-2006 5:32 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Phat, posted 04-20-2006 3:48 PM Brian has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 102 of 172 (305483)
04-20-2006 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by ringo
04-20-2006 12:27 PM


Re: "Our Father..." but since when did 'our' mean everybody
Whilst agreeing with God waiting with open arms to receive anyone who returns I disagree with your analysis John 1:12
The parable is just that. A story to illustrate a point. The point being God wants that none should perish and not only looks out for us, not only leaves a trace of inextinguishable knowledge of his love, not only runs to us as soon as he sees our having turned - but gives in abundance when we do turn
These are all ideas amply covered elsewhere in scripture so are resonable to extract. But against a plain teaching on fatherhood being conditional is there more to offer.
Turning means we are given the right to become children of God in John 1:12. The opposite is implict: No turning no right. But a person who is already a son doesn't need rights to become a son. He already is one.
When the Pharisees were told that they were of their father Satan did that mean that they were also children of God?
Paul also decribes our position w.r.t. God prior to turning as enemies. But the prodigal son parable doesn't allow that. The son there was never considered an enemy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by ringo, posted 04-20-2006 12:27 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by ringo, posted 04-20-2006 1:30 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 103 of 172 (305487)
04-20-2006 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Brian
04-20-2006 12:32 PM


Kowpat
Whats do you reckon would have been the everyday Greek word for the bodily interface that joins the hand to the wrist? The bit through which the median nerve passes and which provides very painful, yet strong support if painfully suspending a person with nails was your goal.
I gotta go Brian. Just this one to ponder on if that is your inclination
ps: the account doesn't say anything about ropes although I agree that might be a variation used in other cases.
This message has been edited by iano, 20-Apr-2006 06:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Brian, posted 04-20-2006 12:32 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Brian, posted 04-20-2006 1:05 PM iano has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 104 of 172 (305488)
04-20-2006 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by iano
04-20-2006 1:00 PM


Re: Kowpat
Wouldn't the word karpal be a clue?
Anyway, this is all academic since we don't know how Jesus (or even 'if' for that matter) was crucified.
There is nothing to say that He had to be crucified through the wrist.
Imagine all those hundreds of thousands of images of Jesus on the cross all being inaccurate. Now that is worth pondering.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by iano, posted 04-20-2006 1:00 PM iano has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 105 of 172 (305493)
04-20-2006 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by iano
04-20-2006 12:43 PM


Re: "Our Father..." but since when did 'our' mean everybody
iano writes:
The parable is just that. A story to illustrate a point. The point being God wants that none should perish and not only looks out for us, not only leaves a trace of inextinguishable knowledge of his love, not only runs to us as soon as he sees our having turned - but gives in abundance when we do turn
These are all ideas amply covered elsewhere in scripture so are resonable to extract.
The ideas are covered elsewhere in scripture and are easy to extract because that is the archetypal picture of a father-son relationship. The Father never turns His back on His son. Period.
But a person who is already a son doesn't need rights to become a son. He already is one.
Exactly. Born a son, always a son - never denied by the Father.
When the Pharisees were told that they were of their father Satan did that mean that they were also children of God?
Of course they were also the children of God. Born a son, always a son. The fact that they were temporarily "adopted" by Satan has no bearing on Who their natural Father was.
Paul also decribes our position w.r.t. God prior to turning as enemies.
God has no enemies.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by iano, posted 04-20-2006 12:43 PM iano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024