Purveyor of Confusion

miknik5 · May 14, 2020

cvanwey said:
You are deflecting. It's directly related, and you are in avoidance of addressing the actual concern. Salvation depends on belief (according to John 3:16-18, Romans 10:9-10). So how much belief is required? A mustard's seed, like I do with Vishnu? Or, do I need to be [above and beyond] the belief of existence, and the love for my own parents??? Or other (in between)? You are not addressing any of this. You are spinning it, and failing to address the many points in post #64. NICE TRY. We all see it

You are instead trying to smear my character to avoid addressing the tough questions

Faith,belief in CHRIST JESUS alone...that, alone is what you need

miknik5 · May 14, 2020

cvanwey said:
Great, then we can start over. Maybe you can actually address the concerns, in a way we all can understand. What does Jesus define as 'rich'? And in regards to the 'rich', how much is enough to give away? If anything you keep, demonstrates distraction from Him, as you cannot have love for both possessions and Him, then how many possessions can you retain exactly, and still be under His assigned kingdom? Luke 14:25-33 seems fairly clear....

The same goes for John 3:16-18. Maybe you can, again, actually address the concerns, in a way we all can understand. What does Jesus define as 'belief'? And in regards to the 'belief', how much is enough? If you doubt in the slightest, is He cool with that?

Please understand that John 3:16-18 1/2 is the promise to those who believe. If you continued on to John 3:18 1/2 - 20, you would have read about the outcome of those who do not believe.

cvanwey said:
You have yet to even address rudimentary requests, as I have asked above. So until you do, it would instead appear you are avoiding 'simply asked questions.'

Um, that's what that means sir. If I ask a Catholic how to achieve salvation, and they tell me I must confess my sins to a priest, but another denomination tells me salvation is reached by repenting directly to God, these claims conflict. At best, one of them is mistaken; especially for something as important as salvation - (your eternal soul).

Salvation is through faith directed in and on CHRIST JESUS alone sir...

If you are talking about your unintentional sins which you might commit after you have believed, you can read 1 John...it explains what you should do...and continue to do

miknik5 · May 14, 2020

cvanwey said:
My point prior was that Muhammad marrying a 6-year-old, and you not liking that, has absolutely no connection to the claim that he later ascended to heaven. Each claim must be investigated independently.

Much the same, Jesus doing and saying things you like, has no relevancy, nor then proves or substantiates that it then must be 'more-likely-true' that He did rise from the dead.

And just for starters, the claim that you decided to reply to, was from @John Helpher . He claims 100's of eye-witnesses saw Jesus. I state there exists no evidence for that. I've studied that claim. The reason this is important, as that the Bible is asserting that I must believe this claim anyways. And if I don't, I will be condemned. Now, getting to the fundamental issues below..

1. In places, the Bible states you must believe He rose again. Further, you must believe, repent, and love Him.

2. How much belief, repentance, and love is enough? Is believing, as much as I do in Vishnu enough? Or, does the belief and love need to surpass that of my parents? Is it somewhere in between? And if I don't meet this criteria, is God going to smite me for eternity, for something that maybe I cannot control (i.e.) belief and love?

Again, I'm a side participant now... But wondering if you can answer the above?

No. I see self conflicting statements from the Holy Bible. It does not matter that the writings span 1500+ years, or not. The messages conflict internally. Is it?:

- Grace alone?
- Faith alone?
- Love alone?
- Works alone?
- Grace + faith?
- Grace + faith + love?
- Grace + faith + love + works?
- How much faith?
- How much love?
- How many works?
- Which one of these traits is more/less important; and how do you know?

Here's a question to stew upon...

If you died right now, do you think God would accept you into heaven?

If you can either answer (yes or no), this would mean you think you know God's criteria for salvation. So, do you know if the answer is yes or no? If so, please do tell? If not, then like I stated in the OP, God looks to be the provider of confusion. Why? For the bullet points listed up above, just for starters...

Then look into the claim. The claim of 100's seeing Jesus is in the Bible. Please check and see if the claim of 'eye-witness' is supported to your satisfaction? And if it is, then we can test this claim against other claims in divinity

And to answer your request... God would presumably be above natural law.

I didn´t have to look into the claim...the same thing that happened to those first disciples yesterday, continues to happen to those disciples today...which is why, one will not have to look into the claim, but will believe it..and will be a witness to that TRUTH that yes, HE rose and ascended and lives...

miknik5 · May 14, 2020

Ok. I feel like I have bombarded the thread. I ended reading on page 5, but to avoid a slew of more posts, I am going to sign off.

Sorry for all the posts. (page 5)

the iconoclast · May 14, 2020

BigV said:
Well, I think we can agree to disagree.

Hey bigv

I would prefer to test your position and put it under a microscope

thomas_t · May 15, 2020

BigV said:
Christians I know of define repentance as not only saying “sorry” but also adjusting the behavior.

this may be the problem.
It is as @dcalling said: repentance is not a work, it is a stance.
In my opinion, Bible sometimes requests works of repentance if the Apostle fears that his conversation partner could simply show short term repentance limited to whims and feelings as it was the case with the Pharisees also called "brood of vipers", Matthew 3:8.
This is only to prove the sincerity of your repentance, I think. You can't can't earn salvation by works.

cvanwey · May 15, 2020

Ed1wolf said:
No, if you read the very similar passage in John 5:28-29, you see what that means in more detail just before he says this. In John 5:24, He explains who is actually doing the good and who is doing the evil. Those who believe in Him and follow His teachings are doing the real good. So obviously you are taking Matthew 25 out of context.

In Matthew 25:31-46, the entire parable speaks about judgement, based upon helping others, and nothing other than helping others. The point being, you read this entire passage, and it conflicts with other assertive statements for salvation. It conflicts with passages related to faith based salvation, and/or graced/faith based salvation.

cvanwey · May 15, 2020

Tom 1 said:
‘odd’ as in random, picking this part and that randomly.

If this is your 'criteria' for odd, than the entire Bible is random

I again ask you....

How is Matthew 25:31-36 odd? And why must I consider it less pronounced, verses say... John 3:16-18 or Romans 10:9-10?

cvanwey · May 15, 2020

Tom 1 said:
You can look at my earlier post on that verse and respond to the question there if you like. Teach what is true - although I’m not sure which translation you are using there - is a long way from substantiating your notion that ‘god says truth is not debatable’. You’re making quite a leap there. That’s what happens when you don’t have a good grasp of the material, whatever it might be, that you’re trying to address, hence my suggestion earlier that, assuming you are trying to arrive at some understanding here rather than just pursue some trite point of your own invention, you try and develop a broader understanding of what you are asking about. Your mindset here is something like someone who, hearing about the existence of atoms and the forces (known and unknown) that lead them to configure into certain materials or shapes, refuses to accept that a table is anything other than a table - it’s solid, real, it’s a table - not a collection of atoms with space between them. For whatever reason your mind has locked in to some basic notion you think is supported by elements of a much broader picture, and that you can pursue your notion without having any understanding of that broader picture. To put it concisely, it doesn’t work.

You appear to be avoiding my basic inquiry...

"Going back to Matthew 12:32, have we figured out what this one conclusion is????"

Namely, what IS the author's intent? Was is meant to be literal, or, does it mean something else? And if it means something else, what? And how did you arrive at this conclusion?

Tom 1 · May 15, 2020

cvanwey said:
You appear to be avoiding my basic inquiry...

"Going back to Matthew 12:32, have we figured out what this one conclusion is????"

Namely, what IS the author's intent? Was is meant to be literal, or, does it mean something else? And if it means something else, what? And how did you arrive at this conclusion?

As I said in my last post, I replied to that point earlier, last week, in post #404, which you also replied to. The text tells you what it means, you can read it and let me know what you think.

Tom 1 · May 15, 2020

cvanwey said:
If this is your 'criteria' for odd, than the entire Bible is random I again ask you....

How is Matthew 25:31-36 odd? And why must I consider it less pronounced, verses say... John 3:16-18 or Romans 10:9-10?

Maybe you aren't familiar with the phrase, as in 'odds and ends' and similar uses. You can take something as a whole, whether the bible or some other work of any sort that covers more than a few basic ideas, or you can pick out bits - odd bits, random bits, however you want to phrase it - verses taken at random and without context, random in the sense of bearing little or no relation to the point being made in any meaningful way. The question, if it isn't clear, is a difference between something originally recorded as part of a whole, within which it is intended to be understood, and the later dividing of the text into verses and selecting of some of these to build particular theological ideas. Fast-forward a few centuries and anyone with a predominantly religious mindset (I know you are not a believer but your thinking, as expressed here at least, is marked by religiosity) can pick out some verses that stuck in their mind for one reason or another as if they can somehow be used to understand or explain an idea that was originally conceived of within a much wider cultural, historical and religious context. If you really don't get that you'll need to explain why in a bit more detail as it is quite a clear point.

cvanwey · May 15, 2020

2PhiloVoid said:
Sure. I'll be more than happy to tell you 'why' you're wrong. You're wrong because the narrative offered involves blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in an instance where the Holy Spirit indeed "shows up" and does something superlative and marvelous (....like, say, healing an amputee or something), but then all the onlookers (Pharisees) can do, being the rigidly minded, envious, pompous spiritual bastards that they are, is to then spew out something like the following, in articulations befitting a 5 year old ....

.........."NO! NO! NO! NO! ................ IT'S THE DEVIL'S WORK !!!"

And then we know they've committed something rather dastardly because we see, then, Jesus saying in that same narrative to those unfortunate criticizers of the Holy Spirit that they are refusing the very person they so say they...............................worship.

So, IF they refuse, directly and essentially to the face, the very God they think they worship, then there's really nothing else that can be done for them, or in them, by which they can be reconciled to God. They've cut themselves off from God.

But to blasphemy God simply because one hasn't been directly demonstrated to by God, or to do so because one isn't in a good frame of mind, is bad and a form of blasphemy, but it isn't necessarily 'blasphemy' of the Holy Spirit.

So, again, Context(s) is King as it always is when we read and attempt to understand the Bible.

No, you see the above. And then, see about a dozen books and/or sources on hermeneutics and the bible.

All passages regarding blasphemy, i.e. Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:29-29, and Luke 12:10 are cryptic. Period.

1) To 'speak against', 'blaspheme', or 'speak a word against' are not clarified.

2) The verses do not speak about the point of when you have gone too far, and are damned eternal, no-matter-what.

3) These verses remain ambiguous/vague/undefined.

4) Many, whom read the Bible as literal, would read these, and worry obsessively about not committing such and act. Or, worry that one of their close loved ones may have already committed this act. It appears to present reckless/obscure language; with a rather large threat attached.

Again, we are speaking about God's forgiveness here. And you know what happens to the ones He does not forgive or pardon, right?

And further still, going with your 'conclusion', let us explore; just for goofs...

What if a 'pharisee-like' individual, did exactly what you eluded to, but, a year later, had a complete change of heart? He realized the error of his ways, dropped to his knees, professed to the real almighty, confessed as a sinner, and committed to follow. According to the undefined and less-than-clarified verses provided, he's toast.

Tom 1 · May 15, 2020

cvanwey said:
3) These verses remain ambiguous/vague/undefined.

Did you actually read them? The text itself specifically tells you what the meaning is: 'He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”'

cvanwey · May 15, 2020

dcalling said:
We already addressed it multiple times, and I showed you again and again (to the point you starting to ignore me since you don't like what I said), that when the text clearly separated blasphemy against God and against Holy Spirit, you keep mixing the 2.

So while @thomas_t @dcalling, @Silly Uncle Wayne 's rendition MIGHT NOT be totally correct, we all know your rendition is incorrect since you are trying to mix what's clearly different (but related), i.e. God and Holy Spirit.

It is like when I say that spit on my foot is forgivable but spit on my face is not, you insist that food and face is the same.

From post #492:

All passages regarding blasphemy, i.e. Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:29-29, and Luke 12:10 are cryptic. Period.

1) To 'speak against', 'blaspheme', or 'speak a word against' are not clarified.

2) The verses do not speak about the point of when you have gone too far, and are damned eternal, no-matter-what.

3) These verses remain ambiguous/vague/undefined.

4) Many, whom read the Bible as literal, would read these, and worry obsessively about not committing such and act. Or, worry that one of their close loved ones may have already committed this act. It appears to present reckless/obscure language; with a rather large threat attached.

Again, we are speaking about God's forgiveness here. And you know what happens to the ones He does not forgive or pardon, right?

And further still, going with your 'conclusion', let us explore; just for goofs...

What if a 'pharisee-like' individual, did exactly what you eluded to, but, a year later, had a complete change of heart? He realized the error of his ways, dropped to his knees, professed to the real almighty, confessed as a sinner, and committed to follow. According to the undefined and less-than-clarified verses provided, he's toast.

cvanwey · May 15, 2020

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
It does, however, mention righteousness and righteousness requires Faith.

To be righteous, it requires faith? Show me where it is required in Matthew 25:31-46?

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
a) parables aren't a good method of determining theology: they generally have a purpose that isn't necessarily about the story being told but rather the story is an analogy for real life;

This parable gives a lesson, as instructed by Jesus. The 'selected' are deemed so, based solely upon their help to others.

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
and b) this parable was spoken to Jews in a Jewish context and later written down in a gospel aimed at Jews. It does not appear in either of the other synoptic gospels, both written with a gentile audience in mind.

The entire parable looks to be aimed at the person whom reads the passage then, now, and the future. If what you state was the case, I'm sure God would have had the mind to clarify accordingly.

Furthermore, isn't the standard for heaven the same for everyone?

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
So as a Jew (1st century at least) this is an indictment on the idea that the rich and privileged are more righteous than the poor and despised. And as a Christian we see it in the light of Faith and Works; i.e. faith in Jesus has consequences.

There is no elaboration to result in this conclusion. The verse(s) are there, for all to read. For all we know, Jesus is telling humans how they will be judged, on 'judgement day.' i.e. based upon how much we help others...

cvanwey · May 15, 2020

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
But then so do Hindus but somehow you excluded those. Make up your mind.

??

cvanwey · May 15, 2020

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
No its about knowing what the original Christians thought and it is quite clear from the first century writings by Christians that they thought Christ was God incarnate. It is only in the second century onwards that other ideas tried to rear their heads. The fact that the ongoing church opposed such groups with letters and other things that we know that there is some kind of orthodox belief that these new groups did not have.

As such Unitarians are not Christian any more than you or Muslims (who believe Jesus was a prophet).

Maybe you'll want to then consult with authority, upon given definitions, to resolve this little hiccup. Many seem to classify them as being under the 'Christian flag.' When you look up 'Muslim' or 'skeptic', not-so-much...

U·ni·tar·i·an
/ˌyo͞onəˈterēən/

a person, especially a Christian, who asserts the unity of God and rejects the doctrine of the Trinity.

cvanwey · May 15, 2020

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Well if you are going by Matthew 25 as the only arbiter of this fact, which it is not. How do you reconcile this with:
'through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand' (Paul)
'I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me' (John)
'And their is salvation in no-one else' (Luke)
even Matthew says 'The Son of Man... will repay each person according to what he has done' and 'Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.'

Your interpretation means that a good person gets saved (sheep), ours that there are other criteria involved and that this parable is just one part of the bigger picture.

Because Matthew 25:31-46 makes no reference to any of your verses listed. Just like the verses you've listed make no references to Matt. 25 - helping others as a criteria.

If you read the the Gospels, you get conflicting paths for salvation. Is it grace? Is it faith? Is it works? Is it grace/faith? Is it grace/faith/works? Other???

cvanwey · May 15, 2020

Silly Uncle Wayne said:
Me: I haven't actually said anything about Matthew 12:32 at all (unless my memory is going). So you certainly don't have 4 brave soldiers - at most 3.

Your response:

I don't know if you can see the numbers after the word Matthew in each case, but they are different. Completely different.

(Me) "Please, by all means, give me your opinion. And I already tried the source, for many years. Seems He is not going to bother" (Note, we were speaking about THE interpretation for Matthew 12:32 here)...

(You) "In my opinion, this is a passage spoken to Jews and then regurgitated in a Jewish gospel for the sole purpose of pointing out to Jews that their ideas of righteousness are completely wrong. See also Matthew 6:1"

Care to give me your full take on Matthew 12:32? Thus far, it sounds as if you were concluding that the Jews were wrong...?

2PhiloVoid · May 15, 2020

cvanwey said:
All passages regarding blasphemy, i.e. Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:29-29, and Luke 12:10 are cryptic. Period.

1) To 'speak against', 'blaspheme', or 'speak a word against' are not clarified.

2) The verses do not speak about the point of when you have gone too far, and are damned eternal, no-matter-what.

3) These verses remain ambiguous/vague/undefined.

4) Many, whom read the Bible as literal, would read these, and worry obsessively about not committing such and act. Or, worry that one of their close loved ones may have already committed this act. It appears to present reckless/obscure language; with a rather large threat attached.

Again, we are speaking about God's forgiveness here. And you know what happens to the ones He does not forgive or pardon, right?

And further still, going with your 'conclusion', let us explore; just for goofs...

What if a 'pharisee-like' individual, did exactly what you eluded to, but, a year later, had a complete change of heart? He realized the error of his ways, dropped to his knees, professed to the real almighty, confessed as a sinner, and committed to follow. According to the undefined and less-than-clarified verses provided, he's toast.

....................................what if, what if, what if, what if. Anyone can play the 'What if' game, cvanway. And I see that you play it, in ignorant style for the most part since you choose to remain hermeneutically aloof and uninformed, much much more than you should. So, no one here should take you seriously since your whole lack of adequate praxis promotes confusion for everyone.

And I don't appreciate any of that in the least! Ignorance isn't bliss. So, stop being ignorant and stop promoting it where Christianity is concerned.

Good day!

Purveyor of Confusion

"Let not your heart be troubled"

"Let not your heart be troubled"

"Let not your heart be troubled"

"Let not your heart be troubled"

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it

Blessings Collector

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Optimistic sceptic

Optimistic sceptic

Well-Known Member

Optimistic sceptic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Similar threads