- Nov 13, 2017
- 12,212
- 12,468
- Country
- Romania
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Or maybe, you just cannot followI do not know how much more clear I can be.
I'm not here to exchange subjective interpretations of OT Bible stories. I'm addressing a very specific observation. If you want independent critiques of specific stories from the Bible, please start a new thread.
Funny
God provides a verse. The verse implies a threat. Ask many, get conflicting answers. This is God's chosen primary mechanism for communication of 'truth'.
Care to join in the festivities?
Matthew 12:32. What is your take?
I say, if your claim to salvation is 'faith', any Christian whom commits this act, will negate 'faith'. Same goes with any Christian really... i.e. 'saved by grace', 'saved by grace, faith, works'... Other...
Matthew 12:32 negates all. Why am I wrong? Can you inquire upon the Source? If so, great, let's resolve this now. If not, then it might seem God does not care to resolve this matter.
And why should God cater to me? I'm not saying He should, per se. However, there exists Christians out there, whom if they read this verse, may fear they are doomed - (no matter what).
If they are wrong, it would be nice for God to clarify. You can ask many educated people, and the passage means something different, virtually from all 'interpretations'. Makes for confusion, if you ask me
Is God providing conflicting messages to differing humans?
It’s not a problem if 0% of Christians commit blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and 100% of non-believers do.I say, if your claim to salvation is 'faith', any Christian whom commits this act, will negate 'faith'. Same goes with any Christian really... i.e. 'saved by grace', 'saved by grace, faith, works'... Other...
Matthew 12:32 negates all. Why am I wrong? Can you inquire upon the Source? If so, great, let's resolve this now. If not, then it might seem God does not care to resolve this matter.
Funny
God provides a verse. The verse implies a threat. Ask many, get conflicting answers. This is God's chosen primary mechanism for communication of 'truth'.
Care to join in the festivities?
Matthew 12:32. What is your take?
I say, if your claim to salvation is 'faith', any Christian whom commits this act, will negate 'faith'. Same goes with any Christian really... i.e. 'saved by grace', 'saved by grace, faith, works'... Other...
Matthew 12:32 negates all. Why am I wrong? Can you inquire upon the Source? If so, great, let's resolve this now. If not, then it might seem God does not care to resolve this matter.
And why should God cater to me? I'm not saying He should, per se. However, there exists Christians out there, whom if they read this verse, may fear they are doomed - (no matter what).
If they are wrong, it would be nice for God to clarify. You can ask many educated people, and the passage means something different, virtually from all 'interpretations'. Makes for confusion, if you ask me
Well if you are going to include Unitarian, you might as well be comparing Hinduism with Catholic!How about this.... Compare notes, in regards to two denominations alone. Namely, just for starters, between a Catholic and a Unitarian; in regards to the 'way of salvation'. News flash.., I sincerely doubt they would reach a 'common ground'. And once they hash this out, work it out, iron it out, and come to resolve; you still have many others to go....
Great! So here we are, thus far... We have one passage in Scripture. And not just any mundane passage, but a passage that, when NOT read by the hyper-educated, could reasonably conclude that if the reader was to 'speak against' the Holy Spirit, they will never be forgiven.
Now, how might this confusion have been easily avoided? Well, God might be aware that many readers are either uneducated, less informed, ignorant, not taught by the right instructor, etc. And again, God might be aware that many may fear a grave threat, when maybe God is not presenting one. Assuming God would know that many might conclude that what they read with their own eye-balls means they are doomed eternal; maybe instead it would have been reasonable for God to add a verse or two, just to clarify?
I'm not God, but it seems reasonable that God seems to possibly throw a major threat out there, and cares not to explain.
Thus far, we have the following:
(You) - 'the sole purpose of pointing out to Jews that their ideas of righteousness are completely wrong'
(Me) - 'It means what it says - and many may already be doomed, no matter how much faith they possess now or in the future.'
(dcalling) - 'No one can commit this sin'
(Thomas) - 'The Christians whom commit this sin go to a lesser heaven.'
4 bright people, 4 possible conclusions....
Confusion anyone?
Not all Christians, though it is a common belief. The Bible is unclear on the matter and other passages would suggest that children are the responsibility of their parents (which is why there are coming of age ceremonies to make clear at which point they are considered responsible for their own actions - generally around age 12 or 13).Thank you... Found it... Here was your response:
"Catered for. Still-born and child death have committed no sin and therefore have nothing to be redeemed from. Likewise those who have mental defects that prevent them from understanding anything. But if you can understand mentally, you can put your Faith in Jesus and there you go..."
Aren't all humans born in original sin, in need of redemption, according to Christians?
It's fare to say that the vast majority of people, especially in those days, were religious. This means little really.
Nah, it's not sinking in, or perhaps the idea of salvation by faith in Jesus is something that seems to bounce off your preconceived notions.It contradicts. If you read #280, and subsequent responses enough, it might start to sink in for you. Or maybe not...
Regarding Matt. 25, they are saved by true faith and the sign of true faith is doing those works and not doing those works is a sign they did not have true faith.Preemptive response, in the hopes I am not talking to a wall.
Aren't you a follower? Don't you attempt to keep the Commandments? Don't you attempt to follow the golden rule? Don't you repent directly to Him? Don't you ask yourself, from time-to-time, 'does Jesus think this is right or wrong?' etc etc etc.... I again ask... Why does Luke 14:25-33 not apply to you?
I'm afraid this answer appears dissatisfying. If you admit God deems you rich, it would appear axiomatic in His request, that He asks that you give it all away, via Luke 14:33. He adds no qualifiers here. And in something as important as the topic for salvation, seems as though Jesus would not want to remain ambiguous, would He? I see no footnote to also reference other verse.
As I've stated here many times, many can support their position, when they can pluck out any verse from the Bible they choose. But in the case for Luke 14:25-33, again, why are you exempt?
[Your] responses appears, to me, to 're-purpose' His request, by insinuating all the money you keep, and spend on whatever you see fit, is glorying Him. But that is clearly not what He says in Luke 14:25-33. Can you explain?
My point here, is the tenets for salvation differ from one to the next. You claim yours is the correct one. Thus, if you admit you do not know what the others are preaching or asserting regarding salvation, how are you so sure yours is right, while there's in wrong?
The verse in Matthew 25:31-45 states Jesus will separate the saved and unsaved by their works. [You] stated works are not required. I see conflict here. Again, I read the entire passage in it's context. Further...
Luke 14:25-33 states if you are rich, you are to give up everything. Again, why are you exempt?
The rest here seems to create too much hostility to address. I'll leave it alone for now.
perfect unison and harmony (that's my take). No conflicting messages.
Thus, how do Christians decide which verses to adhere to, and which to ignore or re-translate?
believe and declare Jesus as Lord, Romans 10;9-10Lets say an Atheist comes to your house and wants to be saved. What must this Atheist do?
a) believe in Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Or
b) believe AND repent of their sins, OR
c) believe AND be baptized, OR
d) no need to believe, just do good works (i.e keep the commandments) for the most unfortunate and they will be in heaven?
Lol yes I can see that you’ve edited that. So, that supports your ‘truth is not debatable and god says so’ notion? Where does that really come from?
Hi cvanwey, in my opinion... anyone who tries to convince you that the Bible can be interpreted in perfect harmony is in denial. If you want proof just head on over to the Christians-only theology section. We argue about everything.
Disputes regarding biblical consistency have a long history but that is not to say that the Bible cannot be trusted. We recognize that the Bible has about 35-40 traditional authors and the longest list of Bible contradictions someone has compiled is around 700. It is almost as if it was purposefully written this way. The magic of the Bible's confusing nature is that it can appeal to everyone.
We must realize that whenever something belonging to the region of the Divine is uttered in words, it will always be uttered imperfectly. For God is infinite, and human communication, although far reaching in scope, can only embody Him approximately and suggestively.
God is not the Bible. The most authentic revelation of our Father in Heaven is found in His Son, Jesus Christ. If you are trying to find clarity in Scripture use the Gospels as your baseline truth.
Jesus said that He is the way and the truth. Anyone who has seen Him has seen the Father. John 14:9.
You created a thread about the bible, but you don't want to look at the bible to see if you have a point. I don't see the logic here.
I am genuinely trying to understand the point you are trying to make here.
Are you saying that disagreement = confusion?
Do you apply that to everything in life?
It seems a rather unusual take, perhaps if you could provide some examples of issues (or anything) that people are in harmonious agreement about, that might give you a baseline. Applied to the bible, there are some fundamentals that the majority agree on, and all kinds of other notions they don't. I can't think of any example from any field of study where anyone who comes into contact with an idea somehow tunes into some magical universal mode of understanding that has no variation from one person to the next. It is quite literally impossible for people to have the same thoughts about the same thing all the time. In what way is that even something that needs to be said? I don't get your thinking on this.
Your choice of verse seems unusual - as I am sure you know the same incident appears in all of the synoptic gospels, with Mark adding the explanation 'he (Jesus) said this because they were saying, 'he has an impure/unclean spirit'. Again as you presumably have read, the situation is that people have accused Jesus of doing good 'by the prince of demons'. They are saying when Jesus acts in the spirit of doing good, promoting life and healing, he is doing evil - calling good evil, inverting the fundamental meaning of the two. A person whose mindset is that the actions of the holy spirit are in fact evil will never seek and so never get forgiveness from that spirit or any person associated with it, that person's mind is entirely closed off from the possibility of seeking forgiveness, as who (in the Hebrew culture of the time particularly) would seek forgiveness from a spirit they believe to be impure or unclean - whatever that happens to mean to that individual, the context being one of Jewish cultural and religious notions of impurity/uncleanness, the absolute rejection of Christ as an 'unclean thing' that should be expelled from the community. You cannot reject and accept forgiveness at the same time. What do you take it to mean?
There are some pretty basic ideas at work here. Strangely, you have created several threads purportedly about the bible, but at the same time you refuse to engage in any suggestion to engage with the bible to test your ideas. It's rather hard to see what the point is. You don't need to believe in God to simply read what is in the bible, understand it's cultural and historical context and so on. What is the actual point of these threads if not to understand any of that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?