Faith IS evidence

JesusLovesYou
Posts: 474
Joined: 2006-12-09
Offline
Faith IS evidence

Hebrews 11:1 Faith IS evidence

When you have faith, you have revelation. You gain knowledge of our forever loving God, Jesus Christ.  Faith opens up doors you never knew existed.  Faith is not blind belief.  Blind belief is lack of faith.

You are always blaming God for what people do.  Westboro Baptist church is an ungodly cult.  They are like the pharisees of Christ's time...adders of rules that don't matter.  There are many people on this earth that do things in the name of God that do not truely know Him.  They do things out of their human will.

Christ truely died for our sins.  All we need is active faith to know and understand him.

This is a pointless hate crime of a website.  It needs to be shut down.

You keep claiming that atheism has morals, that its just as good as any religion etc etc etc.....but your ethics show otherwise

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

digitalbeachbum
Posts: 4348
Joined: 2007-10-15
Offline
Jabberwocky

Jabberwocky wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

They will simply explain that you weren't worthy of god because you didn't actually have faith.

I have faith that if a god was truly all-loving, and all-powerful, he would know that several seconds of extra toe would have led me to believe in him without question. If he is all loving, and believing in him is a pre-requisite for entering heaven/dodging hell, he would have done it to save me in one easy temporary appendage-modification.

The only defense here is that perhaps it's wrong of me to ask for one shred of proof. *sigh* guess if Christianity is true, then I'm destined for hell. Woe is me.

It always amazes me how people take an idea or word and transform it over time from a verb to a noun to a proper noun.

I can see the time line of how, "hades" goes from being a simple word describing a grave eventually being the location for all sinners to spend eternity.

Fucking brilliant.

JesusLovesYou
Posts: 474
Joined: 2006-12-09
Offline

danatemporary wrote:
re:: Jcgadfly's position, is about the means of Justification

It sure is a good thing that Paul took away any need for you to actually live a holy life. You lot don't have to worry about sin either. Atheists and Christians have that in common.

JMLY (a.k.a. -- JLY) For whatever reason you give the impression of not grasping Jcgadfly's position. From what I gather, in terms you are more both accustomed and familiar with, jcgadflys read surrounds itself with Jesus' righteousness being placed on the believer through faith emphasis. Found in the New Testament Epistles (Pauline). Ex. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him (Christ) [is] that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). Primarily the idea of the area of "imputed righteousness", instead of going to the trouble of something earned (really earned and deserved), if I characterize Jcgadfly, rightly. Rife with the potential for abuse, with the emphasis placed on it. Along with Saint Paul's formulat(-ing, -tion) of a Soteriology based on faith as opposed to righteous deeds. p.p.s -- I 'm fully confident jcgadfly is more than capable of speaking for himself (and representing his own views on any subject). Reference the Quotation.

It's either that or JLY is taking my saying that Paul and his proteges who wrote the gospels did not believe repentance was a requirement for Christianity (belief is all that's needed). and building a fallacy that claimed that I said Paul never mentioned repentance.

You do not understand what belief is.  Let me give you an example.  You have a chair.  You believe that the chair is going to hold you up when you sit on it.  So what do you do YOU SIT ON THE CHAIR.  Belief is not just a statement.  If there is no REPENTANCE there is no belief.  If one does not REPENT there is disbelief.  So the statement that belief is all thats needed is true in the terms that WHEN YOU BELIEVE, certain actions accompany that belief.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
Offline

JesusLovesYou wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
re:: Jcgadfly's position, is about the means of Justification

It sure is a good thing that Paul took away any need for you to actually live a holy life. You lot don't have to worry about sin either. Atheists and Christians have that in common.

JMLY (a.k.a. -- JLY) For whatever reason you give the impression of not grasping Jcgadfly's position. From what I gather, in terms you are more both accustomed and familiar with, jcgadflys read surrounds itself with Jesus' righteousness being placed on the believer through faith emphasis. Found in the New Testament Epistles (Pauline). Ex. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him (Christ) [is] that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). Primarily the idea of the area of "imputed righteousness", instead of going to the trouble of something earned (really earned and deserved), if I characterize Jcgadfly, rightly. Rife with the potential for abuse, with the emphasis placed on it. Along with Saint Paul's formulat(-ing, -tion) of a Soteriology based on faith as opposed to righteous deeds. p.p.s -- I 'm fully confident jcgadfly is more than capable of speaking for himself (and representing his own views on any subject). Reference the Quotation.

It's either that or JLY is taking my saying that Paul and his proteges who wrote the gospels did not believe repentance was a requirement for Christianity (belief is all that's needed). and building a fallacy that claimed that I said Paul never mentioned repentance.

You do not understand what belief is.  Let me give you an example.  You have a chair.  You believe that the chair is going to hold you up when you sit on it.  So what do you do YOU SIT ON THE CHAIR.  Belief is not just a statement.  If there is no REPENTANCE there is no belief.  If one does not REPENT there is disbelief.  So the statement that belief is all thats needed is true in the terms that WHEN YOU BELIEVE, certain actions accompany that belief.

So very wrong. Faith is not all belief - just an unfounded one.

Let me make your example a bit more realistic.

Me: I have a chair. I've seen other people of varying size sit in the chair. I've observed that the chair is structurally sound. Because of those observations I have an expectation that I will be able to sit in the chair. that is a belief, yes. It is based on evidence and observation. It is not faith.

You. You have a chair. You've seen others sit on it. You've seen that it is structurally sound. In spite of those observations, you approach the chair with fear and trepidation because you're not sure that the chair will hold you (but you really hope it does). You take this same approach each and every time you approach the chair. That's faith.

Your view of repentance is also a bit off.

You believe that repentance is not sinning after forgiveness. It is, in fact, simply a sincere desire to not sin. That's the part that I referred to earlier as "you promise to try really hard to not sin again". Repentance is the promise - not the trying.

No actions required in the forgiveness process - just asking and promises.

Eph 2:8-9

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

JesusLovesYou
Posts: 474
Joined: 2006-12-09
Offline

JesusLovesYou wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
re:: Jcgadfly's position, is about the means of Justification

It sure is a good thing that Paul took away any need for you to actually live a holy life. You lot don't have to worry about sin either. Atheists and Christians have that in common.

JMLY (a.k.a. -- JLY) For whatever reason you give the impression of not grasping Jcgadfly's position. From what I gather, in terms you are more both accustomed and familiar with, jcgadflys read surrounds itself with Jesus' righteousness being placed on the believer through faith emphasis. Found in the New Testament Epistles (Pauline). Ex. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him (Christ) [is] that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). Primarily the idea of the area of "imputed righteousness", instead of going to the trouble of something earned (really earned and deserved), if I characterize Jcgadfly, rightly. Rife with the potential for abuse, with the emphasis placed on it. Along with Saint Paul's formulat(-ing, -tion) of a Soteriology based on faith as opposed to righteous deeds. p.p.s -- I 'm fully confident jcgadfly is more than capable of speaking for himself (and representing his own views on any subject). Reference the Quotation.

It's either that or JLY is taking my saying that Paul and his proteges who wrote the gospels did not believe repentance was a requirement for Christianity (belief is all that's needed). and building a fallacy that claimed that I said Paul never mentioned repentance.

You do not understand what belief is.  Let me give you an example.  You have a chair.  You believe that the chair is going to hold you up when you sit on it.  So what do you do YOU SIT ON THE CHAIR.  Belief is not just a statement.  If there is no REPENTANCE there is no belief.  If one does not REPENT there is disbelief.  So the statement that belief is all thats needed is true in the terms that WHEN YOU BELIEVE, certain actions accompany that belief.

So very wrong. Faith is not all belief - just an unfounded one.

Let me make your example a bit more realistic.

Me: I have a chair. I've seen other people of varying size sit in the chair. I've observed that the chair is structurally sound. Because of those observations I have an expectation that I will be able to sit in the chair. that is a belief, yes. It is based on evidence and observation. It is not faith.

You. You have a chair. You've seen other sit on it. You've seen that it is structurally sound. In spite of those observations, you approach the chair with fear and trepidation because you're not sure that the chair will hold you (but you really hope it does). You take this same approach each and every time you approach the chair. That's faith.

Your view of repentance is also a bit off.

You believe that repentance is not sinning after forgiveness. It is, in fact, simply a sincere desire to not sin. That's the part that I referred to earlier as "you promise to try really hard to not sin again". Repentance is the promise - not the trying.

No actions required in the forgiveness process - just asking and promises.

Eph 2:8-9

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

you tend to misread context alot.  You stated the Bible preaches "easy believism", belief with no action required.  That is terribly wrong.  When one believes in Christ, certain things follow that belief.  Those things are, as per the Bible, REPENTANCE and BAPTISM.  You gave a good verse, but a misunderstanding of it you have.  by grace, through what? FAITH! by grace through FAITH. When one has FAITH they BELIEVE in Christ, and as a believer they REPENT of their sins and will be baptized.  Repentance and baptism ARE NOT the works Paul is referring to.  "Good works" are service works. You failed to read verse 10.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
Offline

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
re:: Jcgadfly's position, is about the means of Justification

It sure is a good thing that Paul took away any need for you to actually live a holy life. You lot don't have to worry about sin either. Atheists and Christians have that in common.

JMLY (a.k.a. -- JLY) For whatever reason you give the impression of not grasping Jcgadfly's position. From what I gather, in terms you are more both accustomed and familiar with, jcgadflys read surrounds itself with Jesus' righteousness being placed on the believer through faith emphasis. Found in the New Testament Epistles (Pauline). Ex. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him (Christ) [is] that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). Primarily the idea of the area of "imputed righteousness", instead of going to the trouble of something earned (really earned and deserved), if I characterize Jcgadfly, rightly. Rife with the potential for abuse, with the emphasis placed on it. Along with Saint Paul's formulat(-ing, -tion) of a Soteriology based on faith as opposed to righteous deeds. p.p.s -- I 'm fully confident jcgadfly is more than capable of speaking for himself (and representing his own views on any subject). Reference the Quotation.

It's either that or JLY is taking my saying that Paul and his proteges who wrote the gospels did not believe repentance was a requirement for Christianity (belief is all that's needed). and building a fallacy that claimed that I said Paul never mentioned repentance.

You do not understand what belief is.  Let me give you an example.  You have a chair.  You believe that the chair is going to hold you up when you sit on it.  So what do you do YOU SIT ON THE CHAIR.  Belief is not just a statement.  If there is no REPENTANCE there is no belief.  If one does not REPENT there is disbelief.  So the statement that belief is all thats needed is true in the terms that WHEN YOU BELIEVE, certain actions accompany that belief.

So very wrong. Faith is not all belief - just an unfounded one.

Let me make your example a bit more realistic.

Me: I have a chair. I've seen other people of varying size sit in the chair. I've observed that the chair is structurally sound. Because of those observations I have an expectation that I will be able to sit in the chair. that is a belief, yes. It is based on evidence and observation. It is not faith.

You. You have a chair. You've seen other sit on it. You've seen that it is structurally sound. In spite of those observations, you approach the chair with fear and trepidation because you're not sure that the chair will hold you (but you really hope it does). You take this same approach each and every time you approach the chair. That's faith.

Your view of repentance is also a bit off.

You believe that repentance is not sinning after forgiveness. It is, in fact, simply a sincere desire to not sin. That's the part that I referred to earlier as "you promise to try really hard to not sin again". Repentance is the promise - not the trying.

No actions required in the forgiveness process - just asking and promises.

Eph 2:8-9

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

you tend to misread context alot.  You stated the Bible preaches "easy believism", belief with no action required.  That is terribly wrong.  When one believes in Christ, certain things follow that belief.  Those things are, as per the Bible, REPENTANCE and BAPTISM.  You gave a good verse, but a misunderstanding of it you have.  by grace, through what? FAITH! by grace through FAITH. When one has FAITH they BELIEVE in Christ, and as a believer they REPENT of their sins and will be baptized.  Repentance and baptism ARE NOT the works Paul is referring to.  "Good works" are service works. You failed to read verse 10.

No context to be misread unless you're adding some to it that isn't actually there... oh wait, you are. You're trying to make belief something you do instead of something you have.

Repentance is a promise to not do something again - not an effort to do it.

Baptism is an outward indication that you are a believer - again, not an actual effort to not sin.

Verse 10 is one of the other reasons why Paul disagrees with Jesus and James. Good thing there aren't any contradictions in the Bible, huh?

Paul and his students who wrote the gospels couldn't even get their own stories straight. What do you think that should tell you about your religion?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

danatemporary
Posts: 1944
Joined: 2011-01-12
Offline
You arent understanding the distinction . .

You arent understanding the distinction . .

#154 Catholic Theophilus on the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican
For the sake then of those that so trust in themselves, that they will not ascribe the whole to God, and therefore despise others, He puts forth a parable, to show that righteousness, although it may bring man up to God, yet if he is clothed with pride, casts him down to hell. … It is said “standing,” to denote his haughty temper. For his very posture betokens his extreme pride. … Observe the order of the Pharisee’s prayer. He first speaks of that which he had not, and then of that which he had. As it follows, That I am not as other men are. … It becomes us not only to shun evil, but also to do good; and so after having said, I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, he adds something by way of contrast, I fast twice in a week. They called the week the Sabbath, from the last day of rest. The Pharisees fasted upon the second and fifth day. He therefore set fasting against the passion of adultery, for lust is born of luxury; but to the extortioners and usurists he opposed the payment of tithes; as it follows, I give tithes of all I possess; as if he says, So far am I from indulging in extortion or injuring, that I even give up what is my own. … Although reported to have stood, the Publican yet differed from the Pharisee, both in his manner and his words, as well as in his having a contrite heart. For he feared to lift up his eyes to heaven, thinking unworthy of the heavenly vision those which had loved to gaze upon and wander after earthly things. He also smote his breast, striking it as it were because of the evil thoughts, and moreover rousing it as if asleep. And thus he sought only that God would be reconciled to him, as it follows, saying, God, be merciful. … But should any one perchance marvel that the Pharisee for uttering a few words in his own praise is condemned, while Job, though he poured forth many, is crowned, I answer, that the Pharisee spoke these at the same time that he groundlessly accused others; but Job was compelled by an urgent necessity to enumerate his own virtues for the glory of God, that men might not fall away from the path of virtue, wrote Theophilus.

The Pharisee thought his good deeds and righteous observances would be accounted to him. Paul's teaching on Justification  is a sharp departure. Saint Paul writings show time and again his various ways of identifying with Christ, according to the words of the New Testament. It's incredibly thematic in a number of areas. He claimed and taught the concept of humility and proclaimed it confidently throughout his writings. You've continual sentiments of yours, dont deal with even minor secondary or tertiary issues in regards to that by over-simplification. JLY, It has nothing to do with easy-believism but an attempt at an interpretation of Paul's words. I'd imagine a certain finesse and sophistication are both needful and required. You arent understanding the distinction by this easy-believism remark (of yours).

p.s. -- Like Jimemejz you are discounting anything you hear from the board; instead of examining the argument on its' own merits, point by point, K?

JesusLovesYou
Posts: 474
Joined: 2006-12-09
Offline

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
re:: Jcgadfly's position, is about the means of Justification

It sure is a good thing that Paul took away any need for you to actually live a holy life. You lot don't have to worry about sin either. Atheists and Christians have that in common.

JMLY (a.k.a. -- JLY) For whatever reason you give the impression of not grasping Jcgadfly's position. From what I gather, in terms you are more both accustomed and familiar with, jcgadflys read surrounds itself with Jesus' righteousness being placed on the believer through faith emphasis. Found in the New Testament Epistles (Pauline). Ex. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him (Christ) [is] that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). Primarily the idea of the area of "imputed righteousness", instead of going to the trouble of something earned (really earned and deserved), if I characterize Jcgadfly, rightly. Rife with the potential for abuse, with the emphasis placed on it. Along with Saint Paul's formulat(-ing, -tion) of a Soteriology based on faith as opposed to righteous deeds. p.p.s -- I 'm fully confident jcgadfly is more than capable of speaking for himself (and representing his own views on any subject). Reference the Quotation.

It's either that or JLY is taking my saying that Paul and his proteges who wrote the gospels did not believe repentance was a requirement for Christianity (belief is all that's needed). and building a fallacy that claimed that I said Paul never mentioned repentance.

You do not understand what belief is.  Let me give you an example.  You have a chair.  You believe that the chair is going to hold you up when you sit on it.  So what do you do YOU SIT ON THE CHAIR.  Belief is not just a statement.  If there is no REPENTANCE there is no belief.  If one does not REPENT there is disbelief.  So the statement that belief is all thats needed is true in the terms that WHEN YOU BELIEVE, certain actions accompany that belief.

So very wrong. Faith is not all belief - just an unfounded one.

Let me make your example a bit more realistic.

Me: I have a chair. I've seen other people of varying size sit in the chair. I've observed that the chair is structurally sound. Because of those observations I have an expectation that I will be able to sit in the chair. that is a belief, yes. It is based on evidence and observation. It is not faith.

You. You have a chair. You've seen other sit on it. You've seen that it is structurally sound. In spite of those observations, you approach the chair with fear and trepidation because you're not sure that the chair will hold you (but you really hope it does). You take this same approach each and every time you approach the chair. That's faith.

Your view of repentance is also a bit off.

You believe that repentance is not sinning after forgiveness. It is, in fact, simply a sincere desire to not sin. That's the part that I referred to earlier as "you promise to try really hard to not sin again". Repentance is the promise - not the trying.

No actions required in the forgiveness process - just asking and promises.

Eph 2:8-9

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

you tend to misread context alot.  You stated the Bible preaches "easy believism", belief with no action required.  That is terribly wrong.  When one believes in Christ, certain things follow that belief.  Those things are, as per the Bible, REPENTANCE and BAPTISM.  You gave a good verse, but a misunderstanding of it you have.  by grace, through what? FAITH! by grace through FAITH. When one has FAITH they BELIEVE in Christ, and as a believer they REPENT of their sins and will be baptized.  Repentance and baptism ARE NOT the works Paul is referring to.  "Good works" are service works. You failed to read verse 10.

No context to be misread unless you're adding some to it that isn't actually there... oh wait, you are. You're trying to make belief something you do instead of something you have.

Repentance is a promise to not do something again - not an effort to do it.

Baptism is an outward indication that you are a believer - again, not an actual effort to not sin.

Verse 10 is one of the other reasons why Paul disagrees with Jesus and James. Good thing there aren't any contradictions in the Bible, huh?

Paul and his students who wrote the gospels couldn't even get their own stories straight. What do you think that should tell you about your religion?

again, you can't come up with anything to counter the fact that the Bible is consistant so you come up with some garbage like "Paul and his students"

You again missed what I was saying.  I said actions FOLLOW belief, and without them there is really no true belief.  A believer would never say NO to baptism, a believer would NEVER be UNREPENTANT.

You misunderstand REPENTANCE.  REPENTANCE is totally turning your back on sin.  You must be thinking of Penance, which is what Catholics do, making a "promise", paying with some chants, and leaving.

YOU are a contradiction my friend.  On one hand you say "Paul and his students la la la are the reason for the continuity" and then you get caught in a tussle and now say "Paul and his students contradicted eachother" NEWSFLASH buddy, Paul and "other greeks" DID not contrive the NT.  Paul wrote letters to the churches he preached to, those are the Epistles.

The Synoptic Gospels are traditionally believed to be written by as follow:

Mark-A disciple of Peter

Matthew is traditionally believed written by the Apostle Matthew

Yes Luke is traditionally believed to be a disciple of Paul

HOWEVER, those 3 Gospels are believed to be from an unknown source referred to as Q

The Gospel of John, which is now found to be the earliest of the four, has been attributed to the Apostle John

Your outlandish theory is preposterous.  Go ahead just keep trying to invent things to try to convince yourself you are correct

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

digitalbeachbum
Posts: 4348
Joined: 2007-10-15
Offline
danatemporary wrote: You

danatemporary wrote:

You arent understanding the distinction . .

#154 Catholic Theophilus on the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican
For the sake then of those that so trust in themselves, that they will not ascribe the whole to God, and therefore despise others, He puts forth a parable, to show that righteousness, although it may bring man up to God, yet if he is clothed with pride, casts him down to hell. … It is said “standing,” to denote his haughty temper. For his very posture betokens his extreme pride. … Observe the order of the Pharisee’s prayer. He first speaks of that which he had not, and then of that which he had. As it follows, That I am not as other men are. … It becomes us not only to shun evil, but also to do good; and so after having said, I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, he adds something by way of contrast, I fast twice in a week. They called the week the Sabbath, from the last day of rest. The Pharisees fasted upon the second and fifth day. He therefore set fasting against the passion of adultery, for lust is born of luxury; but to the extortioners and usurists he opposed the payment of tithes; as it follows, I give tithes of all I possess; as if he says, So far am I from indulging in extortion or injuring, that I even give up what is my own. … Although reported to have stood, the Publican yet differed from the Pharisee, both in his manner and his words, as well as in his having a contrite heart. For he feared to lift up his eyes to heaven, thinking unworthy of the heavenly vision those which had loved to gaze upon and wander after earthly things. He also smote his breast, striking it as it were because of the evil thoughts, and moreover rousing it as if asleep. And thus he sought only that God would be reconciled to him, as it follows, saying, God, be merciful. … But should any one perchance marvel that the Pharisee for uttering a few words in his own praise is condemned, while Job, though he poured forth many, is crowned, I answer, that the Pharisee spoke these at the same time that he groundlessly accused others; but Job was compelled by an urgent necessity to enumerate his own virtues for the glory of God, that men might not fall away from the path of virtue, wrote Theophilus.

The Pharisee thought his good deeds and righteous observances would be accounted to him. Paul's teaching on Justifications is a sharp departure. Saint Paul writings show time and again his various ways of identifying with Christ, according to the words of the New Testament. It's incredibly thematic in a number of areas. He claimed and taught the concept of humility and proclaimed it confidently throughout his writings. You've continual sentiments of yours, dont deal with even minor secondary or tertiary issues in regards to that by over-simplification. JLY, It has nothing to do with easy-believism but an attempt at an interpretation of Paul's words. I'd imagine a certain finesse and sophistication are both needful and required. You arent understanding the distinction by this easy-believism remark (of yours).

p.s. -- Like Jimemejz you are discounting anything you hear from the board; instead of examining the argument on its' own merits, point by point, K?

Awesome post!

JesusLovesYou
Posts: 474
Joined: 2006-12-09
Offline
danatemporary wrote: You

danatemporary wrote:

You arent understanding the distinction . .

#154 Catholic Theophilus on the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican
For the sake then of those that so trust in themselves, that they will not ascribe the whole to God, and therefore despise others, He puts forth a parable, to show that righteousness, although it may bring man up to God, yet if he is clothed with pride, casts him down to hell. … It is said “standing,” to denote his haughty temper. For his very posture betokens his extreme pride. … Observe the order of the Pharisee’s prayer. He first speaks of that which he had not, and then of that which he had. As it follows, That I am not as other men are. … It becomes us not only to shun evil, but also to do good; and so after having said, I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, he adds something by way of contrast, I fast twice in a week. They called the week the Sabbath, from the last day of rest. The Pharisees fasted upon the second and fifth day. He therefore set fasting against the passion of adultery, for lust is born of luxury; but to the extortioners and usurists he opposed the payment of tithes; as it follows, I give tithes of all I possess; as if he says, So far am I from indulging in extortion or injuring, that I even give up what is my own. … Although reported to have stood, the Publican yet differed from the Pharisee, both in his manner and his words, as well as in his having a contrite heart. For he feared to lift up his eyes to heaven, thinking unworthy of the heavenly vision those which had loved to gaze upon and wander after earthly things. He also smote his breast, striking it as it were because of the evil thoughts, and moreover rousing it as if asleep. And thus he sought only that God would be reconciled to him, as it follows, saying, God, be merciful. … But should any one perchance marvel that the Pharisee for uttering a few words in his own praise is condemned, while Job, though he poured forth many, is crowned, I answer, that the Pharisee spoke these at the same time that he groundlessly accused others; but Job was compelled by an urgent necessity to enumerate his own virtues for the glory of God, that men might not fall away from the path of virtue, wrote Theophilus.

The Pharisee thought his good deeds and righteous observances would be accounted to him. Paul's teaching on Justification  is a sharp departure. Saint Paul writings show time and again his various ways of identifying with Christ, according to the words of the New Testament. It's incredibly thematic in a number of areas. He claimed and taught the concept of humility and proclaimed it confidently throughout his writings. You've continual sentiments of yours, dont deal with even minor secondary or tertiary issues in regards to that by over-simplification. JLY, It has nothing to do with easy-believism but an attempt at an interpretation of Paul's words. I'd imagine a certain finesse and sophistication are both needful and required. You arent understanding the distinction by this easy-believism remark (of yours).

p.s. -- Like Jimemejz you are discounting anything you hear from the board; instead of examining the argument on its' own merits, point by point, K?

Finally the parable thrower says something decent.  Easy believism is a belief that all you need to do is say "I believe".  The Bible doesn't say that however.  Works have NOTHING to do with anything.  Paul was referring to SERVICE WORKS, not obeying the commands of the Lord, which are REPENTANCE and BAPTISM.  A true believer REPENTS, which is completely turning from one's sin and a true believer would NEVER say no to baptism.  An Athiest can feed the homeless, support child in Haiti, volunteer at a retirement home, and serve their community in many other ways.  Those were the works that Paul was addressing.  SERVICE WORKS.  An atheist is not gonig to heaven because they are a "good person" and helping the homeless.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
Offline

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
re:: Jcgadfly's position, is about the means of Justification

It sure is a good thing that Paul took away any need for you to actually live a holy life. You lot don't have to worry about sin either. Atheists and Christians have that in common.

JMLY (a.k.a. -- JLY) For whatever reason you give the impression of not grasping Jcgadfly's position. From what I gather, in terms you are more both accustomed and familiar with, jcgadflys read surrounds itself with Jesus' righteousness being placed on the believer through faith emphasis. Found in the New Testament Epistles (Pauline). Ex. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him (Christ) [is] that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). Primarily the idea of the area of "imputed righteousness", instead of going to the trouble of something earned (really earned and deserved), if I characterize Jcgadfly, rightly. Rife with the potential for abuse, with the emphasis placed on it. Along with Saint Paul's formulat(-ing, -tion) of a Soteriology based on faith as opposed to righteous deeds. p.p.s -- I 'm fully confident jcgadfly is more than capable of speaking for himself (and representing his own views on any subject). Reference the Quotation.

It's either that or JLY is taking my saying that Paul and his proteges who wrote the gospels did not believe repentance was a requirement for Christianity (belief is all that's needed). and building a fallacy that claimed that I said Paul never mentioned repentance.

You do not understand what belief is.  Let me give you an example.  You have a chair.  You believe that the chair is going to hold you up when you sit on it.  So what do you do YOU SIT ON THE CHAIR.  Belief is not just a statement.  If there is no REPENTANCE there is no belief.  If one does not REPENT there is disbelief.  So the statement that belief is all thats needed is true in the terms that WHEN YOU BELIEVE, certain actions accompany that belief.

So very wrong. Faith is not all belief - just an unfounded one.

Let me make your example a bit more realistic.

Me: I have a chair. I've seen other people of varying size sit in the chair. I've observed that the chair is structurally sound. Because of those observations I have an expectation that I will be able to sit in the chair. that is a belief, yes. It is based on evidence and observation. It is not faith.

You. You have a chair. You've seen other sit on it. You've seen that it is structurally sound. In spite of those observations, you approach the chair with fear and trepidation because you're not sure that the chair will hold you (but you really hope it does). You take this same approach each and every time you approach the chair. That's faith.

Your view of repentance is also a bit off.

You believe that repentance is not sinning after forgiveness. It is, in fact, simply a sincere desire to not sin. That's the part that I referred to earlier as "you promise to try really hard to not sin again". Repentance is the promise - not the trying.

No actions required in the forgiveness process - just asking and promises.

Eph 2:8-9

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

you tend to misread context alot.  You stated the Bible preaches "easy believism", belief with no action required.  That is terribly wrong.  When one believes in Christ, certain things follow that belief.  Those things are, as per the Bible, REPENTANCE and BAPTISM.  You gave a good verse, but a misunderstanding of it you have.  by grace, through what? FAITH! by grace through FAITH. When one has FAITH they BELIEVE in Christ, and as a believer they REPENT of their sins and will be baptized.  Repentance and baptism ARE NOT the works Paul is referring to.  "Good works" are service works. You failed to read verse 10.

No context to be misread unless you're adding some to it that isn't actually there... oh wait, you are. You're trying to make belief something you do instead of something you have.

Repentance is a promise to not do something again - not an effort to do it.

Baptism is an outward indication that you are a believer - again, not an actual effort to not sin.

Verse 10 is one of the other reasons why Paul disagrees with Jesus and James. Good thing there aren't any contradictions in the Bible, huh?

Paul and his students who wrote the gospels couldn't even get their own stories straight. What do you think that should tell you about your religion?

again, you can't come up with anything to counter the fact that the Bible is consistant so you come up with some garbage like "Paul and his students"

You again missed what I was saying.  I said actions FOLLOW belief, and without them there is really no true belief.  A believer would never say NO to baptism, a believer would NEVER be UNREPENTANT.

You misunderstand REPENTANCE.  REPENTANCE is totally turning your back on sin.  You must be thinking of Penance, which is what Catholics do, making a "promise", paying with some chants, and leaving.

YOU are a contradiction my friend.  On one hand you say "Paul and his students la la la are the reason for the continuity" and then you get caught in a tussle and now say "Paul and his students contradicted eachother" NEWSFLASH buddy, Paul and "other greeks" DID not contrive the NT.  Paul wrote letters to the churches he preached to, those are the Epistles.

The Synoptic Gospels are traditionally believed to be written by as follow:

Mark-A disciple of Peter

Matthew is traditionally believed written by the Apostle Matthew

Yes Luke is traditionally believed to be a disciple of Paul

HOWEVER, those 3 Gospels are believed to be from an unknown source referred to as Q

The Gospel of John, which is now found to be the earliest of the four, has been attributed to the Apostle John

Your outlandish theory is preposterous.  Go ahead just keep trying to invent things to try to convince yourself you are correct

You say actions follow belief yet the Bible and I say that actions aren't required for your belief to get you to your heaven.

I happily not that you haven't got anything to dispute what I brought up against faith and repentance so you deflected instead. and you can't even do that right.

You claim that the Bible is consistent in spite of being shown a glaring inconsistency (faith vs. works).

As for what you claim for the authorship of the gospels - tradition has nothing to with Biblical history and textual criticism. It is an unfounded belief that you defend against all evidence to the contrary aka faith.

No one knows who wrote Matthew - the majority of Biblical scholars say so. Since he wrote in Greek he was far more likely closer to Paul than Jesus and James.

Mark (according to tradition) was John Mark who was an apostle of Paul. Your tradition can't even get it right.

At least you got Luke right.

John was nowhere near the earliest of the four - there's at least an 80 year gap between Mark and John but I'd love to see your source for this. Or are you saying that John wrote it 50 years after his death? From wikipedia because I don't think you could handler harder evidence:

"Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[13][14] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[15][16][17][18][19][20] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John"

Again no one knowing who wrote the gospel of John.

Looks like my "outlandish theory" has a lot more proponents than yours.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

JesusLovesYou
Posts: 474
Joined: 2006-12-09
Offline

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
re:: Jcgadfly's position, is about the means of Justification

It sure is a good thing that Paul took away any need for you to actually live a holy life. You lot don't have to worry about sin either. Atheists and Christians have that in common.

JMLY (a.k.a. -- JLY) For whatever reason you give the impression of not grasping Jcgadfly's position. From what I gather, in terms you are more both accustomed and familiar with, jcgadflys read surrounds itself with Jesus' righteousness being placed on the believer through faith emphasis. Found in the New Testament Epistles (Pauline). Ex. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him (Christ) [is] that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). Primarily the idea of the area of "imputed righteousness", instead of going to the trouble of something earned (really earned and deserved), if I characterize Jcgadfly, rightly. Rife with the potential for abuse, with the emphasis placed on it. Along with Saint Paul's formulat(-ing, -tion) of a Soteriology based on faith as opposed to righteous deeds. p.p.s -- I 'm fully confident jcgadfly is more than capable of speaking for himself (and representing his own views on any subject). Reference the Quotation.

It's either that or JLY is taking my saying that Paul and his proteges who wrote the gospels did not believe repentance was a requirement for Christianity (belief is all that's needed). and building a fallacy that claimed that I said Paul never mentioned repentance.

You do not understand what belief is.  Let me give you an example.  You have a chair.  You believe that the chair is going to hold you up when you sit on it.  So what do you do YOU SIT ON THE CHAIR.  Belief is not just a statement.  If there is no REPENTANCE there is no belief.  If one does not REPENT there is disbelief.  So the statement that belief is all thats needed is true in the terms that WHEN YOU BELIEVE, certain actions accompany that belief.

So very wrong. Faith is not all belief - just an unfounded one.

Let me make your example a bit more realistic.

Me: I have a chair. I've seen other people of varying size sit in the chair. I've observed that the chair is structurally sound. Because of those observations I have an expectation that I will be able to sit in the chair. that is a belief, yes. It is based on evidence and observation. It is not faith.

You. You have a chair. You've seen other sit on it. You've seen that it is structurally sound. In spite of those observations, you approach the chair with fear and trepidation because you're not sure that the chair will hold you (but you really hope it does). You take this same approach each and every time you approach the chair. That's faith.

Your view of repentance is also a bit off.

You believe that repentance is not sinning after forgiveness. It is, in fact, simply a sincere desire to not sin. That's the part that I referred to earlier as "you promise to try really hard to not sin again". Repentance is the promise - not the trying.

No actions required in the forgiveness process - just asking and promises.

Eph 2:8-9

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

you tend to misread context alot.  You stated the Bible preaches "easy believism", belief with no action required.  That is terribly wrong.  When one believes in Christ, certain things follow that belief.  Those things are, as per the Bible, REPENTANCE and BAPTISM.  You gave a good verse, but a misunderstanding of it you have.  by grace, through what? FAITH! by grace through FAITH. When one has FAITH they BELIEVE in Christ, and as a believer they REPENT of their sins and will be baptized.  Repentance and baptism ARE NOT the works Paul is referring to.  "Good works" are service works. You failed to read verse 10.

No context to be misread unless you're adding some to it that isn't actually there... oh wait, you are. You're trying to make belief something you do instead of something you have.

Repentance is a promise to not do something again - not an effort to do it.

Baptism is an outward indication that you are a believer - again, not an actual effort to not sin.

Verse 10 is one of the other reasons why Paul disagrees with Jesus and James. Good thing there aren't any contradictions in the Bible, huh?

Paul and his students who wrote the gospels couldn't even get their own stories straight. What do you think that should tell you about your religion?

again, you can't come up with anything to counter the fact that the Bible is consistant so you come up with some garbage like "Paul and his students"

You again missed what I was saying.  I said actions FOLLOW belief, and without them there is really no true belief.  A believer would never say NO to baptism, a believer would NEVER be UNREPENTANT.

You misunderstand REPENTANCE.  REPENTANCE is totally turning your back on sin.  You must be thinking of Penance, which is what Catholics do, making a "promise", paying with some chants, and leaving.

YOU are a contradiction my friend.  On one hand you say "Paul and his students la la la are the reason for the continuity" and then you get caught in a tussle and now say "Paul and his students contradicted eachother" NEWSFLASH buddy, Paul and "other greeks" DID not contrive the NT.  Paul wrote letters to the churches he preached to, those are the Epistles.

The Synoptic Gospels are traditionally believed to be written by as follow:

Mark-A disciple of Peter

Matthew is traditionally believed written by the Apostle Matthew

Yes Luke is traditionally believed to be a disciple of Paul

HOWEVER, those 3 Gospels are believed to be from an unknown source referred to as Q

The Gospel of John, which is now found to be the earliest of the four, has been attributed to the Apostle John

Your outlandish theory is preposterous.  Go ahead just keep trying to invent things to try to convince yourself you are correct

You say actions follow belief yet the Bible and I say that actions aren't required for your belief to get you to your heaven.

I happily not that you haven't got anything to dispute what I brought up against faith and repentance so you deflected instead. and you can't even do that right.

You claim that the Bible is consistent in spite of being shown a glaring inconsistency (faith vs. works).

As for what you claim for the authorship of the gospels - tradition has nothing to with Biblical history and textual criticism. It is an unfounded belief that you defend against all evidence to the contrary aka faith.

No one knows who wrote Matthew - the majority of Biblical scholars say so. Since he wrote in Greek he was far more likely closer to Paul than Jesus and James.

Mark (according to tradition) was John Mark who was an apostle of Paul. Your tradition can't even get it right.

At least you got Luke right.

John was nowhere near the earliest of the four - there's at least an 80 year gap between Mark and John but I'd love to see your source for this. Or are you saying that John wrote it 50 years after his death? From wikipedia because I don't think you could handler harder evidence:

"Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[13][14] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[15][16][17][18][19][20] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John"

Again no one knowing who wrote the gospel of John.

Looks like my "outlandish theory" has a lot more proponents than yours.

p25 was found, dating John earlier than the synoptics.

Common sense is common sense.  Jesus gave us 3 commands REPENT, be BAPTIZED, and SPREAD THE GOSPEL.  un UNBELIEVER would not do ANY of those things.  NONE OF THEM.  REPENTANCE, BAPTISM, AND EVANGELISM ARE PART OF BELIEF.  Again, these works you speak of are SERVICE WORKS.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
Offline

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
re:: Jcgadfly's position, is about the means of Justification

It sure is a good thing that Paul took away any need for you to actually live a holy life. You lot don't have to worry about sin either. Atheists and Christians have that in common.

JMLY (a.k.a. -- JLY) For whatever reason you give the impression of not grasping Jcgadfly's position. From what I gather, in terms you are more both accustomed and familiar with, jcgadflys read surrounds itself with Jesus' righteousness being placed on the believer through faith emphasis. Found in the New Testament Epistles (Pauline). Ex. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him (Christ) [is] that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). Primarily the idea of the area of "imputed righteousness", instead of going to the trouble of something earned (really earned and deserved), if I characterize Jcgadfly, rightly. Rife with the potential for abuse, with the emphasis placed on it. Along with Saint Paul's formulat(-ing, -tion) of a Soteriology based on faith as opposed to righteous deeds. p.p.s -- I 'm fully confident jcgadfly is more than capable of speaking for himself (and representing his own views on any subject). Reference the Quotation.

It's either that or JLY is taking my saying that Paul and his proteges who wrote the gospels did not believe repentance was a requirement for Christianity (belief is all that's needed). and building a fallacy that claimed that I said Paul never mentioned repentance.

You do not understand what belief is.  Let me give you an example.  You have a chair.  You believe that the chair is going to hold you up when you sit on it.  So what do you do YOU SIT ON THE CHAIR.  Belief is not just a statement.  If there is no REPENTANCE there is no belief.  If one does not REPENT there is disbelief.  So the statement that belief is all thats needed is true in the terms that WHEN YOU BELIEVE, certain actions accompany that belief.

So very wrong. Faith is not all belief - just an unfounded one.

Let me make your example a bit more realistic.

Me: I have a chair. I've seen other people of varying size sit in the chair. I've observed that the chair is structurally sound. Because of those observations I have an expectation that I will be able to sit in the chair. that is a belief, yes. It is based on evidence and observation. It is not faith.

You. You have a chair. You've seen other sit on it. You've seen that it is structurally sound. In spite of those observations, you approach the chair with fear and trepidation because you're not sure that the chair will hold you (but you really hope it does). You take this same approach each and every time you approach the chair. That's faith.

Your view of repentance is also a bit off.

You believe that repentance is not sinning after forgiveness. It is, in fact, simply a sincere desire to not sin. That's the part that I referred to earlier as "you promise to try really hard to not sin again". Repentance is the promise - not the trying.

No actions required in the forgiveness process - just asking and promises.

Eph 2:8-9

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

you tend to misread context alot.  You stated the Bible preaches "easy believism", belief with no action required.  That is terribly wrong.  When one believes in Christ, certain things follow that belief.  Those things are, as per the Bible, REPENTANCE and BAPTISM.  You gave a good verse, but a misunderstanding of it you have.  by grace, through what? FAITH! by grace through FAITH. When one has FAITH they BELIEVE in Christ, and as a believer they REPENT of their sins and will be baptized.  Repentance and baptism ARE NOT the works Paul is referring to.  "Good works" are service works. You failed to read verse 10.

No context to be misread unless you're adding some to it that isn't actually there... oh wait, you are. You're trying to make belief something you do instead of something you have.

Repentance is a promise to not do something again - not an effort to do it.

Baptism is an outward indication that you are a believer - again, not an actual effort to not sin.

Verse 10 is one of the other reasons why Paul disagrees with Jesus and James. Good thing there aren't any contradictions in the Bible, huh?

Paul and his students who wrote the gospels couldn't even get their own stories straight. What do you think that should tell you about your religion?

again, you can't come up with anything to counter the fact that the Bible is consistant so you come up with some garbage like "Paul and his students"

You again missed what I was saying.  I said actions FOLLOW belief, and without them there is really no true belief.  A believer would never say NO to baptism, a believer would NEVER be UNREPENTANT.

You misunderstand REPENTANCE.  REPENTANCE is totally turning your back on sin.  You must be thinking of Penance, which is what Catholics do, making a "promise", paying with some chants, and leaving.

YOU are a contradiction my friend.  On one hand you say "Paul and his students la la la are the reason for the continuity" and then you get caught in a tussle and now say "Paul and his students contradicted eachother" NEWSFLASH buddy, Paul and "other greeks" DID not contrive the NT.  Paul wrote letters to the churches he preached to, those are the Epistles.

The Synoptic Gospels are traditionally believed to be written by as follow:

Mark-A disciple of Peter

Matthew is traditionally believed written by the Apostle Matthew

Yes Luke is traditionally believed to be a disciple of Paul

HOWEVER, those 3 Gospels are believed to be from an unknown source referred to as Q

The Gospel of John, which is now found to be the earliest of the four, has been attributed to the Apostle John

Your outlandish theory is preposterous.  Go ahead just keep trying to invent things to try to convince yourself you are correct

You say actions follow belief yet the Bible and I say that actions aren't required for your belief to get you to your heaven.

I happily not that you haven't got anything to dispute what I brought up against faith and repentance so you deflected instead. and you can't even do that right.

You claim that the Bible is consistent in spite of being shown a glaring inconsistency (faith vs. works).

As for what you claim for the authorship of the gospels - tradition has nothing to with Biblical history and textual criticism. It is an unfounded belief that you defend against all evidence to the contrary aka faith.

No one knows who wrote Matthew - the majority of Biblical scholars say so. Since he wrote in Greek he was far more likely closer to Paul than Jesus and James.

Mark (according to tradition) was John Mark who was an apostle of Paul. Your tradition can't even get it right.

At least you got Luke right.

John was nowhere near the earliest of the four - there's at least an 80 year gap between Mark and John but I'd love to see your source for this. Or are you saying that John wrote it 50 years after his death? From wikipedia because I don't think you could handler harder evidence:

"Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[13][14] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[15][16][17][18][19][20] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John"

Again no one knowing who wrote the gospel of John.

Looks like my "outlandish theory" has a lot more proponents than yours.

p25 was found, dating John earlier than the synoptics.

Common sense is common sense.  Jesus gave us 3 commands REPENT, be BAPTIZED, and SPREAD THE GOSPEL.  un UNBELIEVER would not do ANY of those things.  NONE OF THEM.  REPENTANCE, BAPTISM, AND EVANGELISM ARE PART OF BELIEF.  Again, these works you speak of are SERVICE WORKS.

Link please? The only Greek P25 I've seen covers parts of Matthew.

Or are you just pulling this out from the manure pile where your other apologetics are stored?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

JesusLovesYou
Posts: 474
Joined: 2006-12-09
Offline

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
re:: Jcgadfly's position, is about the means of Justification

It sure is a good thing that Paul took away any need for you to actually live a holy life. You lot don't have to worry about sin either. Atheists and Christians have that in common.

JMLY (a.k.a. -- JLY) For whatever reason you give the impression of not grasping Jcgadfly's position. From what I gather, in terms you are more both accustomed and familiar with, jcgadflys read surrounds itself with Jesus' righteousness being placed on the believer through faith emphasis. Found in the New Testament Epistles (Pauline). Ex. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him (Christ) [is] that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). Primarily the idea of the area of "imputed righteousness", instead of going to the trouble of something earned (really earned and deserved), if I characterize Jcgadfly, rightly. Rife with the potential for abuse, with the emphasis placed on it. Along with Saint Paul's formulat(-ing, -tion) of a Soteriology based on faith as opposed to righteous deeds. p.p.s -- I 'm fully confident jcgadfly is more than capable of speaking for himself (and representing his own views on any subject). Reference the Quotation.

It's either that or JLY is taking my saying that Paul and his proteges who wrote the gospels did not believe repentance was a requirement for Christianity (belief is all that's needed). and building a fallacy that claimed that I said Paul never mentioned repentance.

You do not understand what belief is.  Let me give you an example.  You have a chair.  You believe that the chair is going to hold you up when you sit on it.  So what do you do YOU SIT ON THE CHAIR.  Belief is not just a statement.  If there is no REPENTANCE there is no belief.  If one does not REPENT there is disbelief.  So the statement that belief is all thats needed is true in the terms that WHEN YOU BELIEVE, certain actions accompany that belief.

So very wrong. Faith is not all belief - just an unfounded one.

Let me make your example a bit more realistic.

Me: I have a chair. I've seen other people of varying size sit in the chair. I've observed that the chair is structurally sound. Because of those observations I have an expectation that I will be able to sit in the chair. that is a belief, yes. It is based on evidence and observation. It is not faith.

You. You have a chair. You've seen other sit on it. You've seen that it is structurally sound. In spite of those observations, you approach the chair with fear and trepidation because you're not sure that the chair will hold you (but you really hope it does). You take this same approach each and every time you approach the chair. That's faith.

Your view of repentance is also a bit off.

You believe that repentance is not sinning after forgiveness. It is, in fact, simply a sincere desire to not sin. That's the part that I referred to earlier as "you promise to try really hard to not sin again". Repentance is the promise - not the trying.

No actions required in the forgiveness process - just asking and promises.

Eph 2:8-9

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

you tend to misread context alot.  You stated the Bible preaches "easy believism", belief with no action required.  That is terribly wrong.  When one believes in Christ, certain things follow that belief.  Those things are, as per the Bible, REPENTANCE and BAPTISM.  You gave a good verse, but a misunderstanding of it you have.  by grace, through what? FAITH! by grace through FAITH. When one has FAITH they BELIEVE in Christ, and as a believer they REPENT of their sins and will be baptized.  Repentance and baptism ARE NOT the works Paul is referring to.  "Good works" are service works. You failed to read verse 10.

No context to be misread unless you're adding some to it that isn't actually there... oh wait, you are. You're trying to make belief something you do instead of something you have.

Repentance is a promise to not do something again - not an effort to do it.

Baptism is an outward indication that you are a believer - again, not an actual effort to not sin.

Verse 10 is one of the other reasons why Paul disagrees with Jesus and James. Good thing there aren't any contradictions in the Bible, huh?

Paul and his students who wrote the gospels couldn't even get their own stories straight. What do you think that should tell you about your religion?

again, you can't come up with anything to counter the fact that the Bible is consistant so you come up with some garbage like "Paul and his students"

You again missed what I was saying.  I said actions FOLLOW belief, and without them there is really no true belief.  A believer would never say NO to baptism, a believer would NEVER be UNREPENTANT.

You misunderstand REPENTANCE.  REPENTANCE is totally turning your back on sin.  You must be thinking of Penance, which is what Catholics do, making a "promise", paying with some chants, and leaving.

YOU are a contradiction my friend.  On one hand you say "Paul and his students la la la are the reason for the continuity" and then you get caught in a tussle and now say "Paul and his students contradicted eachother" NEWSFLASH buddy, Paul and "other greeks" DID not contrive the NT.  Paul wrote letters to the churches he preached to, those are the Epistles.

The Synoptic Gospels are traditionally believed to be written by as follow:

Mark-A disciple of Peter

Matthew is traditionally believed written by the Apostle Matthew

Yes Luke is traditionally believed to be a disciple of Paul

HOWEVER, those 3 Gospels are believed to be from an unknown source referred to as Q

The Gospel of John, which is now found to be the earliest of the four, has been attributed to the Apostle John

Your outlandish theory is preposterous.  Go ahead just keep trying to invent things to try to convince yourself you are correct

You say actions follow belief yet the Bible and I say that actions aren't required for your belief to get you to your heaven.

I happily not that you haven't got anything to dispute what I brought up against faith and repentance so you deflected instead. and you can't even do that right.

You claim that the Bible is consistent in spite of being shown a glaring inconsistency (faith vs. works).

As for what you claim for the authorship of the gospels - tradition has nothing to with Biblical history and textual criticism. It is an unfounded belief that you defend against all evidence to the contrary aka faith.

No one knows who wrote Matthew - the majority of Biblical scholars say so. Since he wrote in Greek he was far more likely closer to Paul than Jesus and James.

Mark (according to tradition) was John Mark who was an apostle of Paul. Your tradition can't even get it right.

At least you got Luke right.

John was nowhere near the earliest of the four - there's at least an 80 year gap between Mark and John but I'd love to see your source for this. Or are you saying that John wrote it 50 years after his death? From wikipedia because I don't think you could handler harder evidence:

"Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[13][14] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[15][16][17][18][19][20] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John"

Again no one knowing who wrote the gospel of John.

Looks like my "outlandish theory" has a lot more proponents than yours.

p25 was found, dating John earlier than the synoptics.

Common sense is common sense.  Jesus gave us 3 commands REPENT, be BAPTIZED, and SPREAD THE GOSPEL.  un UNBELIEVER would not do ANY of those things.  NONE OF THEM.  REPENTANCE, BAPTISM, AND EVANGELISM ARE PART OF BELIEF.  Again, these works you speak of are SERVICE WORKS.

Link please? The only Greek P25 I've seen covers parts of Matthew.

Or are you just pulling this out from the manure pile where your other apologetics are stored?

Excuse my dislexic typing. P52

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
Offline

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
re:: Jcgadfly's position, is about the means of Justification

It sure is a good thing that Paul took away any need for you to actually live a holy life. You lot don't have to worry about sin either. Atheists and Christians have that in common.

JMLY (a.k.a. -- JLY) For whatever reason you give the impression of not grasping Jcgadfly's position. From what I gather, in terms you are more both accustomed and familiar with, jcgadflys read surrounds itself with Jesus' righteousness being placed on the believer through faith emphasis. Found in the New Testament Epistles (Pauline). Ex. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him (Christ) [is] that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). Primarily the idea of the area of "imputed righteousness", instead of going to the trouble of something earned (really earned and deserved), if I characterize Jcgadfly, rightly. Rife with the potential for abuse, with the emphasis placed on it. Along with Saint Paul's formulat(-ing, -tion) of a Soteriology based on faith as opposed to righteous deeds. p.p.s -- I 'm fully confident jcgadfly is more than capable of speaking for himself (and representing his own views on any subject). Reference the Quotation.

It's either that or JLY is taking my saying that Paul and his proteges who wrote the gospels did not believe repentance was a requirement for Christianity (belief is all that's needed). and building a fallacy that claimed that I said Paul never mentioned repentance.

You do not understand what belief is.  Let me give you an example.  You have a chair.  You believe that the chair is going to hold you up when you sit on it.  So what do you do YOU SIT ON THE CHAIR.  Belief is not just a statement.  If there is no REPENTANCE there is no belief.  If one does not REPENT there is disbelief.  So the statement that belief is all thats needed is true in the terms that WHEN YOU BELIEVE, certain actions accompany that belief.

So very wrong. Faith is not all belief - just an unfounded one.

Let me make your example a bit more realistic.

Me: I have a chair. I've seen other people of varying size sit in the chair. I've observed that the chair is structurally sound. Because of those observations I have an expectation that I will be able to sit in the chair. that is a belief, yes. It is based on evidence and observation. It is not faith.

You. You have a chair. You've seen other sit on it. You've seen that it is structurally sound. In spite of those observations, you approach the chair with fear and trepidation because you're not sure that the chair will hold you (but you really hope it does). You take this same approach each and every time you approach the chair. That's faith.

Your view of repentance is also a bit off.

You believe that repentance is not sinning after forgiveness. It is, in fact, simply a sincere desire to not sin. That's the part that I referred to earlier as "you promise to try really hard to not sin again". Repentance is the promise - not the trying.

No actions required in the forgiveness process - just asking and promises.

Eph 2:8-9

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

you tend to misread context alot.  You stated the Bible preaches "easy believism", belief with no action required.  That is terribly wrong.  When one believes in Christ, certain things follow that belief.  Those things are, as per the Bible, REPENTANCE and BAPTISM.  You gave a good verse, but a misunderstanding of it you have.  by grace, through what? FAITH! by grace through FAITH. When one has FAITH they BELIEVE in Christ, and as a believer they REPENT of their sins and will be baptized.  Repentance and baptism ARE NOT the works Paul is referring to.  "Good works" are service works. You failed to read verse 10.

No context to be misread unless you're adding some to it that isn't actually there... oh wait, you are. You're trying to make belief something you do instead of something you have.

Repentance is a promise to not do something again - not an effort to do it.

Baptism is an outward indication that you are a believer - again, not an actual effort to not sin.

Verse 10 is one of the other reasons why Paul disagrees with Jesus and James. Good thing there aren't any contradictions in the Bible, huh?

Paul and his students who wrote the gospels couldn't even get their own stories straight. What do you think that should tell you about your religion?

again, you can't come up with anything to counter the fact that the Bible is consistant so you come up with some garbage like "Paul and his students"

You again missed what I was saying.  I said actions FOLLOW belief, and without them there is really no true belief.  A believer would never say NO to baptism, a believer would NEVER be UNREPENTANT.

You misunderstand REPENTANCE.  REPENTANCE is totally turning your back on sin.  You must be thinking of Penance, which is what Catholics do, making a "promise", paying with some chants, and leaving.

YOU are a contradiction my friend.  On one hand you say "Paul and his students la la la are the reason for the continuity" and then you get caught in a tussle and now say "Paul and his students contradicted eachother" NEWSFLASH buddy, Paul and "other greeks" DID not contrive the NT.  Paul wrote letters to the churches he preached to, those are the Epistles.

The Synoptic Gospels are traditionally believed to be written by as follow:

Mark-A disciple of Peter

Matthew is traditionally believed written by the Apostle Matthew

Yes Luke is traditionally believed to be a disciple of Paul

HOWEVER, those 3 Gospels are believed to be from an unknown source referred to as Q

The Gospel of John, which is now found to be the earliest of the four, has been attributed to the Apostle John

Your outlandish theory is preposterous.  Go ahead just keep trying to invent things to try to convince yourself you are correct

You say actions follow belief yet the Bible and I say that actions aren't required for your belief to get you to your heaven.

I happily not that you haven't got anything to dispute what I brought up against faith and repentance so you deflected instead. and you can't even do that right.

You claim that the Bible is consistent in spite of being shown a glaring inconsistency (faith vs. works).

As for what you claim for the authorship of the gospels - tradition has nothing to with Biblical history and textual criticism. It is an unfounded belief that you defend against all evidence to the contrary aka faith.

No one knows who wrote Matthew - the majority of Biblical scholars say so. Since he wrote in Greek he was far more likely closer to Paul than Jesus and James.

Mark (according to tradition) was John Mark who was an apostle of Paul. Your tradition can't even get it right.

At least you got Luke right.

John was nowhere near the earliest of the four - there's at least an 80 year gap between Mark and John but I'd love to see your source for this. Or are you saying that John wrote it 50 years after his death? From wikipedia because I don't think you could handler harder evidence:

"Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[13][14] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[15][16][17][18][19][20] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John"

Again no one knowing who wrote the gospel of John.

Looks like my "outlandish theory" has a lot more proponents than yours.

p25 was found, dating John earlier than the synoptics.

Common sense is common sense.  Jesus gave us 3 commands REPENT, be BAPTIZED, and SPREAD THE GOSPEL.  un UNBELIEVER would not do ANY of those things.  NONE OF THEM.  REPENTANCE, BAPTISM, AND EVANGELISM ARE PART OF BELIEF.  Again, these works you speak of are SERVICE WORKS.

Link please? The only Greek P25 I've seen covers parts of Matthew.

Or are you just pulling this out from the manure pile where your other apologetics are stored?

Excuse my dislexic typing. P52

Your dyslexia is not a problem - I've seen no evidence for dog a few times and had to edit it.

Unfortunately, that papyrus proves nothing of the kind. From wikipedia:

"Although Rylands $\mathfrak{P}$52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text,[2] the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among scholars. The style of the script is strongly Hadrianic, which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE"

So it still lists John as anywhere from 30 to 120 years after Mark and some scholars ay older than that). Not a word about it being earlier - where did you get your information?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

JesusLovesYou
Posts: 474
Joined: 2006-12-09
Offline

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
re:: Jcgadfly's position, is about the means of Justification

It sure is a good thing that Paul took away any need for you to actually live a holy life. You lot don't have to worry about sin either. Atheists and Christians have that in common.

JMLY (a.k.a. -- JLY) For whatever reason you give the impression of not grasping Jcgadfly's position. From what I gather, in terms you are more both accustomed and familiar with, jcgadflys read surrounds itself with Jesus' righteousness being placed on the believer through faith emphasis. Found in the New Testament Epistles (Pauline). Ex. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him (Christ) [is] that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). Primarily the idea of the area of "imputed righteousness", instead of going to the trouble of something earned (really earned and deserved), if I characterize Jcgadfly, rightly. Rife with the potential for abuse, with the emphasis placed on it. Along with Saint Paul's formulat(-ing, -tion) of a Soteriology based on faith as opposed to righteous deeds. p.p.s -- I 'm fully confident jcgadfly is more than capable of speaking for himself (and representing his own views on any subject). Reference the Quotation.

It's either that or JLY is taking my saying that Paul and his proteges who wrote the gospels did not believe repentance was a requirement for Christianity (belief is all that's needed). and building a fallacy that claimed that I said Paul never mentioned repentance.

You do not understand what belief is.  Let me give you an example.  You have a chair.  You believe that the chair is going to hold you up when you sit on it.  So what do you do YOU SIT ON THE CHAIR.  Belief is not just a statement.  If there is no REPENTANCE there is no belief.  If one does not REPENT there is disbelief.  So the statement that belief is all thats needed is true in the terms that WHEN YOU BELIEVE, certain actions accompany that belief.

So very wrong. Faith is not all belief - just an unfounded one.

Let me make your example a bit more realistic.

Me: I have a chair. I've seen other people of varying size sit in the chair. I've observed that the chair is structurally sound. Because of those observations I have an expectation that I will be able to sit in the chair. that is a belief, yes. It is based on evidence and observation. It is not faith.

You. You have a chair. You've seen other sit on it. You've seen that it is structurally sound. In spite of those observations, you approach the chair with fear and trepidation because you're not sure that the chair will hold you (but you really hope it does). You take this same approach each and every time you approach the chair. That's faith.

Your view of repentance is also a bit off.

You believe that repentance is not sinning after forgiveness. It is, in fact, simply a sincere desire to not sin. That's the part that I referred to earlier as "you promise to try really hard to not sin again". Repentance is the promise - not the trying.

No actions required in the forgiveness process - just asking and promises.

Eph 2:8-9

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

you tend to misread context alot.  You stated the Bible preaches "easy believism", belief with no action required.  That is terribly wrong.  When one believes in Christ, certain things follow that belief.  Those things are, as per the Bible, REPENTANCE and BAPTISM.  You gave a good verse, but a misunderstanding of it you have.  by grace, through what? FAITH! by grace through FAITH. When one has FAITH they BELIEVE in Christ, and as a believer they REPENT of their sins and will be baptized.  Repentance and baptism ARE NOT the works Paul is referring to.  "Good works" are service works. You failed to read verse 10.

No context to be misread unless you're adding some to it that isn't actually there... oh wait, you are. You're trying to make belief something you do instead of something you have.

Repentance is a promise to not do something again - not an effort to do it.

Baptism is an outward indication that you are a believer - again, not an actual effort to not sin.

Verse 10 is one of the other reasons why Paul disagrees with Jesus and James. Good thing there aren't any contradictions in the Bible, huh?

Paul and his students who wrote the gospels couldn't even get their own stories straight. What do you think that should tell you about your religion?

again, you can't come up with anything to counter the fact that the Bible is consistant so you come up with some garbage like "Paul and his students"

You again missed what I was saying.  I said actions FOLLOW belief, and without them there is really no true belief.  A believer would never say NO to baptism, a believer would NEVER be UNREPENTANT.

You misunderstand REPENTANCE.  REPENTANCE is totally turning your back on sin.  You must be thinking of Penance, which is what Catholics do, making a "promise", paying with some chants, and leaving.

YOU are a contradiction my friend.  On one hand you say "Paul and his students la la la are the reason for the continuity" and then you get caught in a tussle and now say "Paul and his students contradicted eachother" NEWSFLASH buddy, Paul and "other greeks" DID not contrive the NT.  Paul wrote letters to the churches he preached to, those are the Epistles.

The Synoptic Gospels are traditionally believed to be written by as follow:

Mark-A disciple of Peter

Matthew is traditionally believed written by the Apostle Matthew

Yes Luke is traditionally believed to be a disciple of Paul

HOWEVER, those 3 Gospels are believed to be from an unknown source referred to as Q

The Gospel of John, which is now found to be the earliest of the four, has been attributed to the Apostle John

Your outlandish theory is preposterous.  Go ahead just keep trying to invent things to try to convince yourself you are correct

You say actions follow belief yet the Bible and I say that actions aren't required for your belief to get you to your heaven.

I happily not that you haven't got anything to dispute what I brought up against faith and repentance so you deflected instead. and you can't even do that right.

You claim that the Bible is consistent in spite of being shown a glaring inconsistency (faith vs. works).

As for what you claim for the authorship of the gospels - tradition has nothing to with Biblical history and textual criticism. It is an unfounded belief that you defend against all evidence to the contrary aka faith.

No one knows who wrote Matthew - the majority of Biblical scholars say so. Since he wrote in Greek he was far more likely closer to Paul than Jesus and James.

Mark (according to tradition) was John Mark who was an apostle of Paul. Your tradition can't even get it right.

At least you got Luke right.

John was nowhere near the earliest of the four - there's at least an 80 year gap between Mark and John but I'd love to see your source for this. Or are you saying that John wrote it 50 years after his death? From wikipedia because I don't think you could handler harder evidence:

"Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[13][14] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[15][16][17][18][19][20] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John"

Again no one knowing who wrote the gospel of John.

Looks like my "outlandish theory" has a lot more proponents than yours.

p25 was found, dating John earlier than the synoptics.

Common sense is common sense.  Jesus gave us 3 commands REPENT, be BAPTIZED, and SPREAD THE GOSPEL.  un UNBELIEVER would not do ANY of those things.  NONE OF THEM.  REPENTANCE, BAPTISM, AND EVANGELISM ARE PART OF BELIEF.  Again, these works you speak of are SERVICE WORKS.

Link please? The only Greek P25 I've seen covers parts of Matthew.

Or are you just pulling this out from the manure pile where your other apologetics are stored?

Excuse my dislexic typing. P52

Your dyslexia is not a problem - I've seen no evidence for dog a few times and had to edit it.

Unfortunately, that papyrus proves nothing of the kind. From wikipedia:

"Although Rylands $\mathfrak{P}$52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text,[2] the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among scholars. The style of the script is strongly Hadrianic, which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE"

So it still lists John as anywhere from 30 to 120 years after Mark and some scholars ay older than that). Not a word about it being earlier - where did you get your information?

Whether you are right or wrong, presumably wrong, it does no harm to the truth of the scriptures.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
Offline

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
re:: Jcgadfly's position, is about the means of Justification

It sure is a good thing that Paul took away any need for you to actually live a holy life. You lot don't have to worry about sin either. Atheists and Christians have that in common.

JMLY (a.k.a. -- JLY) For whatever reason you give the impression of not grasping Jcgadfly's position. From what I gather, in terms you are more both accustomed and familiar with, jcgadflys read surrounds itself with Jesus' righteousness being placed on the believer through faith emphasis. Found in the New Testament Epistles (Pauline). Ex. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him (Christ) [is] that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). Primarily the idea of the area of "imputed righteousness", instead of going to the trouble of something earned (really earned and deserved), if I characterize Jcgadfly, rightly. Rife with the potential for abuse, with the emphasis placed on it. Along with Saint Paul's formulat(-ing, -tion) of a Soteriology based on faith as opposed to righteous deeds. p.p.s -- I 'm fully confident jcgadfly is more than capable of speaking for himself (and representing his own views on any subject). Reference the Quotation.

It's either that or JLY is taking my saying that Paul and his proteges who wrote the gospels did not believe repentance was a requirement for Christianity (belief is all that's needed). and building a fallacy that claimed that I said Paul never mentioned repentance.

You do not understand what belief is.  Let me give you an example.  You have a chair.  You believe that the chair is going to hold you up when you sit on it.  So what do you do YOU SIT ON THE CHAIR.  Belief is not just a statement.  If there is no REPENTANCE there is no belief.  If one does not REPENT there is disbelief.  So the statement that belief is all thats needed is true in the terms that WHEN YOU BELIEVE, certain actions accompany that belief.

So very wrong. Faith is not all belief - just an unfounded one.

Let me make your example a bit more realistic.

Me: I have a chair. I've seen other people of varying size sit in the chair. I've observed that the chair is structurally sound. Because of those observations I have an expectation that I will be able to sit in the chair. that is a belief, yes. It is based on evidence and observation. It is not faith.

You. You have a chair. You've seen other sit on it. You've seen that it is structurally sound. In spite of those observations, you approach the chair with fear and trepidation because you're not sure that the chair will hold you (but you really hope it does). You take this same approach each and every time you approach the chair. That's faith.

Your view of repentance is also a bit off.

You believe that repentance is not sinning after forgiveness. It is, in fact, simply a sincere desire to not sin. That's the part that I referred to earlier as "you promise to try really hard to not sin again". Repentance is the promise - not the trying.

No actions required in the forgiveness process - just asking and promises.

Eph 2:8-9

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

you tend to misread context alot.  You stated the Bible preaches "easy believism", belief with no action required.  That is terribly wrong.  When one believes in Christ, certain things follow that belief.  Those things are, as per the Bible, REPENTANCE and BAPTISM.  You gave a good verse, but a misunderstanding of it you have.  by grace, through what? FAITH! by grace through FAITH. When one has FAITH they BELIEVE in Christ, and as a believer they REPENT of their sins and will be baptized.  Repentance and baptism ARE NOT the works Paul is referring to.  "Good works" are service works. You failed to read verse 10.

No context to be misread unless you're adding some to it that isn't actually there... oh wait, you are. You're trying to make belief something you do instead of something you have.

Repentance is a promise to not do something again - not an effort to do it.

Baptism is an outward indication that you are a believer - again, not an actual effort to not sin.

Verse 10 is one of the other reasons why Paul disagrees with Jesus and James. Good thing there aren't any contradictions in the Bible, huh?

Paul and his students who wrote the gospels couldn't even get their own stories straight. What do you think that should tell you about your religion?

again, you can't come up with anything to counter the fact that the Bible is consistant so you come up with some garbage like "Paul and his students"

You again missed what I was saying.  I said actions FOLLOW belief, and without them there is really no true belief.  A believer would never say NO to baptism, a believer would NEVER be UNREPENTANT.

You misunderstand REPENTANCE.  REPENTANCE is totally turning your back on sin.  You must be thinking of Penance, which is what Catholics do, making a "promise", paying with some chants, and leaving.

YOU are a contradiction my friend.  On one hand you say "Paul and his students la la la are the reason for the continuity" and then you get caught in a tussle and now say "Paul and his students contradicted eachother" NEWSFLASH buddy, Paul and "other greeks" DID not contrive the NT.  Paul wrote letters to the churches he preached to, those are the Epistles.

The Synoptic Gospels are traditionally believed to be written by as follow:

Mark-A disciple of Peter

Matthew is traditionally believed written by the Apostle Matthew

Yes Luke is traditionally believed to be a disciple of Paul

HOWEVER, those 3 Gospels are believed to be from an unknown source referred to as Q

The Gospel of John, which is now found to be the earliest of the four, has been attributed to the Apostle John

Your outlandish theory is preposterous.  Go ahead just keep trying to invent things to try to convince yourself you are correct

You say actions follow belief yet the Bible and I say that actions aren't required for your belief to get you to your heaven.

I happily not that you haven't got anything to dispute what I brought up against faith and repentance so you deflected instead. and you can't even do that right.

You claim that the Bible is consistent in spite of being shown a glaring inconsistency (faith vs. works).

As for what you claim for the authorship of the gospels - tradition has nothing to with Biblical history and textual criticism. It is an unfounded belief that you defend against all evidence to the contrary aka faith.

No one knows who wrote Matthew - the majority of Biblical scholars say so. Since he wrote in Greek he was far more likely closer to Paul than Jesus and James.

Mark (according to tradition) was John Mark who was an apostle of Paul. Your tradition can't even get it right.

At least you got Luke right.

John was nowhere near the earliest of the four - there's at least an 80 year gap between Mark and John but I'd love to see your source for this. Or are you saying that John wrote it 50 years after his death? From wikipedia because I don't think you could handler harder evidence:

"Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[13][14] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[15][16][17][18][19][20] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John"

Again no one knowing who wrote the gospel of John.

Looks like my "outlandish theory" has a lot more proponents than yours.

p25 was found, dating John earlier than the synoptics.

Common sense is common sense.  Jesus gave us 3 commands REPENT, be BAPTIZED, and SPREAD THE GOSPEL.  un UNBELIEVER would not do ANY of those things.  NONE OF THEM.  REPENTANCE, BAPTISM, AND EVANGELISM ARE PART OF BELIEF.  Again, these works you speak of are SERVICE WORKS.

Link please? The only Greek P25 I've seen covers parts of Matthew.

Or are you just pulling this out from the manure pile where your other apologetics are stored?

Excuse my dislexic typing. P52

Your dyslexia is not a problem - I've seen no evidence for dog a few times and had to edit it.

Unfortunately, that papyrus proves nothing of the kind. From wikipedia:

"Although Rylands $\mathfrak{P}$52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text,[2] the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among scholars. The style of the script is strongly Hadrianic, which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE"

So it still lists John as anywhere from 30 to 120 years after Mark and some scholars ay older than that). Not a word about it being earlier - where did you get your information?

Whether you are right or wrong, presumably wrong, it does no harm to the truth of the scriptures.

Or the lack of truth in the Scriptures since there is more of that out there. As you have been shown.

Since all you have is your presumption that I'm wrong because you are offended at my lack of belief can I consider your incorrect dating of John closed?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

JesusLovesYou
Posts: 474
Joined: 2006-12-09
Offline

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
re:: Jcgadfly's position, is about the means of Justification

It sure is a good thing that Paul took away any need for you to actually live a holy life. You lot don't have to worry about sin either. Atheists and Christians have that in common.

JMLY (a.k.a. -- JLY) For whatever reason you give the impression of not grasping Jcgadfly's position. From what I gather, in terms you are more both accustomed and familiar with, jcgadflys read surrounds itself with Jesus' righteousness being placed on the believer through faith emphasis. Found in the New Testament Epistles (Pauline). Ex. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him (Christ) [is] that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). Primarily the idea of the area of "imputed righteousness", instead of going to the trouble of something earned (really earned and deserved), if I characterize Jcgadfly, rightly. Rife with the potential for abuse, with the emphasis placed on it. Along with Saint Paul's formulat(-ing, -tion) of a Soteriology based on faith as opposed to righteous deeds. p.p.s -- I 'm fully confident jcgadfly is more than capable of speaking for himself (and representing his own views on any subject). Reference the Quotation.

It's either that or JLY is taking my saying that Paul and his proteges who wrote the gospels did not believe repentance was a requirement for Christianity (belief is all that's needed). and building a fallacy that claimed that I said Paul never mentioned repentance.

You do not understand what belief is.  Let me give you an example.  You have a chair.  You believe that the chair is going to hold you up when you sit on it.  So what do you do YOU SIT ON THE CHAIR.  Belief is not just a statement.  If there is no REPENTANCE there is no belief.  If one does not REPENT there is disbelief.  So the statement that belief is all thats needed is true in the terms that WHEN YOU BELIEVE, certain actions accompany that belief.

So very wrong. Faith is not all belief - just an unfounded one.

Let me make your example a bit more realistic.

Me: I have a chair. I've seen other people of varying size sit in the chair. I've observed that the chair is structurally sound. Because of those observations I have an expectation that I will be able to sit in the chair. that is a belief, yes. It is based on evidence and observation. It is not faith.

You. You have a chair. You've seen other sit on it. You've seen that it is structurally sound. In spite of those observations, you approach the chair with fear and trepidation because you're not sure that the chair will hold you (but you really hope it does). You take this same approach each and every time you approach the chair. That's faith.

Your view of repentance is also a bit off.

You believe that repentance is not sinning after forgiveness. It is, in fact, simply a sincere desire to not sin. That's the part that I referred to earlier as "you promise to try really hard to not sin again". Repentance is the promise - not the trying.

No actions required in the forgiveness process - just asking and promises.

Eph 2:8-9

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

you tend to misread context alot.  You stated the Bible preaches "easy believism", belief with no action required.  That is terribly wrong.  When one believes in Christ, certain things follow that belief.  Those things are, as per the Bible, REPENTANCE and BAPTISM.  You gave a good verse, but a misunderstanding of it you have.  by grace, through what? FAITH! by grace through FAITH. When one has FAITH they BELIEVE in Christ, and as a believer they REPENT of their sins and will be baptized.  Repentance and baptism ARE NOT the works Paul is referring to.  "Good works" are service works. You failed to read verse 10.

No context to be misread unless you're adding some to it that isn't actually there... oh wait, you are. You're trying to make belief something you do instead of something you have.

Repentance is a promise to not do something again - not an effort to do it.

Baptism is an outward indication that you are a believer - again, not an actual effort to not sin.

Verse 10 is one of the other reasons why Paul disagrees with Jesus and James. Good thing there aren't any contradictions in the Bible, huh?

Paul and his students who wrote the gospels couldn't even get their own stories straight. What do you think that should tell you about your religion?

again, you can't come up with anything to counter the fact that the Bible is consistant so you come up with some garbage like "Paul and his students"

You again missed what I was saying.  I said actions FOLLOW belief, and without them there is really no true belief.  A believer would never say NO to baptism, a believer would NEVER be UNREPENTANT.

You misunderstand REPENTANCE.  REPENTANCE is totally turning your back on sin.  You must be thinking of Penance, which is what Catholics do, making a "promise", paying with some chants, and leaving.

YOU are a contradiction my friend.  On one hand you say "Paul and his students la la la are the reason for the continuity" and then you get caught in a tussle and now say "Paul and his students contradicted eachother" NEWSFLASH buddy, Paul and "other greeks" DID not contrive the NT.  Paul wrote letters to the churches he preached to, those are the Epistles.

The Synoptic Gospels are traditionally believed to be written by as follow:

Mark-A disciple of Peter

Matthew is traditionally believed written by the Apostle Matthew

Yes Luke is traditionally believed to be a disciple of Paul

HOWEVER, those 3 Gospels are believed to be from an unknown source referred to as Q

The Gospel of John, which is now found to be the earliest of the four, has been attributed to the Apostle John

Your outlandish theory is preposterous.  Go ahead just keep trying to invent things to try to convince yourself you are correct

You say actions follow belief yet the Bible and I say that actions aren't required for your belief to get you to your heaven.

I happily not that you haven't got anything to dispute what I brought up against faith and repentance so you deflected instead. and you can't even do that right.

You claim that the Bible is consistent in spite of being shown a glaring inconsistency (faith vs. works).

As for what you claim for the authorship of the gospels - tradition has nothing to with Biblical history and textual criticism. It is an unfounded belief that you defend against all evidence to the contrary aka faith.

No one knows who wrote Matthew - the majority of Biblical scholars say so. Since he wrote in Greek he was far more likely closer to Paul than Jesus and James.

Mark (according to tradition) was John Mark who was an apostle of Paul. Your tradition can't even get it right.

At least you got Luke right.

John was nowhere near the earliest of the four - there's at least an 80 year gap between Mark and John but I'd love to see your source for this. Or are you saying that John wrote it 50 years after his death? From wikipedia because I don't think you could handler harder evidence:

"Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[13][14] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[15][16][17][18][19][20] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John"

Again no one knowing who wrote the gospel of John.

Looks like my "outlandish theory" has a lot more proponents than yours.

p25 was found, dating John earlier than the synoptics.

Common sense is common sense.  Jesus gave us 3 commands REPENT, be BAPTIZED, and SPREAD THE GOSPEL.  un UNBELIEVER would not do ANY of those things.  NONE OF THEM.  REPENTANCE, BAPTISM, AND EVANGELISM ARE PART OF BELIEF.  Again, these works you speak of are SERVICE WORKS.

Link please? The only Greek P25 I've seen covers parts of Matthew.

Or are you just pulling this out from the manure pile where your other apologetics are stored?

Excuse my dislexic typing. P52

Your dyslexia is not a problem - I've seen no evidence for dog a few times and had to edit it.

Unfortunately, that papyrus proves nothing of the kind. From wikipedia:

"Although Rylands $\mathfrak{P}$52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text,[2] the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among scholars. The style of the script is strongly Hadrianic, which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE"

So it still lists John as anywhere from 30 to 120 years after Mark and some scholars ay older than that). Not a word about it being earlier - where did you get your information?

Whether you are right or wrong, presumably wrong, it does no harm to the truth of the scriptures.

Or the lack of truth in the Scriptures since there is more of that out there. As you have been shown.

Since all you have is your presumption that I'm wrong because you are offended at my lack of belief can I consider your incorrect dating of John closed?

Neither my nor your dating of John is absoultely correct.  There is no affixed date, just a range of dates, which some say could even be before 100AD. I am not offended by your doubt, just concerned for your soul, and wish you to see the truth in Christ.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
Offline

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

JesusLovesYou wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
re:: Jcgadfly's position, is about the means of Justification

It sure is a good thing that Paul took away any need for you to actually live a holy life. You lot don't have to worry about sin either. Atheists and Christians have that in common.

JMLY (a.k.a. -- JLY) For whatever reason you give the impression of not grasping Jcgadfly's position. From what I gather, in terms you are more both accustomed and familiar with, jcgadflys read surrounds itself with Jesus' righteousness being placed on the believer through faith emphasis. Found in the New Testament Epistles (Pauline). Ex. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him (Christ) [is] that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). Primarily the idea of the area of "imputed righteousness", instead of going to the trouble of something earned (really earned and deserved), if I characterize Jcgadfly, rightly. Rife with the potential for abuse, with the emphasis placed on it. Along with Saint Paul's formulat(-ing, -tion) of a Soteriology based on faith as opposed to righteous deeds. p.p.s -- I 'm fully confident jcgadfly is more than capable of speaking for himself (and representing his own views on any subject). Reference the Quotation.

It's either that or JLY is taking my saying that Paul and his proteges who wrote the gospels did not believe repentance was a requirement for Christianity (belief is all that's needed). and building a fallacy that claimed that I said Paul never mentioned repentance.

You do not understand what belief is.  Let me give you an example.  You have a chair.  You believe that the chair is going to hold you up when you sit on it.  So what do you do YOU SIT ON THE CHAIR.  Belief is not just a statement.  If there is no REPENTANCE there is no belief.  If one does not REPENT there is disbelief.  So the statement that belief is all thats needed is true in the terms that WHEN YOU BELIEVE, certain actions accompany that belief.

So very wrong. Faith is not all belief - just an unfounded one.

Let me make your example a bit more realistic.

Me: I have a chair. I've seen other people of varying size sit in the chair. I've observed that the chair is structurally sound. Because of those observations I have an expectation that I will be able to sit in the chair. that is a belief, yes. It is based on evidence and observation. It is not faith.

You. You have a chair. You've seen other sit on it. You've seen that it is structurally sound. In spite of those observations, you approach the chair with fear and trepidation because you're not sure that the chair will hold you (but you really hope it does). You take this same approach each and every time you approach the chair. That's faith.

Your view of repentance is also a bit off.

You believe that repentance is not sinning after forgiveness. It is, in fact, simply a sincere desire to not sin. That's the part that I referred to earlier as "you promise to try really hard to not sin again". Repentance is the promise - not the trying.

No actions required in the forgiveness process - just asking and promises.

Eph 2:8-9

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

you tend to misread context alot.  You stated the Bible preaches "easy believism", belief with no action required.  That is terribly wrong.  When one believes in Christ, certain things follow that belief.  Those things are, as per the Bible, REPENTANCE and BAPTISM.  You gave a good verse, but a misunderstanding of it you have.  by grace, through what? FAITH! by grace through FAITH. When one has FAITH they BELIEVE in Christ, and as a believer they REPENT of their sins and will be baptized.  Repentance and baptism ARE NOT the works Paul is referring to.  "Good works" are service works. You failed to read verse 10.

No context to be misread unless you're adding some to it that isn't actually there... oh wait, you are. You're trying to make belief something you do instead of something you have.

Repentance is a promise to not do something again - not an effort to do it.

Baptism is an outward indication that you are a believer - again, not an actual effort to not sin.

Verse 10 is one of the other reasons why Paul disagrees with Jesus and James. Good thing there aren't any contradictions in the Bible, huh?

Paul and his students who wrote the gospels couldn't even get their own stories straight. What do you think that should tell you about your religion?

again, you can't come up with anything to counter the fact that the Bible is consistant so you come up with some garbage like "Paul and his students"

You again missed what I was saying.  I said actions FOLLOW belief, and without them there is really no true belief.  A believer would never say NO to baptism, a believer would NEVER be UNREPENTANT.

You misunderstand REPENTANCE.  REPENTANCE is totally turning your back on sin.  You must be thinking of Penance, which is what Catholics do, making a "promise", paying with some chants, and leaving.

YOU are a contradiction my friend.  On one hand you say "Paul and his students la la la are the reason for the continuity" and then you get caught in a tussle and now say "Paul and his students contradicted eachother" NEWSFLASH buddy, Paul and "other greeks" DID not contrive the NT.  Paul wrote letters to the churches he preached to, those are the Epistles.

The Synoptic Gospels are traditionally believed to be written by as follow:

Mark-A disciple of Peter

Matthew is traditionally believed written by the Apostle Matthew

Yes Luke is traditionally believed to be a disciple of Paul

HOWEVER, those 3 Gospels are believed to be from an unknown source referred to as Q

The Gospel of John, which is now found to be the earliest of the four, has been attributed to the Apostle John

Your outlandish theory is preposterous.  Go ahead just keep trying to invent things to try to convince yourself you are correct

You say actions follow belief yet the Bible and I say that actions aren't required for your belief to get you to your heaven.

I happily not that you haven't got anything to dispute what I brought up against faith and repentance so you deflected instead. and you can't even do that right.

You claim that the Bible is consistent in spite of being shown a glaring inconsistency (faith vs. works).

As for what you claim for the authorship of the gospels - tradition has nothing to with Biblical history and textual criticism. It is an unfounded belief that you defend against all evidence to the contrary aka faith.

No one knows who wrote Matthew - the majority of Biblical scholars say so. Since he wrote in Greek he was far more likely closer to Paul than Jesus and James.

Mark (according to tradition) was John Mark who was an apostle of Paul. Your tradition can't even get it right.

At least you got Luke right.

John was nowhere near the earliest of the four - there's at least an 80 year gap between Mark and John but I'd love to see your source for this. Or are you saying that John wrote it 50 years after his death? From wikipedia because I don't think you could handler harder evidence:

"Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[13][14] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[15][16][17][18][19][20] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John"

Again no one knowing who wrote the gospel of John.

Looks like my "outlandish theory" has a lot more proponents than yours.

p25 was found, dating John earlier than the synoptics.

Common sense is common sense.  Jesus gave us 3 commands REPENT, be BAPTIZED, and SPREAD THE GOSPEL.  un UNBELIEVER would not do ANY of those things.  NONE OF THEM.  REPENTANCE, BAPTISM, AND EVANGELISM ARE PART OF BELIEF.  Again, these works you speak of are SERVICE WORKS.

Link please? The only Greek P25 I've seen covers parts of Matthew.

Or are you just pulling this out from the manure pile where your other apologetics are stored?

Excuse my dislexic typing. P52

Your dyslexia is not a problem - I've seen no evidence for dog a few times and had to edit it.

Unfortunately, that papyrus proves nothing of the kind. From wikipedia:

"Although Rylands $\mathfrak{P}$52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text,[2] the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among scholars. The style of the script is strongly Hadrianic, which would suggest a most probable date somewhere between 117 CE and 138 CE. But the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows a much wider range, potentially extending from before 100 CE past 150 CE"

So it still lists John as anywhere from 30 to 120 years after Mark and some scholars ay older than that). Not a word about it being earlier - where did you get your information?

Whether you are right or wrong, presumably wrong, it does no harm to the truth of the scriptures.

Or the lack of truth in the Scriptures since there is more of that out there. As you have been shown.

Since all you have is your presumption that I'm wrong because you are offended at my lack of belief can I consider your incorrect dating of John closed?

Neither my nor your dating of John is absoultely correct.  There is no affixed date, just a range of dates, which some say could even be before 100AD. I am not offended by your doubt, just concerned for your soul, and wish you to see the truth in Christ.

Dating is a game of horseshoes and absolute correctness only happens in mathematics. Mine however has more evidence to be closer than yours. Do you have a source for the prior to the year 100 dating?

Seeing the truth in Christ is how I became an atheist and I suspect your concern for my soul is canceled out by the glee you'll feel at watching me burn in hell (if the story is right).

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

Beyond Saving
Posts: 5377
Joined: 2007-10-12
Offline
I take it that JLY is not

I take it that JLY is not going to apologize to Anonymouse or provide evidence for his absurd accusations.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

digitalbeachbum
Posts: 4348
Joined: 2007-10-15
Offline
Beyond Saving wrote: I take

Beyond Saving wrote:

I take it that JLY is not going to apologize to Anonymouse or provide evidence for his absurd accusations.

Yeah... he's leaving us; probably going out on float or going on some top secret black ops.

luca
Posts: 401
Joined: 2011-02-21
Offline
I know, I'm

I know, I'm late.

JesusLovesYou wrote:
Hebrews 11:1 Faith IS evidence

When you have faith, you have revelation. You gain knowledge of our forever loving God, Jesus Christ.  Faith opens up doors you never knew existed.  Faith is not blind belief.  Blind belief is lack of faith.

If you can show that faith can come from something else than this world, you are right. If not, faith is an illusion.

JesusLovesYou wrote:
You keep claiming that atheism has morals, that its just as good as any religion etc etc etc.....but your ethics show otherwise

We would never say anything like that. We say that our morals are *better* than any religion!

Jabberwocky
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
Offline
luca wrote:If you can show

luca wrote:

If you can show that faith can come from something else than this world, you are right. If not, faith is an illusion.

Hmm...that's only THE perfect refutation of any claim that faith is evidence. I tip my hat to you good sir.

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.

digitalbeachbum
Posts: 4348
Joined: 2007-10-15
Offline
luca wrote:I know, I'm

luca wrote:

I know, I'm late.

JesusLovesYou wrote:
Hebrews 11:1 Faith IS evidence

When you have faith, you have revelation. You gain knowledge of our forever loving God, Jesus Christ.  Faith opens up doors you never knew existed.  Faith is not blind belief.  Blind belief is lack of faith.

If you can show that faith can come from something else than this world, you are right. If not, faith is an illusion.

JesusLovesYou wrote:
You keep claiming that atheism has morals, that its just as good as any religion etc etc etc.....but your ethics show otherwise

We would never say anything like that. We say that our morals are *better* than any religion!

Nice post! but he is gone. I recall a post saying that he was leaving for a while, maybe forever?

vBlueSki
Posts: 12
Joined: 2012-12-10
Offline
what are we to belive then

with there being so many forms of being a christian who is right and who is wrong? its too weird and unbelievable for me to put "faith" into. its just a weird religion altogether. You're saying god is dooming most of the people to eternal damnation? man fuck that idea. i could not live a positive life that way

Eternity wouldn't be much of an experience.