Elephant in the room - accusation of judging

[mfblume]

The good Samaritan:

Luke 10:29-37

Jesus told the story of the good Samaritan in answer to the lawyer's question of who his neighbour was, after Jesus told him to love his neighbour as himself. The story explains the neighbour and doing good to the neighbour. And Jesus explained how doing good to EVERYONE, muslims, included, is what we should be doing. He never implied our neighbours are not lost. ANd He clearly taught we could only have eternal life if we believe on HIm and His name for salvation through the work of the cross.

The interesting this is that in many cases Jesus urged people to try to save themselves by good works, knowing no one could be THAT good. That was the case with the rich young ruler as well. He told the man to sell all he had and give to the poor to be perfect. When asked how anyone could be saved, after making the directive, Jesus said with man this is impossible. But with God all things are possible.

Anyway, the good Samaritan shows us how we should be good to all whom we meet and know. ANd saying people are lost in no way violates that directive.

[mfblume]

I've already explained these things but some forget.

Two Brothers and the the vineyard

Mat 21:28-32

Jesus was contrasting religious Israel from the riff-raff whom the religious élite felt were lower than themselves, in light of HIs rejection by the religious leaders at the triumphal entry.

He gave one of MANY parables that day that all said the same general point. Israel lost the kingdom and the kingdom would go to someone else. It was all the result of his rejection that day.

Multitudes hailed him as King, recognizing the fulfillment of prophecy by Zechariah. But the religious leaders got to work and forbade the worship.

First Jesus saw the temple where he should have been welcomed according to the prophecy, filled with money changers.

Then instead of the leaders welcoming him, the blind and the lame welcome him, showing a spiritual picture of the hearts who genuinely accepted him when the others should as well. They're like the halt and the lame whom Jesus said were invited to the wedding supper after those who were initially invited refused to come, in Matt 22. Matt 22 continues the repetition of the same point ion parables as well.

The chief priests see worship to Him and are displeased.

Jesus tells them from the mouth of babes God perfected praise.

He leaves and comes back the next day and see s a fig tree without figs. That is unusual because fog trees don't produce leaves til fruit is also growing. This tree, like the religious leaders, was a hypocrite. Signs of life everywhere, but no fruit. Lots of religious activity but not the worship Jesu should receive.

He curses the fig tree like Jerusalem was cursed for destruction due to its rejection and crucifixion of Jesus.

He goes to the temple again and challenged over what authority he did these things. So ohe asks them if they felt John the baptist was of God or not. They feared the crowd and would not answer.

So then he lists these parables, the first of which was the two sons and the vineyard. The son who said he would work stands for the Jews who had all the acclaim that they were God's people and would be the ones to serve Him. But when Jesus came, they rejected Jesus, so failed. That's the declaration to work in the field and then later abandon it.

The other brother never said he'd work, but ended up doing it. This is the other people contrasted form the religious élite. While the élite were all talk and no work,. the halt and lame and gentiles who never claimed to be anyone ended up being the ones who received Christ and worshiped him.

It's a repetition of the religious Jews losing the kingdom and another getting it instead.

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

JEsus clarifies this point after the parable with:

32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

Then he gives a parallel parable, making the same point, about the vineyard and the husbandmen. The husbandmen never yielded the fruit to the Lord of the vineyard but kept it for themselves. This is keeping praise and esteem intended only for God and getting it from people for themselves. The giving of the fruit to the mast would parallel the work of the son who claimed to be the one who would indeed work, but ended up not working. In both parables what was declared by the same people who ended up abandoning what they declared they would do is highlighted. And that was serve God by accepting Christ.

When the master finally sent HIS SON to get the fruit, they killed the Son outside the vineyard, like Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem. This again is the jews of Jerusalem led by the religious leaders who would be destroyed, and certainly were in AD70.

After this Jesus said the kingdom would be taken from them and given to another.

The same POINT of these parables continues in chapter 22.

The wedding to which I already referred. A king has a son and invites people to his wedding. Those invited refuse. Like the son who claimed he would work and did not. Their city is burned... JERUSALEM Was burned in AD70, and others were invited. THe highway and biway people. The lame and crippled. Harlots and publicans.

In each parable people who were supposed to do the will of God refused, which parallels those who rejected Christ when they were the BUILDERS, but the builders rejected the headstone for the corner.

So the two sons, often quoted by a forum member, but never explained, as if it is assumed it is about salvation by works, are merely showing the context of Matt 21 through 22 of Christ being rejected as Messiah by people who were ordained to accept him, and others never elevated to any level of status choosing to accept Him instead.

Nothing to do with salvation by works, or saying muslims are lost..

[mfblume]

Women saved in childbearing

As if to imply salvation aside from the cross is possible, it has been espoused here that this verse proposes just such a thought.

1 Tim 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

First of all, Shazeep, you are implying there is salvation outside of any conscious faith in the work of the cross. You not only believes Jesus was not deity whatsoever, but you really believe people can be saved who know nothing about the gospel to propose this thought/

The bible says, though:

2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

Not knowing the cross is having the gospel hid to a person. That means they're lost. Scripture cannot contradict scripture. You yourself pointed out the easier to be understood scriptures must be understood first, which is easily, obviously. And the harder ones based on them. So this is a harder one, in TImothy. It cannot contradict 1 Cor 4:3. So it has to mean something other than salvation aside from the faith in the work of the cross.

Scholars of the Greek note the phrase in question is better translated as "saved through the childbearing". Paul contrasted women not teaching men doing the teaching. Now, does men doing the teaching save those men as though they need no faith in the cross? No, for the cross is what they TEACH! It's just telling women to be faithful in what hey're ordained to do while men are faithful in their orbits including teaching.

The article "THE" in "through THE childbearing" highlights a specific child bearing. Christ! Christ was promised to be the SEED OF THE WOMAN. It has often been pointed out that while men have the leadership roles in the church, women should not be minimalized, for we must all remember that all of us came from women (see 1 Cor 11:11) and here is added that the messiah came through a mother bearing the messiah as a child to be born. So, the use of this idea in 1 Cor 11:1 and the clear plain promise in Genesis 3 about the seed OF THE WOMAN, makes this harder to understand passage likely encourage women in the general sense that being a woman is wonderful, for God chose salvation to come through a woman bearing a child as the messiah! Her seed, not the man's, would bruise the serpent's head.

After all, Paul just MENTIONED EVE from Genesis! when saying that the woman was deceived not the man! It's a Genesis reference followed by another one to encourage,. It's like saying, "Women, you cannot teach. The woman was deceived not the man. But from the same story, the woman was promised to mother the messiah! So you women are blessed, too, despite your role to not teach!"

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The good Samaritan:

Luke 10:29-37

Jesus told the story of the good Samaritan in answer to the lawyer's question of who his neighbour was, after Jesus told him to love his neighbour as himself. The story explains the neighbour and doing good to the neighbour. And Jesus explained how doing good to EVERYONE, muslims, included, is what we should be doing. He never implied our neighbours are not lost. ANd He clearly taught we could only have eternal life if we believe on HIm and His name for salvation through the work of the cross.

The interesting this is that in many cases Jesus urged people to try to save themselves by good works, knowing no one could be THAT good. That was the case with the rich young ruler as well. He told the man to sell all he had and give to the poor to be perfect. When asked how anyone could be saved, after making the directive, Jesus said with man this is impossible. But with God all things are possible.

Anyway, the good Samaritan shows us how we should be good to all whom we meet and know. ANd saying people are lost in no way violates that directive.

yes, it does, and the fact that you are still trying to justify it, and pretending you are not responsible for your government while encouraging people to vote, and pretending that you are qualified to determine salvation when you have fallen short of proving what salvation even is--even though in your mind you prolly won all those points--is just indicative of the problem, not proof that it does not exist.

You make some decent points at the other passages, and while i don't agree with your conclusions i'm glad that you are at least considering them now, sort of. I think it is great that one have a belief system that produces fruit for them, and supports their faith; ours tells us that "strongmen" will infiltrate us and impose their own agenda outside of what was "sufficient for them," and if someone lacks humility, is easily offended, demands a literal interpretation, and suggests everyone who does not believe in lock-step with them is lost, i think one owes it to themselves to let the Holy Spirit guide them, and be skeptical of the strongman.

You can say "they are all lost" all you like, but you then have to address the charge that you are lost, or demonstrate how you are saved, and you have tried admirably to do that, and it even works as long as you ignore a lot of Scripture, but i think we have seen that this is not a one-dimensional concept, and the best men can do is approximate some understanding of it for themselves; it is God who judges your heart, but no one knows where they go when they die, even if many will confidently assure you that they can.

You are right if the doctrine that you believe, which was developed after what was sufficient for them was proclaimed, will be required of Muslims; but you are wrong if there is a spiritual understanding that you have overlooked in pursuit of some more perfect way that turns "love your neighbor as yourself" into "of course all Catholics are lost."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

yes, it does, and the fact that you are still trying to justify it, and pretending you are not responsible for your government while encouraging people to vote, and pretending that you are qualified to determine salvation when you have fallen short of proving what salvation even is--even though in your mind you prolly won all those points--is just indicative of the problem, not proof that it does not exist.

You make some decent points at the other passages, and while i don't agree with your conclusions i'm glad that you are at least considering them now, sort of. I think it is great that one have a belief system that produces fruit for them, and supports their faith; ours tells us that "strongmen" will infiltrate us and impose their own agenda outside of what was "sufficient for them," and if someone lacks humility, is easily offended, demands a literal interpretation, and suggests everyone who does not believe in lock-step with them is lost, i think one owes it to themselves to let the Holy Spirit guide them, and be skeptical of the strongman.

You can say "they are all lost" all you like, but you then have to address the charge that you are lost, or demonstrate how you are saved, and you have tried admirably to do that, and it even works as long as you ignore a lot of Scripture, but i think we have seen that this is not a one-dimensional concept, and the best men can do is approximate some understanding of it for themselves; it is God who judges your heart, but no one knows where they go when they die, even if many will confidently assure you that they can.

You are right if the doctrine that you believe, which was developed after what was sufficient for them was proclaimed, will be required of Muslims; but you are wrong if there is a spiritual understanding that you have overlooked in pursuit of some more perfect way that turns "love your neighbor as yourself" into "of course all Catholics are lost."

I ignore no scripture and the context of the passages I related is correct. you're just wrong. loving people has no relation to believing they're lost. in fact love moves us to see them saved. you just need to believe the bible and stop forcing your ideas into it that say the cross is not necessary for salvation.

you just don't know the bible, therefore cannot relate it properly. Like i said you were unaware that Israel doubted after they saw the miracles in Egypt.

you proved you can't take correction in the word. I've been corrected in the word so many times I've lost count. And you'you've shown you have a vendetta against oneness pentecostalism due to your patents. you make up a nice belief that suits humanism and then read it into the bible and chip our the cross.

[shazeep]

well, i hope you see that i never suggested that the cross is not necessary for salvation; i only suggest that we were warned that strong men will attempt to define this for you, and develop doctrines to remove its spiritual implications, and perfectly reasonable explanations why "Love your neighbor" is not adequate.

Pretending that you are qualified to determine if someone else is lost or not is intrinsic to your understanding of loving them, and you were silent when WII remarked sarcastically how obvious it was that you were moved by concern for Muslims, for good reason; it would have been ludicrous to make that assertion in that place, and it is equally ridiculous now, because it is patently untrue, and we can go look at your collective missionary outreach to currently suffering Muslims if we want to get some idea of your love for them; we don't need to rely on anyone's pious statements for that, mine included.

i just need to believe the Bible, i just don't know the Bible, and therefore can't relate it properly; and you are just a humble guy, and i am just misunderstanding you, surely. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is insufficient, and i need a priest? If you still believe that all Catholics are lost though, none of that is really important, is it? You have to decide that for yourself, and if you have found some way to justify what the rest of your world already believes, and that works for you, who am i to say you are wrong? And if you are silenced or flummoxed by Scripture that suggests otherwise, well, you can always just claim "context" or some such, or bail out til later, or obfuscate, as none of these mean much by themselves.

If you think "everyone is lost who does not believe like i do" and our government's policies that are amazingly similar are just a coincidence, what is that to me? We reap what we sow; who can argue with that? The one who does what is right is righteous; do what is right. The righteous also perish.

If I tell a righteous person that they will surely live, but then they trust in their righteousness and do evil, none of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered; they will die for the evil they have done!

So my meaning is, personal differences aside, what if you are wrong? What if God's yardstick is different than yours?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, i hope you see that i never suggested that the cross is not necessary for salvation; i only suggest that we were warned that strong men will attempt to define this for you, and develop doctrines to remove its spiritual implications, and perfectly reasonable explanations why "Love your neighbor" is not adequate.

Well, I hope you see I never suggested that "love your neighbour" is not required.

Pretending that you are qualified to determine if someone else is lost or not is intrinsic to your understanding of loving them,

It requires hardly any qualifications to know who is lost when we read faith in the cross is required from the word of God.

and you were silent when WII remarked sarcastically how obvious it was that you were moved by concern for Muslims, for good reason; it would have been ludicrous to make that assertion in that place, and it is equally ridiculous now, because it is patently untrue, and we can go look at your collective missionary outreach to currently suffering Muslims if we want to get some idea of your love for them; we don't need to rely on anyone's pious statements for that, mine included.

You made the muslim issue a big deal here, no one else. You thought I obsessed over it. Again, don't vaunt yourself up to think your little interaction with someone dictates everything there is to know about that someone. Wii, too, for that matter.

i just need to believe the Bible, i just don't know the Bible, and therefore can't relate it properly; and you are just a humble guy, and i am just misunderstanding you, surely. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is insufficient, and i need a priest?

You just need to stufy the bible more and stop, what you already called, assuming what someone means and go by what they say.

I know you never flatly stated the cross is not necessary for salvation, but you never said it was necessary either. And you also said if the knowledge of the cross is vital then why is there the good Samaritan, and women saved through childbearing. Don't be so slippery. Simply state blankly what you think.

If you still believe that all Catholics are lost though, none of that is really important, is it? You have to decide that for yourself, and if you have found some way to justify what the rest of your world already believes, and that works for you, who am i to say you are wrong? And if you are silenced or flummoxed by Scripture that suggests otherwise, well, you can always just claim "context" or some such, or bail out til later, or obfuscate, as none of these mean much by themselves.

If you think "everyone is lost who does not believe like i do" and our government's policies that are amazingly similar are just a coincidence, what is that to me? We reap what we sow; who can argue with that? The one who does what is right is righteous; do what is

You are creating a pattern that is so repetitive that everyone might as well read one post you wrote to know everything else you say. And that is the claim that scripture says otherwise to what I believe. And the other pattern in association with that one is you never providing the scriptures.

right. The righteous also perish.

If I tell a righteous person that they will surely live, but then they trust in their righteousness and do evil, none of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered; they will die for the evil they have done!

So my meaning is, personal differences aside, what if you are wrong? What if God's yardstick is different than yours?

One element I've been convicted to pray about more than any other is for God to correct me in my understanding if I am wrong. I have prayed more for that and for the Lord to show me what the false fruit is that the false prophets are offering and the good fruit that true prophets offer, than anything else. And I have faith God will correct me.

Deception means a person thinks they have truth but really doesn't. And the ONLY way to be recovered from that is to pray for God to correct with a lot of conviction that any given one of us could be deceived. I think we all need correction SOMEWHERE. Some more than others, obviously. And in no way do I think I've arrived.

But I've said all of this in response to almost how many times you've said scripture refutes my beliefs, and almost as much as the amount of times I indicted you never list what those scripture are.

So, it's getting monotonous. And you aren't answering my questions anywhere near as much as I answer yours. And it's easier for you to keep repeating that scripture refutes my beliefs when you don't list what they are.

You write VOLUMES of notes about a generalized view of me and others far more that actually substantiating those claims. It's sly and really a ploy. But that's been par for this course.

And you still never answered me on the Lord's words about believing on Him, or otherwise being condemned, in light of where that specifically puts muslims. So, again specifically, how can muslims make it if they ever remain muslims in light of that passage? As much effort as I take to answer your questions, you take effort to avoid specific situations. And this old idea that you claim God puts verses like that to trip people up is sheer nonsense. But not telling you that.

By the way, saying all muslims are lost does not mean they may never be saved. It means if they're standing in muslim faith right now, they are lost right now should they die. But they can be saved before they die.

Also, please lay out your explanation of what the passages I exegeted are actually saying in your mind, as per context and details noted that allegedly refute my thoughts.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Yes of course you do, as long as it is you who determines what the meaning of each verse of the Bible is.

Bingo... and also, especially if you claim you know what it is but never take the time to actually prove your theory out by careful study of the same word, and just remain elusively away from actually standing on that part of the word.

[shazeep]

well, that sounds good, until we look at the record; i am not insisting upon any interpretations for my quotes; the verse alone seemed to do fine in the moment.

Originally Posted by mfblume

And you still never answered me on the Lord's words about believing on Him, or otherwise being condemned, in light of where that specifically puts muslims. So, again specifically, how can muslims make it if they ever remain muslims in light of that passage? As much effort as I take to answer your questions, you take effort to avoid specific situations. And this old idea that you claim God puts verses like that to trip people up is sheer nonsense. But not telling you that.

well, i would put it more like how you interpret a verse reflects where your heart is, not God is trying to confuse you. And my answer was that Christ is a spirit, and believing on Him might have a spiritual interpretation that is more important than a verbal declaration, or a more literal interpretation. So what if you are wrong?

i mean, if i am wrong, i get to say 'hmm, what do you know, you learn something every day,' but if you are wrong, have you considered the ramifications? It seems like you are kind of in a no-win situation here. Aside from possibly providing a false sense of security, what is holding this opinion even doing for you? What is the point?

[shazeep]

is it fair to say that if i am wrong i get to go 'oh, whaddya know," but if you are wrong you have to go find another religion, basically? That this belief of yours is central to your understanding of your doctrine?