What is the standard for repentance?

York

Active member
I've given you some of the reasons for accepting Jesus' words and rejecting the words of Paul and the "gang of four". If you want to refute the reasons given, then refute the actual reasons given in my posts instead of trying to refute it based on an illogical belief on your part that it's not possible for Jesus' words to be "inspired" without the surrounding text also being "inspired".
It is of course possible. And its possible none of it was inspired and you're reading a coherent Jesus who didn't actually say those things.

We ultimately, make our own decisions. God speaks and to this extent (whether the red letters (you) or the lot(me)),we believe


Question: do you reckon they are the words of Jesus because they are coherent to you. Or reckon



The question will boil down to coherency and whether what Jesus/Paul/ li l

- is it probable? God inspiring the accurate recording of Jesus words, nothing affected by human spin or error. Then wrapping them up in packaging which confuses the issue.

- more signifcantly, if his word inspired but the rest not inspired, how are you tell?

Well you

From the beginning of His ministry through His death, Jesus preached His gospel. Either the words spoken at that time were "inspired" or the weren't. Presumably you agree that they were inspired. Followers of Jesus no doubt memorized and wrote down those words - Q source is a possible document - given that Jesus repeatedly and explicitly emphasized the importance of keeping His commandments and abiding in His word amongst other things. If someone today were to take the words spoken by Jesus while He preached His gospel and wove them into a narrative that takes place in a galaxy far far away, they'd still be "inspired" regardless of the surrounding text. Jesus' words were "inspired" at the time of the telling.

You cannot, on the one hand suppose the gang of four are accurately recording the anointed one and, on the other hand dismiss what else they have to say.

This is a trivial issue. You say this as if you believe it is outside the realm of possibility for an individual to accurately transcribe the words spoken by another even if his views don't coincide with the views being transcribed. People do it all the time: journalists that quote politicians and even atheists that quote Jesus as examples.

If you cite inspiration of the recorded words of Jesus, such that those word can be taken as..er..gospel, why not inspiration for what else the recorders have to say. And also why not Paul part of it.

You can't pick and choose your inspired bits. Or if you do you need a reason


I've given you some of the reasons for accepting Jesus' words and rejecting the words of Paul and the "gang of four". If you want to refute the reasons given, then refute the actual reasons given in my posts instead of trying to refute it based on an illogical belief on your part that it's not possible for Jesus' words to be "inspired" without the surrounding text also being "inspired".

It just seems an arbitrary line drawn for 'inspired'. You draw the line at what Jesus said and the factual things surrounding what he said (such as what people said to him which drew the response he gave). And if that perhaps too the places and situations in which he spoke and others spoke to him. So not just red letters but quite a bit of surrounding text.

That's quite a wiggly line.
From the beginning of His ministry through His death, Jesus preached His gospel. Either the words spoken at that time were "inspired" or the weren't. Presumably you agree that they were inspired.

I do.
Followers of Jesus no doubt memorized and wrote down those words - Q source is a possible document - given that Jesus repeatedly and explicitly emphasized the importance of keeping His commandments and abiding in His word amongst other things

Which brings us to the basis of your wiggly line. What you think is coherent.

Presumably you would permit yourself to exclude anything Jesus said that you didn't find coherent?

But in any case, coherency is the base issue for both of us. For myself, I'm not too worried if I can't make head nor tail of a particular element - Rome wasn't built in a day. But like you, I'm attempting to build a picture.

So the only question, as I said before, is whether the whole is coherent or whether you go the route you've gone and excluded sections.

So, with that in mind, we might return to an earlier point. I see no difficulty in Jesus repeatedly stating the importance of keeping his commandments. There are at least two contexts I can think of:

- in order to set an impossible bar to be reached by works. That's a salvation related approach: a man set an impossible bar might conclude (and Jesus, in this view, intends him to conclude that he can't reach it - e.g. the rich young ruler story).

One way we might decide this is whats going on is if his comments are directed to general audience.

- in order that saved people live this new life.This would be similar to Pauls approach in Romans (whatever about your thinking it uninspired). His approach: 1st half is a description of the mechanism of salvation: the need for that mechanism and how it works. The second half goes onto how it is the saved ought to live and progress in light of what they learn about themselves and their salvation, per 1st half.

Jesus can take this same tacl. This might be evidenced in his talking about abiding in him and law following to his disciples or other peope arguably saved. The aim is instruction on how to live the Christian life.

I'm just putting that thought out there. I am.suspecting (supposing Paul inspired) that that is what we would arguably see were we to examine Jesus in that light.

Its a bit like my contention that desperation is the process whereby men are saved. When we go to look in the gospels, this is what we find: the sick, the ashamed, the despised, the father of a dying daughter, thief on a cross. And finding it there adds to coherency since that same thing is found all over the.place in scripture.




. If someone today were to take the words spoken by Jesus while He preached His gospel and wove them into a narrative that takes place in a galaxy far far away, they'd still be "inspired" regardless of the surrounding text. Jesus' words were "inspired" at the time of the telling.

As I say, the surrounding context, people who spoke to him, drawing the responess they did and where it was that the discourse occured is as much a part of it. Jesus wouldn't be turning water to wine at a wedding feast on Mars.

You cannot, on the one hand suppose the gang of four are accurately recording the anointed one and, on the other hand dismiss what else they have to say.

This is a trivial issue. You say this as if you believe it is outside the realm of possibility for an individual to accurately transcribe the words spoken by another even if his views don't coincide with the views being transcribed. People do it all the time: journalists that quote politicians and even atheists that quote Jesus as examples.

Yet we live in a world of fake news spin propaganda where the agenda of the writer heavily influences what they record.

They get your wiggly line right but the rest is wrong. Excellent historians but useless commentators. So much so you redact them entirely.

Not terminal, coherency is the issue. It just lacks plausibility, is all.

Lets focus on coherency then. Might we start with the above suggestion? Nothing particularily terminal to Paul in Jesus focus on adherence to his commands?

I mean Paul calls for adherence in the 2nd half of Romans..
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
It is of course possible. And its possible none of it was inspired and you're reading a coherent Jesus who didn't actually say those things.

We ultimately, make our own decisions. God speaks and to this extent (whether the red letters (you) or the lot(me)),we believe


Question: do you reckon they are the words of Jesus because they are coherent to you. Or reckon



The question will boil down to coherency and whether what Jesus/Paul/ li l

- is it probable? God inspiring the accurate recording of Jesus words, nothing affected by human spin or error. Then wrapping them up in packaging which confuses the issue.

- more signifcantly, if his word inspired but the rest not inspired, how are you tell?

Well you





It just seems an arbitrary line drawn for 'inspired'. You draw the line at what Jesus said and the factual things surrounding what he said (such as what people said to him which drew the response he gave). And if that perhaps too the places and situations in which he spoke and others spoke to him. So not just red letters but quite a bit of surrounding text.

That's quite a wiggly line.


I do.


Which brings us to the basis of your wiggly line. What you think is coherent.

Presumably you would permit yourself to exclude anything Jesus said that you didn't find coherent?

But in any case, coherency is the base issue for both of us. For myself, I'm not too worried if I can't make head nor tail of a particular element - Rome wasn't built in a day. But like you, I'm attempting to build a picture.

So the only question, as I said before, is whether the whole is coherent or whether you go the route you've gone and excluded sections.

So, with that in mind, we might return to an earlier point. I see no difficulty in Jesus repeatedly stating the importance of keeping his commandments. There are at least two contexts I can think of:

- in order to set an impossible bar to be reached by works. That's a salvation related approach: a man set an impossible bar might conclude (and Jesus, in this view, intends him to conclude that he can't reach it - e.g. the rich young ruler story).

One way we might decide this is whats going on is if his comments are directed to general audience.

- in order that saved people live this new life.This would be similar to Pauls approach in Romans (whatever about your thinking it uninspired). His approach: 1st half is a description of the mechanism of salvation: the need for that mechanism and how it works. The second half goes onto how it is the saved ought to live and progress in light of what they learn about themselves and their salvation, per 1st half.

Jesus can take this same tacl. This might be evidenced in his talking about abiding in him and law following to his disciples or other peope arguably saved. The aim is instruction on how to live the Christian life.

I'm just putting that thought out there. I am.suspecting (supposing Paul inspired) that that is what we would arguably see were we to examine Jesus in that light.

Its a bit like my contention that desperation is the process whereby men are saved. When we go to look in the gospels, this is what we find: the sick, the ashamed, the despised, the father of a dying daughter, thief on a cross. And finding it there adds to coherency since that same thing is found all over the.place in scripture.






As I say, the surrounding context, people who spoke to him, drawing the responess they did and where it was that the discourse occured is as much a part of it. Jesus wouldn't be turning water to wine at a wedding feast on Mars.



Yet we live in a world of fake news spin propaganda where the agenda of the writer heavily influences what they record.

They get your wiggly line right but the rest is wrong. Excellent historians but useless commentators. So much so you redact them entirely.

Not terminal, coherency is the issue. It just lacks plausibility, is all.

Lets focus on coherency then. Might we start with the above suggestion? Nothing particularily terminal to Paul in Jesus focus on adherence to his commands?

I mean Paul calls for adherence in the 2nd half of Romans..
The bible is only mans testimonies of their personal experiences with God. Are the quotes of Jesus real or were they a fabrication for manipulation to gain religious enterprise? There is no way one can prove any of it. And it is not a historical document at all, it is a religious document. It was man who decided what went into canon . One may agree of a writing and say this needs to be and another may say no that isnt right and doesnt need to be.

Inspiration covers a very wide spectrum and varies as many people as there is on this planet. Catholic has their inspiration, Mormons has their inspiration, Baptists, Pentecostal's, Muslims, Buddhists, you name it. People such as Jim Jones and David Koresh was inspirited by what they said was of God.

Bottom line in Christendom is if ones life does not line up with the standards of Jesus Christ to have His same mind, same walk same light same signs follow, perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect, then inspiration is by opinion and not the reality that manifestation of God through the instructions in it brings. And in that manifestation with God manifest in you it for a finished product to be in the image of God Himself.

Anything outside of God manifest in you to perfect you in Him is not of God at all.

The religions minded come to me with the demand that I must believe this and that and do this and do that.
The Spiritually minded comes to me with the demand that I square my life with the standards of Jesus.
 

York

Active member
The bible is only mans testimonies of their personal experiences with God. Are the quotes of Jesus real or were they a fabrication for manipulation to gain religious enterprise? There is no way one can prove any of it
Agreed. Now one can prove it to ones own satisfaction. And it may be that its true.

But aside from that, no proof.

. And it is not a historical document at all, it is a religious document.
Well if Jesus turned water into wine then that was a historical event. But it is not primarily a historical document.

My view is that it is a document for all time, dealing as it does as root, with the problem everyman has.


It was man who decided what went into canon . One may agree of a writing and say this needs to be and another may say no that isnt right and doesnt need to be.

Be that as it may. The question is whether God had a hand in its assembly. If God then seemingly, if not God then not.

Again, proof is not forthcoming, although proof enough for personal satisfaction, on offer.
Inspiration covers a very wide spectrum and varies as many people as there is on this planet. Catholic has their inspiration, Mormons has their inspiration, Baptists, Pentecostal's, Muslims, Buddhists, you name it. People such as Jim Jones and David Koresh was inspirited by what they said was of God.
Indeed. But if there were a billion false gods and one true one, all the inspiration of false god text wouldn't be actually and the inspiration of the true God would be.

2 billion false gods and it remains the same.

You are not purporting that the existence of false renders true false as well?



Bottom line in Christendom is if ones life does not line up with the standards of Jesus Christ to have His same mind, same walk same light same signs follow, perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect, then inspiration is by opinion and not the reality that manifestation of God through the instructions in it brings. And in that manifestation with God manifest in you it for a finished product to be in the image of God Himself.

Anything outside of God manifest in you to perfect you in Him is not of God at all.
I'm not sure what you mean say here. I lost you at if then.
The religions minded come to me with the demand that I must believe this and that and do this and do that.


The Spiritually minded comes to me with the demand that I square my life with the standards of Jesus.
The one sounds like the other. Doing in both cases. Which sound quiet 'worksy'. That is sing for your salvation supper. Religions are all like that.

The gospel is grace is a tad different. You habe to believe of course, but to be believing is to be in a state of belief. Its a stative verb.

You might have to be in this state to be saved, but you don't work to get into it.

Happily, since we're agreed you won't find a proof. The proof that satisfies you as to Gods existence (you won't give monkeys that unbelievers say " but we can't discern your proof and you can't prove your proof to is, so it's not a proof" and similar baloney) comes after you believe.

So yes, you must believe to be saved. But that's all.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Agreed. Now one can prove it to ones own satisfaction. And it may be that its true.

But aside from that, no proof.
Ratification as in Mormons, Catholic, Baptists, Methodists, AOGs, COCs, Muslims, you name it -- What satisfices you in beliefs?
Well if Jesus turned water into wine then that was a historical event. But it is not primarily a historical document.
A metaphor, one goes through the gauntlet of religious beliefs then upon a day as Jesus said that in that day ye shall ask me noting but go to the father for your yourself and He will give it you. Not many reach that day do they turning that water to wine and save the best for last.
My view is that it is a document for all time, dealing as it does as root, with the problem everyman has.
It is only a tutorial to lead you to the same place in the Father that Jesus and Abraham and Moses and 120 was in Him. An instruction manual on how to.
Be that as it may. The question is whether God had a hand in its assembly. If God then seemingly, if not God then not.
The hand God has in it is to instruct how to receive form Him His same disposition yourself.
Again, proof is not forthcoming, although proof enough for personal satisfaction, on offer.
the manifestation of God in you is the only proof God can offer to you, anything else is purely speculation.
Indeed. But if there were a billion false gods and one true one, all the inspiration of false god text wouldn't be actually and the inspiration of the true God would be.
It isnt a matter of speculation about God it is a matter of God manifest Himself in you by His same SPirit be your own.
Do you know what His Spirit is?
2 billion false gods and it remains the same.
Every denomination has their own gods they have established to manipulate to obey their beliefs of a god.
You are not purporting that the existence of false renders true false as well?
No it isnt up to me whether one is in God or not, all I can do is compare what others say of themselves in beliefs with the standards of jesus Christ in what he said we should be like him in the Father of it.

That is why I follow what was quoted of Jesus instead of those such as Paul or any other.
I'm not sure what you mean say here. I lost you at if then.




The one sounds like the other. Doing in both cases. Which sound quiet 'worksy'. That is sing for your salvation supper. Religions are all like that.
Religions are for one purpose -- enterprise -- and our denominations are notorious for this.
The gospel is grace is a tad different. You habe to believe of course, but to be believing is to be in a state of belief. Its a stative verb.
Actually to have grace is the attribute in having gid as our own disposition, which simply is Love for God is Love and man is the temple of
You might have to be in this state to be saved, but you don't work to get into it.
Exactly it is a gift not something we work for.
Happily, since we're agreed you won't find a proof. The proof that satisfies you as to Gods existence (you won't give monkeys that unbelievers say " but we can't discern your proof and you can't prove your proof to is, so it's not a proof" and similar baloney) comes after you believe.
Yes Jesus couldn't prove his existence in God and look how he was treated for not providing that proof.
So yes, you must believe to be saved. But that's all.
Beliefs is not reality, beliefs are manipulated by the laws man has established to regulate a belief. The only truth of God is God Himself be manifest in you just as He was in Jesus and others who received His same Spirit.
 

York

Active member
Ratification as in Mormons, Catholic, Baptists, Methodists, AOGs, COCs, Muslims, you name it -- What satisfices you in beliefs?

Whatever floats your own boat. Now you can decide to align with what the Magisterium claims. Or you can align with what you yourself reckon as best you assess the evidence.

We can add in the secular athiests too, them aligning themselves with various philosophies ending the conclusion we are stardust.

Every man is an island when it comes to his beliefs. There is no higher court to appeal to but the court of self.

A metaphor, one goes through the gauntlet of religious beliefs then upon a day as Jesus said that in that day ye shall ask me noting but go to the father for your yourself and He will give it you. Not many reach that day do they turning that water to wine and save the best for last.

It is only a tutorial to lead you to the same place in the Father that Jesus and Abraham and Moses and 120 was in Him. An instruction manual on how to.

The hand God has in it is to instruct how to receive form Him His same disposition yourself.

the manifestation of God in you is the only proof God can offer to you, anything else is purely speculation.

As to your last point, I'd refer you to the point above

It isnt a matter of speculation about God it is a matter of God manifest Himself in you by His same SPirit be your own.
Do you know what His Spirit is?

Per all the best wedding ceremonies, I do.


Every denomination has their own gods they have established to manipulate to obey their beliefs of a god.

Indeed, but the only basis for that position is you doing as they do and supposing your God is the right and only one.

No it isnt up to me whether one is in God or not, all I can do is compare what others say of themselves in beliefs with the standards of jesus Christ in what he said we should be like him in the Father of it.

That is why I follow what was quoted of Jesus instead of those such as Paul or any other.

Quoted by the people who allegedly recorded him, you mean. I've always found it problematic to suppose the recorders managed to record Jesus (even though they weren't there hovering overhead at each of his utterances), yet got the rest wrong.

If you chose to redact, it is you doing the redacting. There is no particular basis for doing so other than you deciding so.

Religions are for one purpose -- enterprise -- and our denominations are notorious for this.

Religions are for one purpose - to encourage people to think they can get right with God by own effort. Satan is the CEO of them all after all. As for his underlings (misguided Christians or otherwise), if they can make a few bob in the process, then Satan is more than happy with that.

Actually to have grace is the attribute in having gid as our own disposition, which simply is Love for God is Love and man is the temple of

Exactly it is a gift not something we work for.

Yes Jesus couldn't prove his existence in God and look how he was treated for not providing that proof.

Beliefs is not reality, beliefs are manipulated by the laws man has established to regulate a belief. The only truth of God is God Himself be manifest in you just as He was in Jesus and others who received His same Spirit.

Indeed, but believing that is what is going on in you isn't a crime. In fact, it's kind of inescapable that you believe God is in you if he is in you.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Whatever floats your own boat.
Oh no what ever floats God boat. I am not of self I am of the Father who is Love.
Now you can decide to align with what the Magisterium claims. Or you can align with what you yourself reckon as best you assess the evidence.
Love is the evidence and either you are of God who is Love or you are not.
We can add in the secular athiests too, them aligning themselves with various philosophies ending the conclusion we are stardust.
Just as Catholic, Mormons, Baptists, AOGs, COCs, Muslims do, no differnt at all. you -- just as these establish your own laws to govern your beliefs.
Every man is an island when it comes to his beliefs. There is no higher court to appeal to but the court of self.
Covered this above.
As to your last point, I'd refer you to the point above
So do I
Per all the best wedding ceremonies, I do.
His bride gives birth to His seed which is Christ in you, you anointed of God, which simply is Love. You are of Love or you are not. For God is Love.
Indeed, but the only basis for that position is you doing as they do and supposing your God is the right and only one.
The only one is Love and either you are of Him or you are not as your own disposition and in His same image.
Quoted by the people who allegedly recorded him, you mean. I've always found it problematic to suppose the recorders managed to record Jesus (even though they weren't there hovering overhead at each of his utterances), yet got the rest wrong.
it is better for me to seek God first in His way than it is to seek what others say about Him. I know Him way before I ever read a bible. The bible can be and is grossly misinterpreted from lack in having God as ones own mind.
If you chose to redact, it is you doing the redacting. There is no particular basis for doing so other than you deciding so.
Decisions is key. One can decide to follow his won rules to regulate a belief or one can relinquish his own beliefs and receive information that of foreign to present beliefs. Matt 3:16 is perfect example how this works.
Religions are for one purpose - to encourage people to think they can get right with God by own effort. Satan is the CEO of them all after all. As for his underlings (misguided Christians or otherwise), if they can make a few bob in the process, then Satan is more than happy with that.
Denominations are notorious for this very thing. The all have formed their beliefs for a god and have established laws to regulate their gods. Mostly spawned by the desire to get people to fill a pew and donate to their enterprise, selling God to the highest bidder.
Indeed, but believing that is what is going on in you isn't a crime. In fact, it's kind of inescapable that you believe God is in you if he is in you.
it isnt a belief, either you are of like the God of Love and has His same mind, His Spirit, His same disposition His same walk as He walks in His same light that if Love, Holy Pure and without sin or you do not. there is no in-between, either you are like Him or you are not. it isnt a belief at all it is God manifest in you by His SPirit or He is not. And you know very well if you are like the God of Love and has His same disposition. or not, perfect even as He is perfect for Love is a SPirit and that Spirit is perfect.
 

Algernon

Active member
It is of course possible. And its possible none of it was inspired and you're reading a coherent Jesus who didn't actually say those things.

We ultimately, make our own decisions. God speaks and to this extent (whether the red letters (you) or the lot(me)),we believe


Question: do you reckon they are the words of Jesus because they are coherent to you. Or reckon



The question will boil down to coherency and whether what Jesus/Paul/ li l

- is it probable? God inspiring the accurate recording of Jesus words, nothing affected by human spin or error. Then wrapping them up in packaging which confuses the issue.

- more signifcantly, if his word inspired but the rest not inspired, how are you tell?

Well you





It just seems an arbitrary line drawn for 'inspired'. You draw the line at what Jesus said and the factual things surrounding what he said (such as what people said to him which drew the response he gave). And if that perhaps too the places and situations in which he spoke and others spoke to him. So not just red letters but quite a bit of surrounding text.

That's quite a wiggly line.


I do.


Which brings us to the basis of your wiggly line. What you think is coherent.

Presumably you would permit yourself to exclude anything Jesus said that you didn't find coherent?

But in any case, coherency is the base issue for both of us. For myself, I'm not too worried if I can't make head nor tail of a particular element - Rome wasn't built in a day. But like you, I'm attempting to build a picture.

So the only question, as I said before, is whether the whole is coherent or whether you go the route you've gone and excluded sections.

So, with that in mind, we might return to an earlier point. I see no difficulty in Jesus repeatedly stating the importance of keeping his commandments. There are at least two contexts I can think of:

- in order to set an impossible bar to be reached by works. That's a salvation related approach: a man set an impossible bar might conclude (and Jesus, in this view, intends him to conclude that he can't reach it - e.g. the rich young ruler story).

One way we might decide this is whats going on is if his comments are directed to general audience.

- in order that saved people live this new life.This would be similar to Pauls approach in Romans (whatever about your thinking it uninspired). His approach: 1st half is a description of the mechanism of salvation: the need for that mechanism and how it works. The second half goes onto how it is the saved ought to live and progress in light of what they learn about themselves and their salvation, per 1st half.

Jesus can take this same tacl. This might be evidenced in his talking about abiding in him and law following to his disciples or other peope arguably saved. The aim is instruction on how to live the Christian life.

I'm just putting that thought out there. I am.suspecting (supposing Paul inspired) that that is what we would arguably see were we to examine Jesus in that light.

Its a bit like my contention that desperation is the process whereby men are saved. When we go to look in the gospels, this is what we find: the sick, the ashamed, the despised, the father of a dying daughter, thief on a cross. And finding it there adds to coherency since that same thing is found all over the.place in scripture.






As I say, the surrounding context, people who spoke to him, drawing the responess they did and where it was that the discourse occured is as much a part of it. Jesus wouldn't be turning water to wine at a wedding feast on Mars.



Yet we live in a world of fake news spin propaganda where the agenda of the writer heavily influences what they record.

They get your wiggly line right but the rest is wrong. Excellent historians but useless commentators. So much so you redact them entirely.

Not terminal, coherency is the issue. It just lacks plausibility, is all.

Lets focus on coherency then. Might we start with the above suggestion? Nothing particularily terminal to Paul in Jesus focus on adherence to his commands?

I mean Paul calls for adherence in the 2nd half of Romans..
John 18
37 ...For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.

John 12
36 While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light.

John 8
34Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."
31 ...If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
35The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.

Matthew 6
23“But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
John 18
37 ...For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.
Yes and to hear from God as Jesus did is paramount for understanding.
John 12
36 While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light.
And all who walk in His light as He is in the light are like Him.
John 8
34Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."
31 ...If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
35The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.
A son is slave to all but he owns everything of his Father.
Matthew 6
23“But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
And those who has received form God that what Jesus did walk in His same light as He is in the light, same mind, same SPirit, same disposition of that of Love, for God is Love.
 

York

Active member
John 18
37 ...For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.

John 12
36 While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light.

John 8
34Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."
31 ...If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
35The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.

Matthew 6
23“But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

Not sure what the purpose of all that is?

How to progress?

Do we leave the conversation about your basis for drawing a wiggly line through what and what you won't take as inspired. We know at this point that it's more (at least, logically it must be more) than the red letters and somewhat less than the whole. We know you can't leave out what people said to Jesus, for example, otherwise you've no context.


Do we deal with coherency? Given:

- I find the whole coherent
- you find only a portion is coherent

..we have a choice. It seems there's little point in checking whether your view is coherent - it could be expected that a stable, low rise structure could be constructed from a limited number of building blocks. Especially when you get to sift amongst a large pile of potential raw material and choose what goes into your wheelbarrow and what doesn't.

The greater challenge would be to construct a tall structure using all the building blocks put before you. Or tear that structure down. The bigger they come and all that..


Ideas on how to progress?
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
Let's start with Ezekiel who was one of the late OT prophets. Following is the standard for repentance set by God according to Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 18
21“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live...
24“But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die...
30“Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? 32For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!

Clearly the standard for repentance set by God is that the individual no longer commits sin. Those who repent and no longer commit sin will "live". Those who do not repent and continue to sin will "die".

The gospel preached by Jesus is consistent with this standard of repentance. Those who repent and no longer commit sin will "live". Those who do not repent and continue to sin will "die".

Yet the vast majority of Christians seem to have a lower standard for repentance. Some seem to have a much lower standard for repentance.

How can a standard that is lower than that set by God and that is consistent with the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry reasonably be justified?

Note that Isaiah 1 and Jeremiah 7 are also consistent with the concepts set forth in Ezekiel 18. It is up to the individual to "stop doing wrong" and "make [themselves] clean". The door is closed on "sacrifice". God wants loyalty. The last two concepts are also explicitly stated in Hosea 6:6. These are also late OT prophets. All of these concepts are consistent with the gospel preached by Jesus.
Simple, be sincerely sorry for your sins and ask for forgiveness. You don't need a PhD in theology to figure that out.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Simple, be sincerely sorry for your sins and ask for forgiveness. You don't need a PhD in theology to figure that out.
Sorry for your sins and ask for forgivness? The only way to be without sin is to be anointed of God, which is Christ in you. It isnt a matter of being sorry it is a matter of repentance in obediance to God to recieve His same disposition to be perfect even as your Father in ehaven is perfest.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
Sorry for your sins and ask for forgivness? The only way to be without sin is to be anointed of God, which is Christ in you. It isnt a matter of being sorry it is a matter of repentance in obediance to God to recieve His same disposition to be perfect even as your Father in ehaven is perfest.
You are NEVER without sin.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
You are NEVER without sin.
Actually all who are born of God it is impossible to be in sin. 1 John 3:9 ANd He really does come and takes away the sins of this world 1 John 3. And when you do see Him as He is ye shall be like Him, 1 John 3.

If you are of Chriost it is impossible to be in sin. It is those who are not of Christ, Gods anointed, who are the sinners. Either you are of Christ and perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect or you are not and in sin instead.

You act as is Christ is a sinner.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
Actually all who are born of God it is impossible to be in sin. 1 John 3:9 ANd He really does come and takes away the sins of this world 1 John 3. And when you do see Him as He is ye shall be like Him, 1 John 3.

If you are of Chriost it is impossible to be in sin. It is those who are not of Christ, Gods anointed, who are the sinners. Either you are of Christ and perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect or you are not and in sin instead.

You act as is Christ is a sinner.
Christ is sinless we are not. Its clearly not possible to carry on a sensible conversation with you. Good luck to you
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Christ is sinless we are not. Its clearly not possible to carry on a sensible conversation with you. Good luck to you
Chriust is sinless and all who are anointed of God which is Christ in us is sinless.

And I do agree with you that it is sensless to carry on a conversation with me -- or Jesus -- because of lack in having in you from God His same mind, same light and to walk in it as He does as Jesus did. and perfect even as your Father in ehaven is perfect as Jesus commanded of you.

You cant know that what you dont have.
 
Top