Paul vs. Jesus

[Lighthouse]

What do you fellas really mean when you say that you can only come to salvation or God only through Jesus? If what you are saying is that you believe in vicarious atonement than I think you are mistaken. Jesus has other names besides Jesus, such as love incarnate, truth, way, light....... when you understand this, you see salvation in a different light. Jesus came to show you what his father is like and to tell you to follow him (Jesus) on his walk to his father. He showed you heaven and you do not see it. He died not as atonement but to show you what lenghts he would go to in order to bring you this message of grace.

The Bible specifically states that Jesus[the Son] is the only way to the Father. And that His death was a sacrafice of propitiation [some versions use atonement]. If you deny the word of God, you deny God. You're a disgusting, vile, putrid, waste of thought. You do not know God, and He does not know you.

 

[temple2006]

Litehouse, I am not a vile, disgusting, putrid, waste of thought. I think you are very rude to say that.

 

[Caledvwlch]

Five bucks says I wasting my breath, but Scripture is very specific that God is love, not that love is God. It is always ordered in that fashion in the Word, and for good reason: to avoid heresies like the one that you are trying to pass.

Actually, from what I remember of my Greek syntax... in a phrase like God is love, both Theos and agape are in the same case (nominative), because "is" is an intransitive verb. In greek, two nouns in the same case can often be translated either way, because word order meant very little in this grammar. Therefore, "God is love" could easily and accurately be translated "Love is God".

 

[Caledvwlch]

The Bible specifically states that Jesus[the Son] is the only way to the Father. And that His death was a sacrafice of propitiation [some versions use atonement]. If you deny the word of God, you deny God. You're a disgusting, vile, putrid, waste of thought. You do not know God, and He does not know you.

Yeah, lighthouse, that's kind of steep don't you think? Of course that's what infallible dogmatics does to people, it sets them on a higher plain than those who don't believe the dogma. And forgive my ignorance (it's been a while since I gave the gospels a thorough read), but do any of the 4 actually mention the crucifixion as being atonement? Or was that bit added in the epistles?

 

[Caledvwlch]

Darn. I was hoping someone would school me on this original sin thing.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Litehouse, I am not a vile, disgusting, putrid, waste of thought. I think you are very rude to say that.

I think that was his way of saying that you so are in serious error.
I'd forgive him......he means well.

 

[Caledvwlch]

I think that was his way of saying that you so are in serious error.
I'd forgive him......he means well.

He means well, huh? So disagreement is justification for ridicule? Oh yeah, it is for lighthouse. I forgot.

 

[Agape4Robin]

He means well, huh? So disagreement is justification for ridicule? Oh yeah, it is for lighthouse. I forgot.

Did ya miss the part where I said, "I'd forgive him"?

 

[Caledvwlch]

Did ya miss the part where I said, "I'd forgive him"?

Oh yeah. I guess I did miss that. But I have a hard time believing that lighthouse will repent of his name-calling and ridicule, and therefore is not deserving of forgiveness.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Oh yeah. I guess I did miss that. But I have a hard time believing that lighthouse will repent of his name-calling and ridicule, and therefore is not deserving of forgiveness.

forgiveness is not for the benefit of the offender, but for the benefit of the one who was offended. Forgiveness is not absolution.

 

[Caledvwlch]

forgiveness is not for the benefit of the offender, but for the benefit of the one who was offended. Forgiveness is not absolution.

Sure, I see where you're coming from. The forgiveness of God would then be the only forgiveness that is to the benefit of the offender. For practical purposes, though, I no longer forgive people who repeatedly commit the same offense. Boy who cried wolf syndrome.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Sure, I see where you're coming from. The forgiveness of God would then be the only forgiveness that is to the benefit of the offender. For practical purposes, though, I no longer forgive people who repeatedly commit the same offense. Boy who cried wolf syndrome.

How many times? Where is the cutoff? 2x, 4x, 20x?

 

[Caledvwlch]

How many times? Where is the cutoff? 2x, 4x, 20x?

There's nothing set in stone. For example, I used to be friends with someone my age who was manipulative and psychologically abusive. Every once in a while, the situation would come to a head, and I'd forgive him, and everything would be cool, for a while. In reality, I waited far too long before I finally wrote him off for good. In the end, it took him being physically abusive (not to me, but another one of his "friends") for me to finally pull the plug. I do try to err on the side of forgiveness, but there's only so much a man can take.

 

[temple2006]

A4R......................I forgave him before he ever posted that crude remark, just as I forgive all of you who are so insulting to me and to other posters. I have that attitude toward life, accepting, but still I wanted him to be aware of his rudeness. People I have nothing I need to prove to you nor do I need to defend my beliefs.

 

[Lovejoy]

Actually, from what I remember of my Greek syntax... in a phrase like God is love, both Theos and agape are in the same case (nominative), because "is" is an intransitive verb. In greek, two nouns in the same case can often be translated either way, because word order meant very little in this grammar. Therefore, "God is love" could easily and accurately be translated "Love is God".

This is from Robertson's word pictures:

And the Word was God (kai qeoß hn o logoß). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying o qeoß hn o logoß. That would mean that all of God was expressed in o logoß and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (o logoß) and the predicate without it (qeoß) just as in John 4:24 pneuma o qeoß can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 o qeoß agaph estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say.

I can neither confirm or deny, but there are those here who can.

 

[Caledvwlch]

This is from Robertson's word pictures:

And the Word was God (kai qeoß hn o logoß). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying o qeoß hn o logoß. That would mean that all of God was expressed in o logoß and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (o logoß) and the predicate without it (qeoß) just as in John 4:24 pneuma o qeoß can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 o qeoß agaph estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say.

I can neither confirm or deny, but there are those here who can.

No, that sounds reasonable, I was just being a pain in the butt.

 

[Lovejoy]

No, that sounds reasonable, I was just being a pain in the butt.

Ha! Honestly, I am basing my assessment on someone who seems to know, but without the knowledge to actually say that he knows. However, it is consistent with other statements in Scripture, and therefore I accept it as truth.

BTW, you have been very careful not to back yourself into a corner with bullheadedness. I find that very wise, and try hard to do the same. Who can claim to always be right?

 

[Caledvwlch]

Ha! Honestly, I am basing my assessment on someone who seems to know, but without the knowledge to actually say that he knows. However, it is consistent with other statements in Scripture, and therefore I accept it as truth.

BTW, you have been very careful not to back yourself into a corner with bullheadedness. I find that very wise, and try hard to do the same. Who can claim to always be right?

Not I. But it seems they are out there.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Then why even debate? :doh:
How boring..... :yawn:
"I'm always wrong, I don't have any answers, so neither does anyone else." :blabla:

 

[Caledvwlch]

Debate is fun, but more often than not, it doesn't lead to much resolution, but if it's debate you want, than I will repost a previous post, which I don't believe anyone has really touched on:

Now we're getting somewhere.

Ok, given those quotes from Jesus, would we interpret those things the same way, if perhaps, Augustine had never solidified the doctrine of original sin? It seems that Jesus is used as a puppet to back up church dogmas that did not emerge until decades, if not hundreds of years after either Jesus or Paul. For example, lets say that the agnostics had won the battle for supremecy in church philosophy (I know it doesn't sit well, but just bear with me for a minute). And for all of the centuries since then, there had been no doctrine of original sin. Could we not then interpret Jesus' teachings above in a different way? Perhaps when he says born again, he means coming to a sense of self awareness.

My point being, Jesus teachings, in their raw form, existed before the ratification of church dogma, and therefore could have been interpreted any number of ways, depending on what those dogmas eventually became.

By dogma, for clarification, I mean a belief that cannot be proven, but is taught under the authority of the church (and coincidentally by pain of hell-fire).