"Not by works" - false!

[posthuman]

Right, the BIBLE says that.
That's why it's not likely that a person who didn't know about the law or a Bible would be convicted in regard to the underlying motivations of outward wrong doing. Just that his outward doings were wrong, and punishable.

you really don't think it's self-evident from the universe that sin is a spiritual problem, not a physical problem? that there's something 'wrong' and tho it expresses itself in doing and non-doing it is fundamentally a non-material thing?

i mean, a man kills another by suffocating him unnecessarily and with full knowledge that he's doing it, doesn't have justifiable cause to do it, and that he shouldn't be doing it. what is the real problem here - the tangible acts of violence or the evil in the heart and spirit that does something like this?

Right, the BIBLE says that.
That's why it's not likely that a person who didn't know about the law or a Bible would be convicted in regard to the underlying motivations of outward wrong doing. Just that his outward doings were wrong, and punishable.

i think plenty of people outside of Judaism / Christianity have come to the conclusion that 'righteousness' exists and that is an intangible, spiritual quality whose expression is outward but whose substance is inward. it's this very realization that drove Siddhartha Gautama, isn't it? just from experiencing life.

if a person can become aware of a righteousness apart from works just by the manifest characteristics of God in His creation, then they can also be convicted of sin against that righteousness, likewise apart from works. the verse we are discussing, after all, does say of those without the knowledge of the law, their consciences both accuse and approve them.

 

[posthuman]

We know that because of the Bible.
Not so obvious to the person guided by just conscience

i agree not obvious but it is not unreachable. you find this concept in some types of Buddhism -- for example here is a well-known koan:

A Zen master named Gisan asked a young student to bring him a pail of water to cool his bath.​

The student brought the water and, after cooling the bath, threw on to the ground the little that was left over.​

"You dunce!" the master scolded him. "Why didn't you give the rest of the water to the plants? What right have you to waste even a drop of water in this temple?"​

The young student attained Zen in that instant. He changed his name to Tekisui, which means a drop of water.​

link to source​

​

 

[jaybo]

Immature question. I won't gratify it with an answer.




You missed my point. You are basing your doctrine on information not provided. The information in this case is WHAT KNOWLEDGE DID THE MAN ON THE CROSS HAVE.
Irrelevant to the question at hand as I pointed out.


When you insert obtain doctrine from implicit verses you are using conjecture by definition.


"IT"?


As you should. I assume you do.


I gave scripture to corroborate my statements. You did not give a counter argument. Saying I am "inventing myths" is not scriptural, but ad hominem to cover your lack of intellectual argument. Address my scripture maturely and we can talk.

No thanks. I have no desire to discuss the Bible with you, particularly when you attempt to prove your point by personal insult. Believe me, I have far better credentials than you to interpret Scripture. Bye.

 

[Magenta]

(Faith cometh by hearing... they have not heard...therefore they do not have faith ... therefore hell)
Yes, they are judged by their conscious. Romans 1 talks about God's law being written on their hearts and therefore they are without excuse.

No. Romans 1 says they are without excuse because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator, suppressing the truth by their wickedness. Romans 1 says that since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. It says they knew God but did not give Him glory. Nothing about the law being written on people's hearts in Romans 1, nor is the law even mentioned.

 

[Magenta]

1 John 4:10, dedicated to @EleventhHour for your passion and boldness in proclaiming
the Truth of God's eternal Living Word, and apologies for my part in our recent conflict.

This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 1 John 4:10

Amen.
The love of God right there ... let us never be persuaded otherwise!!

Amen. Perhaps I will design a panel with that verse

Fred said we have never defined love and yet surely those verses have been given before. Very likely multiple times.

 

[EleventhHour]

1 John 4:10, dedicated to @EleventhHour for your passion and boldness in proclaiming
the Truth of God's eternal Living Word, and apologies for my part in our recent conflict.

Lovely!!

 

[jaybird88]

Yes, as Paul explained in Acts 9-11, God has preserved himself a remnant of Jews who believe in Jesus.

But the covenant that God made the nation of Israel is that, as their leaders go, so does the nation. As Paul explained in Romans 11:28, God has became an enemy with Israel, the nation, not individual Jews, who can still be saved by the same gospel of grace that saves us

i dont think the real leaders went anywhere. after Jesus ascended, James lead the 1st church of Jerusalem, Peter and John were leaders, Paul was a leader and they all followed the law and practiced works.
it would be about another 1400 years before the "grace only" idea really caught on.

 

[Guojing]

i dont think the real leaders went anywhere. after Jesus ascended, James lead the 1st church of Jerusalem, Peter and John were leaders, Paul was a leader and they all followed the law and practiced works.
it would be about another 1400 years before the "grace only" idea really caught on.

The high priest and the Sanhedrin represents the leadership.

In acts 7 they stoned Stephen who was full of the Holy Spirit

This thru the leaders the nation committed the unpardonable sin

 

[jaybird88]

The high priest and the Sanhedrin represents the leadership.

In acts 7 they stoned Stephen who was full of the Holy Spirit

This thru the leaders the nation committed the unpardonable sin

i will always believe Jesus and the 12 to be the leaders.
i would not recommend following the temple leaders, Jesus and John both referred to them as sons of the devil, do you really want sons of the devil as your leaders?

 

[Guojing]

i will always believe Jesus and the 12 to be the leaders.
i would not recommend following the temple leaders, Jesus and John both referred to them as sons of the devil, do you really want sons of the devil as your leaders?

Well if they are the leaders, Jesus would have been ruling from the throne of David in Jerusalem now

 

[jaybird88]

Well if they are the leaders, Jesus would have been ruling from the throne of David in Jerusalem now

a leader is someone that you follow. where they sit shouldnt make a difference.

and back to the temple leaders, they were only leaders because they made themselves leaders by lying, cheating and manipulating their way to the top. they were never chosen by the people.

 

[Guojing]

a leader is someone that you follow. where they sit shouldnt make a difference.

and back to the temple leaders, they were only leaders because they made themselves leaders by lying, cheating and manipulating their way to the top. they were never chosen by the people.

You seem pretty confident of your conclusion, that they lied and cheat their way to the top, you have inside information?

Regardless, Romans 11 and especially vs28 won’t make sense if God regarded as you did.

Why would he reject Israel if he sees Jesus and the 12 as their leaders?

 

[jaybird88]

You seem pretty confident of your conclusion, that they lied and cheat their way to the top, you have inside information?

Regardless, Romans 11 and especially vs28 won’t make sense if God regarded as you did.

Why would he reject Israel if he sees Jesus and the 12 as their leaders?

are we talking about the same ones that plotted in secret the murder of Jesus?
then you have Zechariah, a righteous priest serving in the temple, the next day he is gone, what happened to him? and you have his son John, another righteous man, loved by the people, house of levi, but he didnt follow the way of his father serving in the temple. why are these men who are loved by the people being forced out, and who is forcing them out.

your reading into the passage what you want to see. Jesus, John, the 12, they are all Jews, they are Israel, does the Father reject these men. this is the same logic man have used to mislead the masses that the Jews are "Christ killers" and stuck in their "dark superstitions".

 

[Guojing]

are we talking about the same ones that plotted in secret the murder of Jesus?
then you have Zechariah, a righteous priest serving in the temple, the next day he is gone, what happened to him? and you have his son John, another righteous man, loved by the people, house of levi, but he didnt follow the way of his father serving in the temple. why are these men who are loved by the people being forced out, and who is forcing them out.

your reading into the passage what you want to see. Jesus, John, the 12, they are all Jews, they are Israel, does the Father reject these men. this is the same logic man have used to mislead the masses that the Jews are "Christ killers" and stuck in their "dark superstitions".

You have a different interpretation of Romans 11? What is yours then?

 

[jaybird88]

You have a different interpretation of Romans 11? What is yours then?

its about the same as Paul talking about speaking in angel languages or women not being allowed to talk in church. Paul is a great teacher but Paul is not a stand alone, meaning i dont think its wise to build a doctrine off Paul that can not be found anywhere else in scripture.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

meaning i dont think its wise to build a doctrine off Paul that can not be found anywhere else in scripture.

All scripture is profitable for doctrine.

The Bible is not a collection of writings that one must decide to pick parts out of to build doctrine.

It is doctrine; sound doctrine.

Your view is not a wise way to approach the scriptures.

 

[Guojing]

its about the same as Paul talking about speaking in angel languages or women not being allowed to talk in church. Paul is a great teacher but Paul is not a stand alone, meaning i dont think its wise to build a doctrine off Paul that can not be found anywhere else in scripture.

Looks like you are not familiar with that chapter. Okay then

 

[posthuman]

Well if they are the leaders, Jesus would have been ruling from the throne of David in Jerusalem now

if His kingdom was of this world . . .

He was not prevented. He did exactly what He came to do, exactly when He intended to do it. when they tried to make Him king on a throne in Jerusalem, He departed from them ((John 6:15)). He is their king ((just ask Nathanael)), and He came lowly & meek, riding on a colt, the foal of an ass. exactly as He intended, to serve rather than to be served.

 

[posthuman]

a leader is someone that you follow. where they sit shouldnt make a difference.

and back to the temple leaders, they were only leaders because they made themselves leaders by lying, cheating and manipulating their way to the top. they were never chosen by the people.

the tribe of the priests was chosen by God and their appointments to service was by casting lots ((1 Chronicles 24:31, Nehemiah 10:34 e.g.))

there aren't 'democratic elections' in the Bible... ? not for priesthood or kingship.
as in, they were not supposed to be 'chosen by the people' at all. they were to be chosen by God.
you might be right that by the time Christ appeared they weren't choosing by lot anymore, tho i'm not sure about that; would be interesting to find out.

 

[Guojing]

if His kingdom was of this world . . .

He was not prevented. He did exactly what He came to do, exactly when He intended to do it. when they tried to make Him king on a throne in Jerusalem, He departed from them ((John 6:15)). He is their king ((just ask Nathanael)), and He came lowly & meek, riding on a colt, the foal of an ass. exactly as He intended, to serve rather than to be served.

Gabriel was clear there in Luke 1

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.