If Jesus could heal blind men, why didn't he just heal blindness?

[1robin]

Hi 1robin, thank you for the response. Now, if I am hearing you correctly, you are expecting a better nature than the one you were created with, and this new nature will insure your obedience? My question to you is, why didn't Elohim create Adam and Eve with the same nature you are expecting to get? KB

Ken I like you but are these questions supposed to be arguments? Why would God have done that? How would I know? If you can find a verse that says God will give us or must give us the same nature Adam and Eve had then maybe this is relevant but as it is I have no idea why you asked this. Finite and fallible minds like we have do themselves no good trying to tell God what he should have done or asking each other questions about his thinking he did not already supply the answers to us for. I am not God and can't say why God did everything he did. I can only say and only have said what he said is why he did what he said he did actually do. I only know that:

1. Not one mortal who ever existed has become perfect even after being saved.
2. That any line you or someone who has adopted a merit based salvation draws for the amount of sin THEY think GOD can accept is arbitrary and meaningless.
3. That God said he would make the corruptible into the incorruptible after we die, and that rebellion, that exists in every Christian heart that ever existed will cease in heaven.

Merit based salvation does not work, has never worked, and can't possibly work even theoretically given the Bible's claims about it. As far as I know God did not create Adam and Eve without the capacity to sin and loose everything. I do not know why nor do I need to. As far as I know (or the Bible reveals) we will be given perfect natures so we may dwell with a perfect God when we enter heaven.


The way you came out of the gate I thought I was in for a challenge but I am beginning to wonder. That is not intended to be offensive in any way. Maybe your saving up for some blitzkrieg scripture fight soon or something.

Again where do you draw this arbitrary line, why? And are you across it?

 

[Ken Brown]

Ken I like you but are these questions supposed to be arguments? Why would God have done that? How would I know? If you can find a verse that says God will give us or must give us the same nature Adam and Eve had then maybe this is relevant but as it is I have no idea why you asked this. Finite and fallible minds like we have do themselves no good trying to tell God what he should have done or asking each other questions about his thinking he did not already supply the answers to us for. I am not God and can't say why God did everything he did. I can only say and only have said what he said is why he did what he said he did actually do. I only know that:

1. Not one mortal who ever existed has become perfect even after being saved.
2. That any line you or someone who has adopted a merit based salvation draws for the amount of sin THEY think GOD can accept is arbitrary and meaningless.
3. That God said he would make the corruptible into the incorruptible after we die, and that rebellion, that exists in every Christian heart that ever existed will cease in heaven.

Merit based salvation does not work, has never worked, and can't possibly work even theoretically given the Bible's claims about it. As far as I know God did not create Adam and Eve without the capacity to sin and loose everything. I do not know why nor do I need to. As far as I know (or the Bible reveals) we will be given perfect natures so we may dwell with a perfect God when we enter heaven.

The way you came out of the gate I thought I was in for a challenge but I am beginning to wonder. That is not intended to be offensive in any way. Maybe your saving up for some blitzkrieg scripture fight soon or something.

Again where do you draw this arbitrary line, why? And are you across it?

Hi 1robin, before we get into the Scriptures which will lay out salvation, can you answer if you believe in a merit based condemnation? KB

 

[1robin]

Hi 1robin, before we get into the Scriptures which will lay out salvation, can you answer if you believe in a merit based condemnation? KB

Let me clarify.

I believe merit is accounted for in either Heaven or Hell but it is not what put's us in either place. Lack of faith puts us in Hell where our merit determines what Hell is. (I also believe souls in Hell are eventually destroyed otherwise God would have to be in Hell) but that is off topic. Faith also gets us into heaven as many verse specifically state but merit determines (the treasures received there, whatever treasure is in that sense). Many near death experiences are consistent with that, but that also is a footnote.

Let me ask you a question again. You have answered very few of mine so far but this one I insist on. Where is the line or level of sinless-ness, (changed nature, view of sin, or repentance for sin or whatever label you give it) that is divides those going to heaven or hell?

What explains the deficiency of Christ's sacrifice for those Christians below that arbitrary thresh-hold?

PS. Hello Ken

 

[Ken Brown]

Let me clarify.

I believe merit is accounted for in either Heaven or Hell but it is not what put's us in either place. Lack of faith puts us in Hell where our merit determines what Hell is. (I also believe souls in Hell are eventually destroyed otherwise God would have to be in Hell) but that is off topic. Faith also gets us into heaven as many verse specifically state but merit determines (the treasures received there, whatever treasure is in that sense). Many near death experiences are consistent with that, but that also is a footnote.

Let me ask you a question again. You have answered very few of mine so far but this one I insist on. Where is the line or level of sinless-ness, (changed nature, view of sin, or repentance for sin or whatever label you give it) that is divides those going to heaven or hell?

What explains the deficiency of Christ's sacrifice for those Christians below that arbitrary thresh-hold?

PS. Hello Ken

Hi 1robin, before I answer your questions I just wanted to state that you should look at Mark 6:11 when it comes to grasping the concept that even unfaithful and non-believing citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah will stand a better chance in the judgment than the deprived, rejecting generation of Yeshua. Yeshua said that ALL manner of sin will be forgiven the sons of men, and He meant every sin, with the exception of ONE, so even those of Sodom and Gomorrah will be forgiven, and they did not accept any substitute in their stead.

You ask, "Where is the line or level of sinless-ness, (changed nature, view of sin, or repentance for sin or whatever label you give it) that is divides those going to heaven or hell?"

My Answer:

To enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, you cannot even be a liar, the change has to be drastic, for ALL men are liars, so the level of sinlessness required to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven is total perfection from a believers heart. Don't you recall what happened to Ananias and Sapphira for lying, let that be an example to you for what is required.

You ask, "What explains the deficiency of Christ's sacrifice for those Christians below that arbitrary thresh-hold?"

My Answer:

Have you not read where Paul states that what was lacking/deficient in the sufferings of Yeshua, he supplemented by his sufferings:

Col 1:24
(24) Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and filling up again (G466-to supplement) the deficiencies of the afflictions of the Messiah in my body for his body, which is the assembly;

Paul also told the Philippians that he was being "poured out" as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of their faith:

Php 2:17
(17) Even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all.

So I think you are looking at the deficiency of the Messiah's sacrifice in a way that it should not be viewed...substitutionally. The Messiah left us an example to follow and that was to be blameless, and to suffer for the sake of others.

Here is a little bonus answer for you. When the Apostle Paul prayed on 3 different occasions concerning a "thorn" in his flesh, most think it was an illness he was praying about, but it wasn't. When you proplerly understand that the "thorn" was a sin in his life, then you can begin to realize the Power of the Cross in separating a sinner from their sin, and truly seeing how the Lamb is taking away our sin. Paul could not and would not compromise with sin, he would not allow it to remain as a thorn in his life. But I am going to give you a little insight into how Elohim thinks. When the children of Israel were entering into the promise land, Elohim stated that He would not completely drive out their enemies at once, it would be little by little:

Exo 23:29-31
(29) I will not drive them out from before you in one year, lest the land become desolate and the wild beasts multiply against you.
(30) Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased and possess the land.
(31) And I will set your border from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the Euphrates, for I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you.

Then He stated that IF they didn't drive them out, they would become as "thorns" in their sides:

Num 33:55
(55) But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you let remain shall be as barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell.

1robin, can't you see how the children of Israel's experience is there to teach us about removing the "enemies" of Messiah, which is sin. Yeshua said that a man's enemies are those WITHIN his OWN house, and Yeshua also said that if ANYTHING causes you to sin, it must be cut off or plucked out (removed). Those who belong to Messiah, have crossed over and entered in the Promise Land, and He wants us ALL to defeat and drive out any and all sins that remain before us, or else, they will become as "thorns" in our flesh.

I hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction. KB

 

[1robin]

Hi 1robin, before I answer your questions I just wanted to state that you should look at Mark 6:11 when it comes to grasping the concept that even unfaithful and non-believing citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah will stand a better chance in the judgment than the deprived, rejecting generation of Yeshua.

Hello KB. That is not what Mark 6:11 says in most translations. However let's assume it should say that as it is an argument for my claims anyway, as shown below.

Yeshua said that ALL manner of sin will be forgiven the sons of men, and He meant every sin, with the exception of ONE, so even those of Sodom and Gomorrah will be forgiven, and they did not accept any substitute in their stead.

So we have Jesus saying that even the detestable sins of Sodom and Gomorrah would be forgiven but not if what the Disciples taught was rejected. Well what did they teach? The commandments to not sin were not new and we are talking about a very sinful people so that was not it. It was Christ they were preaching. That verse says that even the most detestable sins will be forgiven if Christ is accepted but even the less diabolic of sins will never be forgiven if Christ is rejected. That is exactly what I have claimed.

You ask, "Where is the line or level of sinless-ness, (changed nature, view of sin, or repentance for sin or whatever label you give it) that is divides those going to heaven or hell?"

My Answer:

To enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, you cannot even be a liar, the change has to be drastic, for ALL men are liars, so the level of sinlessness required to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven is total perfection from a believers heart. Don't you recall what happened to Ananias and Sapphira for lying, let that be an example to you for what is required.

You and I have both lied so we are liars. Did you die on the spot? I guess they are not literal representatives of what happened to all liars after all. So we are disqualified unless you have never lied since being saved and can guarantee that you won't tell a lie and not ask forgiveness before you die. The only way to guarantee we get to heaven on your standard is to jump off a building and repent on the way down. What happens if you like all other humans tell a lie and the next second get hit by a bus? You say total perfect, so do I. I claim it takes place by the perfection of Christ being applied to our lives it appears you claim you and others have reached perfection by effort. Good luck with that especially since the Bible says that every single human on Earth has fallen short. Ananias and Sapphira are not examples of who gets into heaven. If they were that any lie ever spoken by anyone would irrevocably doom. BTW their story is such an extreme exception and anomalies that very few claim to understand the stories purpose and no one I have ever heard has used it to define or comment on salvation. Yes God would be just in killing us all, no he does not normally do so.

You ask, "What explains the deficiency of Christ's sacrifice for those Christians below that arbitrary thresh-hold?"

My Answer:

Have you not read where Paul states that what was lacking/deficient in the sufferings of Yeshua, he supplemented by his sufferings:



Col 1:24
(24) Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and filling up again (G466-to supplement) the deficiencies of the afflictions of the Messiah in my body for his body, which is the assembly;

This verse has nothing whatever to do with salvation. Paul was saying his afflictions suffered on behalf of the Church do not measure up to what Christ endured and are deficient in comparison. Again even if this applies to salvation, it again proves my point. Paul thought he would be in heaven yet he was stating his efforts were deficient in comparison with Christ's. I have debated salvation for 15 years or more and no one on your side has used these scriptures for their case that I have ever witnessed. There are a few troublesome verses that suggests works are required for salvation. These are not among them, and there exists a dozen that suggest works do not save for every one that is ambiguous enough to be used to suggest they can. In my case I spent three years trying to resolve this issue and I believe on three separate occasions God miraculously gave me his answer in addition to the countless hours of study that resulted in the same but independently derived conclusion that grace and grace alone can save.

Paul also told the Philippians that he was being "poured out" as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of their faith:

Php 2:17
(17) Even if I am to be poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrificial offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with you all.

So I think you are looking at the deficiency of the Messiah's sacrifice in a way that it should not be viewed...substitution ally. The Messiah left us an example to follow and that was to be blameless, and to suffer for the sake of others.

I think you misunderstood my point. I say there is no line beyond "born again" for salvation. You said there is another line based on merit for even those that have been born again. My question was wherever you arbitrarily draw that line why was Christ's provision not able to saved them that believe but lie below you threshold. In my view there is no deficiency. Christ is able to save those that believe regardless of where you draw and imaginary line. There is no deficiency for Christ in my view. He saves all that believe and a re born again. Yes Christ left an example but that is not what saves. Until you die on a cross or reach the perfection he maintained you will never get to heaven on merit (I do not even think you would even if you did if you are not born again, but since we are talking about an impossibility it makes no difference.
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Here is a little bonus answer for you. When the Apostle Paul prayed on 3 different occasions concerning a "thorn" in his flesh, most think it was an illness he was praying about, but it wasn't.

No one knows what it was and I think it was left that way on purpose. Claims to know what you can't possibly know are not arguments.

When you properly understand that the "thorn" was a sin in his life, then you can begin to realize the Power of the Cross in separating a sinner from their sin, and truly seeing how the Lamb is taking away our sin.

Well while not knowing what it was you have adopted the most illogical possibility. You equate sin with the thorn. That proves my point. Paul was righteous based on Christ's merits not his own. It also says God refused to remove the thorn. Are you suggesting God refused to do what you claim he must in order to save us?

Paul could not and would not compromise with sin, he would not allow it to remain as a thorn in his life. But I am going to give you a little insight into how Elohim thinks. When the children of Israel were entering into the promise land, Elohim stated that He would not completely drive out their enemies at once, it would be little by little:

There is no evidence the thorn was ever removed from Paul's life. If it was sin then God saved him in spite of his sin. I do not believe your interpretation has the slightest chance of being correct but even if it was it proves what I have said not what you have. Christ's, not our merit saves us.

Exo 23:29-31
(29) I will not drive them out from before you in one year, lest the land become desolate and the wild beasts multiply against you.
(30) Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased and possess the land.
(31) And I will set your border from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the Euphrates, for I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you.

Then He stated that IF they didn't drive them out, they would become as "thorns" in their sides:

Num 33:55
(55) But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you let remain shall be as barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell.

1robin, can't you see how the children of Israel's experience is there to teach us about removing the "enemies" of Messiah, which is sin. Yeshua said that a man's enemies are those WITHIN his OWN house, and Yeshua also said that if ANYTHING causes you to sin, it must be cut off or plucked out (removed). Those who belong to Messiah, have crossed over and entered in the Promise Land, and He wants us ALL to defeat and drive out any and all sins that remain before us, or else, they will become as "thorns" in our flesh. [/quote] I have never even hinted that sin should not be fought against and we should not strive to be as sin free as we can. The point is that every single mortal who has lived and died or will, will die with sin in their life. In my understanding of salvation they are still saved if they believed and could live with that assurance. In your view they either must reach an impossible perfection, they must reach some ambiguous and arbitrary level of sinless-ness that you can't quantify, or they must simply home they made it across this imaginary line and live their entire lives without assurance.

I hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction. KB

I appreciate the fact you tried but IMO did not do so adequately.

In your view our effort is necessary to be saved beyond simple faith so you MUST know the answers in detail to my questions.

If perfection is the standard how will you achieve it?
Have you achieved perfection?
How much effort?
Of what type or types?
How do you weight sins?
How do you weight merits?
If any Christian went to Hell then why did Christ's actions forgive a certain amount of sin but not the rest?

You must answer those questions adequately and specifically for your view to even stand a chance of being valid. You are being very vague and using scripture in ways unintended by their author's and in many cases that prove what I claim. I expect those that claim merit based salvation to be vague and ambiguous and Ken you have not disappointed.

 

[Ken Brown]

No one knows what it was and I think it was left that way on purpose. Claims to know what you can't possibly know are not arguments.

Well while not knowing what it was you have adopted the most illogical possibility. You equate sin with the thorn. That proves my point. Paul was righteous based on Christ's merits not his own. It also says God refused to remove the thorn. Are you suggesting God refused to do what you claim he must in order to save us?

There is no evidence the thorn was ever removed from Paul's life. If it was sin then God saved him in spite of his sin. I do not believe your interpretation has the slightest chance of being correct but even if it was it proves what I have said not what you have. Christ's, not our merit saves us.

Exo 23:29-31
(29) I will not drive them out from before you in one year, lest the land become desolate and the wild beasts multiply against you.
(30) Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased and possess the land.
(31) And I will set your border from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the Euphrates, for I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you.

Then He stated that IF they didn't drive them out, they would become as "thorns" in their sides:

Num 33:55
(55) But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you let remain shall be as barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell.

1robin, can't you see how the children of Israel's experience is there to teach us about removing the "enemies" of Messiah, which is sin. Yeshua said that a man's enemies are those WITHIN his OWN house, and Yeshua also said that if ANYTHING causes you to sin, it must be cut off or plucked out (removed). Those who belong to Messiah, have crossed over and entered in the Promise Land, and He wants us ALL to defeat and drive out any and all sins that remain before us, or else, they will become as "thorns" in our flesh.

I have never even hinted that sin should not be fought against and we should not strive to be as sin free as we can. The point is that every single mortal who has lived and died or will, will die with sin in their life. In my understanding of salvation they are still saved if they believed and could live with that assurance. In your view they either must reach an impossible perfection, they must reach some ambiguous and arbitrary level of sinless-ness that you can't quantify, or they must simply home they made it across this imaginary line and live their entire lives without assurance.

I appreciate the fact you tried but IMO did not do so adequately.

In your view our effort is necessary to be saved beyond simple faith so you MUST know the answers in detail to my questions.

If perfection is the standard how will you achieve it?
Have you achieved perfection?
How much effort?
Of what type or types?
How do you weight sins?
How do you weight merits?
If any Christian went to Hell then why did Christ's actions forgive a certain amount of sin but not the rest?

You must answer those questions adequately and specifically for your view to even stand a chance of being valid. You are being very vague and using scripture in ways unintended by their author's and in many cases that prove what I claim. I expect those that claim merit based salvation to be vague and ambiguous and Ken you have not disappointed.

Hi 1robin, please listen carefully. The thorn in Paul's flesh was a sin in his life. Paul wanted Elohim to remove this sin from his flesh, and Elohim refused, telling him that His Grace was sufficient. Here is precisely what that means. The Grace of Elohim is the FREE gift of righteousness. This righteousness is a DOING of what the Law required a sinner to accomplish WHEN they sinned. All have sinned, therefore ALL have this FREE Gift of accomplishing what the Law required, which is, sinner sacrifice for your sin. When we sin, we are placing Yeshua up on the cross, and causing Him to suffer, and if one knows this is the case, and falls back into DELIBERATE sin, they are placing Yeshua back up on the cross to publicly shame Him (Heb 6:6, and look at v8).

When Elohim told Paul that His Grace is sufficient, all Elohim was telling Paul was that with Paul KNOWING that his sin is what placed Yeshua up on the cross, and gave him the free gift of righteousness, then Paul could not REMAIN in his sin. This allows the Grace of Elohim to be sufficient in TURNING Paul from this sin, this thorn in his flesh. Paul taught that the Grace of Elohim was given to teach us to say no to ungodliness (Titus 2), and this is what Elohim is telling Paul, that His Grace should be enough to teach Paul to overcome this thorn in his flesh. Just as Elohim did not completely remove the enemies of the Children of Israel as they entered the land, and ALLOWED the Children to overcome and take possession through their obedience, so also He is telling Paul that PAUL needed to overcome this sin and defeat it through obedience, according to the Grace of Elohim. This explanation I am giving you is correct and very true. KB

 

[1robin]

Hi 1robin, please listen carefully.

I can't hear you. Just kidding.

The thorn in Paul's flesh was a sin in his life. Paul wanted Elohim to remove this sin from his flesh, and Elohim refused, telling him that His Grace was sufficient.

I see you do not understand what this means so I will lay it out below but give a brief summary first. This interpretation of that verse can't be more indicative of my position. God told Paul his grace would save him even if he had a sin that was never resolved. Grace and grace alone would save him. I believe the thorn was never identified specifically (in fact a sin is not the most prevalent understanding of it) on purpose so that all of us Christians could feel secure that no mater what we are struggling with, grace is sufficient.

Here is precisely what that means. The Grace of Elohim is the FREE gift of righteousness. This righteousness is a DOING of what the Law required a sinner to accomplish WHEN they sinned. All have sinned, therefore ALL have this FREE Gift of accomplishing what the Law required, which is, sinner sacrifice for your sin. When we sin, we are placing Yeshua up on the cross, and causing Him to suffer, and if one knows this is the case, and falls back into DELIBERATE sin, they are placing Yeshua back up on the cross to publicly shame Him (Heb 6:6, and look at v8).

That is not what grace means. Grace means to receive that which we do not deserve. You described merit not grace. Nor is salvation based on mercy. Mercy is not receiving that which you do deserve. Grace has no connection what so ever with obeying laws. That is merit. Grace is the exact opposite. To receive heaven even though our actions and sins do not merit it nor ever could. I can illustrate the opposite understanding of sin and grace than your interpretation here by using an unusual verse for it (for interest sake as there are a hundred more common ones that indicate the same thing). Paul said Should we continue in sin so that grace may abound. May it never be. Already we see that grace comes into the picture as a component of provision for the fact we did not obey and sinned not the other way around. Why would Paul ask if we should do something that we could not do to begin with? Why would Paul ask "should we jump to the moon" since that is impossible. No, he is asking about something that can happen. We can sin and grace will increase to cover that sin or Paul would not have asked if we should do it to begin with. Paul is saying we could sin more and God would forgive more but that is not what we should do. In no way is grace the ability to act lawfully, it is the polar opposite of that.

When Elohim told Paul that His Grace is sufficient, all Elohim was telling Paul was that with Paul KNOWING that his sin is what placed Yeshua up on the cross, and gave him the free gift of righteousness, then Paul could not REMAIN in his sin.

He was telling Paul that his grace would be able to get him into heaven regardless of what the thorn was. Grace is sufficient once applied to any need. It is applied at the moment we believe and are born again.

This allows the Grace of Elohim to be sufficient in TURNING Paul from this sin, this thorn in his flesh. Paul taught that the Grace of Elohim was given to teach us to say no to ungodliness (Titus 2), and this is what Elohim is telling Paul, that His Grace should be enough to teach Paul to overcome this thorn in his flesh.

But there is not even a hint the thorn was ever removed. As far as God revealed he never overcame the thorn. Actually the most common understanding of the thorn is a physical impairment that God left in place to teach Paul to rely on God's strength not his own. Since we don't know what it was I have been discussing your take on it as it could be the right one but no one will know what it was this side of the dirt I imagine.

Just as Elohim did not completely remove the enemies of the Children of Israel as they entered the land, and ALLOWED the Children to overcome and take possession through their obedience, so also He is telling Paul that PAUL needed to overcome this sin and defeat it through obedience, according to the Grace of Elohim. This explanation I am giving you is correct and very true. KB

Almost every example you give IMO backfires on you. The Hebrews never did what God told them and left numerous people from the tribes God demanded be wiped out alive. Now this is the interesting part. They still got the land even though they were troubled by those people they did not wipe out after wards. If you wish to draw an analogy with heaven then fine, but they Hebrews got the land even though their disobedience meant they were troubled during their earthly life. The same way we will still get into heaven but our disobedience will cause us trouble in our lives.

You are searching for some way to justify something that in principle can't be true. Perfection is the standard, our behavior is never going to get there. It is Christ's merit which is credited to my account that allows my admission into heaven. In what way is Christ's record deficient? I can get into the scriptures as you wish or details concerning your views but the principle its self is unsound. Your position requires you to say salvation = Christ + X. The equation is unsound its self because there is nothing lacking in Christ. However even if the equation worked it is impossible to know what X =. So far you have stuck our attitude about sin, the amount of sin, our works, grace meaning obedience, etc as being = to an X there is no need of in the first place. That equation is true if your claim is. If that equation exists you must define X yet can not do so but the value placed on the theory forces you to throw all kinds on insufficient self contradicting and incorrect interpretations and definitions into it to achieve what is desired. My view has no X to define. It makes 95% of scripture and doctrine harmonize perfectly. I am only left with clearing up a little context for some verse in James and a couple elsewhere.

I have often wondered why anyone would go through this much effort to take responsibility for what God relieved us from. I have no idea in your case but in general I think the idea we must merit salvation stems from three things.

1. Pride in thinking we can earn what God has provided. If my merit is involved then I do have a right to boast.
2. The idea that it is within my control and that I am superior in some way over those that are not saved. Once again pride. It is hard for us to admit we have nothing to offer that is special or worthy.
3. The world (the way man operates) is merit based and so it is hard to conceive of a love so great it would save in spite of our lack worth. In a way pride yet again.

 

[Ken Brown]

...

Hi 1robin, I am going to try to help you here. When you are standing before Yeshua in judgment (Rom 14:10-12), and giving Him an account of everything you did in your life, my advice would be that you would not say to Him:

"Thank you Jesus for dying in my place and doing it all for me in my stead. I would not want to insult you by trying to be righteous on my own as you did it all for me so that I would not have to do anything but believe that you kept the commandments in my place so that I would not have to keep them. Thank you, thank you, Jesus."

Now, if you would be so foolish to say anything like that to Him, I would suspect that He would tell you:

"You never knew Me, and I for a certainty did not know you, so you should depart from Me, you worker of INIQUITY, and KEEP all of those thorns you have collected over your lifetime and, choke on them." KB

P.S. Here are a few Scriptures you should get acquainted with:

Mat 16:27
(27) For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Rev 2:23
(23) And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

Gal 5:19-21
(19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
(20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
(21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of Elohim.

Rev 20:12-13
(12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before Elohim; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
(13) And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged EVERY man according to their works.

Php 2:12
(12) Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

You see 1robin, Paul was a firm believer in how James taught:

Jas 2:14
(14) What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

Is you faith going to save you 1robin? KB

 

[roger1440]

Mysticism is something that infected early Christianity (and many others) and was eventually condemned as heretical. I do not see the point. There is nothing hidden for instance in Jesus placing literal mud in a literal eye to get rid of literal blindness. There is nothing hidden behind it, it is simply what it says. Mysticism, Gnosticism, etc... and many other terms are labels for an excuse to change simple verses into something more convenient for groups or individuals with agendas. I have read many books that record the history and evolutions in interpretation in the past 2000 years of textual criticism. There is nothing in there that will (even if true which it is almost universally condemned) that would justify Baha'i's interpretation of scripture and it is not only Christians who say this. Jews, Muslims, and even Hindus have said the same thing. I have no problem with you believing whatever your faith tells you to, my only problem comes in when you use distorted interpretations as an argument.

Can you quote your sources please? Saint Teresa of Ávila is both a Doctor of the Church and a Mystic. Saint John of the Cross is also a mystic.

 

[1robin]

Hi 1robin, I am going to try to help you here. When you are standing before Yeshua in judgment (Rom 14:10-12), and giving Him an account of everything you did in your life, my advice would be that you would not say to Him:

"Thank you Jesus for dying in my place and doing it all for me in my stead. I would not want to insult you by trying to be righteous on my own as you did it all for me so that I would not have to do anything but believe that you kept the commandments in my place so that I would not have to keep them. Thank you, thank you, Jesus."

Ken you seem to be a nice person but I would appreciate you drop the condescending judgmental tone here. You do not have the slightest idea how I will fare at the judgment, especially since you completely botched up simply what I have claimed, and the arrogance required to make pronouncements that are God's prerogative alone is appalling. Let ME actually tell you what I would say instead of you.

Jesus thanks for saving me completely because unlike some I do not claim to be so righteous and important that I could ever merit perfection. Christ it was not half you and half me, it was all you and it is your glory alone. I tried to obey your demands but admit what scripture has said, but others do not, that no one measures up and we all fall short. I can worship you Christ because you paid the FULL price and not only part of it. I realize, unlike others, what God has said, that I can only boast in your virtue and actions not my own. I thank you that even if I was as the man in revelations devoid of any works you still saved me on the basis on your merit and love and not mine. I agree you law was good and tried to be obedient, but like you said, and is obviously apparent, I like every other mortal in history failed to perfectly obey. Once again the glory is all yours, as you and you, alone earned my way here and there is no room left for glorifying myself.

P.S. Thanks for giving man a clearly quantified line in the sand for salvation as being grace and grace alone. Thanks for giving us the spirit as the guarantor of our future salvation and promising to not leave us from that point on throughout eternity. Thanks for not giving us some impossibly ambiguous, unquantifiable, irrational, and unachievable standard like Christ only half saving me and us being responsible for some unknown level of personal merit to make up the difference you just could not do on your own.

If we are going to do something as silly as record what we are going to say when we meet God let's get what I would say consistent with what I have said.

Now, if you would be so foolish to say anything like that to Him, I would suspect that He would tell you:

"You never knew Me, and I for a certainty did not know you, so you should depart from Me, you worker of INIQUITY, and KEEP all of those thorns you have collected over your lifetime and, choke on them." KB

P.S. Here are a few Scriptures you should get acquainted with:

Mat 16:27
(27) For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Rev 2:23
(23) And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

Gal 5:19-21
(19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
(20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
(21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of Elohim.

Rev 20:12-13
(12) And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before Elohim; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
(13) And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged EVERY man according to their works.

Php 2:12
(12) Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

You see 1robin, Paul was a firm believer in how James taught:

I see you have dismissed all the logical incoherencies I asked you to resolve, the things un-quantified I asked you to quantify, and the self contradictions I asked you to un-conflict and went straight to a works salvation person's last gasp. James. Since we are never going to resolve the conflicts within works salvation on logic it seems I am left only with pointing out the flaws in your interpretations.

Yes Paul and James agreed. They both taught grace. Yet on the surface there seems to be a conflict in a few verses so we must proceed carefully.

Paul said this and many verses that say the same thing in countless places:
Ephesians 2:8-9

New International Version (NIV)

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Easy to see from just one verse here that a gift is not earned, that grace alone saves, it is applied through faith alone, it is not works, that no one may boast (but if I did any of it, I could).


and you have your sides favorites like the one below.

Jas 2:14

(14) What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

That is not how that verse goes. It actually says can THAT faith save him.

Now there are three possibilities here and only three.

1. The Bible contradicts its self. We both agree that is not the case.
2. A surface understanding of Paul is right and a different interpretation of James is needed. My view and most of orthodox Protestantism.
3. A surface understanding of James is right and a different interpretation of Paul is needed. Your view and most of orthodox Catholicism (though not as large a percentage).


How can this be resolved. I will give the methods used to do this.

1. Paul is by leaps and bounds the more exhaustive source. So there is far more information concerning what Paul meant than in James. Paul seems to be on a mission to illustrate nothing we do can do anything to earn heaven and Christ merits alone can.
2. James is a very short book and so we have very little context by which to flesh out what James is trying to say.
3. Paul is far earlier.
4. Paul was also far more capable of understanding the issues. He was formally educated in Biblical Law by the greatest teacher in Israel (Gamaliel). This means two things.
a. Paul was far more likely to be the one who would insist obedience was the sole criteria yet he was the most vocal on grace and grace alone. That is called the principle of embarrassment.
b. Paul was by far the more educated on what the law was all about. He knew the formal issues concerning covenant, legality, OT law, merit, and provision. James was not wrong but Paul was very much his superior in capacity to evaluate grace and law and he promoted grace alone.
5. Paul in every conflict with any apostle prevailed. James was very much a minor textual figure in every way. He was also far more resistant to faith and took a long time to convince.

I could go on but in no methodology of Biblical exegesis is Paul not the superior source. By any method used to determine such conflicts is James binding on Paul. Paul is binding on James. So what is James saying. I will do this a different way. Will you let the most respected commentator settle the issue (Mathew Henry) without looking it up. I know what the majority say about it but not him. The rest say James is contrasting two types of faith. True born again faith against superficial faith and laying out common ways humans (not God) can observe the difference. However I will let Mathew settle it if you wish. If not you must show that what I have said is flawed (good luck).

Now that your last hail Mary has ailed into the crowd what is left?

Is you faith going to save you 1robin? KB

Yes. If it can't no one is getting in. Just a suggestion but these type questions just sound arrogant whether you are or not.

 

[1robin]

Can you quote your sources please? Saint Teresa of Ávila is both a Doctor of the Church and a Mystic. Saint John of the Cross is also a mystic.

I gave that statement a while back I believe and can't remember the context. What is it you were claiming?

 

[Ken Brown]

Ken you seem to be a nice person but I would appreciate you drop the condescending judgmental tone here. You do not have the slightest idea how I will fare at the judgment, especially since you completely botched up simply what I have claimed, and the arrogance required to make pronouncements that are God's prerogative alone is appalling. Let ME actually tell you what I would say instead of you.

Jesus thanks for saving me completely because unlike some I do not claim to be so righteous and important that I could ever merit perfection. Christ it was not half you and half me, it was all you and it is your glory alone. I tried to obey your demands but admit what scripture has said, but others do not, that no one measures up and we all fall short. I can worship you Christ because you paid the FULL price and not only part of it. I realize, unlike others, what God has said, that I can only boast in your virtue and actions not my own. I thank you that even if I was as the man in revelations devoid of any works you still saved me on the basis on your merit and love and not mine. I agree you law was good and tried to be obedient, but like you said, and is obviously apparent, I like every other mortal in history failed to perfectly obey. Once again the glory is all yours, as you and you, alone earned my way here and there is no room left for glorifying myself.

P.S. Thanks for giving man a clearly quantified line in the sand for salvation as being grace and grace alone. Thanks for giving us the spirit as the guarantor of our future salvation and promising to not leave us from that point on throughout eternity. Thanks for not giving us some impossibly ambiguous, unquantifiable, irrational, and unachievable standard like Christ only half saving me and us being responsible for some unknown level of personal merit to make up the difference you just could not do on your own.

If we are going to do something as silly as record what we are going to say when we meet God let's get what I would say consistent with what I have said.

I see you have dismissed all the logical incoherencies I asked you to resolve, the things un-quantified I asked you to quantify, and the self contradictions I asked you to un-conflict and went straight to a works salvation person's last gasp. James. Since we are never going to resolve the conflicts within works salvation on logic it seems I am left only with pointing out the flaws in your interpretations.

Yes Paul and James agreed. They both taught grace. Yet on the surface there seems to be a conflict in a few verses so we must proceed carefully.

Paul said this and many verses that say the same thing in countless places:
Ephesians 2:8-9

New International Version (NIV)

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Easy to see from just one verse here that a gift is not earned, that grace alone saves, it is applied through faith alone, it is not works, that no one may boast (but if I did any of it, I could).


and you have your sides favorites like the one below.

Jas 2:14

(14) What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

That is not how that verse goes. It actually says can THAT faith save him.

Now there are three possibilities here and only three.

1. The Bible contradicts its self. We both agree that is not the case.
2. A surface understanding of Paul is right and a different interpretation of James is needed. My view and most of orthodox Protestantism.
3. A surface understanding of James is right and a different interpretation of Paul is needed. Your view and most of orthodox Catholicism (though not as large a percentage).


How can this be resolved. I will give the methods used to do this.

1. Paul is by leaps and bounds the more exhaustive source. So there is far more information concerning what Paul meant than in James. Paul seems to be on a mission to illustrate nothing we do can do anything to earn heaven and Christ merits alone can.
2. James is a very short book and so we have very little context by which to flesh out what James is trying to say.
3. Paul is far earlier.
4. Paul was also far more capable of understanding the issues. He was formally educated in Biblical Law by the greatest teacher in Israel (Gamaliel). This means two things.
a. Paul was far more likely to be the one who would insist obedience was the sole criteria yet he was the most vocal on grace and grace alone. That is called the principle of embarrassment.
b. Paul was by far the more educated on what the law was all about. He knew the formal issues concerning covenant, legality, OT law, merit, and provision. James was not wrong but Paul was very much his superior in capacity to evaluate grace and law and he promoted grace alone.
5. Paul in every conflict with any apostle prevailed. James was very much a minor textual figure in every way. He was also far more resistant to faith and took a long time to convince.

I could go on but in no methodology of Biblical exegesis is Paul not the superior source. By any method used to determine such conflicts is James binding on Paul. Paul is binding on James. So what is James saying. I will do this a different way. Will you let the most respected commentator settle the issue (Mathew Henry) without looking it up. I know what the majority say about it but not him. The rest say James is contrasting two types of faith. True born again faith against superficial faith and laying out common ways humans (not God) can observe the difference. However I will let Mathew settle it if you wish. If not you must show that what I have said is flawed (good luck).

Now that your last hail Mary has ailed into the crowd what is left?

Yes. If it can't no one is getting in. Just a suggestion but these type questions just sound arrogant whether you are or not.

Hi 1robin, you know that I took to you and appreciated your stand against the practice of homosexuality. I truly like how you have stood up against that sin. But here is the problem, you become a hypocrite when you require a homosexual to stop doing the sin of homosexuality, when you refuse to stop your sin. Why can't an active practicing homosexual do as you have done, and remain in their sin as they fully rely on the merit of Jesus to save them? Why would you want them to compromise and come half way and not fully depend upon the merit of Jesus?

Just to let you know, I was raised a Lutheran (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod), and I know your beliefs forward and backward, because I used to believe as you do, but you know little to nothing of what I believe now. Is it arrogance on my part, or is it authority and knowledge, only time and love will tell.

Concerning Paul and James, first, Martin Luther hated James and wished his writings were never included in the Bible, secondly, lawless men have twisted and distorted what the Apostle Paul wrote, and I would place Martin Luther to be right in there at the top. So you may need to start looking at what Paul wrote from a different perspective than how you have understood his writings.

I'm going to try and give you a little more help. The Apostolic Church was the 1st Witness to the One True Gospel, and this Witness was killed. The Messiah is in the process of raising up His 2nd Witness to the One True Gospel, and that Witness will also be killed. But all I can say is fear not those who can kill the Body, but rather fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in the Gehenna. KB

 

[1robin]

Hi 1robin, you know that I took to you and appreciated your stand against the practice of homosexuality. I truly like how you have stood up against that sin. But here is the problem, you become a hypocrite when you require a homosexual to stop doing the sin of homosexuality, when you refuse to stop your sin.

Hello Ken. In which post did I demand a homosexual do anything? I posted information indicating that homosexuality is wrong and nothing concerning what Homosexuals should do. No hypocrisy there.

Why can't an active practicing homosexual do as you have done, and remain in their sin as they fully rely on the merit of Jesus to save them?

1. I did not tell anyone what to do. I even refused to do so when the issue was breeched by others.
2. I only illustrated why I believe the practice is wrong no what to do about it. I will be more than happy to admit what I am doing is wrong if sinful. That is the only burden I have.
3. For all you know I am less sinful than you so please stop posting judgmental assertions based on that which you can't know. I said sinless-ness is not a requirement for heaven not that it should not be an important goal of every Christian.

Why would you want them to compromise and come half way and not fully depend upon the merit of Jesus?

You are going to have to pick another way of arguing because this one is based on something I never did. My comments on homosexuality were made in a secular context and never concerned how they impact salvation, so you can draw no meanings from points I never made. I do not think a homosexual must stop being one to get to heaven (there are even homosexual Churches), though I think they should stop being one, just as I should stop whatever sin I may be involved and whatever sin you are involved in. However that has nothing to do with my comments on homosexuality made in another context. I judge actions not people.

Just to let you know, I was raised a Lutheran (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod), and I know your beliefs forward and backward, because I used to believe as you do, but you know little to nothing of what I believe now. Is it arrogance on my part, or is it authority and knowledge, only time and love will tell.

The difference between arrogance and confidently stating informed claims is obvious. I know the difference between competence and arrogant judgment. Since I am not a Lutheran how does your formerly being one make you an expert on my faith.

Concerning Paul and James, first, Martin Luther hated James and wished his writings were never included in the Bible, secondly, lawless men have twisted and distorted what the Apostle Paul wrote, and I would place Martin Luther to be right in there at the top. So you may need to start looking at what Paul wrote from a different perspective than how you have understood his writings.

I am relying on Christ to save me not Martin Luther. Why are you relating everything to Luther all of a sudden. He does not encapsulate Protestantism and he had many faults. I look at Paul from the perspective of what is logically possible and consistent. I have found all major commentators have done the same. There are two possible conclusions for salvation. Works which is impossible and conflicts with very simple verses and the over al narrative of the Bible. And grace which conflicts with only a surface reading of a few or verse as in James but is the only logical possibility, and is consistent with hundreds of simple verses and consistent with the over all narrative. That is the context in which Paul or any other writer should be read.

I'm going to try and give you a little more help.

Would you stop the condescending garbage. I can make comments about how I am here to instruct you in your ignorance. However I do not because they are unnecessary and arrogant. Stick to the issue. BTW that arrogance is among the motivations that theologians list for what drives a works based salvation model. The desire to think you are worthy and have in some way merited approval.

The Apostolic Church was the 1st Witness to the One True Gospel, and this Witness was killed. The Messiah is in the process of raising up His 2nd Witness to the One True Gospel, and that Witness will also be killed. But all I can say is fear not those who can kill the Body, but rather fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in the Gehenna. KB

I have no idea what his means. Sounds almost cultish. No ones soul is destroyed in the valley that trash was burned in outside Jerusalem. They are destroyed in Hell. You have a remarkable talent for completely ignoring all the logical absurdities I have listed for works salvation, the burdens your claims have, the exegetical methods by which I have shown things are established and evaluated, and the many clear and simple verses (the few used for your purpose are not) that seemed to have been given to stop anyone from adopting what you have. I give you many things you must account for and you account for none. Your argumentation is what I would expect to hear from a Catholic pulpit that was designed to convince those that already believe what you do. Your posts have not been rigorous argumentation and step by step hermeneutics but slogans and assertions. I wish we could rigorously unpack these competing systems in detail and examine them vigorously, but you seem to simply ignore my attempts to do this and mantra along as though nothing was said. I fear the issue is beyond resolution on that basis and therefor have no made an attempt here to do so. You can't earn God's gift. He paid the price and only my side thinks it sufficient. We are all sinners (including you) but only my side apparently admits this and has a sufficient remedy.

BTW are you born again? What did you base your response on? Are you now a Catholic? In about 90% of the cases where I debate a works salvation poster I find out they are not actually born again and therefor do not even know God. I however will await your response and not pre-judge you concerning this. Did you actually read my last post? I see no evidence that you did. Not one contention was resolved or even mentioned by you.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I said sinless-ness is not a requirement for heaven not that it should not be an important goal of every Christian.

Very True 1Rubin. Finally we agree on something.

"No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man." John 3:13

"....and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind" 2 Kings 2:11

 

[1robin]

Very True 1Rubin. Finally we agree on something.

Well look who it is. If it is not good old IT.

"No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man." John 3:13

"....and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind" 2 Kings 2:11

I am sure you did not base agreement with me based on Biblical doctrine alone. On what in Bahaullah's writings is agreement with my view based? Just for curiosity sake. On what is atonement provided for concerning sin in Baha'i? Is it on the merits of Christ alone, as the Bible states in about a thousand places or something else?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Well look who it is. If it is not good old IT.

I am sure you did not base agreement with me based on Biblical doctrine alone. On what in Bahaullah's writings is agreement with my view based? Just for curiosity sake. On what is atonement provided for concerning sin in Baha'i? Is it on the merits of Christ alone, as the Bible states in about a thousand places or something else?

In Baha'i Faith we believe we have a physical Body and Spirit. The Spirit have certain attributes or virtues, such as kindness, patience, forgiveness, wisdom, will-power and etc.
The revelation of God, which comes in the form of His word, causes our Spirit to develop these attribbutes. Then when we die, only Spirit remains. A spirit that has not aquired these attributes, would be weak, dead and blind in the life to come, and the spirit that has aquired these attributes, is happier and stronger in the life to come. But aquiring these attributes is relative. Some may aquire more, some less. So, in the next life nothing physical remain. no worldy power. only we can take these things with ourselves.

But even the condition of those have died in sin and unbelief may eventually change through the bounty and merci of God.

 

[1robin]

In Baha'i Faith we believe we have a physical Body and Spirit. The Spirit have certain attributes or virtues, such as kindness, patience, forgiveness, wisdom, will-power and etc.
The revelation of God, which comes in the form of His word, causes our Spirit to develop these attribbutes. Then when we die, only Spirit remains. A spirit that has not aquired these attributes, would be weak, dead and blind in the life to come, and the spirit that has aquired these attributes, is happier and stronger in the life to come. But aquiring these attributes is relative. Some may aquire more, some less. So, in the next life nothing physical remain. no worldy power. only we can take these things with ourselves.

But even the condition of those have died in sin and unbelief may eventually change through the bounty and merci of God.

Actually as soon as I had hit send I remembered what the Baha'i doctrine on the after life is. You do not believe in Heaven and Hell as the big three do. We believe they are spiritual conditions and distinct locations. You guys believe they are qualities of proximity. Let me ask it differently. We all do things in our life that cause harm to others. Sometimes they cause serious harm to people innocent of the sin we committed. On what basis can a just God forgive this in Baha'i? Does not great wrong demand great payment? Also if God is omnipresent how can I be in a place that has less God in it? God is absolute perfection, how can he exist with imperfection in heaven or for eternity? I am asking more for clarification than argument. Thought I would give you a break at least until you have been debating a day or two. Is Hitler in heaven but in the cheapest of seats or something given your views? Also it seems that it is compulsory heaven for all in your view even though many do not want to go to any version of it and hate God, how does that work?

 

[Ken Brown]

Hi 1robin, you are an exceptionally nice person, but you may need to change a little. You stated this:

Hello Ken. In which post did I demand a homosexual do anything? I posted information indicating that homosexuality is wrong and nothing concerning what Homosexuals should do. No hypocrisy there.

In light of your desire to not tell anyone they need to stop sinning, how do you interpret these two verses:

Eze 33:8-9
(8) When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
(9) Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

You are very quick to tell me to turn from my "condescending garbage," yet you will not tell a homosexual to turn from their sin? That seems rather inconsistent.

No ones soul is destroyed in the valley that trash was burned in outside Jerusalem. They are destroyed in Hell.

In light of your statement, how do you explain Yeshua using the Greek word "Gehenna" for the English word hell in the following verse:

Mat 10:28
(28) And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (G1067-gehenna).

Just to give you a little more information, Yeshua used several Greek words for the English word "hell." In one instance, He used the Greek word "hades" when speaking about the grave, but the English word used is "hell."

Mat 16:18
(18) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell (G86-hades) shall not prevail against it.

Notice He didn't use the Greek word "gehenna," rather the Greek word (G86-hades) which simply means grave. So Yeshua is telling Peter that the gate/gates of the grave will NOT PREVAIL against the Church. Just as the gate to the grave did not prevail or was not strong enough to keep holding Yeshua in the grave:

Act 2:24
(24) Whom Elohiom hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that He should be holden of it.

Death, which is the gate whereby the grave is entered into, was not strong enough to prevail against or hold Yeshua in the grave, so also, death, through the martydom of His Body into the grave, will not PREVAIL against His Church.

Sometimes things just are not as they seem to appear. KB

 

[1robin]

Hi 1robin, you are an exceptionally nice person, but you may need to change a little. You stated this:

In light of your desire to not tell anyone they need to stop sinning, how do you interpret these two verses:

Eze 33:8-9
(8) When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
(9) Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Hello Ken, Just for the sake of time let's say I interpret those verses exactly as you do. I.E. That we should warn others to not sin. That's a bit iffy and context makes things more complex than that but for now let's say that is what they mean.

1. Are you suggesting that since that is what I was supposed to do that makes what I did what it demands?
2. There are two issues here and they are distinct. What I should have done versus what I did.
3. What I did was try and establish why homosexuality is wrong even on a purely secular standard. If you are going to reach people you must at least start on their or at best common ground. You run around yelling that they are sinners and are going to Hell and the only outcome will be your death not their conversion.
4. What I should have done is an independent issue and not binding on what I did. If you wish to discuss those verses in detail we can and they will not prove what you think they do in this context. Issues about not judging and things to be done only within Church congregations come into play but for time sake I have just granted they mean what you think.

In summary: what I did was to use their own methods to show homosexuality wrong and not demand they stop even if I should have.

You are very quick to tell me to turn from my "condescending garbage," yet you will not tell a homosexual to turn from their sin? That seems rather inconsistent.

Their sin is not personally insulting. I have met Christ and experienced salvation. A person who does not know me constantly questioning my relationship with God without the slightest knowledge is condescending and offensive. You are in effect not questioning me who you do not know but questioning Christ's ability to save. The homosexuals are not even doing that.

In light of your statement, how do you explain Yeshua using the Greek word "Gehenna" for the English word hell in the following verse:

Mat 10:28
(28) And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (G1067-gehenna).

That does not appear to be the case here. It uses Hell and then gives a reference to Gehenna because it is used as a metaphor for Hell. IT is a literal valley outside Jerusalem that served as a visual indication of the destruction of the actual Hell. Gehenna can't possibly be Hell unless you think Hell will exist in a garbage dump in Israel.

Just to give you a little more information, Yeshua used several Greek words for the English word "hell." In one instance, He used the Greek word "hades" when speaking about the grave, but the English word used is "hell."

That is because that was the Greek word for Hell. Hell is English and did not exist at the time. I see no issue here what ever.

Mat 16:18
(18) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell (G86-hades) shall not prevail against it.

Notice He didn't use the Greek word "gehenna," rather the Greek word (G86-hades) which simply means grave. So Yeshua is telling Peter that the gate/gates of the grave will NOT PREVAIL against the Church. Just as the gate to the grave did not prevail or was not strong enough to keep holding Yeshua in the grave:

Hades does not mean grave. It is literally a fiery Hell in Greek that contains the famous river Styx and boatman. Sheol is the Hebrew word for grave and is used at times because the progressive revelation concerning Hell had not been revealed. I do not know what meaning you are drawing from the various words used to indicate a generic Hell but I think you are over reaching.

Act 2:24

(24) Whom Elohiom hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that He should be holden of it.

Death, which is the gate whereby the grave is entered into, was not strong enough to prevail against or hold Yeshua in the grave, so also, death, through the martydom of His Body into the grave, will not PREVAIL against His Church.

Sometimes things just are not as they seem to appear. KB

I could have used what you posted here as an argument for my side as I just can't see it supporting your argument. The Church is the body of Christ (all those born again) and death nor Hell shall prevail against it. Also issues about which death 1st or second come into play. Since we all share the first death it must be the second death meant here.

You failed to answer a single question I asked. Why?