Salvation

[smokydot]

What eye witness reported on events that occurred when Jesus was alone in the wilderness?

The writer was a witness to Jesus' account of his experience.

As is the holy spirit.
The fruit of my life says otherwise. What do you know of my practice?

I'm not referring to your practice. I am referring to your misapplication of its meaning.

I thought it was about salvation.
I don't recall such a statement in the book of matt., for instance

Does that apply to all the books of the NT?
It was general knowledge among those who knew Matt and were in a position to later confirm to others that he wrote it.

again, what do you know of my practice?

It's not about your practice. It's about your misapplication of its meaning.

You are the salt of the earth.
You must condemn to justify your unwillingness to forgive.
The truth applies whether written of not. The truth applies regardless if recognized or not. What is false, by definition, is not true.

More coffee?

 

[smokydot]

You would be the first to know the moment god decides to tell anyone?

Isn't that how it works?

to treat it disrespectfully in word or action.

The NT says it is to attribute the work of the Holy Spirit to demons.

Depends on the company and the desire for it.

It's too late in the day now.

 

[thedope]

The writer was a witness to Jesus' account of his experience.

Did Jesus then tell of his own virgin birth?

I'm not referring to your practice. I am referring to your misapplication of its meaning.

The application of meaning is practice.

Does that apply to all the books of the NT?

What

.
It was general knowledge among those who knew Matt and were in a position to later confirm to others that he wrote it.

Where could that testimony exist but in your imagination?

More coffee?

It is a useless gesture to offer me coffee over the internet. You have something to say about content?

 

[thedope]

Isn't that how it works?

Did Jesus then tell the authors what was said before Pilate?

The NT says it is to attribute the work of the Holy Spirit to demons.

Scripture?

 

[smokydot]

Did Jesus then tell the authors what was said before Pilate?

Peter and another disciple were there (Jn 8:15-16). The centurion who guarded Jesus and was converted (Mk 15:39) was probably there.
Among the three of them, they probably were good witnesses to the whole Pilate charade.

Scripture?

On meaning of "blaspheming the Holy Spirit":

Mk 3:29-30

 

[smokydot]

Did Jesus then tell of his own virgin birth?

He well could have. . .being told by his mother.
His mother explained the whole thing to Luke, the physician.

The application of meaning is practice.

Not necessarily. . .the correct meaning of the words obedience and works are being misapplied to the condition for NT salvation.

What

Are the writers of the NT texts not stated in any of the NT books?

Where could that testimony exist but in your imagination?

The early church fathers; e.g., Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna, and who knew John--Rev 2:8), Clement of Rome, 2 Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was the writer of the Gospel of Matthew.
They knew that because it was general knowledge among those who knew Matthew, who confimed it to the early church fathers.

The one concocting things from their imagination, with no grounding in the Word of God written, is not me!

It is a useless gesture to offer me coffee over the internet. You have something to say about content?

The comment about a cup of coffee was about content, reflecting the value of its content as it relates to the Word of God written.

 

[thedope]

Peter and another disciple were there (Jn 8:15-16). The centurion who guarded Jesus and was converted (Mk 15:39) was probably there.
Among the three of them, they probably were good witnesses to the whole Pilate charade.

John8:15-16, is teaching given in the treasury before he was arrested. Jesus' disciples scattered when he was arrested. You are not helping your case.

On meaning of "blaspheming the Holy Spirit":
Mk 3:29-30

I guess you don't know what meaning means. these two verses say only that blaspheme of against the holy spirit is an offense that cannot be forgiven, although every other can.

 

[tomato1236]

I have never been able to grasp the idea of salvation by faith, and you're saved now. That makes no sense. You are supposed to be saved so you can make it into heaven. How can you know that you're saved if you haven't made it yet?

Agreed.

 

[thedope]

He well could have. . .being told by his mother.
His mother explained the whole thing to Luke, the physician..

Not so certain as to what the NT "says" now?

Are the writers of the NT texts not stated in any of the NT books?

My bible was published by Zondervan Publishing House. Old testament copyrighted 1952 NT section copyrighted 1946

The early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was the writer of the Gospel of Matthew.

Which fathers, what year?

The comment about a cup of coffee was about content, reflecting the value of its content as it relates to the Word of God written.

What content did you glean from this discussion?

 

[smokydot]

Not so certain as to what the NT "says" now?

I have no doubts about what the NT says.

My bible was published by Zondervan Publishing House. Old testament copyrighted 1952 NT section copyrighted 1946

That's cool. . .

Which fathers, what year?

See the post (#306).

What content did you glean from this discussion?

Content whose value made up the difference between $1.50 and the price of that cup of coffee.

 

[smokydot]

John8:15-16, is teaching given in the treasury before he was arrested. Jesus' disciples scattered when he was arrested. You are not helping your case.

Agreed! . .it should be Jn 18:15-16.
Two disciples are stated there. In addition to the centurion who was converted, there could have been three witnesses of the Pilate charade who could have reported it to the writers of the gospels.

I guess you don't know what meaning means. these two verses say only that blaspheme of against the holy spirit is an offense that cannot be forgiven, although every other can.

No, v. 30 explains the meaning.

Mk 3:22,29-30:
22 And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons."
29 "But whoever blasphenmes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
30 He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."

To attribute the works of the Holy Spirit to an evil spirit is blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

 

[smokydot]

Agreed.

Your question is answered in post #216.

 

[thedope]

Agreed! . .it should be Jn 18:15-16.
Two disciples are stated there. In addition to the centurion who was converted, there could have been three witnesses of the Pilate charade who could have reported it to the writers of the gospels.

It is written they were present at the court of the high priest, not at the court of pilate.

To attribute the works of the Holy Spirit to an evil spirit is blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

Do you think that is different from what I said in regards to blaspheme?
In that passage Jesus also makes the point that evil does not cast out evil, and they accuse him of being blasphemous for doing good works, because he is heterodox according to them, in his teaching, challenging the status quo.

 

[smokydot]

It is written they were present at the court of the high priest, not at the court of pilate.

Then that leaves the converted centurion as a possible eye witness, or any number of people in Pilate's circle and employ who may have been believers in Jesus.

Do you think that is different from what I said in regards to blaspheme?
In that passage Jesus also makes the point that evil does not cast out evil, and they accuse him of being blasphemous for doing good works, because he is heterodox according to them, in his teaching, challenging the status quo.

Yes, it is different. It is a matter of degree. You defined it as disrespect and its equivalent. It's worse that that, it is reviling.

Also, the teachers of the law do not accuse him of blasphemy (reviling). They accuse him of being possessed by the devil, of having an evil spirit.
It is he who accuses them of blasphemy (reviling) for calling his Holy Spirit an evil spirit.

At another time, they accused him of blasphemy when he tells a man his sins are forgiven.

 

[tomato1236]

Your question is answered in post #216.

I didn't ask a question. And I don't have a question. What I agree with is the disbelief of the ideas in question. I don't subscribe to "once saved always saved", or the interpretation that all instances of the word "saved" in holy writ refer to entrance into the presence of God, or heaven, in the life hereafter. I do not subscribe to the idea that our actions, and then intent of our hearts is irrelevant after the moment we are "saved".

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I didn't ask a question. And I don't have a question. What I agree with is the disbelief of the ideas in question. I don't subscribe to "once saved always saved", or the interpretation that all instances of the word "saved" in holy writ refer to entrance into the presence of God, or heaven, in the life hereafter. I do not subscribe to the idea that our actions, and then intent of our hearts is irrelevant after the moment we are "saved".

Good points ^above^ because as Jesus said [Matt 24v13] the one who endures to the end is the one who will be saved.
[end of one's life, or living at the end of this world of badness at the time of Jesus 'glory' or time of separation of Matthew 25vs31,32]

Even Paul was concerned that he could end up a 'castaway' -1Cor 9v27

What would be the point of working out one's salvation with fear and trembling is one could not fall away? -Phil 2v12.

The ones of Hebrews [6vs4-6] were Not once saved always saved.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I have never been able to grasp the idea of salvation by faith, and you're saved now. That makes no sense. You are supposed to be saved so you can make it into heaven. How can you know that you're saved if you haven't made it yet?

"...that which is the cause of everlasting life, eternal honor, universal enlightenment, real salvation and prosperity is, first of all, the knowledge of God. It is known that the knowledge of God is beyond all knowledge, and it is the greatest glory of the human world. For in the existing knowledge of the reality of things there is material advantage, and through it outward civilization progresses; but the knowledge of God is the cause of spiritual progress and attraction, and through it the perception of truth, the exaltation of humanity, divine civilization, rightness of morals and illumination are obtained.
Second, comes the love of God, the light of which shines in the lamp of the hearts of those who know God; its brilliant rays illuminate the horizon and give to man the life of the Kingdom. In truth, the fruit of human existence is the love of God, for this love is the spirit of life, and the eternal bounty." Some Answered Questions- Abdul'baha

 

[smokydot]

I didn't ask a question. And I don't have a question. What I agree with is the disbelief of the ideas in question. I don't subscribe to "once saved always saved",

Well, let me explain why orthodox Christiainity believes once saved, always saved:
Jn 10:27-29 -- " 'My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow (obey) me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, no one (including themselves) can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one.' Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him (because that was a claim to equality with God, v.33)."

The Greek construction here of "shall never perish" is a strong denial that the sheep will ever perish.
And eternal life means just that--eternal, it is forever, they cannot lose it.
That's because they have been born again, reborn. To lose it means they would die spiritually again. To get it back means they would have be re-reborn. Nowhere are multiple rebirths found in the NT. Once reborn (saved), always reborn (saved).

It is also found in Ro 8:38; Php 1:6; Heb 10:14.

or the interpretation that all instances of the word "saved" in holy writ refer to entrance into the presence of God, or heaven, in the life hereafter.

Agreed.
Depending on your translation, it is used many different ways:
but (alla) as in Mt 19:11; Mk 9:8,
except (ei me, para, parektos, plen) as in Mt 5:32; Mk 5:37; Lk 4:26; Jn 6:22; Ac 20:13; 1 Co 2:2; 2 Co 11:24; Gal 1:19; Rev 2:17,
than (e) as in Jn 13:10.

But when "sozo" (keep thoroughly, sound, safe) is used, it means salvation from the wrath of God only through faith in Jesus Christ (Jn 3:18,36; Ro 5:9); as in
Mt 10:22 (plus 3 others); Mk 10:26 (+3); Lk 8:12 (+2); Jn 3:17 (+2); Ac 2:21 (+9);
Ro 5:9 (+6); 1 Co 1:18 (+4); 2 Co 2:15; Eph 2:5 (+1); 1 Th 2:16; 2 Th 2:10; 1 Tim 2:4 (+1);
1 Pe 4:18.

I do not subscribe to the idea that our actions and then the intent of our hearts is irrelevant after the moment we are "saved."

Nor does the NT subscribe to the idea. Anyone can claim to be saved because of their "faith" in Jesus Christ, but if you have saving faith, it will be evidenced by your obedience to Jesus' commands. Where there is no evidence, one has no assurance they are truly saved.

 

[thedope]

without works faith is dead

 

[smokydot]

Good points ^above^ because as Jesus said [Matt 24v13] the one who endures to the end is the one who will be saved.

If you truly possess saving faith, and not just profess saving faith, you will not fall away in the trial of faith (Mk 4:16-17), but will endure to the end (Lk 8:15).
Those who fall away in the trial of faith never really possessed saving faith.

Even Paul was concerned that he could end up a 'castaway' -1Cor 9v27

In 1 Co 9:24-27, Paul's concern was not about loss of salvation, but loss of the prize, or reward, or crown.
See 1 Co 3:8-15, where he discusses the quality of one's work for Christ in relation to the reward (crown) one will receive. He says the quality of each man's work will be tested by fire, and if the work survives, he will receive his reward. But if his work is burned up, he will lose the reward. The person will be saved, but he will suffer the loss of a reward (crown).
In 1 Co 9:27 Paul is not referring to losing his salvation, but to losing his reward (crown).

What would be the point of working out one's salvation with fear and trembling is one could not fall away? -Phil 2v12.

Good question.
The NT contains warnings (Php 2:12; Heb 6:4-6; 2 Pe 1:10).
One of the ways God keeps us (Ro 8:38, Php 1:6, Heb 10:14) is through warnings to persevere.
True believers heed these warnings and do not fall away. They have little affect on those who do not truly believe.

The ones of Hebrews [6vs4-6] were Not once saved always saved.

If those Hebrews went back to Judaism like they were considering doing, they would be rejecting Christ's sacrifice for their sin, which meant there guilt remained on them, and there would be no other remedy to remit it. They would be sinning against the remedy and barring their own door to salvation from the wrath of God.
The true believers among them heard Paul's warning and were kept from sinning against the remedy.
Those who were not true believers manifested it by not being affected by Paul's warning.