the right religion

[sojourner]

I do not claim I have any input on who is a sheep and a goat. I simply point out what God says about the issue. It is vitally important that we understand what his criteria are.

Well, I'd have to say that his "criterion," according to Matthew, is that there is no difference between sheep and goats, or wheat and tares. They are to be treated the same. The 28th chapter sums it up, when the disciples are told to go make laos out of the ethne. For Matthew, gatekeeping is verboten.

 

[Oryonder]

I will admit that if you are looking for that you could find it in what I said. The meaning intended by what I said was that a genuine faith will of course have good works but they are not used as a condition of salvation and that is what all the endless amounts of stuff I have posted from others has shown as well. I will leave you with this.

Why does this passage trouble you so much that you can not give a straight answer ?

Why do you continue to deny the obvious ?

The basis on which Jesus gives the keys to the kingdom in Matt 25 is

"Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me"

The criteria for eternal life and entrance into the kingdom given by Jesus in this passage is clear. Why do you continue to deny this.

I do not deny that faith is excluded as a criteria on the basis of Matt 25. Just because faith is absent from Matt 25 does not mean that it is not a criteria as well. It just is not mentioned.

What is given as a clear criteria is "works".

No wonder you hate Paul and John they destroy your illusion. You still have not told me what the Thief on the cross did for works. You have never layed out a possible works salvation system (it can't be done just think on it

Why do you accuse me of hating Paul and John ? There is no need to demonize someone just because they hold different beliefs than yours.

When you find yourself on the precipice such that you feel your whole foundation will crumble if you grant a simple truth .. I suggest you heed the words of Jesus and build your foundation on something other than sand.

It is the truth that sets one free. If you can not handle this truth then I suggest you probe into the reason why.

 

[sojourner]

Anyone can have an opinion, but is it informed. If you think the interpretation is abysmal then give a better one ?

Good luck with that btw.

Here Jesus is talking specifically about what righteousness is and who will gain eternal life.

Zero about faith ... all about deeds.



Im sure you can find 50 apologists making up all kinds of excuses. None however are satisfactory in light of the words spoken by Jesus.

James had it right .. Paul has it wrong.

Give any one of these commentaries you speak of and they will fail the words of Jesus in scripture given above.

I find it touching and amusing that you seem to think you know more than the esteemed scholars who write the commentaries. Do you know why they separate the words of Jesus from the texts? Because they all know that there's not a lot of verifiably authentic quotations in the canonical gospels. Matthew borrows from both Mark and Q, and substantially twists the messages to an urban POV. We have to separate Matthew's spin from Jesus "might have actually said" in order to get at the truth.

In fact, for Matthew, it isn't "all about deeds." It's about a righteousness based upon inclusion. The whole big secret of Matthew, which he uses 5 sermons, each one building on the one before, in order to illustrate, is that there is no such thing as "sheep/goats."

Epic, epic, epic fail here. I'm disgusted and ... nonplussed.

 

[sojourner]

this is about on what basis Jesus grants salvation.

Jesus doesn't "grant" salvation. At least, not according to Matthew.

Jesus says "I am the way" .. Yep .. clearly from this passage at the end of days Jesus acts as the Judge and no one gets without going through him.

This does not mean that you have to be "born again". Obviously from this passage .. and others .. to get in you have to go "through Jesus". Jesus is the gatekeeper.

Wrong. Just wrong.

The test to get past the gatekeeper has nothing to do with baptism and everything to do with heeding the message of Jesus.

And that message would be ... what, exactly? Do you know?

 

[sojourner]

The problem is that Jesus didn't need to die if God did his job right the first time. He could have made humans in a more perfect way and yet didn't, hence "sin" came into the world.

The problem is that this is an untenable theological position.

Although even now God could just forgive everyone or forgive people who asked without crucifying Jesus yet he crucified Jesus anyway.

Another untenable theological position. Besides, God didn't crucify Jesus. The Romans did. For "insurrection."

 

[sojourner]

In Matt 25 Jesus clearly separates the Goats from the Sheep by works.

Not works -- attitude. Position.

 

[Oryonder]

I find it touching and amusing that you seem to think you know more than the esteemed scholars who write the commentaries. Do you know why they separate the words of Jesus from the texts? Because they all know that there's not a lot of verifiably authentic quotations in the canonical gospels. Matthew borrows from both Mark and Q, and substantially twists the messages to an urban POV. We have to separate Matthew's spin from Jesus "might have actually said" in order to get at the truth.

In fact, for Matthew, it isn't "all about deeds." It's about a righteousness based upon inclusion. The whole big secret of Matthew, which he uses 5 sermons, each one building on the one before, in order to illustrate, is that there is no such thing as "sheep/goats."

Epic, epic, epic fail here. I'm disgusted and ... nonplussed.

I find it touching and amusing that you seem to feel you know more than authentic scholars.

You have given zero evidence to back up your opinion on the subject.

If you think that the meaning is different than what is stated in the actual words .. by all means find some good scholarship that supports your claim and I will definately be interested.

My guess is that you have no "authentic scholarship" to back up your claims.

Going one step further I would hazard to say that you probably do not know what authentic scholarship even is given the lack of substantiation for the claims in your post.

 

[Oryonder]

Jesus doesn't "grant" salvation. At least, not according to Matthew.

Wrong. Just wrong.

And that message would be ... what, exactly? Do you know?

LOL I love it when folks stand on their soapbox and utter "Wrong Just Wrong"

Love God and "Do unto others as you would have them do to you"

A more details on that message are given in passage under discussion.

Read what Jesus has to say about who gets the keys to the kingdom of Heaven in Matt 5 - sermon on the mount and Matt 25: 31-46

You can look it up in a Bible or scroll back a bit.

 

[9Westy9]

I do believe that however I do not always act consistent with that and so you could say I act like I don't believe it at times. Also I only have to believe in the ones he says are applicable to me not ones meant for Jews three thousand years ago. Does that address your point?

To an extent. The problem you have now is either God's commands in the OT are still objectively moral and we should follow them today or they weren't objectively moral undermining objective morality.

He could not have made people with freewill who could not chose to sin. His just forgiveing people would not have addressed the seriousness of the issue, actually he did just forgive anyone who will believe in christ (but that entails the understanding of the seriousness of the issue) If he just waved sin away without payment his absolute sence of justice would be compromised. Even if you you find some personal reason to find this undesirable. Can you not consider it may be true regardless or maybe your way of thinking isn't correct. Billions of people disagree with you. It isn't proof but surely it makes you think.

So you're saying that God couldn't have made us more perfect in the first place? Also God's justice is completely messed up as he knows everything about us. Why we believed and why we didn't. So he knows if people found no good evidence to believe in him yet he'll punish them anyway. How is that just and loving of him? and yes I can consider the slight possibility of it being true but that doesn't make it reasonable to believe. It's possible that unicorns exist but unreasonable to believe they actually exist (for example). As for your "billions of people" I'm just going to ignore that as it adds nothing to the discussion

 

[Pink Top Hat]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

you will never succeed in that because in our world there is good and evil the two forces.

You just have to look at the Spanish Inquisition to know what one is evil.

 

[1robin]

you will never succeed in that because in our world there is good and evil the two forces.

You just have to look at the Spanish Inquisition to know what one is evil.

The inquisition only killed a few thousand people over hundreds of years. That is a few thousand too many but if you want to see truw evil. Try atheistic Stalin's 15 million over a very few years.

 

[Oryonder]

The inquisition only killed a few thousand people over hundreds of years. That is a few thousand too many but if you want to see truw evil. Try atheistic Stalin's 15 million over a very few years.

Those numbers are way low but it matters not. Most people did not make it to trial.

There were millions of people killed "in the name of God" during more than 1000 years of atrocities committed by the Church after Constantine.

The most recent was in WWII, Coation Genocide committed against Orthadox and Jewish Serbs. Hundreds of thousands were killed. WWII, Ustashi butchery of the Serbs

Catholic Bishops were found guilty of war crimes after the fact (despite massive political opposition). The Pope helped the Croatian leader Pavelic escape after the war.

The Church had spent 1600 years persecuting Jews (and anyone else that did not conform) .. WWII was no different.

You should study up on the history a bit before making these claims.
Apologising for the absolutely nasty history is siding with evil.

 

[sojourner]

I find it touching and amusing that you seem to feel you know more than authentic scholars.

I've learned from the best.

You have given zero evidence to back up your opinion on the subject.

Since when does exegesis not count as evidence?

If you think that the meaning is different than what is stated in the actual words .. by all means find some good scholarship that supports your claim and I will definately be interested.

Rhoads, Scott, Kloppenborg, Matthews, Koester, etc.

If you think that the meaning is different than what is stated in the actual words .. by all means find some good scholarship that supports your claim and I will definately be interested.

I already have. Kloppenborg is a good place to start, as well as Scott.

My guess is that you have no "authentic scholarship" to back up your claims.

Going one step further I would hazard to say that you probably do not know what authentic scholarship even is given the lack of substantiation for the claims in your post.

:beach:

 

[sojourner]

LOL I love it when folks stand on their soapbox and utter "Wrong Just Wrong"

I know! Isn't it yummy?!

Especially when the one preaching from that soap box is right.

 

[sojourner]

The problem you have now is either God's commands in the OT are still objectively moral and we should follow them today or they weren't objectively moral undermining objective morality.

Is there such a thing as "moral objectivity?"

 

[sojourner]

You should study up on the history a bit before making these claims.
Apologising for the absolutely nasty history is siding with evil.

Absolutely frickin' A well-said! Frubals.

 

[Oryonder]

I've learned from the best.

If you would post something in support of your claims from these people, providing links, your story might be believable.

This is part of what scholarship is about. What it is not about is empty claims.

 

[helpmeplease]

I do believe that however I do not always act consistent with that and so you could say I act like I don't believe it at times. Also I only have to believe in the ones he says are applicable to me not ones meant for Jews three thousand years ago. Does that address your point?



He could not have made people with freewill who could not chose to sin. His just forgiveing people would not have addressed the seriousness of the issue, actually he did just forgive anyone who will believe in christ (but that entails the understanding of the seriousness of the issue) If he just waved sin away without payment his absolute sence of justice would be compromised. Even if you you find some personal reason to find this undesirable. Can you not consider it may be true regardless or maybe your way of thinking isn't correct. Billions of people disagree with you. It isn't proof but surely it makes you think.

Is this the omnipotent god or the one that can't do some things because humans couldn't understand how he could do them? Who put the serpent in the garden? Who knew before he created anything, that he would sacrifice his son to himself because he put the serpent in the garden? Can you consider that your god knows EVERYTHING? Nothing is a surprise to him? He is all powerful? If he wants to remove the punishment he imposed on the humanity he created, why would he need a blood sacrifice of his own son to make that decision?

 

[waitasec]

The inquisition only killed a few thousand people over hundreds of years. That is a few thousand too many but if you want to see truw evil. Try atheistic Stalin's 15 million over a very few years.

you think that any religious expression that is truly representative of gods will would stand apart from stalin


but the common denominator here is...
greed for power and wealth.

 

[Nakosis]

you think that any religious expression that is truly representative of gods will would stand apart from stalin


but the common denominator here is...
greed for power and wealth.

Yeah I wonder how many going around killing Jews among others thought they were doing God's will. Probably a lot. Seems surprisingly easy to convince oneself of having the authority of God.