"Released from the Law"

[LifeHiscost]

Where in John 3:16 does it say that Jesus is going to die? It says that God gave His son, it does not say that He gave His son to die.

"But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”" Matt 20:25-28 NKJV

That doesn't seem to say specifically that Jesus came to be crucified. However since Jesus did come to live as a man among fallen human beings, it appears that He accepted the lot of fallen human beings according to the Word.

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" Hebrews 9:27 KJV

Blessings!

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Where in John 3:16 does it say that Jesus is going to die? It says that God gave His son, it does not say that He gave His son to die.

"But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”" Matt 20:25-28 NKJV

That doesn't seem to say specifically that Jesus came to be crucified. However since Jesus did come to live as a man among fallen human beings, it appears that He accepted the lot of fallen human beings according to the Word.

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" Hebrews 9:27 KJV

Blessings!

I am not sure that is in the list of "pre-approved" books...

What exactly is allowed from the New Testament - in these salvation by works discussions?

Mark :-)

[LifeHiscost]

Richard,

That is exactly why I made the challenge I did. You know what Paul said, you don't really know what Jesus said. Accept the challenge and see if it doesn't change your life. Or not. The only reason not to accept the challenge is because you are afraid. If you don't accept the challenge of 30 days with Jesus then ask yourself, "What am I afraid I will learn?" Remember, you should not do this to prove me wrong, you should do it because you really want to get closer to Jesus Christ. And what could possibly be wrong with that?

"Only let us hold true to what we have already attained and walk and order our lives by that."

Philippians 3:16 AMP

For [although] they hold a form of piety (true religion), they deny and reject and are strangers to the power of it [their conduct belies the genuineness of their profession]. Avoid [all] such people [turn away from them].2 Timothy 3:5 AMP brackets parenthesis theirs LHC

Regards!

[Musicman1228]

Lutz13, I'm glad you are back, and I am not asking you to do anything you don't want to do. That is not my job. I am simply relating my perspective on the salvation by faith issue. You must always believe what you will.

That being said, if your faith cannot stand the scrutiny of the words of Jesus Christ then I personally think you would be wise to reassess you faith. Tell me, whose words are more important to you, Jesus or Paul? And don't say that they are the same thing because they are not. Jesus is the Son of God, Paul is a fallible human; you must decide which is more important in your life. Choose well, choose wisely.

[LifeHiscost]

These statements get traction only because of the misguided fundamentalist idea that scripture and inspiration are inerrant. Fundamentalism and these statements are of Satanic origin, and prove beyond any doubt that Satan isn't really as intelligent as he is thought to be.

Maybe I don't properly recognize what a fundamentalist is but I happen to consider myself one of those. and I believe the underlined statement above. I do not believe fundamentalism is of satan unless it produces dogmatism that rejects the possibility of reaching wrong conclusions, although there does appear to be a time when the elect will be beyond deception.

"For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect."Matthew 24:24 NKJV

Regards!

[Guest]

Tell me, whose words are more important to you, Jesus or Paul? And don't say that they are the same thing because they are not. Jesus is the Son of God, Paul is a fallible human;

The words of Jesus were penned by fallible humans 20-40 years after the fact. Jesus didn't write anything, so how are you following the words of Jesus?

[LifeHiscost]

Frankly, I dismiss all of that "higher critical" reasoning and rationale as garbage. All it does is undermine faith, and destroy the anchor that keeps us from being tossed to and fro on the waves of human philosophy...

Seems Paul knew precisely what he was talking about.

I didn't read all of your post, Richard, but grant that it, leading to the conclusion it did, must have been highly appropriate.

Blessings!

[LifeHiscost]

Sorry my friend. I trust God, and I trust Him well. I once went down the road of twisting His word to my own bias and picking it apart. The problem with doing so is eventually you will keep picking it apart until there is nothing left. I wasn't listening to the warnings God was giving me, so He let me experience it. I fell away for a few months because I had nothing! Yet God as amazing as He is, pulled me back into the boat once again. I do not think you know what you ask me to do. You are asking me to stop trusting God and to trust you. I cannot do that.

Amen. :-)

[LifeHiscost]

I am not sure that is in the list of "pre-approved" books...

What exactly is allowed from the New Testament - in these salvation by works discussions?

Mark :-)

My reliance___

"But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’"Matthew 4:4 NKJV

"For no prophecy ever originated because some man willed it [to do so--it never came by human impulse], but men spoke from God who were borne along (moved and impelled) by the Holy Spirit."2 Peter 1:21 AMP brackets parenthesis theirs

Regards!

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I am not sure that is in the list of "pre-approved" books...

What exactly is allowed from the New Testament - in these salvation by works discussions?

Mark :-)

My reliance___

"But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’"Matthew 4:4 NKJV

"For no prophecy ever originated because some man willed it [to do so--it never came by human impulse], but men spoke from God who were borne along (moved and impelled) by the Holy Spirit."2 Peter 1:21 AMP brackets parenthesis theirs

Regards!

Amen :-)

How is it that men think that they can discover more light by constantly throwing light out?

It is wearisome to see, again and again, these attempts to reduce and minimise inspiration.

Mark

[Twilight]

This is Off Topic...

I was just going to start a new thread in here, but the option has "vanished"...

Anyone else?

Mark

[Guest]

I'm going to start one.

[oldsailor29]

These statements get traction only because of the misguided fundamentalist idea that scripture and inspiration are inerrant.

oldsailor, could you elaborate on this phrase? thank u

The idea that scripture is inerrant is a very old idea, and was even embraced by some Biblical people. The label, "Fundamentalist," is a fairly recent name applied to 19th and early 20th century people who published religious books, "The Fundamentals." People who adopted their tenets became known as Fundamentalists. One of the major tenets of Fundamentalism is inerrancy of scriptures.

The content of some scriptures do contain errors, which gives detractors reasons to reject those scriptures. I say the claim of inerrant scriptures is Satanic in origin because it promotes rejection of any scripture in which an error can be shown. Although SDAs and several other Christian church members are mostly Fundamentalists, and do believe the scriptures are inerrant, I think we should not be in a big hurry to reject scriptures which are shown to contain errors.

[John317]

That being said, if your faith cannot stand the scrutiny of the words of Jesus Christ then I personally think you would be wise to reassess you faith. Tell me, whose words are more important to you, Jesus or Paul? And don't say that they are the same thing because they are not. Jesus is the Son of God, Paul is a fallible human; you must decide which is more important in your life. Choose well, choose wisely.

The truth is that as soon as we start asking questions about who wrote what, we have to admit that we take the entire NT on faith. We don't just take the Epistles of Paul or James or Peter by faith but all of the Gospels, including John. And there are many scholars who don't accept very much of those books.

Jesus, of course, never wrote a word (except on the ground). The Gospel of John-- assuming that John the Beloved did write it-- was written over 50 years after the ascension of Jesus, or over 30 years after the epistles of Paul. He was a fallible human, yes, but then so were all of the Hebrew prophets, including Moses. Yet Jesus pointed His disciples to Moses as the authority, and said that if they did not believe this fallible human being, they also would not believe in the Messiah. Christ wanted them to be sure of the truth on the basis of the word of God, and not merely because He made certain claims. In doing this, Jesus showed that His testimony rests upon the trustworthiness of the written word of God, which was inspired by the Holy Spirit as He moved fallible men to write Scripture.

[skyblue888]

Thanks for your reply.

Not sure what those "errors" are oldsailor! The words of the Bible are not inspired but the thoughts are and they are the thoughts of God, not of men, and therefore infallible. Does not Mrs. White in the Introduction of the book The Great Controversy make that clear on page vii? "The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will" and then she quotes 2 Tim.3:16,17.

sky

[phkrause]

I have to agree with you musicman. As far as I know he is the father of the Hebrew Nation, with Issaic being considered the first Jew.

pk

[Musicman1228]

This is a great discussion done the way it should be done; with respect even though there is disagreement.

Richard Holbrook wrote: The words of Jesus were penned by fallible humans 20-40 years after the fact. Jesus didn't write anything, so how are you following the words of Jesus?

Great question. God the Father chose disciples for His Son Jesus, and they were people that God knew would be receptive to the teaching that Jesus brought to them. His disciples spent over a year (some say 3 1/2) living with Him, eating with Him, learning from Him. Just on a personal note; if you spent a year with Jesus under the same conditions as His disciples how much of that experience would you be able to forget? I think the impact would have been so great that you would forget very little.

Now add this factor, Jesus told His own disciples that the Holy Spirit would cause them to remember EVERYTHING that He said to them. Check this out:

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you". John 14:26.

I guess there are some assumptions that need to be clarified at this point. You must believe that Jesus Christ is actually the Son of God. You must believe that what He says (at any time) is the truth because as the Son of God He cannot lie. And you must be certain that what He says about anything is what He meant to say and needs no further explanation or modification to arrive at truth.

If you have made these determinations (assumptions, if you will) you then can accept that His own disciples would remember EVERYTHING that He said just because He said it where they could here it.

This would not apply to anyone that was not present with Him for the total amount of time of His earthly ministry. Anyone not present with Him for His entire ministry would have missed something and therefore would not be in a position to remember everything. Anyone not with Him at all would obviously remember nothing, because there would be nothing to remember.

So, do I believe that what Matthew, Peter (Mark wrote for Peter), and John wrote down in their gospels is the 100% accurate statements and teachings of Jesus Christ? Yes, that is exactly what I believe. As far as I am concerned the testimony of anyone that was not an eyewitness to Jesus Christ under these conditions MUST take second place to what Jesus said. Therefore, if I see any testimony about Jesus that came from a secondary source such as Paul, Luke, the unknown writer of Hebrews or His brothers James and Jude (who were not with Jesus His entire ministry) that disagrees in any respect with what Jesus told His own disciples I must reject it. Jesus comes first.

I hope that was clear enough, and makes some sort of sense.

[Twilight]

This is a great discussion done the way it should be done; with respect even though there is disagreement.

Richard Holbrook wrote: The words of Jesus were penned by fallible humans 20-40 years after the fact. Jesus didn't write anything, so how are you following the words of Jesus?

Great question. God the Father chose disciples for His Son Jesus, and they were people that God knew would be receptive to the teaching that Jesus brought to them. His disciples spent over a year (some say 3 1/2) living with Him, eating with Him, learning from Him. Just on a personal note; if you spent a year with Jesus under the same conditions as His disciples how much of that experience would you be able to forget? I think the impact would have been so great that you would forget very little.

Now add this factor, Jesus told His own disciples that the Holy Spirit would cause them to remember EVERYTHING that He said to them. Check this out:

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you". John 14:26.

I guess there are some assumptions that need to be clarified at this point. You must believe that Jesus Christ is actually the Son of God. You must believe that what He says (at any time) is the truth because as the Son of God He cannot lie. And you must be certain that what He says about anything is what He meant to say and needs no further explanation or modification to arrive at truth.

If you have made these determinations (assumptions, if you will) you then can accept that His own disciples would remember EVERYTHING that He said just because He said it where they could here it.

This would not apply to anyone that was not present with Him for the total amount of time of His earthly ministry. Anyone not present with Him for His entire ministry would have missed something and therefore would not be in a position to remember everything. Anyone not with Him at all would obviously remember nothing, because there would be nothing to remember.

So, do I believe that what Matthew, Peter (Mark wrote for Peter), and John wrote down in their gospels is the 100% accurate statements and teachings of Jesus Christ? Yes, that is exactly what I believe. As far as I am concerned the testimony of anyone that was not an eyewitness to Jesus Christ under these conditions MUST take second place to what Jesus said. Therefore, if I see any testimony about Jesus that came from a secondary source such as Paul, Luke, the unknown writer of Hebrews or His brothers James and Jude (who were not with Jesus His entire ministry) that disagrees in any respect with what Jesus told His own disciples I must reject it. Jesus comes first.

I hope that was clear enough, and makes some sort of sense.

So your whole premise is on the simple assumption that an "eyewitness" account is "mandatory" for inspiration to be inspiration.

Paul was shown things that were "unlawful" to be seen.

John was carried in vision on the isle of Patmos.

Ellen White received visions.

But your argument diminishes the work of the Holy Spirit, because you have decided that only "one" method of inspiration is acceptable.

Who told you that?

Mark :-)

[Musicman1228]

No, what I believe does not diminish the work of the Holy Spirit, it enhances it. The eyewitness accounts of what Jesus said structurally confirm whether or not you are listening to the real Holy Spirit when you either receive a vision or need to test someone that has received a vision.

Yes, John was carried away in the Spirit to Heaven, and everything He saw has been confirmed by the words that Jesus spoke while on earth.

Why would Jesus Christ, the author of the Law, show anything 'unlawful' to anyone. He would not. That proves to me that what Paul saw was not from the God of Heaven.

You may disagree, but can you see why I believe as I do?

[Lutz13]

Lutz13, I'm glad you are back, and I am not asking you to do anything you don't want to do. That is not my job. I am simply relating my perspective on the salvation by faith issue. You must always believe what you will.

That being said, if your faith cannot stand the scrutiny of the words of Jesus Christ then I personally think you would be wise to reassess you faith. Tell me, whose words are more important to you, Jesus or Paul? And don't say that they are the same thing because they are not. Jesus is the Son of God, Paul is a fallible human; you must decide which is more important in your life. Choose well, choose wisely.

You still do not understand. I trust God. I trust that the word of God(The Bible) is brought to me with much care from God. I trust that He has it the way He wants it.

[Guest]

How do you answer this Musicman?

Ted Oplinger said this:

In that same spirit, let's now demonstrate absurdity with absurdity...

UNLESS you can prove Jesus penned His teachings Himself, or can show people the videos of you and Christ together, you cannot say you depend upon the sayings of Christ.

Not a single word came from Christ's pen, not a single word of the Gospels were written during His life here on earth. Every single word of "His" testimony is, in fact, the words of other men, and you cannot prove them to be words of Christ unless He actually penned them down (and were somehow mysteriously left out of the Bible Canon), or unless you were personally there to witness them. Yet, with the latter, your testimony today becomes merely a second-hand account no different from any other, unless you had the videos to show otherwise.

That aside, let's see how well your rationale holds up with your often-repeated claim you depend more on the words of Jesus and His "eyewitnesses", and find the rest untrustworthy by comparison.

The Gospel of Mark is the earliest written Gospel, nearly 20 years after the fact. That it was written by John Mark, with Peter's heavy influence, makes it out of the Bible, according to your own logic. With Peter being untrustworthy, and John Mark not being an "eyewitness" we can't be sure whose words are really there, can we? And 20 years is a long time to be depending on an somewhat trustworthy memory, wouldn't you agree?

Then there's the Gospel of Luke. Not an eyewitness, and untrustworthy as he is suspected of getting the Pentecostal account wrong. Throw that one out immediately.

That's half of the Gospel accounts, gone. Over half of Christ's testimony, gone. Let's move on.

The Gospel of Matthew seems to be a fine candidate, as Matthew was an eyewitness, and is credited with writing the Gospel bearing his name.

That is, until the critique comes out that the first 8 chapters are second-hand accounts, as Matthew doesn't come onto the scene until the 9th chapter of that Gospel. Because of that fact, we cannot trust the Gospel is indeed an eyewitness reckoning, for we have no knowledge with which to discriminate how much of Matthew's Gospel was indeed his contribution, and how much was second-hand information being passed off as eyewitness testimony. This is noted because it is so similar to the other 2 easily dismissed Gospels, it must contain the very same kind of non-eyewitness second-hand lack of credibility Luke and Mark have. Reluctantly, we must put Matthew aside as well.

Now, you're down to one last Gospel in the Biblical Canon: John's Gospel.

He's an eyewitness. Check. Authored the Gospel bearing his name. Check. So far, so good.

But we have this nagging little point, that John repeats the same errors of Paul's teachings in 1 John chapters 1-3. The very same teachings your "false apostle" was found spreading in Romans, Ephesians, both Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians.

If he's so fast and loose there, how can we trust the Gospel bearing his name? It is, after all, so very different from the rest...

To boot, it was written 40+ years after the fact. You should know that even "eyewitness" memories fade within just a few years of the events. And you're going to credit a 40+year memory as being mistake-proof when it comes to the testimony John SAYS Christ bore?

Just a little bit inconsistent, wouldn't you say?

So where are you really depending upon the words of Christ? All four Gospels are found to be not really trustworthy, based upon the rationale of higher critique. They become merely the words of men being passed off as the words of Christ.

Yet that is precisely what you must logically do to remain true to your "higher criticism" rationale.

This is where "higher criticism" leads its followers, - to a place where they think they are depending upon the words of Christ, when in fact they have jettisoned the very foundation through which Christ gave His testimony.

Frankly, I dismiss all of that "higher critical" reasoning and rationale as garbage. All it does is undermine faith, and destroy the anchor that keeps us from being tossed to and fro on the waves of human philosophy...

Seems Paul knew precisely what he was talking about.

[wayfinder]

There is a place between "higher criticism" and "blind faith" where trust and knowledge (information) work together to inform, enlighten and impart true wisdom. The path to this place is narrow and only possible to travel with a guide who knows the way, the guide is the Spirit of Truth.

John 14:18-21 "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. "After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also. "In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."

The Son of God says, "I will not leave you as orphans" does the full impact of this statement have any effect on you? "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me" here He has just exposed the salvation theology of, freedom from the works of the Law, as spurious.

John 14:24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.

Is the Father capable of this or is this some made up verse to add some credibility to the account of John on behalf of the Son of God?

Another element in this process is the fulfillment of prophecy given by the Son of God and recorded by eyewitnesses. If the prophecies are fulfilled than a strong argument can be made that these are indeed the words of God.

Matthew 24:1, 2 Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. And He said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down."

This is prophecy given by the Son of God to His disciples, caused them to think that the destruction of the temple would happen at the end of the age or the end of all things. There is much speculation as to when the gospel of Matthew was written. It would stand to reason that if Matthew, or anyone else, would have written it after the destruction of the temple they would cite it as fulfilled prophecy. So Matthew more than likely was written prior to 70 CE and possibly as early as the 50's CE. The fact remains that this prophecy was fulfilled exactly as it was given.

Matthew 25:1-5 "Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom.”Five of them were foolish, and five were prudent. "For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, but the prudent took oil in flasks along with their lamps.”Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep.

This account is from the same prophetic dissertation. When we look to see if this was fulfilled or not we must consider all relevant prophecy that would apply. Daniel was a prophet of the apocalypse there may be something there to connect with this one.

The holy place restoration, spoken of in Daniel 8:14 would occur at the end of the 2300 evenings and mornings. The only holy place that would is the temple which would operate on behalf of the kingdom of the heavens. This temple is in the heavens and it is the same temple that John saw in his Patmos vision.

So according to the prophecy, a group called the kingdom of heaven goes out to meet the Bridegroom because according to the prophecy in Daniel they believe He is returning in that year, but He didn't come, just as foretold by the Son of God over 1700 years earlier. Would this accuracy make a case for the authenticity of the Matthew account? I could go on and on and if you are not satisfied I will, but this is enough for now.

[Musicman1228]

Richard said, "UNLESS you can prove Jesus penned His teachings Himself, or can show people the videos of you and Christ together, you cannot say you depend upon the sayings of Christ".

Again, you are participating in a logical fallacy; just because you say it it must be true.

What part about John 14:26 did you not understand. Was it the part about the Holy Spirit teaching the disciples of Jesus all truth, or was it the part when Jesus said that His disciples would remember everything that He said to them. You believe that the whole Bible is the very words of God, e.g. you believe that John wrote what the Holy Spirit 'inspired' him to write. That must mean you believe that what Jesus said about his disciples remembering everything He said was true. Which brings us back to the original statement you made that I am unable to depend on the sayings of Christ because of what? Not being able to prove that He said what John wrote what He said?

That does not make a lick of sense and you know it. You are just trying desperately to "prove" that what Jesus said in His ministry here on earth was supplanted by fallible human beings that came after Jesus went back to Heaven. That might work with some but it doesn't work with me. You may believe anything you want but just because you believe it, and you say that it is true does not make it true.

Richard said, "With Peter being untrustworthy, and John Mark not being an "eyewitness" we can't be sure whose words are really there, can we?"

Again, a logical fallacy in your statement in which you said the Peter was untrustworthy. Where on earth did you get that idea. Certainly not from me. Peter was an eyewitness and the one disciple to whom the Son of God gave the keys to the Kingdom (Matt. 16:18). Jesus seemed to think that Peter was reliable, why is that not good enough for you?

Matthew was an eyewitness, one that had access to the other disciples that were with Jesus a little while ahead of him. He was not unwilling to find out from them what occurred before he showed up. Again the same principle applies as stated earlier. Is the only way for you to prove Paul was right is for you to prove the original disciples wrong? That is actually the only way in which to prove Paul right because with the testimony of Matthew, Peter, and John it is evident to me that Paul does not have a leg to stand on.

Lastly, from my own perspective the original disciples were a lot closer to Jesus Christ than either Paul, or James, or us for that matter. They are obviously not as important to you as is the writings of Paul. If you are so sure about Paul et.al. then why don't you just throw away the gospels (except Luke, of course) and only use the person that you so highly esteem.

I am only trying to get you to see MY OWN priority in this; Jesus first, everyone else second. I am not saying that is what you must do, do what you will. If making Paul equal to or exceeding the authority of Jesus in your own mind makes you happy, then by all means be happy.

Thats enough for now.

[Guest]

You must not have read the post very well, because "Richard" didn't say anything. I was quoting Ted Oplinger, who was not trying to prove the gospels unreliable, but trying to show the absurdity of throwing out any scripture. I see that it went over your head.

[Lutz13]

To toss out any of the scriptures is to openly say "I don't trust you God".