So, are you saying that just because, there are certain beliefs universally accepted by Christians, and Christian scholars, then they are definately correct?
Nope, I am saying that if the bible's context, the plain reading, it's compatability with other consistent biblical doctrine, as well as virtually all commentators and scholars point to the same conclusion that to have one that contradicts this without vast amounts of undeniable evidence is most likely wrong. In fact most of the interpretations I have seen so far have reasons within the bible that make them impossible. If I claimed the moon was made of talcum powder I had better have some dang good evidence and lots of it if I wish people to believe me over the scientific community. The same is true with the theological community. If I were to assert that it was because it makes an implication I wish to be true and then suggest that all the scientist are wrong would seem desperate indeed.
The Jews at the time of Jesus also had certain accepted conclusions about Torah, and according to their stablished understanding, Jesus did not meet the requirement to be their expected Messiah. In fact the most learned of Jews at the time of Christ did not accept Jesus.
Well, the possibly (probably) most educated Jew of the time became my favorite apostle (Paul). He studied under Gamaliel (israel's most prominent teacher) and was a master of the law and spoke more on grace than all the other apostles combined. First they had only half the bible at their disposal. Second they have a vested interest to resist the belief Jesus was God since it was Jews that arrested him and led to his crucifixion. Third Christ was such a radical change from the absolute law they had known it is no suprise they had trouble recognizing him. Fourth the New Testament clearly says that the Jews are in error but will one day understand. Fifth while many of them deny Jesus is the messiah they still believe in his literal miracles. Sixth God for this reason resurrected Jesus as a end all, be all, validation of his claims. He claimed to be the unique son of God and to have existed eternally and God put his stamp of approval on his ministry by raising him. I don't have as much problem with views I dissagree with if they are still reasonable and most importantly biblically consistent. If you interpretations were correct they would make the bible a contradictory, chaotic, unreliable book IMO.
So, it seems to me, the only reason you do not agree with the interpretation which I discuss is because they contradict with the mainstream accepted interpretations by Christians, but not with the Bible. (To show if they contradict with Bible, you should put a verse beside what I say, then show they are different)
I have given countless verses, I have covered some like Lazerus in detail, and I have shown where your interpretations contradict the meanings in the original language they were written in. What you are saying here is not consistent with my posts.
I see a similarity between the way you go after the truth and those living at the time of Jesus.
Since the mainstream position on Jesus in his time wound up killing him I take this as a compliment. However since I even research the scriptures in the original language, and weigh in all the experts, pray daily, and have a relationship with Christ I actually see no resemblance whatsoever.
"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matt. 7:23
To me the above quote means, that the mainstream understanding of Jesus Message is not correct, thus they are not following the commandments of the Father. So, it's clear to me, just believing Jesus is Lord doesn't save anyone.
Since being born again, as I said I have been requires the establishment of a personal relationship with Christ and adoption as God's son then for him to say "I never knew you" would make him a liar. Since he is no liar then this verse has nothing to do with any born again Christian. Since quoting the original language and it's definitions is apparently wasted time then lets look at a commentary.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Profess unto them - Say unto them; plainly declare. I never knew you - That is, I never approved of your conduct; never loved you; never regarded you as my friends. See
Psalm 1:6;
2 Timothy 2:19;
1 Corinthians 8:3. This proves that, with all their pretensions, they had never been true followers of Christ. Jesus will not then say to
false prophets and false professors of religion that he had once known them and then rejected them; that they had been once Christians and then had fallen away; that they had been pardoned and then had apostatized but that he had never known them - they had never been true christians. Whatever might have been their pretended joys, their raptures, their hopes, their self-confidence, their visions, their zeal, they had never been regarded by the Saviour as his true friends.
I do not know of a more decided proof that Christians do not fall from grace than this text. It settles the question; and proves that whatever else such people had, they never had any true religion. See
1 John 2:19.
Matthew 7:23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Bolding and underlining is mine. Countless people wear crosses on their neck, say they are spritual, or have a superficial religion. None of these meets the biblical definition of a Christian.
IMO this perfectly applies to any new religion that comes along and professes to be true and then contradicts or accepts contradictory doctrines as in what I see with Baha 'i. I can only bear saying this one last time if you will review at least the original language and hopefully some scholarly commentaries as well as including the cross references to establish the consistency with the entire biblical narrative you would avoid what I see as wasting your time on unbiblical doctrine. It is apparent you are still not doing this even though that is what should be done if the truth is the goal. Cherry picking verses and stripping them of their context to make an unjustified claim is not a meaningful effort. I am getting burned out and frustrated with continually showing you verses in the original language and their definitions then backing it up with respected and widely accepted scholarly material developed over more than a thousand years only to have you IMO switch to a whole new series of inapplicable and unbiblical claims. I feel as if I am debateing someone's emotional position that is independant of facts. There are entire universitys that have existed for hundreds and hundreds of years who's sole purpose was to find biblical truth. The bible is by far the most tested, researched, and cherished book in human history. If you are comfortable adopting a position to which virtually the entire scholarly community that specializes in that system, has had 2000yrs to work out the kinks, and dissagrees with it then maybe we should leave it at that.
