Is the Gospel simple?

sincerly · Dec 4, 2012

Me Myself said:
simply contradictory

Where? Please show, rather than make an unsubstantiated claim.

Originally Posted by sincerly

Thanks for the offer--- see above---Isa,8:20, still applies. I prefer the "narrow path".

Originally Posted by sincerly

Thanks for the offer--- see above---Isa,8:20, still applies. I prefer the "narrow path".

Me Myself said:
You say it as if there was only one narrow path. That is so refreshingly innocent of you

MM, Jesus denoted that "narrow path" as being HIMSELF.
Matt.7:14, "Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. "
John14:6, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

There are many "falsely declared" paths, but the Scriptures only acknowledge the one.

ALL are free to choose the path which is appealing to them. Choose wisely.

sincerly · Dec 4, 2012

Originally Posted by sincerly

Hi Shermana, I can understand where you would like to make the Jews of that day NOT have the evil characteristics of trying to invalidate their Messiah and dispute the truthfulness of HIS TEACHINGS. The resurrection of the Christ is still a thorn in the flesh as well as HIS Being the expected Messiah.
No! I have a nummber of Versions of the Scriptures; however, I personally enjoy the KJV for most responses.
I do a lot of checking of the word meanings from the Hebrew and Greek.(Even though there is bias in some of the interpretations by those who did the "research").

Thanks for the offer--- see above---Isa,8:20, still applies. I prefer the "narrow path".

Shermana said:
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said or the reason I'm even discussing John 7:53-8:11.

Hi Shermana, Honestly?? In my exchanges with you, you left no pretense that the NT and its writers was not True. And with this Topic you bring in "pericope adulterae" and say that it is "interpolated"/"inserted"-- And then give "Wikipedia" as the confirming "source".

What is known concerning "Wikipedia"---the #1 criteria for an article is that the supporting evidence for its authencity has to be "other sources support it".
Therefore, Can you name any nation who would support "the law" concerning "adultery" when their gods and 'temples" were based upon such?? Would you expect a writer to spend time expressing such a notion that was contrary to their beliefs.

There is no interpolation as John is continuing with the the activities of Jesus---"the next morning"---and the chief priest and Pharisees(7:45) were upset(to put it mildly) that the officers hadn't arrested Jesus. In the next verse, those officers rebuked those rulers of the people with "Never a man spake like this man". Jesus had spoken with the Authority HE HAD and NOT with the "traditions of man" and the "commandments made by man" which those "leaders had been doing."
Yes, they and you have been trying to discredit the Bible(JESUS, the Messiah and the GOD who sent HIM therefore, the Prophets and the GOD who gave them the prophetic messages.)and all the writers of the NT.

Also, Remember that there was no punctuation or division into verses and chapters.

Shermana · Dec 4, 2012

No, I gave the sources that Wikipedia uses, you are trying to deny an historical problem that even the early church discussed, and trying to force this clearly interpolated verse as if its matter of fact and denying all scholarly rebuttal without even addressing the reasons, and then acting as if all scholars are wrong just because they are scholars. You're not going to convince me that it was meant to be included even though no early manuscript contains it by repeating your appeal here. As I said before, I disagree with scholars' conclusions quite often. The difference is that I actually address their reasons and don't just rely on some appeal to emotion and standard rhetoric about trying to "Discredit the Bible". Even most Christian churches today accept that this verse was interpolated. If you're going to reject any and all issues regarding textual criticism without addressing their reasons, I see no use in addressing you except to show others how those like yourself dismiss such issues that clash with their doctrine.

This is the debate forum, if you don't want to actually debate, stick to the DIRs where you can talk about how horrible those scholars are for thinking that a verse that doesn't appear until later manuscripts and was debated among the early church might not be authentic. Otherwise, drop this pretense that I must simply believe your version of the story just because. I don't want to have to repeat this over and over.

Can you name any nation who would support "the law" concerning "adultery" when their gods and 'temples" were based upon such??

In addition to not understand why you're changing the subject entirely (I can guess why though), I don't think I understand your objection either. I can name many nations that still stone adulterers. Like Afghanistan for example.

Also, Remember that there was no punctuation or division into verses and chapters.

And I have no idea what punctuation has anything to do with this, or division. The manuscripts simply don't contain this episode until later on and it's debated in the early church.

sincerly · Dec 5, 2012

Shermana said:
No, I gave the sources that Wikipedia uses, you are trying to deny an historical problem that even the early church discussed, and trying to force this clearly interpolated verse as if its matter of fact and denying all scholarly rebuttal without even addressing the reasons, and then acting as if all scholars are wrong just because they are scholars. You're not going to convince me that it was meant to be included even though no early manuscript contains it by repeating your appeal here. As I said before, I disagree with scholars' conclusions quite often. The difference is that I actually address their reasons and don't just rely on some appeal to emotion and standard rhetoric about trying to "Discredit the Bible". Even most Christian churches today accept that this verse was interpolated. If you're going to reject any and all issues regarding textual criticism without addressing their reasons, I see no use in addressing you except to show others how those like yourself dismiss such issues that clash with their doctrine.

Hi Shermana, even the "Wikipedia" "editors" are still disputing the claim. It isn't a forgone conclusion.
You admitted that you agreed that all on that site was not accurate, but seem to defending them now.
As for as forcing an interpolation, your above is more to that method.
"Reasons"??? Are you saying now that this topic and others started by you isn't with the goal of "discrediting the Bible and Christianity"?? I can agree with you on some issues, but many are not scriptural---and those we differ upon.
"Silence" is another excuse that works both ways.
I have addressed your criticism and that of the so called scholars and their conjectures---with scriptures--not the ideas of men.

Shermana said:
This is the debate forum, if you don't want to actually debate, stick to the DIRs where you can talk about how horrible those scholars are for thinking that a verse that doesn't appear until later manuscripts and was debated among the early church might not be authentic. Otherwise, drop this pretense that I must simply believe your version of the story just because. I don't want to have to repeat this over and over.
In addition to not understand why you're changing the subject entirely (I can guess why though), I don't think I understand your objection either. I can name many nations that still stone adulterers. Like Afghanistan for example.

Yes, this is a debate forum, and it seems that you believe that I should accept your posts without any corrections/debating. (As above, the "TALK" button of "Wikipedia"still is in dispute concerning that which you claim is "authentic".
BTW, I have no power to force any belief on anyone, the power to choose what to believe resides with the individual.
There was no changing of the subject. The Roman Empire controlled the known world at that time and the other subdued nations under their rule had sexual rituals which were associated with their gods. Afghanistan(muslim nation today--wasn't then) is hardly valid.(and claims to be of Abrahamic origin)

Shermana said:
And I have no idea what punctuation has anything to do with this, or division. The manuscripts simply don't contain this episode until later on and it's debated in the early church.

The scribes and Pharisees encounters with Jesus to Trap/Tempt/Trick HIM into a "contrary breaking of their laws" wasn't new. This narrative was just another recorded one in that vain. Like it or not---or any of John's epistles.

Shermana · Dec 5, 2012

Hi Shermana, even the "Wikipedia" "editors" are still disputing the claim. It isn't a forgone conclusion.

The issue is not a forgone conclusion just like anything. Everything is speculation that we can only base on evidence. In my case, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the verse was not a part of the early manuscripts. Not only that, but it was disputed in the early Church, and I think the whole episode is quite silly to begin with. As if they'd flee just because Jesus said "Let the first one of you without sin cast the first stone." It's really not in character to the rest of the Gospels. Some say "It's in Jesus's character" but it's not in character to the rest of the story. It's really an odd one out in more ways than one.

You admitted that you agreed that all on that site was not accurate, but seem to defending them now.

I'm defending the fact that it's a well sourced, historical problem and that I don't have to accept that it's an authentic verse, and that there's a reason why they use those sources.

As for as forcing an interpolation, your above is more to that method.
"Reasons"??? Are you saying now that this topic and others started by you isn't with the goal of "discrediting the Bible and Christianity"??

I am indeed focussed on discrediting Orthodox Antinomian Christianity and the traditional Roman canon especially in terms of "Infallibility", but that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual debate details. It seems you don't want to actually discuss the issue and you want to just say "It's an authentic verse and all the scholars are wrong." I've made it clear more than once that I don't agree with all scholars and find many of them wrong. On this issue however, I think they are right. My personal focus on discrediting the Orthodox Canon and belief has nothing to do with the fact that it's not as cut and dry of an issue. I was accused of "diverting" by Rise earlier when I brought up the fact that this proof text for his Theology isn't necessarily authentic, and this verse was disputed on the Early Church.

If you'd like, we can 1x1 on this and get into the details and exacts on this issue.

I can agree with you on some issues, but many are not scriptural---and those we differ upon.
"Silence" is another excuse that works both ways.
I have addressed your criticism and that of the so called scholars and their conjectures---with scriptures--not the ideas of men.

And how do you determine the difference between what is authentic scripture and what is the ideas of men? Are you saying the scriptures have no history of editing?

Yes, this is a debate forum, and it seems that you believe that I should accept your posts without any corrections/debating.

No, that's what I'm accusing YOU of, and to a degree, Rise. He's the one who said I was "diverting" by pointing out that his "proof text" is not necessarily authentic and that there's a reason why the grand majority rejects it's authenticity. You are trying to say that I have no basis in rejecting this verse. Think again about this situation: You are trying to force the idea that it's necessarily authentic as a means of promoting your doctrine. I am trying to force the idea that it shouldn't be forced and there's good reason to doubt it. So each of us is trying to force the issue. The difference is, you don't want to discuss the reasons and you write me off as "wanting to discredit the Bible" and writing off scholarly argument altogether on this without good reason.

(As above, the "TALK" button of "Wikipedia"still is in dispute concerning that which you claim is "authentic".

Indeed, I reference Talk pages on controversial articles quite often. However, the reasons behind those claims are what we must dispute. I have offered for you to discuss the reasons on why it should be included, and you have done nothing but written it off as an attempt to discredit the Bible.

BTW, I have no power to force any belief on anyone, the power to choose what to believe resides with the individual.

Right, so if I say that the verse is evidently not authentic and the evidence suggests that it should not be used for doctrinal weight, you should respect that instead of accusing me of wanting to discredit the Bible altogether.

Do you believe in the KJV of 1 John 5:7 by chance? I think I asked you that before.

There was no changing of the subject. The Roman Empire controlled the known world at that time and the other subdued nations under their rule had sexual rituals which were associated with their gods. Afghanistan(muslim nation today--wasn't then) is hardly valid.(and claims to be of Abrahamic origin)

I fail to see any relevance.

The scribes and Pharisees encounters with Jesus to Trap/Tempt/Trick HIM into a "contrary breaking of their laws" wasn't new. This narrative was just another recorded one in that vain. Like it or not---or any of John's epistles.

But you see, this would not be a trap. This would be Jesus violating the Law altogether and for some strange reason, everyone getting up to flee just because he accused them of being sinners. Didn't I mention that the Pharisees tried to pin lawlessness on Jesus and couldn't find anything so they had to resort to claiming he was claiming to be King of the Jews? Well if this episode was true, they'd have some serious evidence for a lawlessness charge.

sincerly · Dec 5, 2012

sincerly said:
Hi Shermana, even the "Wikipedia" "editors" are still disputing the claim. It isn't a forgone conclusion.

Shermana said:
The issue is not a forgone conclusion just like anything. Everything is speculation that we can only base on evidence. In my case, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the verse was not a part of the early manuscripts. Not only that, but it was disputed in the early Church, and I think the whole episode is quite silly to begin with. As if they'd flee just because Jesus said "Let the first one of you without sin cast the first stone." It's really not in character to the rest of the Gospels. Some say "It's in Jesus's character" but it's not in character to the rest of the story. It's really an odd one out in more ways than one.

Shermana, non-scriptural "evidence" for what is written in the Scriptures is lacking in authenticity. Just as the "speculation" that you are doing and basing your conclusions upon.
The early church Fell away from some of the truths of the OT and Jesus to propagate their own erroneous "man made traditions" and "decrees made in the councils of men"---Just as the Jewish leaders had done before them.

The flow of the Scriptures as John is narrating the life and teachings of Jesus is consistent with the context of the actions of the Scribes and Pharisees to bring about the death of Jesus.
Jesus didn't break any laws during HIS Life. False accusations concerning such were made, but the People believed Jesus which kept the "leaders" from bringing about the death before the "Hour" was present. All according to and in fulfillment of the Scriptures.

The "Silliness" was on the "Jewish leaders" parts in believing that they could subvert the prophecies of GOD---because of their own misconceptions that the Messiah would have in the lives of the people.(That of freeing the Nation of Israel from Roman rule---even the disciples had this belief deeply ingrained into them.)
Are you saying that those Scribes and Pharisees were honest and correct in bring only the "woman" and NOT the "man also" who were "caught in the very act"?

No, it was not out of character for Jesus to show mercy to the sinner---in this case, those who condemned the woman before Jesus when the "log" was in their own eye---being greater than that of the woman's.

Shermana said:
I'm defending the fact that it's a well sourced, historical problem and that I don't have to accept that it's an authentic verse, and that there's a reason why they use those sources.

Shermana, because an article has a bibliography that is large/full/impressive doesn't mean that it is true. ALSO, some of Those which were sited, were to articles gleaned by "editors" who were disputing the assumption by others. That is why the "ARTICLE" is still being disputed.

Shermana said:
I am indeed focussed on discrediting Orthodox Antinomian Christianity and the traditional Roman canon especially in terms of "Infallibility", but that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual debate details. It seems you don't want to actually discuss the issue and you want to just say "It's an authentic verse and all the scholars are wrong." I've made it clear more than once that I don't agree with all scholars and find many of them wrong. On this issue however, I think they are right. My personal focus on discrediting the Orthodox Canon and belief has nothing to do with the fact that it's not as cut and dry of an issue. I was accused of "diverting" by Rise earlier when I brought up the fact that this proof text for his Theology isn't necessarily authentic, and this verse was disputed on the Early Church.

Shermana, Your "focus" is seen in all your posts, as I said. There are things that I/Scripture disagrees with the presentation given by "Rise" as well.
And "canon" meaning all the "writings"/"epistles of the NT.--Right?
Your "isn't necessarily authentic" is a casting of the Scriptures in a false light-- by your opinion and as has repeatedly been stated---everyone has that freedom to choose truth or error.

Shermana said:
If you'd like, we can 1x1 on this and get into the details and exacts on this issue.

And how do you determine the difference between what is authentic scripture and what is the ideas of men? Are you saying the scriptures have no history of editing?

You have expressed your focus and It isn't the same as mine.
The determination remains the same---Isa.8:20
Since GOD Communicates with mankind through the Prophets, there are things which have been stated as "everlasting" and others "for the time time then present". NO "editing" was authorized to be done by mankind.

Shermana said:
No, that's what I'm accusing YOU of, and to a degree, Rise. He's the one who said I was "diverting" by pointing out that his "proof text" is not necessarily authentic and that there's a reason why the grand majority rejects it's authenticity. You are trying to say that I have no basis in rejecting this verse. Think again about this situation: You are trying to force the idea that it's necessarily authentic as a means of promoting your doctrine. I am trying to force the idea that it shouldn't be forced and there's good reason to doubt it. So each of us is trying to force the issue. The difference is, you don't want to discuss the reasons and you write me off as "wanting to discredit the Bible" and writing off scholarly argument altogether on this without good reason.

Just because you claim that there is "good reason to doubt it" doesn't make it so.Nor because there have been other critics who have claimed such make it so.
Therefore, I'll trust the Holy spirit to keep that which HE inspired holy men to write to keep the messages given for our admonition free from erroneous beliefs.

Shermana said:
Indeed, I reference Talk pages on controversial articles quite often. However, the reasons behind those claims are what we must dispute. I have offered for you to discuss the reasons on why it should be included, and you have done nothing but written it off as an attempt to discredit the Bible.

Since that is your conclusion, then you really have not been reading my posts. Or you would have seen my answers are based upon context and other verses related to the same principles. And you have (above) acknowledged your "focus".
The fact is it WAS included.That can't be disputed. You want to include arguments which aren't in the scriptures as why the narrative shouldn't be there.

sincerly said:
BTW, I have no power to force any belief on anyone, the power to choose what to believe resides with the individual.

Shermana said:
Right, so if I say that the verse is evidently not authentic and the evidence suggests that it should not be used for doctrinal weight, you should respect that instead of accusing me of wanting to discredit the Bible altogether.

Shermana, I respect your right to believe and say anything you choose
However, this is a debate forum and "Religious" in themes, therefore, it is acknowledged by you that your "focus" is to "discredit the Bible" (NT). Acknowledged Fact, not "accusation".

Shermana said:
Do you believe in the KJV of 1 John 5:7 by chance? I think I asked you that before.

Shermana, my posts have included exercpts from most of the OT and NT. I Believe in the Gospel of John and his epistles.(including that specific verse.)
In this post I have answered , it is known that you do not accept any of the "canon" as truth---and that's your prerogative.

sincerly said:
The scribes and Pharisees encounters with Jesus to Trap/Tempt/Trick HIM into a "contrary breaking of their laws" wasn't new. This narrative was just another recorded one in that vain. Like it or not---or any of John's epistles.

Shermana said:
But you see, this would not be a trap. This would be Jesus violating the Law altogether and for some strange reason, everyone getting up to flee just because he accused them of being sinners. Didn't I mention that the Pharisees tried to pin lawlessness on Jesus and couldn't find anything so they had to resort to claiming he was claiming to be King of the Jews? Well if this episode was true, they'd have some serious evidence for a lawlessness charge.

Your reasoning is flawed. The Narrative is true and Jesus remained sinless---even though a trap had been set.

Shermana · Dec 6, 2012

]Shermana, non-scriptural "evidence" for what is written in the Scriptures is lacking in authenticity. Just as the "speculation" that you are doing and basing your conclusions upon.
The early church Fell away from some of the truths of the OT and Jesus to propagate their own erroneous "man made traditions" and "decrees made in the councils of men"---Just as the Jewish leaders had done before them.

You're welcome to believe that this verse is authentic and that only the later manuscripts corrected what the earliest ones don't on this issue. But if you're going to debate a doctrine based on this issue as if its matter of fact, that's not really debating. That's basically saying "The scholars are wrong and the evidence doesn't count merely because I say so, the reasons don't matter, the early church fell away and that's that". If that's the view you want to take, that's fine, but I'm not going to accept it, you're welcome to write me off for not believing that the Pericope Adulterae was meant to be in the scripture and was interpolated later. I invited you to a 1x1 on the matter. If you're not willing to debate the specifics of this issue and you just want to assume it's an authentic verse for the sake of promoting your doctrine, we'll just have to agree to disagree and that's that.

The flow of the Scriptures as John is narrating the life and teachings of Jesus is consistent with the context of the actions of the Scribes and Pharisees to bring about the death of Jesus.

No, it's the exact opposite. It breaks the flow. The flow seems to be that it should go from 7:52 to 8:12. Hands down, and I will discuss that in further detail if you accept my invitation to a 1x1.

Jesus didn't break any laws during HIS Life. False accusations concerning such were made, but the People believed Jesus which kept the "leaders" from bringing about the death before the "Hour" was present. All according to and in fulfillment of the Scriptures.

I don't think you understand. Jesus would have been saying to break the Law. Who cares if they committed sin? The punishment's all the same.

The "Silliness" was on the "Jewish leaders" parts in believing that they could subvert the prophecies of GOD---because of their own misconceptions that the Messiah would have in the lives of the people.(That of freeing the Nation of Israel from Roman rule---even the disciples had this belief deeply ingrained into them.)

How does this have anything to do with the Pericope Adulterae episode?

Are you saying that those Scribes and Pharisees were honest and correct in bring only the "woman" and NOT the "man also" who were "caught in the very act"?

No I'm saying the event never happened.

No, it was not out of character for Jesus to show mercy to the sinner---in this case, those who condemned the woman before Jesus when the "log" was in their own eye---being greater than that of the woman's.

It would not be out of character for a lot of things for Jesus to do. That doesn't mean such an episode would be authentic. However, I actually think the episode WOULD be out of character, since Jesus would be advocating breaking the Law. The common argument that "It's in the character of Jesus" I believe is a total lie and an attempt to cover over their doctrine of Jesus being against the Law itself.

Shermana, because an article has a bibliography that is large/full/impressive doesn't mean that it is true. ALSO, some of Those which were sited, were to articles gleaned by "editors" who were disputing the assumption by others. That is why the "ARTICLE" is still being disputed.

Would you like to actually address what the article says? I've invited you more than twice to discuss the actual reasons behind this issue.

Shermana, Your "focus" is seen in all your posts, as I said. There are things that I/Scripture disagrees with the presentation given by "Rise" as well.
And "canon" meaning all the "writings"/"epistles of the NT.--Right?
Your "isn't necessarily authentic" is a casting of the Scriptures in a false light-- by your opinion and as has repeatedly been stated---everyone has that freedom to choose truth or error.

If you want to believe I'm casting them in a false light, that's your perogative. But you're refusing to actually debate the specifics. You have the freedom to choose error for the sake of your doctrinal bias all the same. You can accuse me of that all the same. I have no reason to simply abandon what I believe because you tell me that the scholars and sources are wrong just because you say so.

You have expressed your focus and It isn't the same as mine.
The determination remains the same---Isa.8:20
Since GOD Communicates with mankind through the Prophets, there are things which have been stated as "everlasting" and others "for the time time then present". NO "editing" was authorized to be done by mankind.

Ah, that explains why all the Manuscripts are similar and we don't have any textual differences. Excellent!

Just because you claim that there is "good reason to doubt it" doesn't make it so.Nor because there have been other critics who have claimed such make it so.

And just because you say that the verse is authentic and that the evidence and reasons are wrong doesn't make it so.

Therefore, I'll trust the Holy spirit to keep that which HE inspired holy men to write to keep the messages given for our admonition free from erroneous beliefs.

Ah, I see what this is about. You simply want to say "The Holy Spirit guided those who wrote my Bible" as if that's somehow a debate rebuttal. Well in my belief, you're blaspheming the Spirit and committing the unforgivable sin by resorting to invoking the Spirit to back your belief rather than doing what the alleged epistle of Peter says to do which is to actually be able to back what you say. Your argument is basically "I have the Spirit, that's the end of the argument". This is why you are refusing to actually discuss the specifics. There's no reason to believe the KJV authors and the later manuscripts that have the verse were guided by the Spirit. That's just your belief. You have no way of proving it and the evidence is against you. You are welcome to your unfounded belief.

Since that is your conclusion, then you really have not been reading my posts.

Quite the contrary.

Or you would have seen my answers are based upon context and other verses related to the same principles. And you have (above) acknowledged your "focus".

Just as I claim to base my answers upon the context of other verses. If Jesus taught to break the Law of stoning adulteresses, that would violate what he said in Matthew 5:17-20 for one thing (And Luke 16:17). The focus on this verse seems to be from those advocating that Jesus did away with the Law, it's a very dejudaizing verse.

The fact is it WAS included.That can't be disputed. You want to include arguments which aren't in the scriptures as why the narrative shouldn't be there.

It was included later and was discluded (or never included more likely) from the earliest known manuscripts, and is only mentioned by the 4th century, whereas virtually every other episode in the scriptures seem to have some commentary before then.

Shermana, I respect your right to believe and say anything you choose

Just as you can believe anything you want, regardless if you accept the actual evidence and manuscript based reasons.

However, this is a debate forum and "Religious" in themes, therefore, it is acknowledged by you that your "focus" is to "discredit the Bible" (NT). Acknowledged Fact, not "accusation".

You're right, this is a religious debate forum, and I have told you that if you don't want to actually debate (Which I don't believe you are by any stretch, you're simply trying to force your belief on me and insisting that you have the Spirit guiding you and refusing to acknowledge the issues and turning down my offer to have a 1x1 to debate the specifics) What does my focus and motive have anything to do with it? I can just as easily accuse you of wanting to defend the Bible and that's why you repeatedly refuse to even acknowledge the reasons for the disclusion of the Pericope Adulterae. This is just more run around. You're not here to actually debate, are you? You're just here to say that I'm wrong, the scholars are wrong just because (Even though I acknowledge the scholars are often wrong but you're lump summing them for being wrong without ADDRESSING THE REASONS and just attempting to say that you have the Spirit therefore you are right).

Shermana, my posts have included exercpts from most of the OT and NT. I

Mine don't? Quoting 8:20 and saying that you prefer the Narrow path does not in any way say that your idea of the chosen path is the correct one, by the way.

Believe in the Gospel of John and his epistles.(including that specific verse.

)

See there you go, trying to force your belief and just get to me believe as you do as a dodge around the details.

In this post I have answered , it is known that you do not accept any of the "canon" as truth---and that's your prerogative.

And then you lie and accuse me of not accepting any of the Canon. I think you mean "Accepting any of the complete scriptures as the orthodox say without regard to their textual issues".

Your reasoning is flawed. The Narrative is true and Jesus remained sinless---even though a trap had been set.

Your reasoning is not just flawed, it's basically "I have the Spirit, the Scholars are wrong because they want to discredit the Bible". The narrative is not true, it contradicts what Jesus said, and you're basically ignoring every single attempt to debate the specifics.

sincerly · Dec 6, 2012

Shermana said:
You're welcome to believe that this verse is authentic and that only the later manuscripts corrected what the earliest ones don't on this issue.

Hi Shermana, "pericope" means "a short passage", or paragraph or portion, (i.e.) of scripture (usually) which is read in public. The "Adulterae" identified it as this particular "portion". Therefore, an excerpt. BTW, you and I are debating this issue as part of "is the Gospel simple?".

Shermana said:
But if you're going to debate a doctrine based on this issue as if its matter of fact, that's not really debating. That's basically saying "The scholars are wrong and the evidence doesn't count merely because I say so, the reasons don't matter, the early church fell away and that's that". If that's the view you want to take, that's fine, but I'm not going to accept it, you're welcome to write me off for not believing that the Pericope Adulterae was meant to be in the scripture and was interpolated later. I invited you to a 1x1 on the matter. If you're not willing to debate the specifics of this issue and you just want to assume it's an authentic verse for the sake of promoting your doctrine, we'll just have to agree to disagree and that's that.

This narrative was based upon a judgment made by GOD---illicit sex---was to be met with death of the partner(S) concerned.
Jesus didn't SIN in the writing in the sand or in HIS answer to those "witnesses". HE personally was NOT a witness. Deut.17:6-7, specifies death by two or three witnesses and they throw the first stone.
The account states "Scribes and Pharisees". John 8:4-6, records their accusation, "They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not]. "
In the previous chapter(7:1,45-51), Nicodemus cautioned those who were bent on killing Jesus.
In John 10:31, is seen, "Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him." This is mass action and reveals the content of murder in the heart. Therefore, Yes, John did meaningfully write that narrative showing their own disregards for the LAW they claimed to uphold and their attitudes which did culminate in Christ Jesus upon the Cross.

Shermana said:
Would you like to actually address what the article says? I've invited you more than twice to discuss the actual reasons behind this issue.

John was explicit in context to show the motives of those leaders.(along with the other Gospel writers and the Epistles.) The leaders and the deceived people, by them, simply rejected their Messiah who had come with HIS Message of Salvation.

Shermana said:
Ah, that explains why all the Manuscripts are similar and we don't have any textual differences. Excellent!

Are you saying that any found particle of writing is true to the wording GOD gave to the Prophets?? GOD acknowledged that there were false prophets of old and there would be false teachers to the end of time.
The "father of lies" was in the Garden of Eden and will remain active until the coming of Jesus leaves him without any to deceive.

Shermana said:
Ah, I see what this is about. You simply want to say "The Holy Spirit guided those who wrote my Bible" as if that's somehow a debate rebuttal. Well in my belief, you're blaspheming the Spirit and committing the unforgivable sin by resorting to invoking the Spirit to back your belief...

Are you saying that GOD didn't inspire those Prophets of the OT to write their messages?? The "Bible" I use has the OT and the fulfillment of the OT prophecies as seen in the NT.

Shermana said:
Just as I claim to base my answers upon the context of other verses. [if] Jesus taught to break the Law of stoning adulteresses, that would violate what he said in Matthew 5:17-20 for one thing (And Luke 16:17). The focus on this verse seems to be from those advocating that Jesus did away with the Law, it's a very dejudaizing verse.

As the narrative is written, there was no teaching of such. "let him that is without sin cast..." Where were those "accusers" instructed to go by law---to get authority for the stoning they "sought"?? Wasn't it their leaders? Why didn't they bring the adultery/partner?...It was just as John stated...a trap. and clearly in line with the attitudes/falseness of the leaders.

Shermana said:
You're right, this is a religious debate forum, and I have told you that if you don't want to actually debate (Which I don't believe you are by any stretch, you're simply trying to force your belief on me and insisting that you have the Spirit guiding you and refusing to acknowledge the issues and turning down my offer to have a 1x1 to debate the specifics) What does my focus and motive have anything to do with it? I can just as easily accuse you of wanting to defend the Bible and that's why you repeatedly refuse to even acknowledge the reasons for the disclusion of the Pericope Adulterae. This is just more run around. You're not here to actually debate, are you? You're just here to say that I'm wrong, the scholars are wrong just because (Even though I acknowledge the scholars are often wrong but you're lump summing them for being wrong without ADDRESSING THE REASONS and just attempting to say that you have the Spirit therefore you are right).

Eve should not have listened to the "father of lies reasons". The incomplete manuscripts of men means nothing just as "silence" is inconclusive.
Shermana, you have/are giving me more power than I have. All your decisions are made by you. To believe or disbelieve is not by "force by me", but your own decision. You want to believe those critics who agree with the "motivational focus" upon which you have concluded. I can not "force the the smallest iota" against your decisions.

Shermana · Dec 6, 2012

Sincerly:

]Hi Shermana, "pericope" means "a short passage", or paragraph or portion, (i.e.) of scripture (usually) which is read in public. The "Adulterae" identified it as this particular "portion". Therefore, an excerpt. BTW, you and I are debating this issue as part of "is the Gospel simple?".

What a good summary.

This narrative was based upon a judgment made by GOD---illicit sex---was to be met with death of the partner(S) concerned.

And thus, by Jesus saying to not go through with it, he'd be advocating violating breaking the law in front of the entire crowd and the leaders and temple police.

Jesus didn't SIN in the writing in the sand or in HIS answer to those "witnesses". HE personally was NOT a witness. Deut.17:6-7, specifies death by two or three witnesses and they throw the first stone.

According to some manuscripts, it says he was writing their sins. The concept would be that there was enough witnesses when they brought her in. Jesus does not mention them not having witnesses in the Pericope.

The account states "Scribes and Pharisees". John 8:4-6, records their accusation, "They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not]. "
In the previous chapter(7:1,45-51), Nicodemus cautioned those who were bent on killing Jesus.

And how does any of that mean that Jesus would have been off the hook for preaching to violate the Law in front of the Temple police and Pharisee Leaders?

In John 10:31, is seen, "Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him." This is mass action and reveals the content of murder in the heart. Therefore, Yes, John did meaningfully write that narrative showing their own disregards for the LAW they claimed to uphold and their attitudes which did culminate in Christ Jesus upon the Cross.

They wanted to stone him because they believed he violated the Law and was committing the death-penalty-worthy sin of blasphemy.

John was explicit in context to show the motives of those leaders.(along with the other Gospel writers and the Epistles.) The leaders and the deceived people, by them, simply rejected their Messiah who had come with HIS Message of Salvation.

That's irrelevant.

Are you saying that any found particle of writing is true to the wording GOD gave to the Prophets?? GOD acknowledged that there were false prophets of old and there would be false teachers to the end of time.
The "father of lies" was in the Garden of Eden and will remain active until the coming of Jesus leaves him without any to deceive.

Relevance? I'm saying that the field of knowing what should be included and not be is a murky issue of which we must weigh the balance. I believe the false teachers have dominated Christianity for 99% of the most part for its history. Including when it comes to canonical issues.

Are you saying that GOD didn't inspire those Prophets of the OT to write their messages?? The "Bible" I use has the OT and the fulfillment of the OT prophecies as seen in the NT.

Why would I be saying that? Your strawmanning is getting tiresome.

As the narrative is written, there was no teaching of such. "let him that is without sin cast..." Where were those "accusers" instructed to go by law---to get authority for the stoning they "sought"?? Wasn't it their leaders? Why didn't they bring the adultery/partner?...

Maybe because he got away?

It was just as John stated...a trap. and clearly in line with the attitudes/falseness of the leaders.

The trap, if this was a true account, was to see if Jesus would preach to disobey the Law. Which he did. The idea that they'd let him off the hook and all go away is preposterous. The Temple Police would have taken him in on the spot.

Eve should not have listened to the "father of lies reasons". The incomplete manuscripts of men means nothing just as "silence" is inconclusive.

You have yet to prove that your manuscript is complete.

Shermana, you have/are giving me more power than I have.

No, you simply don't understand what I mean.

All your decisions are made by you. To believe or disbelieve is not by "force by me", but your own decision. You want to believe those critics who agree with the "motivational focus" upon which you have concluded. I can not "force the the smallest iota" against your decisions.

No, I am stating that you don't want to discuss the issues and reasons and you want to just say "Believe in John according to the KJV and disregard the scholars", and ultimately avoiding the debate aspect and trying to debate your doctrine as if that's a matter of fact, that's what I mean by forcing.

sincerly · Dec 7, 2012

Shermana said:
sincerly said:

Hi Shermana, "pericope" means "a short passage", or paragraph or portion, (i.e.) of scripture (usually) which is read in public. The "Adulterae" identified it as this particular "portion". Therefore, an excerpt. BTW, you and I are debating this issue as part of "is the Gospel simple?".

Click to expand...

What a good summary.

The Gospel is still simple. It is man trying to twist GOD'S Teachings/Truths to fit their preconceived ideas/"focus" that complicate the seekers finding the lost pearls of wisdom.

sincerly said:
This narrative was based upon a judgment made by GOD---illicit sex---was to be met with death of the partner(S) concerned.

Shermana said:
And thus, by Jesus saying to not go through with it, he'd be advocating violating breaking the law in front of the entire crowd and the leaders and temple police.

Shermana, you posted: """"Your strawmanning is getting tiresome.'''''''' I have given you scripture and you are speculating.
Nowhere in my postings do I, nor in the excerpt, is there any advocating of the breaking of the lawlaw by Jesus. That is what those Scribes and Pharisees hoped Jesus would do with their "trap".
Jesus knew the Law and its intentions better that they.(Also, their intentions, as other verses show in that regards.{from those of the disciples to those who meant harm})
1. They (and it was plural for Scribes and Pharisees) failed to present the "partner". "In the very act" certainly means that the males identity was known.
Your "strawman" may have run away--is lame. Every Sabbath the Jewish males would be attending Synagogue---thereby, known.
2. What was the hurry to stone the woman without both hearing their accusers before the Elders.
3. Jesus acknowledged that she was guilty and did NOT SAY LET HER GO--a breaking of the Law. But, you witnesses/Accusers, "cast the first stone" as the law states. and that is in relation to another principle which Jesus taught. Get rid of the log in your own eye before trying to remove the speck in another's eye. The "without sin".
Therefore, back to the Repentance before the telling of others.

Shermana said:
According to some manuscripts, it says he was writing their sins. The concept would be that there was enough witnesses when they brought her in. Jesus does not mention them not having witnesses in the Pericope.

John wrote that Gospel(regardless of your beliefs) not Jesus. Jesus acknowledged their "witness status" in the "Cast Ye the first stone". John, also, acknowledged their attempt to "trap". Remember that Nicodemus was one of the leaders as well. (John 7:50) He was privy to their plans. John being written some decades after the facts brings all the facts together in his "Gospel".
Any "manuscripts" would have to agree with the principles known to be true. While you had rather believe fragments of unknown origin, the Principles of the OT are verified in the NT and I believe the Holy Spirit was the source of both.
Which is the principle behind the "Try the spirits" in "word of mouth" or"writings." (1John4:1)

Shermana said:
And how does any of that mean that Jesus would have been off the hook for preaching to violate the Law in front of the Temple police and Pharisee Leaders?

Jesus wasn't "on any hook". Jesus DID NOT advocate any violation of GOD'S LAW.See Mark 7:1-13. It was The Jewish leaders "commandments of men" and "traditions made by men" that the Jewish leaders were insisting be kept rather than the Law of GOD.

Shermana said:
They wanted to stone him because they believed he violated the Law and was committing the death-penalty-worthy sin of blasphemy.

Again, a "false belief" which they were not willing to release/acknowledge.

sincerly said:
John was explicit in context to show the motives of those leaders.(along with the other Gospel writers and the Epistles.) The leaders and the deceived people, by them, simply rejected their Messiah who had come with HIS Message of Salvation.

Shermana said:
That's irrelevant.

It is to the point. A hatred which rejected Jesus for showing the leaders misuse of the scriptures and their corrupting of the Sanctuary/services/etc. and it sacred obligations in the role of salvation of mankind.

Shermana said:
Relevance? I'm saying that the field of knowing what should be included and not be is a murky issue of which we must weigh the balance. I believe the false teachers have dominated Christianity for 99% of the most part for its history. Including when it comes to canonical issues.

Shermana, Since the fall of mankind, GOD has had an active plan to restore all things to that initial purpose for which Creation was done. There has been an adversary which has twarted/derailed as best he can the plan for redemption and restoration of that purpose.
The only part we play is in choosing whose leadership to follow---the leader whose goal is the seek and save all who are willing to be obedient to their LOVE. OR the leader whose goal is to deceive and kill. That is what this excerpt is concerning and Jesus didn't fall for their "trap".
That is what the message of Isa.1: is concerning----the killing of animals for the atoning of Sins or even the Sabbath breakers/Adulterers/etc worthy of "Stoning" isn't pleasing to GOD.
The massage is Repent and obey GOD. Ezek.18

Walkntune · Dec 7, 2012

e r.m. said:
Many today advertise that the gospel is simple, as if it is a rule of law. 'Truth is simple, the gospel is simple, salvation is simple.' The less we have to do to get saved, the more loving God is.

This Gospel reads like: "God loves you and wants you to have a personal relationship with Him. He sent his son Jesus to die for you. Now just believe in Him and accept His gift."

The phrases "Accept Jesus as your personal savior, Invite Jesus into your heart, Receive His free gift of salvation" and more phrases make the "simple gospel" even easier to adopt.

But is the gospel "simple" as some suggest?

In the book, Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die
Chip Heath and Dan Heath.

Six processes are described that get people to believe just about anything, true or false. Amongst them is Simplicity. Human nature makes us prone to believe ideas that are simple. If you express an idea in a simple way, it sells better. Think of the phrases, Go green, Got Milk?, Obey your thirst, Quench your thirst, Stay thirsty my friends, Have it your way, Where's the beef? When an advertisement is simple, it is more effective.

With the simple Gospel stated above, many times people buy into it is because people like things quick and easy. It is human nature.
Prior to Billy Sunday the conversion process and the altar call were seen as relatively lengthy deep processes. Billy Sunday brought us into the modern era of quicky salvation (dare I say, fast food salvation?) I think it was him that convinced people that the gospel and salvation ought to be simple.
[youtube]xmpCC4jhng8[/youtube]
The History of the Sinner's Prayer - The Graham Formula - Patrick McIntyre (full) - YouTube

I decided to read what John the Baptist and Jesus started out preaching. Surprise, surprise, it was not God loves you and wants a personal relationship with you.
They first preached, "Repent and believe the good news." Repenting of one's sins: bitterness, selfish acts, stealing, etc. went hand in hand with believing the good news.

Believing was not an intellectual excercise, the heart need to be prepared. In Luke 14:25-33, Jesus discusses about estimating the cost of following him. In other parts Jesus tells would be followers that "The son of man has no place to lay His head." Jesus spent 3 years preparing people's hearts, Before he died for them. That is a hefty investment. Peter baptized about 3,000 people based on Jesus's preparation, Acts 2: 22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

The Biblical way of preparing someone comes at a cost, to the preparer and the preparee.

Then people added catch phrases "Invite Jesus into your heart to be saved", "Accept Jesus as personal savior to be saved", "Receive your salvation." Making the conversion process seem even simpler.

The majority of "simple gospel" people I have encountered (not on this website, people here are well studied, I am happy about that), have not been able to give a thorough scriptural description on how they were saved.

When people are encouraged to believe in the simple gospel, like Billy Bright's four spiritual laws, they are by default, discouraged to understand salvation according to scriptures.

Although baptism has been discussed at length, one other phenomenon that happens is that the simplified gospel leaves baptism out. Baptism is considered something extra, -after one is saved. "Salvation must be simpler than having to get baptized" Can one imagine Billy Graham at a gathering of tens of thousands: "Everyone here visiting for the first time. Get with the person who invited you and study the Bible, so they may teach you the Gospel throroughly." Of course not, Billy would want people to be saved right now! The gospel must be made simple to reach so many people efficiently.

I searched in the Bible, and no one refers to the gospel as simple.

My conclusion is that the gospel being simple is a marketing tool like "personal" savior.

Simple is NOT the rule of law when it comes to the gospel, truth is.

The Simple Gospel and the Biblical Gospel do not agree.

In police tv shows, the truth of the villain is never simple, but at the end of the show, it is always very clear.

Colossians

4:4 Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should.

Paul wanted to make the gospel clear, not simple.

But because of Human Nature, people loving simplicity and all - According to Heath and Heath, people are prone to accept the abridged, incomplete gospel when it's presented to them in simple form.

The Gospel is so simple a child can grasp it yet some of the most devout theologians can miss the mark.
18 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. 4

e.r.m. · Dec 7, 2012

Walkntune said:
The Gospel is so simple a child can grasp it yet are most devout theologians can miss the mark.

1. Thank you for returning to the O.P.

2. So a child can understand passages like Luke 9:22-27, Luke 14:25-33, and the Parable of the Weeds? How young are we talking?

3. Did you watch the video?

Walkntune · Dec 7, 2012

e r.m. said:
1. Thank you for returning to the O.P.

2. So a child can understand passages like Luke 9:22-27, Luke 14:25-33, and the Parable of the Weeds? How young are we talking?

3. Did you watch the video?

I watched about half of the video. Is there a set amount of scripture that needs to be understood for one to trust in Christ? What does Christ mean in this verse?
Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.How can something be complicated yet we have to be converted like children to enter?
I believe as people get older they tend to put more trust into their own understanding and loose their faith and trust in that which is outside themselves .God wants us to trust in him and not ourselves.Children do so easily and adults have a harder time.They want to trust their understanding of scripture instead of trusting God to reveal it.Jesus said unless you are converted and become as children, you will not enter the kingdom of God. It doesn't matter how much theology and scripture you know.It is having faith as a child.

e.r.m. · Dec 8, 2012

Walkntune,

I watched about half of the video.

Thank you you for making the effort, it's a long video. Unfortunately, the second half is the more relevant part.

Is there a set amount of scripture that needs to be understood for one to trust in Christ? What does Christ mean in this verse?
Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. How can something be complicated yet we have to be converted like children to enter?

The lesson here was humility like a child.
Matthew 18:3-4
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. [4] Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

And I agree with the trust as well.

I belive as people get older they tend to put more trust into their own understanding and loose their faith and trust in others.

I agree.

God wants us to trust in him and not ourselves.Children do so easily and adults have a harder time.

Agreed.

They want to trust their understanding of scripture instead of trusting God to reveal it. Jesus said unless you are converted and become as children, you will not enter the kingdom of God. It doesn't matter how much theology and scripture you know. It is having faith as a child.

Here's where you go off. Being childlike does not mean being ignorant.
2 Peter 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

Becoming like a child, receiving the kingdom like a child refers to heart/attitude. There are multitudes of scriptures instructing us to pay attention to the scriptures and giving us examples of those who did.
1 Timothy 4:16
2 Peter 1:19-21
Acts 17:11
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Hebrews 4:12
John 12:48-50
Matthew 15:1-9
Acts 18:28
Matthew 4:4,7,10
And more!

No!
Paying attention to the scriptures is advocated in the Bible, it is not shunned!

The little children and Jesus was NEVER taught as a lesson to NOT rely on God's word. Nor is it ever taught that the two were ever in conflict!

How can you trust in a Christ that you do not know? One cannot base a life changing trust in Jesus on a single altar call message.

But anyway, that's not the point. The gospel is not restricted into the single moment when one decides to trust Jesus. The gospel includes everything within God's plan to return us to him. All of Jesus's life, teachings, and actions were used to bring people to God. ALL of this is the Gospel. The altar call is not "The Gospel".

Walkntune · Dec 8, 2012

=e r.m.;3170702]Walkntune,

Thank you you for making the effort, it's a long video. Unfortunately, the second half is the more relevant part.

I will watch the second half later

The lesson here was humility like a child.

]Yes not standing in our own pride and strength

Here's where you go off. Being childlike does not mean being ignorant.
2 Peter 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction

.
I agree that when we become children of God we grow in wisdom as we get off the milk of the word and into the meat.I don't see it as a requirement for salvation though.

.

Becoming like a child, receiving the kingdom like a child refers to heart/attitude

]This is the beauty of simplicity

Paying attention to the scriptures is advocated in the Bible, it is not shunned!

]Love being fortunate enough to have the scriptures to learn and grow in wisdom and never shunn them.Many are not so fortunate but can have saving grace none the less.

The little children and Jesus was NEVER taught as a lesson to NOT rely on God's word. Nor is it ever taught that the two were ever in conflict!

It is good to have the word and rama word that comes from the personal relationship. I agree .Jesus quoted the scriptures in overcoming temptations and relied on the word.

How can you trust in a Christ that you do not know? One cannot base a life changing trust in Jesus on a single altar call message.

]Suppose I can't judge the ones who do like the thief on the cross and others who have excepted Christ on their death bed

bedBut anyway, that's not the point. The gospel is not restricted into the single moment when one decides to trust Jesus.

At what point does one who excepts christ become saved?How many scriptures must be read and understood? What percentage of revelations must be understood?

The gospel includes everything within God's plan to return us to him. All of Jesus's life, teachings, and actions were used to bring people to God. ALL of this is the Gospel. The altar call is not

"The Gospel is the good news. The death ,burial and ressurection.The altar is where one surrenders and acknowledges the sacrifice of Christ for their sin? What must we add?If someone gives themselves to Christ at the alter and dies on the way home from church do they go to hell for not having more knowledge of the scripture?When Christ comes in your heart does he dwell in you or not?

e.r.m. · Dec 8, 2012

Walkntune,

I will watch the second half later

Again, I appreciate, because it's a long video.

Yes not standing in our own pride and strength. I agree that when we become children of God we grow in wisdom as we get off the milk of the word and into the meat. Love being fortunate enough to have the scriptures to learn and grow in wisdom and never shunn them. Many are not so fortunate but can have saving grace none the less. It is good to have the word and rama word that comes from the personal relationship. I agree .Jesus quoted the scriptures in overcoming temptations and relied on the word.

Yup.

Below, I rearranged the sentences you wrote by like ideas. They will not be in the order you wrote them. It made it easier for me to address.

I don't see it as a requirement for salvation though. This is the beauty of simplicity. How many scriptures must be read and understood? What percentage of revelations must be understood? What must we add? The Gospel is the good news. The death, burial and ressurection.

Therein lies a great fallacy. The gospel is not just the salvation event. The Gospel is not just the death, burial, and resurrection. The gospel is also the Good news of the kingdom Matthew 4:23, Luke 4:43. The gospel is about Jesus's birth, childhood, life, teachings (All of them), miracles, death, burial, resurrection, and the instructions he gave after His resurrection and ascension. The gospel is not, as has been reduced today, only to salvation matters. So the gospel has plenty of room to be less than simple than is generally advertised, because a person could be digesting the gospel for years before deciding he/she wants to be saved (Jesus spent three years teaching people before he died for anyone and three thousandish people got saved at Pentecost. Jesus was patient). And a person can spend the rest of his life disgesting the gospel after he/she is saved.

Suppose I can't judge the ones who do like the thief on the cross and others who have accepted Christ on their death bed. The altar is where one surrenders and acknowledges the sacrifice of Christ for their sin? At what point does one who accepts Christ become saved? If someone gives themselves to Christ at the altar and dies on the way home from church do they go to hell for not having more knowledge of the scripture? When Christ comes in your heart does he dwell in you or not?

The items highlighted are phrases invented primarily by John Calvin of the 16th Century and Billy Bright of the 20th Century ("Come and accept my Christ", The Man and his Message, page 197. http://www.scribd.com/doc/65063239/1914-Billy-Sunday-The-Man-amp-His-Message-by-William-T-Ellis) Billy Bright started the "Accepting Christ as Savior" as a modern offshoot of John Calvin's 16th century "receiving Christ, receiving salvation" theology. I imagine this will be difficult to swallow, because it has been repeated to you more often than the equally errant phrase "We only use 10% of our brains." Accepting Jesus "as savior" is not part of the Gospel. Heresy!!! Heresy!!! Actually no. That depends on how much liberty and loose association one uses to approach the Bible.
Now just to clarify something,
Colossians 2:6 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him,
says receive Jesus as "Lord", not "Lord and Savior"
When you say accept Christ I take it that you mean accepting Christ "as Savior" or"Lord and Savior"

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
says just "received him", not received him as savior. The term "received him" was a general statement indicating those who accepted Jesus's claims, who adopted his ideas as their own. Colossians 2:6 gets specific by saying they received Him "as Lord". There is evidence in the Bible of Calvin's and Bright's teaching of receiving Him as savior.
Please don't look up verses that say Jesus is savior!, I know he is savior!
What is being denounced is receiving Jesus as savior through prayer, etc as a means of being saved.
So, the phrases you used (which are also not stated in the Bible) derived from the theology of accepting Christ as Savior:
accepted Christ on their death bed
The altar is where one ...
accepts Christ become saved
gives themselves to Christ at the altar
Christ comes in your heart

have no relevance to the conversation of the Gospel.

If you want to make it relevant, discuss scripture, not catch phrases.

Let's talk Bible!

Take care.

P.S. - Please do not give scriptures that allegedly say "the same thing" as these phrases. Let's just talk Biblical vocabulary and terminology.
For example, instead of using a non-biblical teaching like:
...someone gives themselves to Christ at the altar and dies on the way home from church do they go to hell for not having more knowledge of the scripture?
a Scriptural question would be:
...someone comes to faith in / believes in Christ and dies on the way home from church do they go to hell for not having more knowledge of the scripture?

It wastes time separating scipture from denominational lingo.

Walkntune · Dec 8, 2012

e r.m. said:
Walkntune,

Again, I appreciate, because it's a long video.

Yup.

Below, I rearranged the sentences you wrote by like ideas. They will not be in the order you wrote them. It made it easier for me to address.

Therein lies a great fallacy. The gospel is not just the salvation event. The Gospel is not just the death, burial, and resurrection. The gospel is also the Good news of the kingdom Matthew 4:23, Luke 4:43. The gospel is about Jesus's birth, childhood, life, teachings (All of them), miracles, death, burial, resurrection, and the instructions he gave after His resurrection and ascension. The gospel is not, as has been reduced today, only to salvation matters. So the gospel has plenty of room to be less than simple than is generally advertised, because a person could be digesting the gospel for years before deciding he/she wants to be saved (Jesus spent three years teaching people before he died for anyone and three thousandish people got saved at Pentecost. Jesus was patient). And a person can spend the rest of his life disgesting the gospel after he/she is saved.

The items highlighted are phrases invented primarily by John Calvin of the 16th Century and Billy Bright of the 20th Century ("Come and accept my Christ", The Man and his Message, page 197. http://www.scribd.com/doc/65063239/1914-Billy-Sunday-The-Man-amp-His-Message-by-William-T-Ellis) Billy Bright started the "Accepting Christ as Savior" as a modern offshoot of John Calvin's 16th century "receiving Christ, receiving salvation" theology. I imagine this will be difficult to swallow, because it has been repeated to you more often than the equally errant phrase "We only use 10% of our brains." Accepting Jesus "as savior" is not part of the Gospel. Heresy!!! Heresy!!! Actually no. That depends on how much liberty and loose association one uses to approach the Bible.
Now just to clarify something,
Colossians 2:6 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him,
says receive Jesus as "Lord", not "Lord and Savior"
When you say accept Christ I take it that you mean accepting Christ "as Savior" or"Lord and Savior"

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
says just "received him", not received him as savior. The term "received him" was a general statement indicating those who accepted Jesus's claims, who adopted his ideas as their own. Colossians 2:6 gets specific by saying they received Him "as Lord". There is evidence in the Bible of Calvin's and Bright's teaching of receiving Him as savior.
Please don't look up verses that say Jesus is savior!, I know he is savior!
What is being denounced is receiving Jesus as savior through prayer, etc as a means of being saved.
So, the phrases you used (which are also not stated in the Bible) derived from the theology of accepting Christ as Savior:
accepted Christ on their death bed
The altar is where one ...
accepts Christ become saved
gives themselves to Christ at the altar
Christ comes in your heart

have no relevance to the conversation of the Gospel.

If you want to make it relevant, discuss scripture, not catch phrases.

Let's talk Bible!

Take care.

P.S. - Please do not give scriptures that allegedly say "the same thing" as these phrases. Let's just talk Biblical vocabulary and terminology.
For example, instead of using a non-biblical teaching like:
...someone gives themselves to Christ at the altar and dies on the way home from church do they go to hell for not having more knowledge of the scripture?
a Scriptural question would be:
...someone comes to faith in / believes in Christ and dies on the way home from church do they go to hell for not having more knowledge of the scripture?

It wastes time separating scipture from denominational lingo.

I am sorry I can't write this out in greek. I hope English is sufficient? To come to Christ means to except His sacrifice for your sins.Your sins have been judged by on the cross.There will be no other sacrifice. It is finished. This was his purpose.
Of course there is a difference in believing in Christ and placing your trust in Christ.
My question is on what grounds did the thief on the cross make it into paradise?
Do you suppose it was not his confession of being deserving of death for his wrong doings from a heart of repentance and asking Christ to remember him. If you can't answer this under your literal understandings then I have no interest going any further.God is no respector of persons.
Man can't except he is powerless and has fallen short and wants to be able to control by any means posible. It is not possible with man.You see m to limit the power of the cross to those who are fortunate enough to have a bible handy.

e.r.m. · Dec 8, 2012

Walkntune

I am sorry I can't write this out in greek. I hope English is sufficient? To come to Christ means to accept His sacrifice for your sins.Your sins have been judged by on the cross.There will be no other sacrifice. It is finished. This was his purpose.

I'm not trying to make this a greek discussion. Am just showing that there's no Biblical evidence to support the idea of being saved by accepting Jesus as savior, however that may be expressed. I agree on what Jesus did on the cross. That was God/Jesus's part. But God doesn't force people to be saved, otherwise, based on the cross, everyone would be saved, like it or not.

Of course there is a difference in believing in Christ and placing your trust in Christ.

I don't see any difference.

My question is on what grounds did the thief on the cross make it into paradise?
Do you suppose it was not his confession of being deserving of death for his wrong doings from a heart of repentance and asking Christ to remember him.

On the grounds that Jesus had compassion on him. The man was humble (like a child), the man showed faith and Godly sorry. The man was contrite and believed in who Jesus was. He had the same attitude as the woman who washed Jesus's feet with her hair, Zaccheus, etc. The thief on the cross, however, is probably the most famous of all the exception to someone being forgiven without sacrificing animals. All this was under the old covenant.

If you can't answer this under your literal understandings then I have no interest going any further. God is no respector of persons.

Be nice, now.

Man can't except he is powerless and has fallen short and wants to be able to control by any means possible. It is not possible with man.

Well of course. In any which we stray from God's plan, we are attempting futily hijack our own salvation.. We can't speak 'for' God. We need to do things His way.

e.r.m. · Dec 8, 2012

Walkntune

I am sorry I can't write this out in greek. I hope English is sufficient? To come to Christ means to accept His sacrifice for your sins.Your sins have been judged by on the cross.There will be no other sacrifice. It is finished. This was his purpose.

I'm not trying to make this a greek discussion. Am just showing that there's no Biblical evidence to support the idea of being saved by accepting Jesus as savior, however that may be expressed. I agree on what Jesus did on the cross. That was God/Jesus's part. But God doesn't force people to be saved, otherwise, based on the cross, everyone would be saved, like it or not.

Of course there is a difference in believing in Christ and placing your trust in Christ.

I don't see any difference. But it could be an issue of semantics. I've heard more than one definition of believing in Jesus. In my understanding placing your trust in Jesus defines believing in Jesus.

My question is on what grounds did the thief on the cross make it into paradise?
Do you suppose it was not his confession of being deserving of death for his wrong doings from a heart of repentance and asking Christ to remember him.

On the grounds that Jesus had compassion on him. The man was humble (like a child), the man showed faith and Godly sorry. The man was contrite and believed in who Jesus was. He had the same attitude as the woman who washed Jesus's feet with her hair, Zaccheus, etc. The thief on the cross, however, is probably the most famous of all the exceptions to being forgiven through sacrifice of animals. All these were under the old covenant, because Jesus hadn't died yet.

If you can't answer this under your literal understandings then I have no interest going any further. God is no respector of persons.

Be nice, now.

Man can't except he is powerless and has fallen short and wants to be able to control by any means possible. It is not possible with man.

Well of course. In any which we stray from God's plan, we are attempting futily hijack our own salvation.. We can't speak 'for' God. We need to do things His way.

Walkntune · Dec 9, 2012

Be nice, now.

I am very nice.Its a little hearbreaking to see people want to add their works to the cross and not sure if this argument is creating a stumbling block.

Is the Gospel simple?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Heretic

Well-Known Member

Heretic

Well-Known Member

Heretic

Well-Known Member

Heretic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Church of Christ

Well-Known Member

Church of Christ

Well-Known Member

Church of Christ

Well-Known Member

Church of Christ

Church of Christ

Well-Known Member