Jesus' death... standard Roman execution or sacrifice for sins?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

you're the one who's been saying "imparted"

You have, maybe not by name, but that is what you were describing.

No, my vocabulary is just fine. I said "IMPUTE" because I meant impute. Impute is the same word the Bible also uses.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


OK, then what was all this about receiving the Holy Spirit when you believe and then become sinless, meaning you are living a perfect life and have ceased to sin?
That is not imputed righteousness.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

OK, then what was all this about receiving the Holy Spirit when you believe and then become sinless,

The very first function of the Holy Spirit in a believers life is "REGENERATION". As in Titus 3:5:

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of REGENERATION, and renewing of the Holy Spirit”.

The use of "REGENERATION" in the above verse is the combo of 2 Greek words which mean "new birth". So just like a few days ago when you attacked me for saying the Holy Spirit "regenerates" our spirit first,.. I've been consistent. I've never claimed a person "becomes sinless". That's a heresy called "sinless perfection". If we could not sin then temptation from the enemy would be utterly meaningless. I've said "a person cannot sin if they live by the "law of love", loving one's neighbor as oneself and loving God with all one's mind and spirit. You simply can't keep taking what I say out of context, qualifying statements mean something. Things purposely out of context are called pretexts.

A saved Christian will still make mistakes, we're sinners saved by grace. (Peter had to be rebuked for error by Paul) There is a HUGE difference between making random mistakes, that's human, and living in unrepentant, continual sin. The latter example would be a strong indication the Holy Spirit was not indwelling and guiding that person.

meaning you are living a perfect life and have ceased to sin?

A saved person should have ceased from living a life of sin, continual sin, unrepentant sin, a person governed by sin. An unsaved person has no hope whatsoever of not sinning, they are a "slave" to sin. They are bound in sin. The born-again believer is free from the bondage of sin. Sin no longer reigns over their flesh, they are a new creation in Christ, the old self is dead and buried with Him. That's symbolically what we do when we choose to be baptized after being born-again.

That is not imputed righteousness.

Correct, what you claimed isn't imputed righteousness. Imputed righteousness is called the "great exchange". Christ takes our sin and gifts us His righteousness. That's what 'imputation" means, crediting His righteousness to our accounts. It certainly doesn't mean we ARE righteous at that point, it just means we are declared righteous on account of Christ's merits, not our own. It's all from start to finish for His glory and His glory alone, not ours whatsoever in any detail.

The sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in a believers life is what makes a person righteous. It's by His guidance and leading and us following. Not vice versa. We don't do the leading and the cleansing, the Spirit of the Living God does that IN us.

“But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you”.

Romans 8:11.

That newness of life comes FROM his Holy Spirit, and the Spirit indwells a new believer's life.

What is important to note, from God's perspective someone who is in Christ Jesus is clothed in Christ, they are washed. They are justified in His name. From our perspective, we know we are saved because God is good, not because we were perfect. We've all made mistakes, failed to love someone the way we wanted to be treated, we've all failed to worship and love God in Spirit and in truth every moment of every day.

We know Jesus said the standard for inheriting heaven ourselves is perfection. "Be ye perfect for your heavenly Father is perfect". So what can we do by ourselves? Absolutely nothing. Our sins are paid for, we are no longer separated from God by our sins and His Spirit can reside (indwell) us. Christ has "sanctified and rededicated" the temple of our bodies if you will, He's our High Priest.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

As in Titus 3:5

This may be a problem since I don't read Titus, since it is a forgery, not being written by Paul but made to look as if it was.
Apparently what you are looking at is one person's opinion of what Paul meant when he said "washing". This forger wanted people to accept his version so wrote it using Paul's name.
You are presenting a whole religious doctrine based on a single verse. The one in Romans does not support it.
You seem to have the spirit of plagiarism, so how about citing the blog you are getting these theories off of.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

As in Titus 3:5

This may be a problem since I don't read Titus, since it is a forgery, not being written by Paul but made to look as if it was.

Why is it every time the bible slaps you upside the head your response is to find a way to discredit the text? Why don't you alter your theology instead of running to find a book written by some textual critic so you can ignore the book of the Bible and sleep well at night?

Apparently what you are looking at is one person's opinion of what Paul meant when he said "washing".

No, the Greek tells me what Paul meant. The beauty of Greek as well as Hebrew is they are extremely precise languages. and with the verb tenses we can know if Paul meant himself included in the "washing", or if he meant it to apply only to others. We can also know if the "washing" was to be done once or if the "washing" is present perfect tense which means it's a continual action that never ends.

Paul uses the past perfect tense for "washed" in 1 Corinthians 6:11. He didn't tell them they were candidates to be washed, or they would be washed in the future. No Paul writes to the Corinthians telling them they had already been washed, sanctified, by the Holy Spirit.

This forger wanted people to accept his version so wrote it using Paul's name.

You're nuts. Titus was a traveling companion of Paul, and Paul left him to pastor a church Paul started. Paul's address is in the first chapter of the letter. But hey, you don't like Titus, that's cool, the beauty of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is that He blended the message throughout all the Bible. It's an amazing book in that regard, it's immune to hostile jamming. The enemy can remove a chapter on salvation, or any other doctrine and that's okay, there are other chapters that express the same thing. You'll lose details obviously, however the original message is still intact.

It's quite technologically advanced for a bunch of different authors over the span of thousands of years most of whom never met each other. The US military didn't start doing this with our transmissions until WW 2. Paul says that all believers are baptized in the Holy Spirit into one body, the church. (1 Cor. 12:13). Everyone who has faith is given the Holy Spirit (Romans 10:13; Galatians 3:14). All believers have been baptized with the Holy Spirit. If fact, a person cannot come to faith in Christ unless that person's been regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

We respond to the Spirit. It's His work, His initiative, His indwelling, His washing and His guidance.

You are presenting a whole religious doctrine based on a single verse.

no the error you made is in assuming I've come to this doctrine on my own only with one verse. That's not the case, i merely used one verse as an example.

You seem to have the spirit of plagiarism, so how about citing the blog you are getting these theories off of.

It's the Bible, not a "blog".

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Okay, he's your High Priest.
I still haven't received an answer to this question, though:

"I am trying to understand you without interference from any other member, NotUr, but it's extremely difficult (possibly, I think, purposely?).

Do you consider yourself "all done" with inquiring and study and contemplation?
That makes me scratch my head. Every day brings new information, new revelations, new light to these mysteries. I prefer to keep up and pay attention, adjusting my views as my judgment tells me "this seems plausible," or "this seems bogus.." Either way, I look into more information on those points of view to further clarify for myself their basis.

When, may I ask, did you decide, "Okay, that's it! I needn't look any further!" ?
I'm not there yet. I'm over 50 years old, with decades of inquiry, and I'm still not there yet.
How long have you been so confident and positive of your point of view? I am NOT asking to be confrontational, I truly want to know when/how it happened that you stopped investigating all the bejillions of data bits and settled on your "faith."

................
Are you going to answer it? Why did you only answer the first observation about you frequently starting with "No"?

I really would like to hear about your conversion and "salvation" that resulted in the absolute acceptance of your beliefs as indisputable.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Okay, he's your High Priest.
I still haven't received an answer to this question, though:

"I am trying to understand you without interference from any other member, NotUr, but it's extremely difficult (possibly, I think, purposely?).

I've sent you u2us before, you never replied. That's a great way to converse with me without interference from any other member. A lot of my time is spent talking to people that way. So considering you never responded to the u2us I sent it cannot be "purposely" on my end.

Do you consider yourself "all done" with inquiring and study and contemplation?
That makes me scratch my head. Every day brings new information, new revelations, new light to these mysteries. I prefer to keep up and pay attention, adjusting my views as my judgment tells me "this seems plausible," or "this seems bogus.." Either way, I look into more information on those points of view to further clarify for myself their basis.

I answered this already. I said I enjoy reading and learning new stuff daily.

When, may I ask, did you decide, "Okay, that's it! I needn't look any further!" ?

Jesus saved me, I can't give you a date. I never wanted anything to do with God, then one day I just believed the gospel. I didn't even want to go to church, a friend brought me. And ever since my mind has been changed for me, I no longer enjoy the things I used to that were sins, they aren't even fun to think about anymore. I crave the Word, worshiping, praying. I dunno, I'm just different. Christ promised His Spirit, and I'm not the same man I used to be. His Word is true.

I'm not there yet. I'm over 50 years old, with decades of inquiry, and I'm still not there yet.

I'm not "there yet" either. There unlimited things to learn. But I have no reason to doubt Christ lived, died, was buried, and His apostles all believed they met a resurrected Jesus.

How long have you been so confident and positive of your point of view? I am NOT asking to be confrontational, I truly want to know when/how it happened that you stopped investigating all the bejillions of data bits and settled on your "faith."

Oh, I never stopped, I still investigate all of them. I have numerous books about other religions, faiths, cults, religious movements, and different movements within Christianity in it's history. I've certainly not stopped, I usually read 3-4 books a month.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

You're nuts.

No, because I did not make this up. This Idea is supported by biblical scholarship.
You choose to be uninformed on the issues and follow crack-pot amateur blogs.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

You're nuts.

No, because I did not make this up. This Idea is supported by biblical scholarship.
You choose to be uninformed on the issues and follow crack-pot amateur blogs.

No, I've got books on New Testament Survey. It's seminary-level curriculum. There are only fringe critics who doubt it's authenticity, and people like Bart Ehrman aren't even believers. You don't have to be a believer to be a critic. It's foolishness, When you don't like what a verse or chapter of the Bible has to say you repent, you change your mind. You don't run for the nearest opinion of a textual critic who can somehow pardon you to the troublesome verse's implications.

You see what HISTORIANS have to say, not textual critics. We don't have the original texts!


So is that all you're commenting ?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

So is that all you're commenting ?

At this point about all I can do is to repeat myself, starting with a request for you to cite your sources including where you got your entire expository post and the titles and authors of your New Testament surveys you are using as authorities.
Bart Ehrman can in no way be considered "fringe". For one thing he has taken over from his now deceased colleague, Bruce M. Metzger as primary editor of The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, which is, according to the publisher's press release on the fourth edition, "the most up-to-date manual available for the textual criticism of the New Testament."

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So is that all you're commenting ?

At this point about all I can do is to repeat myself, starting with a request for you to cite your sources including where you got your entire expository post and the titles and authors of your New Testament surveys you are using as authorities.
Bart Ehrman can in no way be considered "fringe". For one thing he has taken over from his now deceased colleague, Bruce M. Metzger as primary editor of The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, which is, according to the publisher's press release on the fourth edition, "the most up-to-date manual available for the textual criticism of the New Testament."

Unfortunatly i don't know much about this Bart Ehrman guy... but after doing a quick search i've found that apparently his own teacher disagrees with his claims... And there is a number of sites that claim he is completely incorrect in his claims as well...

Perhaps you might show what exactly makes him any kind of authority on bibical matters?

Im not one to take any persons claim of authority over such things.... especially those that have some sort of bias... their work usually speaks for it self though

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So is that all you're commenting ?

At this point about all I can do is to repeat myself, starting with a request for you to cite your sources including where you got your entire expository post and the titles and authors of your New Testament surveys you are using as authorities.
Bart Ehrman can in no way be considered "fringe". For one thing he has taken over from his now deceased colleague, Bruce M. Metzger as primary editor of The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, which is, according to the publisher's press release on the fourth edition, "the most up-to-date manual available for the textual criticism of the New Testament."

Perhaps you've mistaken what I said. The Word of God is the only "authority" I have got. Everything else just either supports the Biblical accounts or does not. Any NT survey doesn't trump the Word of God. The " source" is scripture.

Second Bart isn't a believer he's agnostic. And to boot he' s not a historian but a textual critic. If you want to know what the church fathers or ante-nicean fathers accepted as legitimate scripture and what they rejected you'd need to listen to a historian, specifically a church historian.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

If you want to know what the church fathers or ante-nicean fathers accepted as legitimate scripture and what they rejected you'd need to listen to a historian, specifically a church historian.

Feel free to cite your evidence.
Also where's the link to the blog you were copying your earlier argument from?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

If you want to know what the church fathers or ante-nicean fathers accepted as legitimate scripture and what they rejected you'd need to listen to a historian, specifically a church historian.

Feel free to cite your evidence.
Also where's the link to the blog you were copying your earlier argument from?

What are you talking about? The Bible isn't a " blog".

reply to post by Akragon

Fundamentaists by definition are not going to agree with Ehrman.
The evidence of his credintials are there in the post you quoted.
Being "currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill" en.wikipedia.org... might be significant too.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon

 

Fundamentaists by definition are not going to agree with Ehrman.
The evidence of his credintials are there in the post you quoted.
Being "currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill" en.wikipedia.org... might be significant too.

Ah... now i admit i have not read any of this work, but from his credentials it looks like he knows what hes talking about...

The only issue i've had thus far is the fact that hes trying to sell books... Many a good bible scholar have "cooked" their results of their studies in order to create contraversy... which of course "sells books"

Interesting though... my thanks

reply to post by Akragon

What I usually point out is that the subject is so contentious that, if anything, he is being way conservative because there are lots of people without those credentials who love to write a book tearing him up for his mistakes.
The fact that he has not been discredited in the face of the multitude of people who like to, stands as a testament to what he says, which is just the majority view of experts in his field.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Akragon

 

What I usually point out is that the subject is so contentious that, if anything, he is being way conservative because there are lots of people without those credentials who love to write a book tearing him up for his mistakes.
The fact that he has not been discredited in the face of the multitude of people who like to, stands as a testament to what he says, which is just the majority view of experts in his field.

edit on 16-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

well he said in the video i just watched that he once thought the bible has no errors... until he actually looked for them... and found tons. This is truth... there are many errors both factual. geological, and logical, not to even mention the contradictions.

I would say that most so called "experts" usually come from some sort of bias towards the bible... Those that believe that the bible is "Gods word"... are usually the ones that im refering to...

I will see what else he has to say on the subject.... thanks for the info

reply to post by jmdewey60


If the washing is not the Holy Spirit, than what do you think living water is? The living water of Christ and the washing are talking about the exact same thing. This is why one needs to be born again of water and Sprit. Water birth is the breaking of your mother’s water at the time of your birth. Spirit is the baptism of the Spirit promised to those who repent and have faith.

The message here is that repenting does not make you worthy of heaven; it is only by the Grace of God that you can receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This message is intended to keep believers humbled. Many Christians boast that they are saved as if they have done something to be saved. Salvation does not come through works. However, works are proof of salvation. One is not capable of living righteously without be cleansed from unrighteousness. Water baptism is only an outward sign. Everyone knows that water cannot wash away sins, but the Holy Spirit can indeed wash away sin.