Stay Out Of HELL.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Luke 10:25-28
And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus said "What is written in the law? How do you read?"
And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."
And he said to him, "You have answered right; do this, and you will live."

Nothing about believing in him there either.

So why does Jesus never mention that believing in him is your only ticket to heaven? That's the only way to get to heaven according to what the church teaches, so why doesn't he ever mention it?

This is a literary device used to set up the parable of the Good Samaritan, where Jesus is preaching against the religious conventions of the day and using the story as a practical application of his concepts. The part you quoted would have stood out to the listeners of this reading of Luke in that the"lawyer" would not have sounded like the typical layer of the day and would have expected him to say something like helping people in your own social group, or maybe keeping the Sabbath.
Again Jesus is asking the listener to believe in him and not to the normal form of religion they had been living under, and it would have taken faith to take that step which could easily put you amongst the social outcasts, like the Samaritans.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I disagree. I believe that when Jesus said to "love the lord, thy God" he was referring to the "Heavenly Father" that he prayed to, spoke of and introduced to his disciples , as opposed to the God that the Pharisees were falsely promoting.

My 2 cents.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I honestly have no idea how you came to that conclusion. He is clearly talking about the 10 commandments and never even mentions Pharisees. Grasping at straws?

It's called reading.
Try Essays on the Sermon on the Mount by Hans Dieter Betz.
He breaks down Jesus' views on the law and what constitutes the "lesser commandments".

reply to post by jmdewey60


You can speculate all you want on what the lesser commandments are but it goes to reason that he was speaking of the 10 commandments, the commandments that his "father" sent down to Moses. It doesn't make sense that he would be talking about commandments that are never even mentioned in the bible.

Either way, he never says anything about having to believe he died on the cross to get into heaven, that is a church-made concept.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You can speculate all you want on what the lesser commandments are but it goes to reason that he was speaking of the 10 commandments, the commandments that his "father" sent down to Moses. It doesn't make sense that he would be talking about commandments that are never even mentioned in the bible.

They are mentioned. You just quoted Luke where it is spelled out by the lawyer who is quoting the law. The problem is that the spirit of the law was bypassed in the Judaism of the time in favor of a human defined "holiness". If you don't get that then you missed the point of the New Testament.

Either way, he never says anything about having to believe he died on the cross to get into heaven, that is a church-made concept.

He does when he says "I am the way".
Now Jesus said that while he was alive. Whenever he tried to speak to the disciples about his death, their minds would close off, so was not able to go into great depth on the subject and it was left to the recollection and understanding of them after the fact, which comes out in the rest of the NT.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You say I'm quoting Luke yet forget to realize I am quoting Jesus as well. Jesus asked a question, Luke responded with an answer and Jesus approved of his answer. The main person we want to pay attention to is Jesus, not Luke. Jesus approves of his answer and says he will have eternal life if he follows the commandments.

This whole discussion is based on Jesus and what he said, not Luke or some other guy who wrote a book.

What he said and how he lived is the way, we can all live as he did and treat others the way he treated them (minus the make-believe miracles), if you don't think so then I'm sorry for you.

I am the way, just as you could be the way if you really tried. Putting Jesus on a pedestal is putting doubt within yourself because you think "I could never be like Jesus". This is the main thing religious stories use to control people, to make people doubt themselves or make them feel unworthy.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The Gospel of Luke is not quoting Luke saying something in response to a question.
It is a so-called expert in the law.
He gives a partially correct answer but gets it wrong on the definition of who your neighbor is.
Jesus points out that everyone you meet is a potential "neighbor".
So without the necessary correction of his philosophy, the expert in the law would not go to heaven.
Jesus is said to have, right before this happened, to have been taken by a spiritual experience.
We can understand this as an indication of how the only way to correctly understand and do the spiritual law is through the spirit. This spirit is something Jesus had, but for us to have it, we need to obtain it through Jesus, which I would take as being so much more likely to happen if we actually first believe in Jesus.

What he said and how he lived is the way, we can all live as he did and treat others the way he treated them (minus the make-believe miracles), if you don't think so then I'm sorry for you.

I feel sorry for you, back.
You follow Jesus like he said, 'take up your cross'.
We die with Christ, to this world, and are resurrected with him in a symbolic way, through baptism, but it symbolizes a reality that is absolutely necessary for eternal life, which is the endowment of the spirit that comes from God and is only made available through His son.

reply to post by jmdewey60


I meant to say the lawyer not Luke, sorry about that mix-up.

The difference between the neighbor analogy is that it is super obvious what he meant by neighbor, your explanation about what Jesus was "meaning" to say is extremely convoluted, that shows signs of straw grasping in my opinion.

Jesus never said you had to believe he died to get to heaven, ever, even after his resurrection. That concept was invented by the church in order to have control over people.

There is no need for baptism to receive the holy spirit, you are born with it, it is what makes you you, it is what makes up your consciousness, everyones consciousness.

That's why Jesus said "I and the father are one", because we are all one with the "father". Notice how he says "the" father not "my" father.

Also, if you needed to be Baptized to receive the holy spirit then why was it necessary for Jesus to be baptized if he was born with the holy spirit? That's only one of many contradictions within the bible. That shows human tampering to me.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
It never says in the Bible that you are born with the Holy Spirit.
You have a natural spirit that everyone has and it works for a while and then you die.
You need another sort of spirit that leads to eternal life.
I think what you are doing is taking the New Testament and calling it "church".
That may be a convenient way for you to just blow off whatever you don't like.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Where in the New Testament does it say you aren't born with the holy spirit? It may say you can receive the holy spirit, but I believe it is taken from us not long after we're born by the material world that has been set up before our birth and by religion teaching otherwise.

Just because you find the holy spirit doesn't mean you never had it to begin with.

I am not calling the New Testament "church", I am pointing out the differences in the two. You are the one confusing what the church teaches as what's in the bible, not me.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Where in the New Testament does it say you aren't born with the holy spirit? It may say you can receive the holy spirit, but I believe it is taken from us not long after we're born by the material world that has been set up before our birth and by religion teaching otherwise.

Just because you find the holy spirit doesn't mean you never had it to begin with.

I am not calling the New Testament "church", I am pointing out the differences in the two. You are the one confusing what the church teaches as what's in the bible, not me.

Just as everyone dies because we all belong to Adam, everyone who belongs to Christ will be given new life.
1 Corinthians 15:22

Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans Ch. 5

reply to post by ResearchEverything777


Corinthians and Romans were put together by Paul, the same one who persecuted early disciples of Christ. If he persecuted those who followed Jesus then how can you be so sure what he says reflects what Jesus taught? That is a doctrine made by the church, not Jesus. Jesus didn't teach any of that.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

. . . Paul, the same one who persecuted early disciples of Christ. If he persecuted those who followed Jesus . . .

If anything in the NT was "made up" by the church, to me it would be that story in Acts, written a hundred years after the letters of Paul.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Lots of the New Testament is made up, especially those written by Paul. Paul is suspected to have written at most 14 of the books in the NT, the NT only has 27 books in it. That's over half of the NT being susceptible to lies.

Didn't the Romans, as a whole, persecute Christians just as Paul did? Wasn't Paul Roman? Could Paul be a metaphor for Rome as a whole? I think so, the Romans added their story of persecution of Christians then their manipulation of it afterwards and inserted the name Saul/Paul in their place.

You may say that's stretching it but it makes sense to me.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
If you want to make persuasive arguments about the NT, you should study the NT, instead of coming up with imaginative speculation.
As far as I am concerned, the Gospels could be based on Paul's teaching and not the other way around.
For an argument for that, you could read Paul and Jesus by Alexander J. M. Wedderburn.

reply to post by jmdewey60


How were the gospels based on what Paul wrote when Paul never even met Jesus? That's imaginative speculation as well. You are clutching at straws now.

Paul completely altered Jesus' message and the letters he sent have that fact in the writing. It's also very convenient that Jesus came to Paul in a dream/vision, that gives what he says a false authority on what Jesus meant.

Originally posted by Sinny
I bloody hate Bible quotes!!

Any of you own thoughts OP?!

I have a thought, no one made you click on this thread. No one made you click on the religion forums either.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ResearchEverything777

 

Corinthians and Romans were put together by Paul, the same one who persecuted early disciples of Christ. If he persecuted those who followed Jesus then how can you be so sure what he says reflects what Jesus taught? That is a doctrine made by the church, not Jesus. Jesus didn't teach any of that.

edit on 1-9-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-9-2012 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
2 Timothy 3:16

When A Person Is Truly Born Again...They Become Conformed Into The Image Of God...Spiritually!

"It's A Process"

(

The account of Paul's conversion appears below and also in Acts 22:4-11 and Acts 26:9-18.
.1 ¶ And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
.2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
.3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
.4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
.5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 1 - Breathing out From empneo, "to breathe in or on. See ac0803.
1 - Slaughter Rather "murder."
1 - Against ... disciples Saul had spoken his approval ac2610. He soon had the backing of the the chief priests.
1 - High priests Annas or Caiphas. See ac0406.
3 - Near Damascus The site is unknown although it must have been near Damascus.
3 - Suddenly ... light The whole story is told again as noted above.
3 - Shined Better translated "flashed." It was at noon according to ac2206 and ac2613.
4 - Fell Saul and those with him ac2614 fell. Perhaps it was like the influence of the angel at the tomb mt2802. Incidentally, we are not told that any of the travelers were riding horses.
4 - Saul, Saul Up to this point the name is written in Greek is saulos. Here it is in Hebrew transliterated as Saoul.
4 - Why persecutest? Christ identifies with His afflicted people is6309, zc0208, mt1040.
5 - Lord Saul apparently sensed the divine presence but would not have understood its full significance. See jn0138.
.6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
.7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
.8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. 6 - And he trembling and astonished said These words are not found in Greek manuscripts and were probably added from the Latin Vulgate by The preparation of the textus receptus by Erasmus. The same holds for the last clause of v5
7 - Hearing a voice From akouontes ... tes phontes. In the account at 22:9 Paul says that the companions "heard not the voice." ten ... phonen ouk ekousan. The verb akouo "to hear" may indicates the ability to hear sound or to understand (as Mark 4:33; 1 Cor. 14:2). The Greek grammar indicates that they heard but did not understand. In 22:9 the verb is phonen and with "not" indicates that they did not hear well enough to understand. In summary, the Greek indicates harmony between the two accounts.
Events following Saul's encounter with the Jesus.
.10 ¶ And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.
.11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,
12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.
13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 10 - Ananias God worked through His human agent to heal and guide Saul.
11 - House of Judas, Inquire for Saul God revealed a specific plan to Ananias. He is just as real today although He often directs our paths without our realizing it. At the beginning of Saul's Christian life, he and the believers needed the boost of faith in knowing about the vision

www.bibleexplained.com...

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by Sinny
I bloody hate Bible quotes!!

Any of you own thoughts OP?!

I have a thought, no one made you click on this thread. No one made you click on the religion forums either.

Well the title sounded like he had advise, and the OPs pretty much unrelated to, er, everything paha.

"But you clicked the thread!"

Boohoo lol.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

That's imaginative speculation as well. You are clutching at straws now.

Ok, then to me, the above statements are based on ignorance.
I gave you book titles. Have you read them yet?
What do you base those opinions on?
What do you know about current New Testament studies?
What I am saying is that Acts is the least reliable source of information in the NT but you are basing all your opinions on it as if it was somehow a true history of what went on, all the while dissing Paul's writings that predate everything else in the NT.
You have no consistency to your methodology and do exactly what you seem to be warning others not to do.