The narrow path

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

He said the gate to life is narrow . . .

So, after going through the gate, then is it still difficult to find the road? It would be if your interpretation was correct.
Both the gate and the road are described as "narrow".
If Jesus meant that what only few found was those things, it would say, 'few would find them'.
If he meant few would find life, then the singular possessive pronoun, "it", found in the text is correct.

Also, from the many discussions we've had, I have never seen you say reading the Greek version is important. Not once.

I don't know what to tell you. You seem to have no point other than calling me a liar. I mention that quite a bit and also add links in some of my posts to my blog called readingthebibleingreek.

You're apology is negating that he said the gate is narrow and that few would find it. The gate leads to life, so throwing out the gate is not an option.

You keep conveniently leaving out the path.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Plutarch was a fighter for truth, which is why he left so many clues within Acts that point to Luke actually being Lucius Plutarchus (Plutarch). He was forced to do what he did in my opinion. He was probably threatened with death if he refused.

Forced? I don't think so. Compare Plutarch to Titus Flavius Josephus. (Flavius because he was adopted into the family of the Flavian emperors). The motivation for both writers would have been to counteract the destructive teachings of the Jewish Messianic movements.

He initially fought against the Romans during the First Jewish–Roman War as the head of Jewish forces in Galilee, until surrendering in 67 to Roman forces led by Vespasian after the six-week siege of Jotapata. Josephus claims the Jewish Messianic prophecies that initiated the First Roman-Jewish War made reference to Vespasian becoming Emperor of Rome.
Josephus

See also Caesar's Messiah:The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus, Joseph Atwill , for the general Idea of why Rome would favor a peaceful Messianic character as opposed to some future figure destined to destroy all civilization and set up a theocracy made up of a specific ethnic group.

It's quite believable that Peter was one of the armed temple guards, as you theorize. He is said to be a zealot, opposed to the "corrupt" temple system. That would explain why he struck the high priest's servant. Maybe Peter never did convert from being a zealot. Paul did, according to his own written words.

Why are you pestering sacgamer25?

I haven't read anything so far that brands him as a zealot, or supporting destructive zealotry. Are you perhaps fighting the wrong battle here?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I honestly am not attacking you, just pointing out the flaws in your logic. To think a man rose from the dead is illogical.

Please read my post on the true presence here: Link

reply to post by pthena


Just because Paul says he was converted does jot mean he was. Even Jesus said false prophets would come in his name wearing sheep's clothing. Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Refer to Peter staying at Simon the tanners house in Acts 6. Tanning is the process of turning an animals hide into leather, a.k.a. a type of clothing. This is right in the middle of Acts transition from Peter to Paul. Simon the tanner is actuslly (Simon) Peter who put on his leather (clothing) then turns into Paul. Plutarch knew what he was conveying with that passage, even if it is somewhat hidden to the unsuspecting eye. He hid many of these within the story of Acts. Google "Plutarch's Parable" and click on the first link. It is compelling evidence of Luke's true identity.

I never claimed sacgamer was a zealot. He has the absolute right motive: love, but he denies his place in the universe by setting Jesus on a pedestal that is unreachable.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that:

1. Perhaps Satan and God are bound by rules similar to the prime directive of the Star Fleet Command in Star Trek.

2. Satan, being the evil one, had no qualms about breaking the rules - in the process, painting himself as his counterpart and God as the one with the corrupt nature.

3. God, in keeping with his rules, is unwilling to directly violate the code in order to correct the damage inflicted by Satan's deception and instead sends messengers to spread the truth in the form of "false prophets".

4. Satan would want to encourage ignorance and division in order to ensure conquest, while God would understand exactly how we work and would encourage us to make mistakes in order to learn to fly.

5. One of the two has never been able to tell his story from his own mouth. Out of the two, who is most likely to fear the word of the other? And therefore, who is most likely to place all the attention on himself in order to limit opportunity for competition?

6. One of the two is a fine liar, but the thing about lies is, words and actions are set apart by their meaning. One may claim to tell the truth, but the truth is in how they act. One of the two has made promises in exchange for power; one of the two has demonstrated love through cruelty; one of the two has painted obeisance as humility; one of the two has inconsistently demonstrated their priorities, as one would when balancing agendas - one for appearance, one for profit.

Psychology at its finest. Just something I wanted to throw out there.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

he denies his place in the universe by setting Jesus on a pedestal that is unreachable.

Perhaps you don't truly understand Christians.

1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child. Now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, even as I was also fully known. 13 But now faith, hope, and love remain—these three. The greatest of these is love.
- WEB

A Christian wrote that.

Maybe not all who claim the name of Christ have actually found the narrow path, maybe some have.

reply to post by pthena


I do understand them because I used to be one of them.

I don't see how that verse negates what I said in any way. If you are filled with love as sacgamer claims to be, then you are on an equal playing field with Jesus. Jesus was love, and to accept love is to become just like Jesus or any other teacher on love.

Jesus does not own love in the sense that sacgamer is putting it. Those who embrace it own it, but there is no one single person who "owns" love. The idea is preposterous.

reply to post by jmdewey60


What makes you think that Jesus was referring to life and not the gate in that instance? If one certain path/gate leads to life, that means that few will find that path and in turn life. The path/gate is not separate from life because it leads to it.

reply to post by pthena

1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child. Now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, even as I was also fully known. 13 But now faith, hope, and love remain—these three. The greatest of these is love.
- WEB

Yes. Faith in lies, hope in despair, and love of division. So long as we accept "God" we cannot accept ourselves because we will never be satisfied with ourselves. We have faith that the Christian doctrine has truly nailed down what it means to be human, hope that someday we will be able to forgive ourselves for daring to be human, and love of the possibility that one day we will no longer be human. Venerating the Judaic deity is synonymous with despising everything that we are. The only thing that gives us comfort is the belief that one day we will no longer be what we are, and then we no longer have to live in shame and repentance of being born.

This has been my point all along. This is why I promote spiritual independence, because I believe in the possibilities of not demonizing that which makes us weak - because I believe it's our flaws that make us strong, especially when we're not fighting the very things that make us who and what we are.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Then you are saying that we need not venerate the master, but the lessons he taught? Worship is not necessary for salvation? Do you know this for a fact?

I didn't understand your question to mean that.
You said, the movement. Which is what, Peter, James, and John?
What I meant was that you don't subscribe to a particular method of worship.
Calling Jesus, Lord, may be the only requirement.
If you are the disciple, then you have a master.
That being the case, then who are all these other people trying to tell you what to do?
You don't say, "I am of Paul", as Paul himself says, but you can take his advice, from someone who knew Jesus in some unusual way perhaps.
Jesus didn't just say, "Be good.", then just leave us to figure out how to do that on our own.
Jesus is here in spirit and we should accept his guidance.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

What makes you think that Jesus was referring to life and not the gate in that instance? If one certain path/gate leads to life, that means that few will find that path and in turn life. The path/gate is not separate from life because it leads to it.

You come to the gate (Jesus), then you follow the path (what Jesus taught for us to do), then at the end of the path, if we have continued on it all the way, you find life.

reply to post by jmdewey60


To walk the path is to have life. You are misconstruing what he meant. If you stray from the path, you are no longer on the path of life, meaning you never truly found the path in the first place.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

To walk the path is to have life. You are misconstruing what he meant. If you stray from the path, you are no longer on the path of life, meaning you never truly found the path in the first place.

Didn't you read my little story?

You don't believe people can stumble on such a rocky path?

reply to post by jmdewey60


Ah, well, I still don't believe in worship. It invites the tendency to miss the lessons for the teacher, which often means that you limit your understanding of those lessons to that one particular manifestation. Just as you wouldn't limit the concept of a motorized vehicle to a Ford Escape, you wouldn't limit your understanding of love to one person's demonstration of it. They simply provide an additional gradient to the meaning, along with every other example and demonstration.

You wouldn't forgo the vast spectrum of color in favor of the one that appeals to you. I wouldn't forgo the vast spectrum of meaning in favor of the one manifestation I am taught to appreciate. And worship tends to bring that approach out in people.

reply to post by Akragon


Not for those who know the path and walk it with open eyes. To stumble is not the same as to stray in my humble opinion.

Straying means to leave the path, stumbling means to have hardships while walking the path but not straying from it. Different things in my opinion.

And the path is far from rocky, it is straight and "easy" as Jesus put it.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Jesus does not own love in the sense that sacgamer is putting it. Those who embrace it own it, but there is no one single person who "owns" love. The idea is preposterous.

I can only guess what sacgamer means. It doesn't sound bad to me.

The Christian writings make the almost equation of God = Love. If a person's God (as in head of personal pantheon) is Love, then almost by definition, the devotee belongs to Love as much as Love belongs to the devotee. Who owns whom doesn't really matter, especially when Love has the strong attribute of existing in sharing.

The idea of a single person owning love is preposterous as you say. But that is your take on sacgamer's idea.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon

 

Not for those who know the path and walk it with open eyes.

To stumble is not the same as to stray in my humble opinion.

Straying means to leave the path, stumbling means to have hardships while walking the path but not straying from it. Different things in my opinion.

And the path is far from rocky, it is straight and "easy" as Jesus put it.

edit on 16-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

I don't recall him saying "the path" is easy... He did say his yoke is easy... and the burden is light... Though I don't think he was speaking of the same thing...

Loving your neighbour is easy... but how about loving your enemies... or even turning the other cheek?

I struggle with that one myself actually... and I know the path he spoke of...

Its not an easy path... but he did say "those that endure to the end, the same will be saved"

Basically saying as long as you don't give up on the path... you'll be alright

reply to post by Akragon


He said that he was the truth, the way (path), and the life. When he said that his yoke was easy he meant that the path he was showing was easy, only if you try.

To have enemies is to have hate. I do not consider anyone my enemy. If they are an enemy to anyone, it is to themselves and not me. If you love an enemy then they are no longer an enemy, but a brother who is misguided.

reply to post by pthena


From his posts, I think it is pretty clear that he believes that Jesus owns love and only loans it to others. He said that love does not come from him but Jesus, meaning he believes he is only borrowing the love from its owner (Jesus).

That's what I got out of it anyways.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

To walk the path is to have life. You are misconstruing what he meant. If you stray from the path, you are no longer on the path of life, meaning you never truly found the path in the first place.

All I can figure is that when you were a Christian, you were in the church of the false prophets and taught instant salvation and one form of once-saved-always-saved.
So your reaction to my original criticism is a dogmatism that you were very successfully brainwashed into.
What passes as logic in your post I am quoting would only seem right to someone taught to believe things that make no sense, which is the only way anyone can buy into once-saved-always-saved.