Where To Begin Reading The Bible

[2ndRateMind]

I gave you the reference, now get off your dead 4th point of contact and do your own definitive research

I've done plenty of research. I've just come to a different conclusion to you. We can't both be right on this, so I'm naturally interested in the line of reasoning that leads you to think what you do, so that we can decide which of us, if not completely accurate, is more accurate than the other.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

So, if God thinks something to be good, would you agree that that is objectively good?

Impossible circumstance. We can only know what God "thinks" through what is recorded in his word and the context of it so at that point what we 'agree" is irrelevant.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

I've done plenty of research. I've just come to a different conclusion to you. We can't both be right on this, so I'm naturally interested in the line of reasoning that leads you to think what you do, so the we can decide which of us, if not completely accurate, is more accurate than the other.

I agree completely

Then lets see how you reached your conclusion and i will correct it for you

 

[Marymog]

I agree completely

Then lets see how you reached your conclusion and i will correct it for you

Lol...YOU will correct it??? For a man who doesn't recognize the authority of man how are you, a man, going to correct @2ndRateMind ?

Curious Mary

 

[2ndRateMind]

I agree completely

Then lets see how you reached your conclusion and i will correct it for you

Well, you might start by criticising the stress I place on the two scriptures I introduced into the discussion earlier. It's going to crop up as this conversation proceeds, so we might as well deal with it now.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

Lol...YOU will correct it??? For a man who doesn't recognize the authority of man how are you, a man, going to correct @2ndRateMind ?

Asked and answered. My, what a rattled cage you have

 

[2ndRateMind]

Impossible circumstance. We can only know what God "thinks" through what is recorded in his word and the context of it so at that point what we 'agree" is irrelevant.

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Matthew 19:26 KJV

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

Well, you might start by criticising the stress I place on the two scriptures I introduced into the discussion earlier. It's going to crop up as this conversation proceeds, so we might as well deal with it now.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Sure

be 1 John 4:8 KJV:

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

The word and context there is of course agape based in G5368 phileo. That means the general social 'brotherly love". The context (beloved) (agapatos) in context is also people of the same ilk ( in this application the audience was saved people as they were "beloved")

So, we are to "love" our neighbor as ourself ( stated many times)- but 'the world' (and its citizens) are NOT our "close people", family or 'neighbors" in that context.

This theme is constant throughout the OT and NT. What relationship is the believer to have with "the world"? ( we are in it, not of it)

So, members of the "world' are to be regarded politely and sociably but not at the level of the brethren. We are warned many timea about being unequally yoked and this is why.

Understand this and I'll fix the other for you

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Matthew 19:26 KJV

What is that supposed to represent in context with what i said?

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

and Matthew 22:37-40 KJV

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

This one is not significantly different except Jesus was addressing a trap by a lawyer so that narrows the meaning considerably.

Thats a distinction with a difference because the pharisees were known for divisions, mongrelization of peoples like Samaritans and others of Judea and other similar divisions. Treating "people' equally in love was not what he wanted to hear. Read his whole statement ( and the end0 and put it in proper context of the conversation as it happened.

 

[farouk]

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Matthew 19:26 KJV

Best wishes, 2RM.

@2ndRateMind I haven't read all of the context of the discussion, but this is a great verse!

 

[2ndRateMind]

Sure

...So, we are to "love" our neighbor as ourself ( stated many times)- but 'the world' (and its citizens) are NOT our "close people", family or 'neighbors" in that context.

This theme is constant throughout the OT and NT...

So how do you account for the fact that when Jesus was asked: 'Who is my neighbour?' He replied with the parable of the good Samaritan? (I am sure I need not remind you that, at that time, the Jews and Samaritans were generally unfriendly towards each other).

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[amigo de christo]

We got us an all inclusive one amongst us . Stick in those bibles my friends . For many decievers abound and they know how to decieve and allure .

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

So how do you account for the fact that when Jesus was asked: 'Who is my neighbour?' He replied with the parable of the good Samaritan? (I am sure I need not remind you that, at that time, the Jews and Samaritans were generally unfriendly towards each other).

Same way i answered in #50 above except this time with a little more detail

Samaritans ( by lineage) were offshoots of a tribe of the kingdom of Israel ( not Judea) but heavily mongrelized by Assyrians and others by that time.

The people of Judea were also in the same shape but were more "politically connected" and started their own religion (Judaism) and thought they were all that and a bag of chips.

He gave them that example to let them know in no uncertain terms he came for ALL of Israel and there was no distinction in his eyes by their "religious" positions or country of origin.

For a "Jew" ( of that day) to regard a 'Samaritan" as anything other than dirt was unthinkable. Jesus chose his examples very carefully and to fit the situation.

 

[Cooper]

Then you might want to focus more on precision reading and accuracy than fluff and philosophy. See who Jesus was talking to and what a "neighbor" actually is contrasted against "sinner" and the light will come on.



That really doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things. Christians sin with the best of them and "good" is subjective. Neither one has any bearing on who is written in the Lambs book and who isn't. Outward appearances can only at best serve as a "possible" indicator if the inner person.

By our works we are known. Obviously there are lots of unbelievers who do good work, but they remain in their sin. So it is the believers who are known by their works, and to those who do not give the thirsty a drink, Jesus will say, "I never knew you."

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

So it is the believers who are known by their works, and to those who do not give the thirsty a drink, Jesus will say, "I never knew you."

No, not at all (assuming when you qualify your statement with "believer' you are referring to a legitimately saved person only and exclusively)

If a believer sins ( whatever the sin) then it may affect his "reward" but it will not cost him his salvation or make him a "false' believer as your end reference was originally spoken.

Context is key

 

[Cooper]

No, not at all (assuming when you qualify your statement with "believer' you are referring to a legitimately saved person only and exclusively)

If a believer sins ( whatever the sin) then it may affect his "reward" but it will not cost him his salvation or make him a "false' believer as your end reference was originally spoken.

Context is key

Maybe I was getting a couple of passages confused. Carry on as you were. Apologies.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
(Matthew 7:21-23 KJV)

For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. (Mark 9:41 KJV)
.

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

Maybe I was getting a couple of passages confused. Carry on as before. Apologies.

It happens to me a lot too. Glad we got it squared away

 

[farouk]

It happens to me a lot too. Glad we got it squared away

Oh I find concentration an issue, also...

 

[An Apologetic Sheepdog]

So how do you account for the fact that when Jesus was asked: 'Who is my neighbour?' He replied with the parable of the good Samaritan?

Now that i have your attention, lets get to the underlying "philosophy" of this parable to drive the point Jesus was making home.

The entire line of conversation started off as a test (trap) by a legalist for the sole purpose of exposing some weakness of Jesus or His talk.

Jesus knew this and responded in kind.

The trap started with "who" is this "fellow' ( as in fellowship, friend, insert whatever term for a close relationship you feel like)

Jesus used his own example against him

Jesus made a "generic person" but pointed out a common route indicating a local (countryman by citizenship of the area which would make him a "Jew" by the definition of the day)- He then points out his garments gone (could not discern his nationality or status)

The "priest" ( one who should care) avoids him. The Levite (direct tie to the Kingdom of Judea) ignored him as well.

Yet they were literally "blood kin" but just didn't know it

The Samaritan ( also of Israel but of the remaining tribes and also didn't know this guy was a blood kin) comes by and didn't look at the person but the condition and gave both of his time,effort and money. ( mercy et al)

Jesus made the example you cannot outwardly judge who "is" your neighbor ( defined by blood or citizenship or other close relationship) and when the situation arises its a true character check.

Notice Jesus' carefully chosen words "who was his true NEIGHBOR" ( Jesus didnt focus on the "love' or mercy" because that wasn't the trap)

It was then Jesus said "do likewise"

So we are to treat all people as we would like to be treated (sound familiar?)

Jesus clearly shot down the entire elitist "superior mindset" with those who avoided their "kin" ( a deliberate but subtle insult)

None of that says or means to go out and just "love" everyone like a 60's hippy camp.

Read scripture for what it says and in context with the theme the message is written in- not what you would like it to say to fit a personal viewpoint.