Could God reincarnate humans if he wanted to?

[Charles]

What are you arguing about Charles? MM first mentioned that we have assurance that we are saved.

The verses you are talking about are not about doubt, but about false prophets and disciples who merely claim to be believers. These are people who only claim to be believers but are in fact fakes. Not people mistaken about being saved. These are the cult leaders, the fake televangelists, and that sort who go around pretending to be Christians to lure people in. The con men.

You seem to be talking past one another.

I believe you are actually completely wrong when you claim that false disciples are people who merely claim to be believers. I don't think the content allows you to interpret it like that. Let's look at it once again:

[Mountain Man]

Which body will it be, the one of mossrose as a young girl, or at sweet sixteen or the wrinkly older one one at point of death?

Are you really so ignorant? It will be a glorified body free of all physical imperfections.

Philippians 3: "But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself."

[One Bad Pig]

Transcribe means "to be written."

No, it doesn't. That's only the 'scribe' part. It means "to copy in writing" or "write down".

B. B. Warfield also described verbal plenary inspiration of God's written word using the term "dictation." see pages 86-87 of Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Dr John R. Rice in his book Our God Breathed Book: The Bible, how the term "mechanical" is used to malign how God dictated His written word.

So you DO believe in mechanical dictation - you just don't like the term. That's what I figured.

[Mountain Man]

So according to New International Version verse 21 and onwards is not about false prophets but false disciples.

Do you not realize that the subheadings are not part of scripture itself but were added by translators and editors for reference purposes only? In the ESV translation, the subheading for this section reads, simply, "I Never Knew You"; the NASB translation

[37818]

No, it doesn't. That's only the 'scribe' part. It means "to copy in writing" or "write down".

"Write down" God's word as He gave it (2 Peter 1:21; Psalm 119:89; 2 Timothy 3:16).

So you DO believe in mechanical dictation - you just don't like the term. That's what I figured.

You malign the truth. (And I had thought better of you.)

[Sparko]

The context of the whole section is about FALSEHOOD. LYING and pretending to be who they are not. Think of a televangelist like Benny Hinn, he goes around calling "Lord, Lord" and claiming to drive out demons and he claims Jesus speaks to him and he speaks in tongues and does prophesy. Yet he is obviously a charlatan after money and fame. When he stands before God after he dies and realizes it is all true, don't you think he will try to argue that Jesus was his Lord and he did miracles for him? Those are the people Jesus will send away. Pretenders.

[Charles]

Do you not realize that the subheadings are not part of scripture itself but were added by translators and editors for reference purposes only? In the ESV translation, the subheading for this section reads, simply, "I Never Knew You"; the NASB translation uses the subheading "A Tree And Its Fruit". It's entirely up to the whims of the editors. None of them are inspired additions to scripture.

Although to be fair, you do deserve some credit here: attempting to assign authority to the subheadings added by translators is a "stupid atheist" trick I've not previously encountered.

Like I pointed out I focused on this distinction in the NIV which is why I used phrasings like: "If we read it from the perspective of NIV it makes a lot more sense." MM, you are really trying to make a straw man in this case and I think you are doing so because you need strong arguments. Look at your claim that what I am saying is a stupid atheist trick. First of all the interpretation I pointed to is in NIV. Is that supposed to be an atheist interpretation or trick within this version of the Bible? If not why should everyone else making the same distinction be written of as stupid atheists? You know perfectly well that I am not even an atheist. Anyway, you completely ignore the challenge that the distinction you missed is recognised in NIV and by very many Christians. Do some simple searches and you will see. You are going to blame a lot of Christians for making a stupid atheistic trick. Perhaps it would be a more interesting approach to either accept the interpretation or show why it is wrong by pointing to facts instead of making straw men and personal attacks.


First of all you ignore the points I had about the first part of 21, so I will repeat my extended version of it which I wrote as an answer to Sparko in which I go through the entire part:

So there you have the entire part. Feel free to go as close to the text as I do. Feel free to make an actual interpretation in which you support your claims by pointing to what the text actually says and we shall see if you can support your conclusions.

And note your own litte trick when you say: "Both are claiming to serve God but are really serving themselves; as Jesus says, "You will recognize them by their fruits." It is your claim he is saying that about both. According to NIV Jesus is saying this about the false prophets and NOT about the false disciples. You are simply presupposing their identity and not proving it by making that statement. That is a rather poor and prejudiced interpretation - if it even is an interpretation at all.

So, no, there is absolutely nothing in Matthew 7 that can be read as cautioning Christians not be confident in their salvation. On the contrary, it is saying the exact opposite.

Of course confidence does not mean flippancy or complacency.

2 Timothy 2:15, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth."

And don't forget:

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5, 20

[One Bad Pig]

"Write down" God's word as He gave it (2 Peter 1:21; Psalm 119:89; 2 Timothy 3:16).

You have a habit of tossing out scripture references without bothering to assert how they prove your point. None of those verses require God dictating word for word what the authors of scripture wrote. God did that on occasion, those passages being indicated by the introit "Thus saith the Lord...."

[Charles]

The context of the whole section is about FALSEHOOD. LYING and pretending to be who they are not. Think of a televangelist like Benny Hinn, he goes around calling "Lord, Lord" and claiming to drive out demons and he claims Jesus speaks to him and he speaks in tongues and does prophesy. Yet he is obviously a charlatan after money and fame. When he stands before God after he dies and realizes it is all true, don't you think he will try to argue that Jesus was his Lord and he did miracles for him? Those are the people Jesus will send away. Pretenders.

I note that you are not confronting the points I made or answer the questions with regard to how the text would make sence if it was not to be read in the way I interpret it. It seems the actual wording, what the text actually says needs to be ignored due to some "context" which seems more like a contradiction than a context.

Further:

Personally my interpretation is that if I read these words as words about others, I am not anywhere close to understanding the point. Unless I read this as something written to ME as MY guidelines for how I should refrain from judging othes then I am not actually reading it.

[37818]

You have a habit of tossing out scripture references without bothering to assert how they prove your point. None of those verses require God dictating word for word what the authors of scripture wrote. God did that on occasion, those passages being indicated by the introit "Thus saith the Lord...."

So are you advocating only partial inspiration in some way?

[KingsGambit]

So are you advocating only partial inspiration in some way?

Not believing in literal dictation constitutes "partial inspiration"?

I don't see how one who holds to dictation would account for 1 Corinthians 7:12.

[Mountain Man]

Like I pointed out I focused on this distinction in the NIV which is why I used phrasings like: "If we read it from the perspective of NIV it makes a lot more sense." MM, you are really trying to make a straw man in this case and I think you are doing so because you need strong arguments. Look at your claim that what I am saying is a stupid atheist trick. First of all the interpretation I pointed to is in NIV. Is that supposed to be an atheist interpretation or trick within this version of the Bible? If not why should everyone else making the same distinction be written of as stupid atheists? You know perfectly well that I am not even an atheist. Anyway, you completely ignore the challenge that the distinction you missed is recognised in NIV and by very many Christians. Do some simple searches and you will see. You are going to blame a lot of Christians for making a stupid atheistic trick. Perhaps it would be a more interesting approach to either accept the interpretation or show why

I'm not sure I can answer this any better than Sparko already has, so I'll steal from him: "The context of the whole section is about FALSEHOOD. LYING and pretending to be who they are not."

I can't answer better, but I will expand on it: Jesus explicitly refers to hypocrites and false prophets -- that is people who falsely invoke the Lord's name. And if someone is falsely invoking Jesus' name in this life then what makes you think they would suddenly utter it with sincerity in the next?

"Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?" In other words, "But, Lord, look at everything I did for you!" Who is expected to receive the honor in this statement? For an example of this in action, look at Acts 19 where a priest and his sons tried to bring honor to themselves by invoking Jesus' name to cast out a demon, and the demon responded, "Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?" -- which interestingly is very similar to the response that Jesus gives in Matthew 7:23: "I never knew you." -- and then the demon proceeded to beat the priest and his sons within an inch of their lives. Also notable is that Jesus refers to them as "evildoers" which suggests active participation in evil works -- "You will recognize them by their fruits" -- meaning these aren't people who were sincere and well-intentioned in their desire to follow Jesus' teachings yet somehow mistaken.

And whether they are false prophets or false disciples doesn't make a lick of difference as far as this passage is concerned -- and if you want to be literalist about it, where does it say "false disciples" anyway? Go ahead and try defending that one with something better than "But- but the NIV says...!"

Jesus goes on to say that he is not talking about "the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Those people are explicitly excluded from his condemnation, so no matter how you twist it and turn it, this idea that people will stand before God and be genuinely shocked to discover that they're really not saved is not supported by this passage, or anywhere else in scripture.

You arrogantly claim to be getting close to the text, but you're not. You're just pulling the same stunt as the brainless wonders at Skeptics Annotated Bible and treating each verse as if it stands on its own while ignoring the larger context. And as proof of this, there's this howler in your reply to Sparko:

It seems the actual wording, what the text actually says needs to be ignored due to some "context" which seems more like a contradiction than a context.

As if "what the text actually says" doesn't include the context in which it was said.

"Stupid atheist" tricks indeed.

[Mountain Man]

I missed this:

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5, 20

Context, Chuck, look at the context. Maybe if we repeat that 50 more times then it'll finally penetrate your cast-iron skull.

First, here's the surrounding text:


Prior to Jesus' death and resurrection, the Old Covenant was still in effect, and under the Old Covenant, righteousness was based on one's ability to uphold the Law of Moses. That's what Jesus is talking about here. We, however, are living under the post-resurrection New Covenant -- this was the fulfillment of the law that Jesus mentions -- where righteousness is by grace through faith. Jesus is also taking a fairly obvious satirical jab at the scribes and Pharisees who were frequently portrayed as hypocrites throughout the gospels starting with John the Baptist's verbal beat-down in Matthew 3, so contrary to how you understood this passage, Jesus is, in fact, setting the bar humorously low.

[firstfloor]

Your trolling is duly noted.

[Sparko]

I note that you are not confronting the points I made or answer the questions with regard to how the text would make sence if it was not to be read in the way I interpret it. It seems the actual wording, what the text actually says needs to be ignored due to some "context" which seems more like a contradiction than a context.

Further:



Personally my interpretation is that if I read these words as words about others, I am not anywhere close to understanding the point. Unless I read this as something written to ME as MY guidelines for how I should refrain from judging othes then I am not actually reading it.

You seem to be caught on the phrase "doing God's will" in the quoted verses, correct?
That those he says "only those who do God's will" will be saved?' -- Some sort of work God wants us to perform for him?

What do you suppose that might be? What do we need to do to be saved and do the work God wants us to do?*

*Hint there is a passage that directly addresses this topic. See if you can find it. That is why context matters, and having a knowledge of more than one verse at a time.