Could God reincarnate humans if he wanted to?

[Charles]

Wish I woulda thought of that

I don't think any of us really disagree. The words we discuss are these: "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

At first it would seem there certainly is a bar that is set very high. It clearly says: "unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law". So I don't think the point is that there is no bar. The point is that we pass that bar through grace, not based on our own actions but through the blood of Christ. And the price he had to pay was not low.

[Cow Poke]

I am making the exact same point that you are making. It does not require justice on our side because Jesus died for our sins.

Roger that!

The bar may not be there for us but that is only because someone else passed it on our behalf and we would be incapable of doing so ourselves.

That's a BIG 10-4.

That is a very traditional Christian view on things. Not that I personally believe it is true but I see this as a point that is made in that verse.

Understood.

I don't see how that is trolling, but perhaps we simply misunderstood each other.

Obviously so, probably because, when you said...

Which is why it certainly is important. And "by grace" is not setting the bar low but high and so high it is actually out of reach.

That was a rather odd statement, and really didn't seem to be a good understanding of "by grace".

My apologies.

[Cow Poke]

I don't think any of us really disagree. The words we discuss are these: "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

At first it would seem there certainly is a bar that is set very high. It clearly says: "unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law". So I don't think the point is that there is no bar. The point is that we pass that bar through grace, not based on our own actions but through the blood of Christ. And the price he had to pay was not low.

We will now stand and sing our hymn of invitation.

[Charles]

That was a rather odd statement, and really didn't seem to be a good understanding of "by grace".

My apologies.

No problem. You may be correct that the statement could be misunderstood. At least that was not the intention.

[Cow Poke]

No problem. You may be correct that the statement could be misunderstood. At least that was not the intention.

It's kind of unusual, in my experience, that an agnostic or atheist will "get it right" in terms of what we (Christians) actually believe. Even in the case of ag/at having grown up in Church, it just so often seems like they "didn't get it".

[Charles]

It's kind of unusual, in my experience, that an agnostic or atheist will "get it right" in terms of what we (Christians) actually believe. Even in the case of ag/at having grown up in Church, it just so often seems like they "didn't get it".

To be honest - and this is not intended to provoke in any way - I honestly feel at times I get it far better than many people who call themselves Christians and I feel that the actual meaning, the actual intention and what actually inspires me is lost whenever Christians are too concerned about their church, their interpretations, traditions and institutions. It seems to me some very basic and important points about a personal relationship with God, the radical and incomprehensible parts all look a little dead and boring in institutions and traditions all too occupied with justifying themselves.

[Cow Poke]

To be honest - and this is not intended to provoke in any way -

I honestly feel at times I get it far better than many people who call themselves Christians and I feel that the actual meaning, the actual intention and what actually inspires me is lost whenever Christians are too concerned about their church, their interpretations, traditions and institutions. It seems to me some very basic and important points about a personal relationship with God, the radical and incomprehensible parts all look a little dead and boring in institutions and traditions all too occupied with justifying themselves.

Meh, I think I'm weird - I used to think that "those liberal churches" were all about "social stuff" and missed the "real Gospel" -- and I was on the "right side" with "the real Gospel", but that "social stuff" was not what we were about.

Over the last 20 years or so, it became evident to me that we could do both. Our Church is all about doing things in the community - car clinic, jobs for life, passing out free water at school meetings (doesn't even have the Church's name on the bottles), summer programs for the kids, including feeding them breakfast and lunch... we do all kinds of "that social stuff", but we don't have to sacrifice or water down our Gospel.

We actually have a line item in our budget called "Do Something", whose whole purpose is to not just sit around and talk about or "pray about" local problems, but get involved and be there "boots on the ground".

Not trying to toot my own church's horn or anything - just saying it's been a process. Our people really seem to enjoy it when I say "OK, I discovered a problem in our community in ....." They jump all over it.

One of our favorite things is working with a couple other churches building wheel chair ramps for the front porches of our shut-ins. It's really fun doing things "in Jesus' name".

[Mountain Man]

Note from my response to MM that I am not in agreement with his assertion of its non-application to Christians.

It certainly applies to Christians in the sense that all scripture can teach and instruct. My specific objection in the context of this thread is that Chuck was wrongly using Matthew 5:20 as if it were a counterpoint to 2 Timothy 2:15. It's not. He also missed the rather obvious sarcasm when Jesus held up the biggest hypocrites of the day as paragons of righteousness. Chuck takes Matthew 5:20 as saying "Be like the pharisees" when elsewhere in Jesus' teachings, the lesson is very clearly "Don't be like the pharisees."

[Charles]

It certainly applies to Christians in the sense that all scripture can teach and instruct. My specific objection in the context of this thread is that Chuck was wrongly using Matthew 5:20 as if it were a counterpoint to 2 Timothy 2:15. It's not.

I never said it was a counterpoint so your statement is simply wrong. I said it was important in the context. Why are you making a false statement, MM?

And here is what you initially said to me when I quoted Matthew 5:20: "You also missed my point that this passage is talking to those living under the Old Covenant, which kicks your ignorant point to the curb that this passage has implications for Christians." Now you are saying: "It certainly applies to Christians in the sense that all scripture can teach and instruct."

He also missed the rather obvious sarcasm when Jesus held up the biggest hypocrites of the day as paragons of righteousness. Chuck takes Matthew 5:20 as saying "Be like the pharisees" when elsewhere in Jesus' teachings, the lesson is very clearly "Don't be like the pharisees."

Wrong again. I never took Matthew 5:20 as saying "Be like the pharisees" that would be completely pointles since it clearly says "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." Once again I wonder why you need to make a false statement. I used it to point out that even those most focused on appearing rightheous are not rightheous enough in themselves. You can see my discussion with CP here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post549703

MM, honestly, try without those personal attacks and without making false statements about what I have said. We are actually having an interesting discussion right now in which some of us are able to agree on interpretations and share views and experiences without having to acutally share beliefs.

[Mountain Man]

Oh, don't get shy now, Chuck, stay with your argument to the bitter end. There's no shame in stubbornly refusing to admit you goofed. When someone rhetorically beats you into the ground, dusting yourself off and definitely shaking your fist under their nose is sort of like winning, isn't it?

So stick by your claim that the pharisees were an admirable example of how people should live.

"You would want one of them as your neighbour."

Because everybody wants a hypocritical busybody as a neighbor, right, Chuck?

[Charles]

Oh, don't get shy now, Chuck, stay with your argument to the bitter end. There's no shame in stubbornly refusing to admit you goofed. When someone rhetorically beats you into the ground, dusting yourself off and definitely shaking your fist under their nose is sort of like winning, isn't it?

So stick by your claim that the pharisees were an admirable example of how people should live.

"You would want one of them as your neighbour."

Because everybody wants a hypocritical busybody as a neighbor, right, Chuck?

The fact that their outward appearance was their focus did not mean they were examples of how we should live and I never said so. You are making another false statement. They however were not the cause of much noise or trouble which was my point. But it seems you prefer lies and personal attacks. I have shown so in this and my previous post. A lot of other points are left unanswered by you.

Try with the truth and try with arguments instead of personal attacks.

[Charles]

So stick by your claim that the pharisees were an admirable example of how people should live.

"You would want one of them as your neighbour."

Because everybody wants a hypocritical busybody as a neighbor, right, Chuck?

To repeat I never said they were an admirable example of how people should live. You will not be able to find me saying that, so stop lying.

However, people who are not admirable examples of how people should live their lives can still make good neighbours. You might find this article interesting: https://www.christiantoday.com/artic...ere/108717.htm

Bond says Jesus had much in common with the Pharisees. They too would believe that love and concern for one's neighbour was important, and most of them wouldn't even have objected to his healing people on the Sabbath.

And a rather interesting short description on what the Parisees got wrong from a Christian perspective:

The heart of the Gospel is that God loves us anyway, whether we are 'good' people or not. The biblical Pharisees weren't nearly as bad as we think; but modern-day 'Pharisees' who limit God's grace and don't accept those he calls are still found in churches today.

[Mountain Man]

To repeat I never said [the scribes and pharisees] were an admirable example of how people should live.

Yes you did.

Let's step into the Wayback Machine:

...they do a lot to appear just. In doing so they are actually behaving quite well in an outward manner. You would want one of them as your neighbour.

This conversation has gotten somewhat sidetracked,, so allow me to summarize this debate (if any discussion with you can even be considered a debate):

You started off wrongly claiming that Matthew 7:21-23 is saying that there will be some sincere followers of Christ who will stand before God at the final Judgment and be shocked to discover that they're really not saved.

You went through many contortions to defend this assertion, even hilariously appealing to the editorial subheadings in the NIV Bible as if they are somehow authoritative while willfully ignoring the fact that other translations use different subheadings.

I and others in this thread have gone to some lengths to correct your misunderstanding, pointing to the context of the passage which explicitly refers to hypocrites and false prophets, and that Jesus explicitly excluded "the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven". I then explained to you that this passage can, in fact, give the Christian confidence in his salvation (if you do God's will then you are saved, period), but also that he should not be complacent, citing 2 Timothy 2:15 as a reference text.

You then pushed back against this, citing Matthew 5:20 as if it were intended to instruct New Covenant believers on how they should live despite the fact that this passage explicitly refers to the Old Covenant, and which led to your hilarious claim above that a social class widely regarded as hypocrites throughout the gospels were the standard of righteousness and would have made good neighbors -- never mind that they wouldn't have wanted you as their neighbor, though to be fair, they probably wouldn't have wanted me, either.

They might have been respected by the community, but Jesus went to great lengths to show the people who they really were.

Matthew 5:23, "For [the scribes and pharisees] preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger."

Anyway... I think that's pretty much the end of it. I'm not sure there's anywhere else for this discussion to go.

[Charles]

Yes you did.

Let's step into the Wayback Machine:

Saying: "...they do a lot to appear just. In doing so they are actually behaving quite well in an outward manner. You would want one of them as your neighbour." is not the same as saying that they are an admirable example of how people should live. That simply does not follow and your logic is rather weak on this point but you obviously prefer to confront a straw man.

Remember the part I just quoted for you:

Bond says Jesus had much in common with the Pharisees. They too would believe that love and concern for one's neighbour was important, and most of them wouldn't even have objected to his healing people on the Sabbath.

You should read the article: https://www.christiantoday.com/artic...ere/108717.htm

This conversation has gotten somewhat sidetracked,, so allow me to summarize this debate (if any discussion with you can even be considered a debate):

You started off wrongly claiming that Matthew 7:21-23 is saying that there will be some sincere followers of Christ who will stand before God at the final Judgment and be shocked to discover that they're really not saved.

You never managed to show why that is a wrong claim.

You went through many contortions to defend this assertion, even hilariously appealing to the editorial subheadings in the NIV Bible as if they are somehow authoritative while willfully ignoring the fact that other translations use different subheadings.

Wrong. I used NIV as an example and in order to show that seeing the difference between false prophets and false disciples is not a stupid atheist trick like you claim. I said quite a lot to support the distinction and you never managed to confront those points and prefer the straw man of saying i base it all on NIV which is objectively wrong.

Please answer this part instead of pretending it does not exist:

What characterizes these people? They are calling the Lord their Lord. It simply makes no sense and it seems contrary to the Bible to claim these people don't believe. They are doing prophecies and insist it must be in the name of the Lord. They drive out demons and do so in the name of the Lord (or at least they think so). They even perform miracles and do so in the name of the Lord (or at least they think so). The most likely interpretation seems to be the one that these people believe they are actually doing the right thing. How else would you interpret their frustration of being refused? Why would they call the Lord the Lord and so on?

I and others in this thread have gone to some lengths to correct your misunderstanding, pointing to the context of the passage which explicitly refers to hypocrites and false prophets, and that Jesus explicitly excluded "the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven". I then explained to you that this passage can, in fact, give the Christian confidence in his salvation (if you do God's will then you are saved, period), but also that he should not be complacent, citing 2 Timothy 2:15 as a reference text.

Others in this thread tend to agree with me. I think this discussion rather shows that your arrogance, personal attacks and fallacies cannot cover up my points and you are yet to answer the points I have.

You then pushed back against this, citing Matthew 5:20 as if it were intended to instruct New Covenant believers on how they should live despite the fact that this passage explicitly refers to the Old Covenant, and which led to your hilarious claim above that a social class widely regarded as hypocrites throughout the gospels were the standard of righteousness and would have made good neighbors -- never mind that they wouldn't have wanted you as their neighbor, though to be fair, they probably wouldn't have wanted me, either.

I never said they were the standard of righteousness. You are lying and creating straw men.

They might have been respected by the community, but Jesus went to great lengths to show the people who they really were.

That is a lot closer to what I actually said but you prefer to misrepresent it in order to avoid my actual points. Too bad. You are missing out the opportunity to discuss.

Matthew 5:23, "For [the scribes and pharisees] preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger."

Anyway... I think that's pretty much the end of it. I'm not sure there's anywhere else for this discussion to go.

If you start telling the truth I will be happy to continue. You have been lying quite many times so far and shown what appears to me to be a rather limited understanding of both context and content in the Bible including basic distinctions.

[shunyadragon]

The opening question is problematic concerning what God would do 'if God wanted to?,' or maybe 'can do?' If God exists or not exists these questions are meaningless.