Christian Pride.

You inserted a verse in argument and I asked you why you assume (for the sake of arguemnt - it matters not whether you believe it or not) why you assume one to comment authorititively and the other not. Matthew vs Paul. Have you an answer? Joseph Smith is not in the Bible. If you don't want to discuss what the Bible says about the gospel then fine. And if you want to cherry pick one bit of the Bible and insert it into your argument and leave another piece out then the onus is on you to say why this is permissable.

quote:

---

17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

---

1) The advice is "obey", not "obey every single commandment every single day without faltering".2) Note the preceding "There is only One who is good.", i.e. only One who can do all good, all the time.3) Note that the man just asked him what he needs to do to get saved. If Jesus just told the man to do something impossible in order to get saved that would make Jesus ignorant at best, a liar at worst.4) Conveniently, the word "but" is missing from your translation. Look at the Greek text, you'll find the word 'the' (but) stuck in there. The text says:" there is noone good but God but if you want to come into life obey the commandments"Here, let me lay out this verse in plain English for you:"there is noone perfect except God but, hey, you don't have to be perfect to gain eternal life, just follow the commandments and you'll be fine!"

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

The advice is obey. There is nothing more to be extracted out of it. If you want to draw other conclusions about not always then that is a case for you to make.30mph doesn't mean "obey but not every single time I see it" or "obey but not when I am in a hurry" or "obey but not when I'm trying out this Porsche 911" Obey means obey. As any speed cop will tell you. I am aware of that. And I am aware too of the argument which says obey MUST mean 'try to do my best' for it is demonstrated here that only one who can do good all the time. Unfortunately you don't seem to accept the evidence which tells us what the purpose of the law was - which was not that we as sinners, would obey it. The purpose of the law, writes Paul, was to make you concious that you are a sinner. For if there was no law how would you know? Hardly... Look at the whole: What must I do. How do MY actions get me into heaven. Jesus tells him. Just a snippet was enough. He doesn't mention love God with all your heart soul and mind. Just the second of the great commandment: Love others as yourself. The man says he does this. We do not know whether this is true howeverThe man "What still do I lack?" In order to be perfect (for nothing impure shall ever see heaven) Jesus gives him an example suitable for this man. He knows where this man will fail to keep the commandments he says he keepssell all your possessions, give the money to the poor, come follow me. The man couldn't do it. He couldn't give up and do as Jesus asked. If a man loved God with all his heart soul and mind he would follow him. Jesus is God. He said follow. The man, who wanted to do it himself found it impossible. He went away sad - Jesus didn't have to tell him it was impossible - the man figured it out for himself.Speaking to the disciples on the matter:

quote:

---

25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"

​

26Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

---

Man cannot save himself. Or as Paul puts the same thing in Romans 3:20 "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."

Actually it does not mean what you say it does.Speed limits (at least everywhere I've been) means something like:Stick pretty close to this, but not this slow if lots of the traffic is moving faster and not this fast if the road conditions are dangerous (ice eg.). It means "I'll ignore it if you aren't going more than somewhere between 10 and 20 % faster unless, maybe you are tailgating, driving aggressivly or I'm not in a good mood".I've never been anywhere where it means drive at an absolute maximum of 30 mph but maybe it is different where you are.

Are you seriously asking me why I assume that the words of Jesus are more authoritative than those of Paul ?do you really want me to answer that ? I'm using Smith as an example as there are parallels with Paul:- neither of them knew Jesus.
- they both had 'divine revelation'
- they both felt the need to complement the teachings fo Jesus.now you happily believe one but not the other. Why's that ? err...all I did was use a quotation of Jesus from the Gospels to show the falsehood of your doctrine.If you think your doctrine is more authoritative than the words of Jesus, blame the Bible don't blame me.
If you think there are other bits in the Bible that refute Jesus's words, blame the Bible don't blame me.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I asked why it was you gave more weight to Matthews testimony than Pauls actually. - Paul called himself an apostle and there was no problem with the other apostles with him doing so (see Acts). We have Paul rebuking the apostle Peter for his error regarding Peters fall back into legalism. Paul was writing and circulating Romans around 58 AD.- Peters dream about a sheet being lowered from the heavens was sufficient in authority to form the doctrine that the way of salvation was open to the gentiles too. You discount such revelation methodology?- Luke records Pauls conversion and the Lord addressing him. Do you discount Luke too? It was the Holy Spirit poured out at Pentecost which transformed the disciples into brave evangelists. Peter, who had denied Jesus whilst having direct ongoing personal contact with him stood up on that day emboldened by none other than the Holy Spirit. Have you some reason to discount this form of revelation too?- your asserting the Paul compliments Jesus is just that. And a correct one. Paul does compliment what Jesus said. Expands on, explains further, elaborates on fully. No problem there. That is why it is there. Is there some reason to discount it? He doesn't contradict what Jesus said - at least case would have to be made. And as the passage in full shows there is a little more to it if you go beyond such quote-mining. The rich young man asked "what must I do" and found he could not do what he must do. That is the passage. "Impossible for a man" Jesus said at the end (seeing as it is his words you favour)Paul says the same thing. So where is the disharmony which you imply there is?Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Mathhew's testimony purports to be based on eyewitness' account of the last year of Jesus's ministry.Paul's musings are partly-by his own admission- his own thoughts on the matter and partly 'inspired'. On top of that he never knew Jesus, nor does he show any sign in his letters of knowing much about Jesus's life and teachings.So why are you surprised if I take the alleged words of Jesus as more authoritative than those of Paul ?The points you raise trying to backup Paul's apostolic authority are totally moot. Joseph Smith called himself a prophet too, his revelation on Golden Plates was testified to by seven witnesses (more than Paul can claim) and his dream opened up the way to salvation for ten million Mormons (and counting).It seems very hypocritical to me that someone can reject Joe's revelation while happily accepting Paul's. I never asserted that, I stated that he felt the need to complement the teachings of Jesus.
Apology accepted. No more than there is to discard Jo Smith's words.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Wrong! Where does the Bible say that the rich man could not do what he must do? Both Mark & Matthew state that he went away in sorrow, for he had great possessions (that he would have to give up) NOT that he found he couldn't do it. I'm afraid this bit is just in your (active) imagination.Your "Impossible for a man" quote is exactly the type of quote-mining you seem to deplore. Look closer at Mark 10:24, How hard it is for rich men to enter the kingdom of God. As it would be since they have to give up their wealth. Difficult? Yes. Impossible: No siree.The full quote, which you conveniently don't mention, is "with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible". The disciples are shocked seeing this rich man so sad at the prospect of abandoning his earthly possesions. Jesus tells them that left to his own devices the man will never do it, but with God's grace he will.How you managed to conclude from this passage that doing good won't gain you salvation is beyond me.Edited by Legend, : spelling

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I know that. But why do you take what one purports to be over another? Paul purports to be assigned the task by God. Either it is true or it is not. As with Matthew. Some basis for your choice? What is wrong with Paul expounding and clarifying on what Jesus said? Unless you have some specific argument which cries "contradiction" I don't see the problem myself Or Matthews?

oops, sorry. I'v watched too much Dave Chappelle.

Why would the words of God's own Son need "clarification"?If you take words that are already clear and try to complicate them by tacking on "mechanisms", etc. that is wrong.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

i think the fact that matthew wrote that the words came from jesus himself and not matthew would have some weight, maybe i'm wrong here? why would the son of god need clarification on his own words? not only that but the fact that paul's christ doesn't even resemble the carpenter from the other books. i guess being alive with the guy has no bearing on believing one over the other then.

---

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. - the devil's dictonary

I'm assuming -for the sake of this discussion- that they're both true. Matthew's telling us the true words of Jesus and Pauls' telling us his own divine revelation and thoughts.Paul's telling us things that Jesus doesn't even mention and often contradicts. So who do I believe: Jesus or Paul ?well, I'll go for Jesus what with him being , you know, Jesus and everything.it's that simple, really. this is what's wrong :- Jesus said that the reason he was born was to testify to the truth (John 18:37), not to have it clarified by Paul.
- Jesus said he is the way (John 14:6), not Paul.
- Jesus said that he alone is the teacher (Mat 23:8), not Paul.add to these the fact that Paul's teaching things that Jesus doesn't even mention and often contradictsI hope you see the problem now.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

And why trust (for the sake of discussion) his testimony that these were Jesus words and not that of Paul who said God commissioned him, or Luke who records Jesus words to Paul. Each gospel is full of words that are not Jesus'. They set the context in which his words are written. At times they explain what it is he meant (the comment and expound upon what he said). Where does one draw the line for such additional commentary and why?I don't agree that Paul is decribing Jesus differently. We have just looked at the case of Matthew 19 and the rich young man. It seems clear enough that the rich young man who wanted to know what HE should do to gain life walked away disappointed for he wasn't able love God with all his heart soul and mind (for if he could he would have obeyed Jesus request of him). Paul also tells us that no man can follow all the law (not even if it is condensed by Jesus down to two commandments)"Who then can be saved" his disciples asked him " With man this is impossible" Jesus replied. As does Paul

Where do they contradict. Not Matthew 19 as we have seen. He didn't say the latter half that sentence. He testified to the truth....and? I made the point to RDG above that the gospels themselves are full of clarification of Jesus' words in both scene setting and direct commentary. Without this we would be quite in the dark. Why is their commentary permissible and not Pauls? Paul never says he is the way of salvation. He points continually to Christ. Just like John the Baptist did. A bearer of good news. In John 16 Jesus tells the disciples that he is leaving them but that he will send the comforter (or Holy Spirit). For what reason? Jesus also told then to go out and spread the news to the ends of the earth. He authorised them to speak for him. They can teach