striderlives

The situation - and context - was a man asking the infallible lord and Savior point blank how to achieve salvation. He tells the man that what is required is to follow the commandments and give up all his possessions. Of course, he tells another man that the requirement is only to believe and be baptised. Giving him the benefit of the doubt that his answer to each man was incomplete and together they form the necessary and sufficient means to achieve salvation, the question still remains - do you believe and adhere to what Jesus says, or do you believe in salvation by Grace, or pre-ordainment, or some other authority besides Jesus?

striderlives

I haven't presumed anything. That sounds like either fear or obfuscation on your part. I asked a simple question which you are either unwilling or unable to answer. You're the one allowing the skirt of presumption to fly up in your face.

If you tell me you have given up all your possessions as required for salvation per your Savior, I'll believe you. Of course, I'll then logically have to ask why you didn't just answer the question, and why you don't just man up and state what you think is required for salvation and by whose scriptural authority if you disagree with what is attributed to Jesus....

But that's just me.

And the baseline for any answer to the question you've avoided might be just to tell the truth. My answer would be 'No, Jesus is not a deity of any sort nor is he able to grant salvation to anyone'.

What's your answer?

rhutchin

Not necessarily. The author can presume knowledge of the other sources of information and seek to add to that information. Since Luke had nothing to add to the information provided by Matthew on this point, he does not repeat Matthew's account. Alternatively, when we read Matthew's account we find that he continually expands on Mark's account so we find him repeating a lot of what Mark had written.

rhutchin

Then stop creating strawmen and stick to the facts.

rhutchin

To provide historical background for you to understand what the term, "Law of the Lord" could mean. If you read about Moses, you will find that everything God told Moses to write down became the law. The general rule, then, is that anything God tells a person to do is the "Law of the Lord." Thus, when God tells Joseph to do X, we understand that X is the "Law of the Lord" to Joseph and thereby to Luke.

You are under-analyzing. You are taking a 21st century mode of thinking and applying it to a 1st century writer (who in the Biblical context is actually being prompted to write by God). Thus, you are limiting the context of that which you read to that which you read in a few select verses and then force what you read into a 21st century mindframe. It is embarrassing to watch you make yourself the center of what you want to believe.

We have two historical accounts of the birth of Jesus written by two different men on two different occasions. What rule prohibits the second historian from assuming knowledge of the first work by his audience and not repeating what that historian wrote? What rule requires that one historian repeat that said by an earlier historian? How exactly do you mean for us to apply Occam's Razor to this situation?

What prevents your point (2) being "X are the things God has commanded the person (Joseph) to do"? Why do you limit "all things" in Luke's account to just those things Luke specifically mentions? How did you determine what Luke meant when he wrote, "all things," (i.e., that Luke meant only all those things that he specifically wrote about)?

rhutchin

I think you need to read the actual text again and see if it really says what you claim it to say. I have read the account of the rich young ruler (presumably the source of your misunderstanding) and I see you leaving out a very important part of the story. Maybe we should deal with the actual text and not your incomplete rendition of the text.

rhutchin

Maybe you could start a new thread in GRD and begin with your definition of the terms and then explain how you think they are compatible.

rhutchin

So, given the two Biblical scholars, Matthew and rlogan, we should give priority to rlogan.

Hmmm. Maybe Matthew is a lot smarter than rlogan and knows what he is talking about while rlogan does not.

Why should we accept the musings of rlogan when he wasn't even there and probably has a meager understanding of the Bible if that much?

kcdad

Jesus giving incomplete answers... I like this strategy... 2 guys ask him out to get to Jerusalsam... He tells one "Turn right at the Mount of Olives" and tells the other, "go south out of Galilee"... Now, do they have to get together to try and figure out what he meant?

"ACHIEVE SALVATION".... there is the problem, One can not achieve salvation.. it is a free gift of God's unending and limitless grace.

kcdad

There is nothing "required" for salvation... that is your first presumption that is wrong.
I am not afraid of you, that is your second.
There is nothing "logical "about asking why I didn't answer your question originally, I already responded to that.

So your answer to "Have you given away all your possessions" is 'No, Jesus is not a deity of any sort nor is he able to grant salvation to anyone'. ???

Either I am not very good at understanding English, or you are a very confused little boy... you are not answering the question being asked.

You are stating the obvious to me... Jesus is not a deity and not able to "save" anyone. Now go back and answer the question.