The Religion Discussion

[sMASH]

^^ some of it, not all... especially where it says he is jealous, because there is nothing that he needs be jealous of.

[d spike]

Not by works, but Faith alone... eh? Toyo? Megadoc?

Martin Luther publicly taught that only the Bible should be used as doctrine. One of the rallying cries of his movement was sola Scriptura ( 'the Bible alone').

Although Martin Luther stated that he looked upon the Bible "as if God Himself spoke therein" he also stated, "My word is the word of Christ; my mouth is the mouth of Christ"
Specifically, what Martin Luther wrote in German was "Ich bin sehr gewiss, dass mein Wort nitt mein, sondern Christus Wort sei, so muss mein Mund auch des sein, des Wort er redet" - also translated as "I am confident that it is not my word, but Christ's word, so my mouth is His who utters the words" (God's words - the violence of representation. Universitatea din Bucuresti, 2002. http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/filologie/meanings/1.htm, September 25, 2003).

Did Martin Luther really revere and believe the Bible more than his own opinions?
The Bible, in Romans 3:28, states, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law."
Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word "allein" ('alone') to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek. Notice what Protestant scholars have admitted:
"Martin Luther would once again emphasize...that we are "justified by faith alone", apart from the works of the Law (Rom. 3:28), adding the German word 'allein' in his translation of the Greek text. There is certainly a trace of Marcion in Luther's move..." (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 64-65).
Furthermore, Martin Luther himself reportedly said, "You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text..." (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

A second rallying cry for followers of Martin Luther was the expression sola fide (faith alone). But it appears that Martin Luther may have intentionally mistranslated Romans 3:28 for the pretence of supposedly having supposed scriptural justification for his sola fide doctrine.
He also made another change in Romans. Romans 4:15 states, "...because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression."
Yet in his German translation, Martin Luther added the word 'only' before the term 'wrath' to Romans 4:15 - presumably to attempt to justify his position to discredit the law.
Martin Luther has also been charged with intentionally mistranslating Matthew 3:2, Acts 19:18, and many other scriptures.
Matthew 3:2 states, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!".
Martin Luther, in his German translation, changed the word 'repent' to 'mend' or 'do better', presumably to justify his position that one does not need to obey God's laws through repentance.
Martin Luther, for example, taught, "Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day..." (Luther, M. Letter of August 1, 1521 as quoted in Stoddard, p.93).
He seemed to overlook what the Book of Hebrews taught:
"For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries" (Hebrews 10:26-27).
The Bible, in Acts 19:18, states, "And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds..." Yet Martin Luther rendered it, "they acknowledged the miracles of the Apostles".
Many who profess sola Scriptura, even in the 21st century, do not know that some of what they have relied on has been intentionally mistranslated.

[d spike]

More on ol' Luther:

Martin Luther had different views of various books of the Bible. Specifically, he had a fairly low view of the Books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations... not to mention the deutercanonicals he tossed out, mainly because they "interfered" with his teachings.
For over a century, the followers of Luther excluded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations... Martin Luther himself was the obvious reason why, as he wrote:
"Up to this point we have had the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation. In the first place, the fact that Hebrews is not an epistle of St. Paul, or of any other apostle" (Luther, M. Prefaces to the Epistle of the Hebrews, 1546). Regarding the Book of Hebrews, Martin Luther stated, "It need not surprise one to find here bits of wood, hay, and straw";

He also wrote,
"St. James' epistle is really an epistle of straw…for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it..." (Luther, M. Preface to the New Testament, 1546), and "In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works…Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching..." (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546).
Interestingly the Epistle of James is the only place in the Bible to actually use the term 'faith alone': "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" (James 2:24).
One would have to assume that the fact that James 2:24 contradicted Martin Luther's sola fide teaching would have been a major reason that he discounted this book of the Bible.
Protestant scholars have recognized that Martin Luther handled James poorly as they have written:
"The great reformer Martin Luther...never felt good about the Epistle of James...Luther went too far when he put James in the appendix to the New Testament." (Radmacher E.D. general editor. The Nelson Study Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1997, p. 2107);

Martin Luther taught, "Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter's second epistle…Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith..." (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546). Jude does not sound that similar to 2 Peter, but if even it is, should it be discounted? Maybe Martin Luther discounted it because it warns people: "...to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints..." (Jude 3). And this, sadly, is not something that Martin Luther really did (though he did sometimes make some efforts towards that);

Perhaps none of Martin Luther's writings on the Bible are as harsh as what he wrote about "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" (Revelation 1:1). Specifically he wrote:
"About this book of the Revelation of John...I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic…I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly-indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important-and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep…My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it" (Luther, M. Preface to the Revelation of St. John, 1522).
Another reason Martin Luther may not have been able to accommodate this Revelation of Jesus Christ is because he clearly violated this warning: "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book..." (Revelation 22:18-19).
Martin Luther took away from this book through his comments about it, and this is the same Martin Luther who added words to the Bible that were not there.

Although Martin Luther decried John for penning the Revelation of Jesus Christ, he did like John. According to Martin Luther,
"The first three speak of the works of our Lord, rather than His oral teachings; that of St. John is the only sympathetic, the only true Gospel and should undoubtedly be preferred above the others. In like manner, the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul are superior to the first three Gospels."

As the following quotes show, Martin Luther did not care for several books in the Old Testament either:
"Job spoke not as it stands written in his book, but only had such thoughts. It is merely the argument of a fable. It is probable that Solomon wrote and made this book."

"Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it...Solomon did not, therefore, write this book."

"The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much..."

"The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible."

Furthermore, Martin Luther had little use for the first five books of the Old Testament. Of the Pentateuch he says: "We have no wish either to see or hear Moses."

Martin Luther hated the Jews, which may be why he was against Esther, the first five books of the Bible, and other parts of the Hebrew scriptures. Notice that Martin Luther advised his followers:
"...to burn down Jewish schools and synagogues, and to throw pitch and sulphur into the flames; to destroy their homes; to confiscate their ready money in gold and silver; to take from them their sacred books, even the whole Bible; and if that did not help matters, to hunt them of the country like mad dogs..." (Luther’s Works, vol. Xx, pp. 2230-2632 as quoted in Stoddard JL. Rebuilding a Lost Faith, 1922, p.99);

"Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch..." (Martin Luther (1483-1546): On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543 as quoted from Luther's Works, Volume 47: The Christian in Society IV, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). pp 268­293).

These notes I found quite interesting, and showed the mindset of the man on whose teachings so many dogmatic, blinkered folk based their personal system of faith.

[QG]

lol....

[sMASH]

^^ mega hadda show u how to do ah proper 'lol' dis-mission

[d spike]

So, it seems that all that nonsense so heavily spouted about whether Gandhi went to Hell due to his lack of faith, is due to the yammerings of an egotistic authoritarian... not actual Christian belief... (I'm referring to Luther, not megadoc, eh...)

[d spike]

The Bible is the Word of God, people can believe it or not it would not change the price of cocoa.

The price of cocoa is based on what folks are willing to accept - an excessively high price would cause sales to decrease, resulting in the lowering of the price.
Whether people believe that the bible is the "Word of God" also depends on what folks are willing to accept - in the old days, you threatened to put the village to the sword unless they accepted the new Christian religion... and depending on whether the folks there were willing to accept that instead of death, they believed.
Nowadays, if folks are willing to accept that their leaders live luxurious lives while preaching the shunning of a worldly life... if folks are willing to accept that Jonah was swallowed by a whale and survived... if folks are willing to accept that one can prove the existence of a reality, yet cannot do so via the medium of written language (which is how "proof" in our society is presented, documented and stored), but the existence of that proof is still accepted... then they will believe.

In 1831, a Baptist convert, William Miller, was asked by a Baptist to preach in their church and began to preach that the Second Advent of Jesus would occur somewhere between 1843 and 1844, based on his interpretation of Daniel 8:14. A following gathered around Miller that included many from the Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian and Christian Connection churches. After a number of revisions, October 22 was considered the most probable date that the return would occur. By 1844, over 100,000 people were anticipating what Miller had dubbed as the "Blessed Hope". On October 22 many of the believers were up late into the night watching, waiting for Christ to return and found themselves bitterly disappointed when both sunset and midnight passed with their expectations unfulfilled. This event later became known as the Great Disappointment.
If, after being suckered like that, those folks would still go on accepting this fellow's teachings, and use them to form religions of their own... then, yes... I guess they would believe anything.

The bible is a collection of sacred and inspired writings that contain revealed truths... but that the bible is "the Word of God"... hmmm...

What a magnificent girl you are!
How beautiful are your feet in sandals.
The curve of your thighs is like the work of an artist.
A bowl is there,
That never runs out of spiced wine...

You are as graceful as a palm tree,
And your breasts are clusters of dates.
I will climb the palm tree
and pick its fruit.
To me your breasts are like bunches of grapes...

Then let the wine flow straight to my lover,
flowing over his lips and teeth.
I belong to my lover, and he desires me...

I wish that you were my brother,
that my mother had nursed you at her breast.
Then, if I met you in the street,
I could kiss you and no one would mind.
I would take you to my mother's house,
where you could teach me love.
I would give you spiced wine,
my pomegranate wine to drink.
Your left hand is under my head,
and your right hand caresses me.
Promise me, women of Jerusalem,
that you will not interrupt our love...

Song of Songs.
Word.

[d spike]

[cacasplat3]

^^^^lol.......

i cant put belief in a god that is all so mighty, but yet allows children to be raped, ppl to literally die from starvation, babies born with life-long disabilities..............but yet a murti drinks milk, and a statue of jesus cries............and its a miracle......

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ what about the children's hospital FULL but God gives megadoc1 the ability to save people and cast out demons... right, right.

[d spike]

i cant put belief in a god that is all so mighty, but yet allows children to be raped, ppl to literally die from starvation, babies born with life-long disabilities....

Perhaps...
...it isn't a case of a god "allowing" it to happen...
Suppose all this is part of a reality that we are responsible for...
A world in which things happen... and how we deal with (or ignore) them is part of what we will have to answer for eventually.
Bears are carnivores. If you harass one, and it chews on you, that's your fault. If you are part of a society that clears forests for homes, industries, malls and schools... and the bears are forced out into suburban areas, where they ransack bins, and chew on pets (and the odd child), whose fault is it?
If forests are removed from an area where they were actually causing rainfall, thus leaving behind bare land susceptible to drought... when the people of that area suffer from drought and famine decades later, whose fault is it?

Natural law refers to the "rules" to which this world operates, such as Gravity. (Do you refuse to repair a dent in your fender because some fool is just going to run into it again? Do you tie cushions to the front of your car because some idiot pedestrian on his cell-phone is probably going to walk into your car in traffic? Of course not. It's up to them to pay attention to what's going on around them - not doing so, will probably result in problems for someone.)
Is God supposed to catch you if you jump off a building? Or fall?
I know that what I am saying may be argued as too simplistic... but being too simple isn't being wrong.
Things can go wrong. Depending on how we prepare for these things, how we attempt to correct errors before things go wrong, and how we deal with the results of the matter, in other words, how responsible we are for ourselves, each other, and our environment, is what we will probably be judged by.
We are told in Genesis that we are "in charge" of this place and the creatures here. (Some prefer the Shakespearean language translation's choice of words, "dominion"... but the meaning is more one of "caretaker" than "boss".)
Expecting God to bail you out every time you screw up... is that His job? If He put us here for a reason, would it be to try and keep things in harmony, or to just take what we want and bawl for help when things eventually get out of control?
Do some people really think that God was so lonely and desperate for attention and praise, that He created us to be constantly begging Him to do stuff for us limp-wristed folk?
This "red sludge" horror in Hungary, Did God "allow" it? Is it an "act of God"? Of course not. (I know this example could be considered too obvious... but hey, that's why it's an example.)

We were put here as a people, to achieve something as a people. (One reason why suicide is wrong.) Life is beautiful, but too short for an individual to achieve God's plan (if there is one) on his own. We each go through life, meeting far too many individuals, to interact fully with each... far too many problems and ills exist for any one of us to deal with - alone. We can run to a "God" for solace, but in every example of this, we are told that the answer lies within us as a people. We are "Christ" to each other - or whatever you want to call it.

......but yet a murti drinks milk, and a statue of jesus cries............and its a miracle......

I would think that the real miracles happen every day quietly all around us...
Have you ever considered why a living, breathing, thinking human being would actually want to love another? That, alone in itself, is a miracle. Seeing others die, coming to grips that close friends have passed from sharing my existence, becoming aware that life is so much more than what I have experienced (and probably will ever experience)... I see life as more than just a gift... each day is, to me, a miracle.

(As megadoc will point out to you, all this is just my opinion. )
Cheers

[sMASH]

what would happen to the non-jews who do not want to swear allegiance to the jewish state?

do you all know about sheik imran hosain? he does 'islamic' studies on end time prophecies and jewish supremacy and other conspiracy theory-like topics. he has been accused of being racist, and though i have not been able to hear the majority of his works, i have seen a few lectures, and i would agree.
but not hatred racism, but more like, 'the black dude would go up the hill, and he'll see white dudes, and some jews will give them money...' is just that it is how the story is told. if u telling a story of racism, then it going to have racism in it.

things continue to play out in the middle east,,, economic superpowers switching positions. small events taking place and not seeming connected and just looking as the normal progression of events, but i getting this uneasy feeling...

[d spike]

what would happen to the non-jews who do not want to swear allegiance to the jewish state?

What of it? Perhaps, if I had some idea what or who "sheik imran hosain" is, then I might understand why this question was asked.
Why would anyone not belonging to a country wish to swear allegiance to that country?
By "jewish state", I assume you mean Israel... perhaps this is a mis-nomer, for judging by the citizenry of that country at present, it is not a "jewish" state at all. That title alone could be considered prejudiced.

do you all know about sheik imran hosain? he does 'islamic' studies on... and jewish supremacy... he has been accused of being racist, and though i have not been able to hear the majority of his works, i have seen a few lectures, and i would agree.

As far as considering a theory referred to as jewish supremacy, I would also agree that this sounds racist.

but not hatred racism

I honestly didn't know of any other.

[cacasplat3]

i cant put belief in a god that is all so mighty, but yet allows children to be raped, ppl to literally die from starvation, babies born with life-long disabilities....

Perhaps...
...it isn't a case of a god "allowing" it to happen...
Suppose all this is part of a reality that we are responsible for...
A world in which things happen... and how we deal with (or ignore) them is part of what we will have to answer for eventually.
Bears are carnivores. If you harass one, and it chews on you, that's your fault. If you are part of a society that clears forests for homes, industries, malls and schools... and the bears are forced out into suburban areas, where they ransack bins, and chew on pets (and the odd child), whose fault is it?
If forests are removed from an area where they were actually causing rainfall, thus leaving behind bare land susceptible to drought... when the people of that area suffer from drought and famine decades later, whose fault is it?

Natural law refers to the "rules" to which this world operates, such as Gravity. (Do you refuse to repair a dent in your fender because some fool is just going to run into it again? Do you tie cushions to the front of your car because some idiot pedestrian on his cell-phone is probably going to walk into your car in traffic? Of course not. It's up to them to pay attention to what's going on around them - not doing so, will probably result in problems for someone.)
Is God supposed to catch you if you jump off a building? Or fall?
I know that what I am saying may be argued as too simplistic... but being too simple isn't being wrong.
Things can go wrong. Depending on how we prepare for these things, how we attempt to correct errors before things go wrong, and how we deal with the results of the matter, in other words, how responsible we are for ourselves, each other, and our environment, is what we will probably be judged by.
We are told in Genesis that we are "in charge" of this place and the creatures here. (Some prefer the Shakespearean language translation's choice of words, "dominion"... but the meaning is more one of "caretaker" than "boss".)
Expecting God to bail you out every time you screw up... is that His job? If He put us here for a reason, would it be to try and keep things in harmony, or to just take what we want and bawl for help when things eventually get out of control?
Do some people really think that God was so lonely and desperate for attention and praise, that He created us to be constantly begging Him to do stuff for us limp-wristed folk?
This "red sludge" horror in Hungary, Did God "allow" it? Is it an "act of God"? Of course not. (I know this example could be considered too obvious... but hey, that's why it's an example.)

We were put here as a people, to achieve something as a people. (One reason why suicide is wrong.) Life is beautiful, but too short for an individual to achieve God's plan (if there is one) on his own. We each go through life, meeting far too many individuals, to interact fully with each... far too many problems and ills exist for any one of us to deal with - alone. We can run to a "God" for solace, but in every example of this, we are told that the answer lies within us as a people. We are "Christ" to each other - or whatever you want to call it.

......but yet a murti drinks milk, and a statue of jesus cries............and its a miracle......

I would think that the real miracles happen every day quietly all around us...
Have you ever considered why a living, breathing, thinking human being would actually want to love another? That, alone in itself, is a miracle. Seeing others die, coming to grips that close friends have passed from sharing my existence, becoming aware that life is so much more than what I have experienced (and probably will ever experience)... I see life as more than just a gift... each day is, to me, a miracle.

(As megadoc will point out to you, all this is just my opinion. )
Cheers

i see your point, and i admit that at one point in time i had pretty much the same ideas, in islam, they say: Allah will protect your camel, but you need to secure it.....pretty much meaning you need to do your part, and the guy in the sky will help you along.........

i understand your point about people being responsible for what happens here and god (sort of) lets it play out...........
i however have a problem with the innocent suffering........a child that has been raped, has done absolutely nothing to deserve such treatment...............why doesn't god put a hand to prevent such events?
imo, there are very few things in this world that can be more important than preventing the violation of a child...........a god that allows this to happen is nothing more than heartless.........

[sMASH]

^^ and things like that is why, imo, the atheists have a valid argument.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11510765

10 October 2010 Last updated at 14:38 GMT

Israeli cabinet backs controversial Jewish loyalty oath
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman before cabinet meeting, 10 October 2010 Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has supported the proposal

The Israeli cabinet has approved a controversial bill that would require all non-Jews taking Israeli citizenship to swear loyalty to Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state".

The law, which has angered Israel's Arab minority, still has to be passed by the Knesset, the Israeli parliament.

A similar measure was rejected by the cabinet in May 2009.

If approved, the new law will affect a small number of non-Jews who seek Israeli citizenship.

Correspondents say it will mainly apply to Palestinians married to Israelis who seek citizenship on the basis of family re-unification, foreign workers, and a few other special cases.
Continue reading the main story
Israel and the Palestinians

* Mid-East talks: Where they stand
* Q&A: Resuming direct talks
* Confusion surrounds Arab summit
* Hope and anger as freeze expires

Arabs make up 20% of Israel's population.

The proposal, which is being backed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, had been welcomed by right-wing ministers in the 30-member coalition cabinet, including ultra-nationalist Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

Mr Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu party made the oath the centrepiece of its campaign in the 2009 election, which eventually led to it becoming the second largest member of the governing coalition after Mr Netanyahu's Likud.
Pay-off demand

Israeli media reported that all five ministers from the left-leaning Labour party voted against the proposal, as did three members of Netanyahu's own Likud.

Before the vote, Labour ministers had said they expected a new freeze on settlement building as a pay-off should the law come into effect.

This is a key Palestinian demand in the current peace talks.
Continue reading the main story
Proposed citizenship oath

* New wording: "I swear that I will be a loyal citizen to the state of Israel, as a Jewish and democratic state, and will uphold its laws."
* Mainly affects Palestinians married to Israelis, foreign workers, and other special cases where people seek to be naturalised as citizens
* Does not affect people of Jewish ancestry and their spouses who have the right to settle in Israel and gain citizenship under the law of return

But both Mr Netanyahu and Yisrael Beitenu denied any deal involving an extension of the partial settlement freeze on Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

The recently renewed peace talks are at risk of collapse over ongoing Jewish settlement building in the occupied West Bank, with the Palestinians threatening to walk out unless the freeze is reinstated.

Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is one of Israel's key demands in any eventual peace deal with the Palestinians.

To that end, Mr Netanyahu has rejected the right of return of Palestinian refugees, calling it a device to destroy the state of Israel by demography.

The Palestinians, in the form of the Palestinian Authority, have agreed to recognise Israel as a state, but have rejected the demand to recognise its Jewish character.

Also, the issue of requiring some citizens - mainly Israeli Arabs - to swear allegiance to a Jewish state has proved deeply divisive within Israeli society.

In proposing the requirement, right-wing parties had focused on perceived disloyalty among Israeli Arabs, drawing widespread criticism as well as support.


Proposed citizenship oath

* New wording: "I swear that I will be a loyal citizen to the state of Israel, as a Jewish and democratic state, and will uphold its laws."
* Mainly affects Palestinians married to Israelis, foreign workers, and other special cases where people seek to be naturalised as citizens
* Does not affect people of Jewish ancestry and their spouses who have the right to settle in Israel and gain citizenship under the law of return

[toyo682]

[quote="d spike"]Not by works, but Faith alone... eh? Toyo? Megadoc?
[quote]

My views of salvation based on faith though the concept may seem similar or the same as Luther’s they are quite different. Unlike Luther I do not believe that good works are not required by Christians. Scripture is clear that our good works count not as justification before God for payment of our sins, in fact scripture tells us that our good works are insufficient to do so. However, the fruit of ones salvation or rather the evidence that one is saved truly is seen in ones actions. But don’t take my word for it, I will prove it through scripture.

In Ps 49:7-8 it states, No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a sufficient ransom the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough. Then as one turns over to Ps 127:1-2 we read, Unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the guards stand watch in vain. In vain you rise early and stay up late, toiling for food to eat—for he grants sleep to those he loves. This tells us that all our efforts without God are but vain ventures and exercises in futility.

In Isaiah 43 we read of the account where God reinforces the fact that he is
Israel’s only saviour. However, coming to the end of this passage God list the short comings of Israel. In verse 26 of Isaiah 43 God challenges Israel, “Review the past for me, let us argue the matter together; state the case for your innocence.” In other words is there anything you can say to me to justify yourself after you have done what I did not require in order to justify yourself. God was simply stating that though he would forgive them it was not on account of their righteousness but his. Then in Isaiah 57:12 God says to Israel, “I will expose your righteousness and your works, and they will not benefit you.” In Isaiah 64:6, the prophet acknowledges the sinfulness of Israel, and the fact that even in their righteousness they are to be counted as one unclean, that such righteousness counted from nothing.

In Ezekiel 7:19, we read, ‘They will throw their silver into the streets,and their gold will be treated as a thing unclean. Their silver and gold will not be able to deliver them in the day of the Lord wrath. It will not satisfy their hunger or fill their stomachs, for it has caused them to stumble into sin.” Why would the people suddenly loathe their material wealth? One reason was the inability of silver and gold to buy the security for which it was originally amassed. It would not be able to save them. God could and can not be “bought off.”

Listen to the charge of God in Ezekiel 33:19,“Therefore, son of man, say to your people, ‘If someone who is righteous disobeys, that person’s former righteousness will count for nothing. And if someone who is wicked repents, that person’s former wickedness will not bring condemnation. The righteous, if they sin, will not be allowed to live because of their former righteousness.’ If I tell the righteous that they will surely live, but then they trust in their righteousness and do evil, none of the righteous things they have done will be remembered; they will die for the evil they have done. And if I say to the wicked, ‘You will surely die,’ but they then turn away from their sins and do what is just and right— if they give back what they took in pledge for a loan, return what they have stolen, follow the decrees that give life, and do no evil, they will surely live; they will not die. None of the sins they have committed will be remembered against them. They have done what is just and right; they will surely live.“Yet your people say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ But it is their way that is not just. If the righteous turn from their righteousness and do evil, they will die for it. And if the wicked turn away from their wickedness and do what is just and right, they will live by doing so.

Notice what he says if the righteous turn from their righteousness, their former righteous would not save them. Also in order for the wicked to be saved they must turn completely from their ways.

Daniel in his prayer states, “Give ear, our God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears your Name. We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy” (Daniel 9:18) Notice Daniel’s reason for petitioning God, it was God’s mercy not Daniel’s righteousness that should move God to intervene in Israel’s desolation. Salvation if it did come, came from God’s mercy.

Jesus speaking in Mat 5:20 states, “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.” The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were know for their good works, but here is Jesus is saying that such righteousness must be surpassed in order to enter into Heaven. In other words such righteousness, the good works of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law were useless to them. Then in Luke 17:7-10, Jesus again speaking says, “Suppose one of you has a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Will he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, ‘Come along now and sit down to eat’? Won’t he rather say, ‘Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink’? Will he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.” The work is only your duty and does not entitle you to any greater reward.

Once again Jesus speaking in the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14) To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” Notice he was addressing some who were confident of their own righteousness. At the end of the day it was the man you humbled himself and acknowledged his need for God’s mercy not the man who waved his good works before God as justification that went away justified.

Paul who was trained in the law under one of the best teachers of his time understood after receiving a revelation of Christ, that the justification that he and others could not attain through following the law of Moses, comes through Christ, Acts 13:39.
Romans 3:19-31 tells us, Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the “law” that requires faith. For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.” As Paul says the law requires works, but such works are insufficient to justify a person before God. But in our faith we up hold the law, such a faith produces in us a keeping of the law.

In Romans 4:1-8 tells us that Abraham was justified by believing, What then shall we say that Abraham, the forefather of us Jews, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Now to anyone who works, their wages are not credited to them as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to anyone who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed are those whose sin the Lord will never count against them.

Then Paul goes on to explain this from his understanding of scripture, (Romans 4:9-22), Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression. Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.
Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.

Then we move on to Romans 8:3 where after Paul stating his case for freedom explains how it is achieved. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful humanity to be a sin offering. ‘He declared again the impossibility of attaining freedom over sin through the (Mosaic) Law. It was powerless to free from sin. Not that the Law was weak in itself (as many translations suggest), for it was good (7:12). But because of sinful human nature, the Law could not deliver from sin. The words “sinful nature” translate sarx (lit., “flesh”), which can mean either human sinful corruption or human weakness’ God accomplished deliverance over sin, however, by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man (lit., “likeness of flesh of sin”). Jesus was sent not in sinful flesh but in the likeness of it. His human nature was protected and preserved from the indwelling principle of sin that has plagued all other human beings since Adam (cf. Luke 1:35). He was also sent, literally “concerning or for sin” (peri harmartias, not as the NIV has it, to be a sin offering). In other words He came to do something about sin. What He did was to condemn it; by His death on the cross, He condemned sin (katekrinen, “passed a judicial sentence on it”; cf. katakrima, “punishment,” Rom. 8:1) so that those in Christ are not condemned. The goal of this was so that the righteous requirements of the Law—a life of holiness (Lev. 11:44-45; 19:2; 20:7)—could be fully met as believers do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. The provision of deliverance from the power of sin is through the death of Jesus Christ, but experiencing it in one’s daily conduct comes through the controlling power of the Holy Spirit.
Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (2:469). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
Other verse that support this understanding,

Romans 9:16, It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. Thus the understanding is that salvation is not dependent on our human desires and efforts, but it is on the mercy of God. Then we are told in verse 31-33, the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written:“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to sham. Paul further argues, if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace, Romans 11:6. Such an understanding comes from a knowledge of what Christ did on the cross.

James even picks up on this, James 2:10-11, For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. It is quite clear what James is saying, if you break the law at any point regardless of what you have done otherwise you are guilty of breaking all, therefore works will not count for anything if you are guilty of breaking one law.

Other scriptures used to support salvation as being of the grace and mercy of God apart from works are 1 Cor. 13:1–3; Gal. 2:16, 19, 21; Gal. 3:10–12, 21 vs. 1–29.; Gal. 4:9–11; Gal. 5:2, 4, 6, 18; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:8, 9; Phil. 3:3–9; Col. 2:20–23; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:4, 5; Heb. 4:3–10; Heb. 6:1, 2; Heb. 9:1–14.

The old objection against the doctrine of salvation by grace, that it does away with the necessity of good works, and lowers the sense of their importance (Rom. 6), although it has been answered a thousand times, is still alleged by many. They say if men are not saved by works, then works are not necessary. If the most moral of men are saved in the same way as the very chief of sinners, then good works are of no moment. And more than this, if the grace of God is most clearly displayed in the salvation of the vilest of men, then the worse men are the better.
The objection has no validity. The gospel of salvation by grace shows that good works are necessary. It is true, unchangeably true, that without holiness no man shall see the Lord. “Neither adulterers, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards” shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Works are “good” only when, (1) they spring from the principle of love to God. The moral character of an act is determined by the moral principle that prompts it. Faith and love in the heart are the essential elements of all true obedience. Hence good works only spring from a believing heart, can only be wrought by one reconciled to God (Eph. 2:10; James 2:18, 22). (2.) Good works have the glory of God as their object; and (3) they have the revealed will of God as their only rule (Deut. 12:32; Rev. 22:18, 19).
Good works are an expression of gratitude in the believer’s heart (John 14:15, 23; Gal. 5:6). They are the fruits of the Spirit (Titus 2:10–12), and thus spring from grace, which they illustrate and strengthen in the heart.
Good works of the most sincere believers are all imperfect, yet like their persons they are accepted through the mediation of Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17), and so are rewarded; they have no merit intrinsically, but are rewarded wholly of grace.
Easton, M. (1996, c1897). Easton's Bible dictionary. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[sMASH]

http://www.imranhosein.org/

hey, he actually has a website... i think he is cool, so cool!

[d spike]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11510765

10 October 2010 Last updated at 14:38 GMT

Israeli cabinet backs controversial Jewish loyalty oath

The Israeli cabinet has approved a controversial bill that would require all non-Jews taking Israeli citizenship to swear loyalty to Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state".

The law, which has angered Israel's Arab minority, still has to be passed by the Knesset, the Israeli parliament.

Oh...

dear...

God...

So much for common sense and a hope for peace in the region.

[d spike]

My views of salvation based on faith though the concept may seem similar or the same as Luther’s they are quite different. Unlike Luther I do not believe that good works are not required by Christians.

Whoa there! Tread lightly... I would advise you to talk only about that which you know, lest you make errant remarks like this... such slips only serve to lessen the assumed accuracy of your work. Luther did believe that good works were required by Christians. He wrote, "For grace and faith are infused apart from our work, and when they are infused, then the works follow." In other words, when one is saved by the grace of God, he or she will practice good works as a result of that transformation. He also taught that a believer must practice repentance throughout his or her whole life.
The problem with Luther (as with so many gum-bumpers) was that he never reconciled certain concepts... he just stuck to his guns, and dug in. His story was that faith alone ensured salvation. The "good works" that come afterward, well... he just pulled a Trini stunt:"Yeh, dem good to do, Fix up..."

Scripture is clear that our good works count not as justification before God for payment of our sins, in fact scripture tells us that our good works are insufficient to do so. However, the fruit of ones salvation or rather the evidence that one is saved truly is seen in ones actions.

Firstly, all Christians believe this... but the question that needs asking, is if they believe that it applies to anyone OTHER THAN Christians. Obviously, if you are a Christian, then faith in Christ is expected. This sounds silly, but goes a lot deeper than you would think. I will explain later.

But don’t take my word for it, I will prove it through scripture.

Poor choice of words, lad, you can't PROVE anything through scripture. Scripture can be quoted to back up an idea, nothing wrong with that, but to PROVE it? Satan quoted scripture in tempting Jesus, not so? Remember that charming Greek term, "exegesis"?

It is remarkable, but quite expected, that you would quote extensively from the Old Testament and the Letters that follow the Gospels, but not from the Gospels themselves which would state the exact teachings of the Christ you claim to follow...
Like many modern fundamentalists, you are more at home with the "fire n' brimstone of the old guys, and Paul's zealous urgings, yet Jesus' own words are found to be uncomfortable. One wonders why...

"That all our efforts without God are but vain ventures and exercises in futility" is a concept that even non-Christians accept. Your other Old Testament quotes: Isaiah is partly about preparing the people for the coming of the messiah... hence the reason to suggest that more than being righteous was enough for God (so how does Abraham righteousness succeed where these boys' own didn't? What did he have that they didn't? Where in Genesis did you read that he accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour, and he called on the name of Jesus and was baptised?);
Ezekiel clearly refers to the sinfulness of the people, and he is urging them to turn away from sin (how are you able to equate sinning with good works?);
Daniel wasn't an idiot... begging for mercy in Israel's condition at the time seemed a wise move, for if their righteousness was worth anything, then why would God let them be conquered?

No one ever said that God could be “bought off.”
Of course Salvation comes from God’s mercy. (The only people who behave as though they have a "right" to go to heaven are fundamentalists!)

Where you do quote from the Gospels, you make errors in your interpretations as well. (Can I say that you exegesised? )

Jesus speaking in Mat 5:20 states, “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.” The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were know for their good works, but here is Jesus is saying that such righteousness must be surpassed in order to enter into Heaven. In other words such righteousness, the good works of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law were useless to them.

"The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were know for their good works" OH, REALLY?
And where did you get this idea? Jesus repeatedly and publicly condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy! He was referring to their "arid" form of obeying God, no frills, no 'laignappe', no extras... in fact, in the very verse before the one you chose to quote, He says: "Whoever obeys the Law, and teaches others to do the same, will be great in the kingdom of heaven"!
The Pharisees, religious leaders of Jesus' time, believed that salvation could be earned by strict observance of the Law of Moses (the Ten Commandments plus the other Old Testament rules). Jesus rejected that belief and stressed that we will be judged on the purity of our motives, not just on the outward observance of rules.
Jesus said we must strive to go beyond the Ten Commandments in our practice of love for all people. What He asks is true concern and caring, not mere compliance with a set of rules. Not only must we not murder,we should avoid even holding a grudge (Matthew 5:21-22). Not only must we not commit adultery, we should avoid entertaining even the thought of it (Matthew 5:27-29). Not only must we not steal and not envy what others have, we should focus our lives on God, not on earthly possessions (Matthew 6:19-21). Not only must we not give false testimony, we should even avoid evil thoughts and speech (Matthew 12:35-37). Not only must we be considerate to the poor, we should treat them as we would treat Jesus, Himself (Matthew 25:31-46).

Then in Luke 17:7-10, Jesus again speaking says, “Suppose one of you has a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Will he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, ‘Come along now and sit down to eat’? Won’t he rather say, ‘Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink’? Will he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.” The work is only your duty and does not entitle you to any greater reward.

This was your best argument... however, Jesus is speaking about doing what you are supposed to do (obeying rules, not acts of charity), and not expecting reward for such expected action. This can be seen as a furthering of the concepts introduced in the Ten Commandments ("Dem t'ing so, yuh supposed tuh be doing dat, boy...") and what was just mentioned before regarding the Pharisees' obedience.

Once again Jesus speaking in the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14) To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” Notice he was addressing some who were confident of their own righteousness. At the end of the day it was the man you humbled himself and acknowledged his need for God’s mercy not the man who waved his good works before God as justification that went away justified.

You are really something else - and you accuse others of "exegesis"?
This parable is clearly about pride versus humility. This has absolutely nothing to do with righteousness, BUT SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS.

I will not even bother to focus on Paul's zealous urgings.
Whether you like it or not, the New Testament writings were not originally intended to be part of the Bible. They were used as statements of faith and reference material within various early Christian communities. This is especially true of the Letters of Paul, which were written to specific churches he had founded, usually to address some specific issue of doctrine or conduct that had arisen. Within these churches, those who didn't believe in Christ would be those who had heard and understood the Gospel but willfully rejected it. Thus, the condemnation of non-believers may be intended for those people rather than for ones who had not heard the Gospel. There is some support for this position even in St. John's Gospel. In the story of Jesus healing a blind man (John 9:1-41), Jesus condemns the Pharisees not for their lack of faith (symbolized by blindness), but because they have heard the truth and still refuse to believe (they claim they can see). In that context he says:
Then Jesus told him, "I have come to judge the world. I have come to give sight to the blind and to show those who think they see that they are blind." The Pharisees who were standing there heard him and asked, "Are you saying we are blind?" "If you were blind, you wouldn't be guilty," Jesus replied. "But you remain guilty because you claim you can see. (John 9:39-41)
Paul, too, writes that those who have not heard the Gospel (the pagan Gentiles) may attain the equivalent, in their own hearts, by other means:
God will punish the Gentiles when they sin, even though they never had God's written law. And he will punish the Jews when they sin, for they do have the law. For it is not merely knowing the law that brings God's approval. Those who obey the law will be declared right in God's sight. Even when Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, instinctively follow what the law says, they show that in their hearts they know right from wrong. They demonstrate that God's law is written within them, for their own consciences either accuse them or tell them they are doing what is right. The day will surely come when God, by Jesus Christ, will judge everyone's secret life. This is my message. (Romans 2:12-16)
This brings me back to my earlier point of:
"Obviously, if you are a Christian, then faith in Christ is expected. This sounds silly, but goes a lot deeper than you would think."
The idea of faith in Christ as a condition of salvation is not strongly present in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), if at all. The overall thrust of the synoptic gospels is that salvation is available to all those who make love for God and love for their fellow men the guiding forces in their lives. This is best summed up by Jesus' response to the expert in religious law:
One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: "Teacher, what must I do to receive eternal life?" Jesus replied, "What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?" The man answered, " 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.' And, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' " "Right!" Jesus told him. "Do this and you will live!" (Luke 10:25-28)
A similar thought is expressed in 1 John:
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. (1 John 4:7-12)
In the past, some Christian churches taught that all non-Christians were condemned, and even Christians of other denominations were likely condemned. However, world travel and instant communication have brought people of different religions closer together and have forced a reevaluation of old beliefs that other religions were invalid, obsolete, or even the work of the devil. If we take John 3:16-18 as the sole criterion for salvation, then all non-Christians, children who die young, and the mentally disabled will be automatically condemned to hell. Many people find that inconsistent with the New Testament's portrayal of God as a loving Father. In addition, it seems inconsistent with the Bible's portrayal of God as all-powerful to believe He is somehow unable to save anyone He finds worthy, regardless of religious affiliation.

The old objection against the doctrine of salvation by grace, that it does away with the necessity of good works, and lowers the sense of their importance (Rom. 6), although it has been answered a thousand times, is still alleged by many.

When you say "many", am I to suppose you mean "many non-Christians"? For even the Catholics, with whom you seem to have a problem, believe that Man is saved by faith.
In 1999, the Pope and Lutheran World Federation cosigned a document entitled "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification", agreeing on the role of faith in salvation. St. Cyprian said, "No one is safe by his own strength, but he is safe by the Grace and mercy of God."

Good works of the most sincere believers are all imperfect, yet like their persons they are accepted through the mediation of Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17), and so are rewarded; they have no merit intrinsically, but are rewarded wholly of grace.

I agree, but you forget that Christ died for all men...

Works are “good” only when, (1) they spring from the principle of love to God. The moral character of an act is determined by the moral principle that prompts it. Faith and love in the heart are the essential elements of all true obedience. Hence good works only spring from a believing heart, can only be wrought by one reconciled to God

I trust that you realise that morality has nothing to do with faith in Christ. A proper Muslim must adhere to very moralistic teachings... so too must any proper follower of any of the world's major religions. Perhaps you can suggest one of these religions that doesn't require the following of a set of morals.

[d spike]

Megadoc? Take note...
Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' ( Matthew 7:21-23)

[megadoc1]

Megadoc? Take note...
Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' ( Matthew 7:21-23)

I am aware of this sir ,I am also aware of what is the will of my father ,
the prophesies and miracles are gifts to those who believe in Jesus ,it is not all to what/who he is about
not allowing yourself to be led by the spirit of God is what puts you in the position of
'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' I think pride plays a great part in that also

but if you are being led by the spirit of God'
"The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."
then I have nothing to worry about

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ Why not use this "gift" to heal everyone in the hospital?

My views of salvation based on faith though the concept may seem similar or the same as Luther’s they are quite different. Unlike Luther I do not believe that good works are not required by Christians.

oh so many different views and opinions, each thinking they are more right.

The thing is the arguments today are about difference in opinion on what is in the modern version of the bible. There must have been greater arguments and power struggles, politics and protocol that took place when men were deciding which books and verses to put in and which ones to leave out.

So technically you are putting in an argument over the winning result of another argument, not taking into consideration the losing side of the latter which, wasn't necessarily wrong, but just pushed aside on the whim of the few men who sat there making the decision at the time.

If all this was under the guidance of a the holy spirit, why then are there so many versions?

[d spike]

Why not use this "gift" to heal everyone in the hospital?

Perhaps such an act would be viewed as a "good work"...

My views of salvation based on faith though the concept may seem similar or the same as Luther’s they are quite different. Unlike Luther I do not believe that good works are not required by Christians.

oh so many different views and opinions, each thinking they are more right.

The thing is the arguments today are about difference in opinion on what is in the modern version of the bible. There must have been greater arguments and power struggles, politics and protocol that took place when men were deciding which books and verses to put in and which ones to leave out.

So technically you are putting in an argument over the winning result of another argument, not taking into consideration the losing side of the latter which, wasn't necessarily wrong, but just pushed aside on the whim of the few men who sat there making the decision at the time.

Why not? This way, you get the "perfect" Christian religion... you get to claim to have roots dating back to the Apostles (the whole "antiquity" thing, eh... no Rev. So-and-so waking up one morning with a brainwave about a "new" religion), while at the same time, you get to deny any link to all the dumb things that were done in the name of Christianity, like all the Inquisitions, the Crusades, and so on. The bottom line is: the only person you end up fooling is yourself.

If all this was under the guidance of a the holy spirit, why then are there so many versions?

Because each dolt that came along and didn't agree with what was there, wrote their own. But seriously, language grows and changes to suit the developing culture in which it is set. We call this the "idiom". The English spoken in Shakespeare's time and ours are two totally different idioms. A very simple example that I can easily recall, is Jeremiah 10, where the prophet speaks about idols being built and used. I was in a discussion with a couple of Messianics, and they referred to this in an argument against the use of Christmas trees! This misunderstanding came about because they used the KJV... a quick glance at a newer translation would have ensured that error to never have existed.
In the Song of Songs, was the girl tanned... or black? Depends which translation you read...
This love of the KJV folks seem to have, is all well and good for personal meditation... but not for study, especially when they already show clear signs of not even being able to communicate clearly in the present idiom (with which they should at least be conversant), far less an archaic idiom?

[megadoc1]

^ Why not use this "gift" to heal everyone in the hospital?
why not?...... are you asking this question because you believe what I say is true
and you feel that I am not doing my father's will ?
or are you asking this because you feel it is something I do not/cannot do?
do you know what I do ?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

why not?...... are you asking this question because you believe what I say is true
and you feel that I am not doing my father's will ?
or are you asking this because you feel it is something I do not/cannot do?
do you know what I do ?

neither; there is no ulterior motive in my question.

if you can do what you claim (heal people from sickness and cast out demons), why then don't you go and heal everyone in the hospitals?

It is a very straightforward question deserving of a straightforward answer.

[illumin@ti]

if you can do what you claim (heal people from sickness and cast out demons), why then don't you go and heal everyone in the hospitals?

It is a very straightforward question deserving of a straightforward answer.

oh come come now Duane......

That's the problem rite thurrr..

[megadoc1]

why not?...... are you asking this question because you believe what I say is true
and you feel that I am not doing my father's will ?
or are you asking this because you feel it is something I do not/cannot do?
do you know what I do ?

neither; there is no ulterior motive in my question.
really ok?

if you can do what you claim (heal people from sickness and cast out demons), why then don't you go and heal everyone in the hospitals? why do you assume that I don't?

It is a very straightforward question deserving of a straightforward answer.
you asked a question based on your assumption that I do not, wouldn't it it be easier for you to ask me if I do these things ? then you would get a straight forward answer like yes but then what? you would then ask me why are they still sick people in there
but since you want to know here are two stories
the 1st one goes like this , this was the very first time I did this
an old lady suffering with cancer and just came out from surgery I went up to her bed side
and started talking to her and I notice some magazines from a religious group piled up on her bedside (about over 20)so I asked her if it hers and if she read all of them but she answered no its a family member that brought them there to give her comfort
anyways I said to her that there is nothing in there that can help her
but there is one named Jesus who can and it is him who she needs
then I asked her if she want to receive from him(Jesus),she replied yes
so I stretched forth my hands and as I said "in the name of Jesus Christ"........
the woman grabbed hold of my hand so tight and she would not let go
and I started commanding the pains to go and commanding healing in her body
until she started to relax letting go of my hands with a great smile on her face

2nd story this 70 year old lady had her two kidney broken down
she was in pain and even had ear ache and was bed ridden
my girlfriend prayed for her ears while I commanded healing in her kidneys and we rebuked all the pain in the name of Jesus then I asked her if she wants to walk and she said yes
we prayed for her again and commanded her body to be strengthen , I said to her lets take a walk outside and she did get up and walked with us unassisted and without pain
all in the mighty name of Jesus Christ

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

you asked a question based on your assumption that I do not, wouldn't it it be easier for you to ask me if I do these things ? then you would get a straight forward answer like yes but then what? you would then ask me why are they still sick people in there
but since you want to know here are two stories
the 1st one goes like this , this was the very first time I did this
an old lady suffering with cancer and just came out from surgery I went up to her bed side
and started talking to her and I notice some magazines from a religious group piled up on her bedside (about over 20)so I asked her if it hers and if she read all of them but she answered no its a family member that brought them there to give her comfort
anyways I said to her that there is nothing in there that can help her
but there is one named Jesus who can and it is him who she needs
then I asked her if she want to receive from him(Jesus),she replied yes
so I stretched forth my hands and as I said "in the name of Jesus Christ"........
the woman grabbed hold of my hand so tight and she would not let go
and I started commanding the pains to go and commanding healing in her body
until she started to relax letting go of my hands with a great smile on her face

2nd story this 70 year old lady had her two kidney broken down
she was in pain and even had ear ache and was bed ridden
my girlfriend prayed for her ears while I commanded healing in her kidneys and we rebuked all the pain in the name of Jesus then I asked her if she wants to walk and she said yes
we prayed for her again and commanded her body to be strengthen , I said to her lets take a walk outside and she did get up and walked with us unassisted and without pain
all in the mighty name of Jesus Christ

nice stories; Your method seems to be a very quick and easy process for you. I particularly liked the part where you "stretched forth" your hands.

so back to the question you asked on my behalf: "why are they still sick people in there"?

Also where you said "I commanded healing in her kidneys" who are you commanding?

[megadoc1]

you asked a question based on your assumption that I do not, wouldn't it it be easier for you to ask me if I do these things ? then you would get a straight forward answer like yes but then what? you would then ask me why are they still sick people in there
but since you want to know here are two stories
the 1st one goes like this , this was the very first time I did this
an old lady suffering with cancer and just came out from surgery I went up to her bed side
and started talking to her and I notice some magazines from a religious group piled up on her bedside (about over 20)so I asked her if it hers and if she read all of them but she answered no its a family member that brought them there to give her comfort
anyways I said to her that there is nothing in there that can help her
but there is one named Jesus who can and it is him who she needs
then I asked her if she want to receive from him(Jesus),she replied yes
so I stretched forth my hands and as I said "in the name of Jesus Christ"........
the woman grabbed hold of my hand so tight and she would not let go
and I started commanding the pains to go and commanding healing in her body
until she started to relax letting go of my hands with a great smile on her face

2nd story this 70 year old lady had her two kidney broken down
she was in pain and even had ear ache and was bed ridden
my girlfriend prayed for her ears while I commanded healing in her kidneys and we rebuked all the pain in the name of Jesus then I asked her if she wants to walk and she said yes
we prayed for her again and commanded her body to be strengthen , I said to her lets take a walk outside and she did get up and walked with us unassisted and without pain
all in the mighty name of Jesus Christ

nice stories; Your method seems to be a very quick and easy process for you. remember I told you all we do is command things to be and the kingdom of heaven does the rest, it is God's will for people to be healed
I particularly liked the part where you "stretched forth" your hands.
lol ..thats all we are to do lay hands and speak ........no fancy stuff

so back to the question you asked on my behalf: "why are they still sick people in there"?
because there needs to be more laborers out there and also some people won't receive it (healing)
some people because of their faith won't let you pray for them no matter how much they suffer but because God respects our free will he will never force himself upon us/them


Also where you said "I commanded healing in her kidneys" who are you commanding?
I was directly addressing her kidneys to be healed, it is all supernatural.....
when a Christian lay hands on someone they are actually releasing the kingdom of heaven upon them and sickness has no part in the kingdom of heaven ("thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven")
now I believe everything was already done for us and in faith all I need to do is
speak it into being, so I exercise my authority by commanding it as it should be.
commanding the infirmity to leave and at the same time commanding restoration to the body
in Jesus' name

[Humes]