SPANKY ! WELL SAID mate.. that last post was bordering in the 'inspired' :) thanx so much for pointing out that a lot of contemporary Christian attitude is tantamount to 'glorified superstition'.

If ever the Church needed that message it is now. I hereby appoint you as itinerant 'truth sayer' for many evangelical local churches in Australia.
No..I'm not being in the slightest sarcastic, I'm very serious (except the intinerant thingy :)

I get 'hyper cringe' each time an pastor or someone goes to the podium and "Thanx God for the great weather". I feel like standing up and yelling "If it was raining cats and dogs, and you couldn't go out on your jet ski, or 4WD would you be praising God for it"?

ARRRRGH.. it frustrates the heck out of me. This is ONE reason why I have begun to involve myself in mini activist exercises. Life as a Christian can be sooooo much more adventurous than "Gee..its a great day, the Lord truly lives"

For me.. "So and so gave their heart to Christ, lets rejoice" is the kind of thing we should be celebrating. Not the jolly weather.

I should invite you to my Church to say this kind of thing to the faces of the 'saints' :)

I strongly recommend that you read the book of Acts.. you will quickly realize that any similarity between the life of the early Christians and todays version (in Australia) is often purely coincidental.

PHILO... point of order bro...

"repent..and believe in the Gospel"... (then forgiveness)

"If your brother comes to you.. n times"

The statements about forgiveness I think should be seen in the light of the many about where it is connected to repentance.

I do agree that we should not hold grudges... no argument there, but I don't think we need to forgive where there is no repentance.
Not holding grudges is one level, forgiveness without basis seems a bit strange though. We have no grounds for forgiving people who are unrepentant.

When the Lord said "forgive us AS we forgive those who sin against us".... don't you think this means: "As the Father forgives us when we are repentant, so we should also forgive those who have sinned against us when they are repentant" ?

I do.

Not forgiving someone who is unrepentant, does not mean we have to dwell on it daily or moment by moment and get all churned up about it.

Boaz,
Thanks for the comment - the concept of debtors comes from the requirement to return land to the family that it has been acquired from. Forgiving a debt means releasing a debitor even though the debt is unpaid. "Forgive our debts even as we forgive our debtors".

(Deut 15: 1 –9 “15:1 At the end of every seven years you shall make a release. 15:2 Every creditor that loaned unto his neighbor shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbor, or of his brother; because it is called the “LORD’S” release. 15:3 Of a foreigner you may exact it again: but that which is yours with thy brother your hand shall release; 15:4 Save when there shall be no poor among you; for the LORD shall greatly bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God gives thee for an inheritance to possess it: 15:5 ..to observe to do all these commandments which I command thee this day. 15:6 For the LORD thy God blesses thee, as he promised thee: and thou shall lend unto many nations, ... 15:7 If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God gives thee, you shall not harden your heart, nor shut your hand from thy poor brother: 15:8 But you shall open your hand wide unto him, and shall surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wants. 15:9 Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and your eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou give him nothing; and he cry unto the LORD against thee, and it be sin unto thee.)

Matthew 18: 21 - 35 is a prime example of the principle of forgiving even when equal justice is not met.

Boazy,

You wrote:

"It is unthinkable, that given the fulfillment of the New Covenant of Grace in Christ, (Jeremiah 31:31) that anyone could come along afterwards and claim any kind of divine authority."

You followed it up with.

"This applies to anyone making such claims."

There were a number of examples most self explanatory but included were:

-Jehovah's witnesses
-Any Pope.

During a slow time on the weekend I recalled your comment and got stuck on the idea that I can't relate these examples to your argument (any more of course than for one of the countless Christian denominations not mentioned). Hopefully I won't be drawn into a debate on the technicalities as I don't have time for that (and I know enough about both denominations to suspect that you are wrong) but I would like to know why you say that.

As Pauline would say please explain. If you can indulge me it would be appreciated.

Though natural justice demands equal payment of a debt - "eye for eye". That principle operates in most religions which means a payment by a person equal to the sum total of their lifes shortcomings.

Within Christianity the Grace of God to the greatest of offendors upon genuine repentance are given a new life. Recognising Christ paid the full penalty owing for all sin. People held captive to their past never realise their full God intended person. When freed from their past are then released to live full and rewarding lives. Persons realising they are freed from their guilt of failure are released from their debt.

The emphasis of Christ is to empower and fully employ a person in their new life

mjbp... ur right.. time is costly these days :)

Sure..I won't try to bog you down in a deep technical argument.

I made the point about the finality of Christ, because the RC church would have us believe that the Pope is the earthly representative of Christ, and the only true 'head' of the physical Church here.. (under Christ of course).. The Pope is supposed to be 'infallable' in his decisions. This leads of course to the idea of a Pope making all manner of declarations which might be 'close enough' to Christian doctrine to be 'acceptable' to the masses.
Let me give you a good example.

Galatians 1 makes it clear that "anyone who preaches a different gospel, may he be cursed, and eternally condemned". Now. with an 'infallable' earthly head of the Church, it would not take much for him to say "So..anyone who preaches a different faith or gospel should be ELIMINATED" and this is exactly what happened in the Inquisition.

I mentioned the JW's because they tend to make great pronouncements "The 2nd coming will be in 1914" which came and went, but .......no "as the light flashes across the sky" 2nd coming eventuated. So...they rationalize this (or at least the JW version of eschatology did at the last time I debated with them) to say "BUT WAIT... He DID return"..and then they woffled on about the exact nature of this, and how that connected to the JW tradition and status.

It also applies to 'MOhammad'... and others who claim 'finality' in Islam.. there is one bloke in Pakistan (behind the 'Submission.org' site) who claims to be the 'final' final prophet/messenger of Islam.

Hope that clarifies things.
Have a nice next weekend :)

Philo. Interesting subject.But if we are to request forgiveness from the Father, 'as we forgive' those who sin against us, and your mention of the Jubilee... are you suggesting that our forgiveness has nothing to do with the crucifixion on our behalf ?