Jesus Death on the Cross was enough- It is not what we do, it is what He did

[PatsFanInVa]

Oh, I only used "By their fruits..." as a neat little summing-up of the logical extension of the argument against Col. Green.

But you are saying that you can tell by one's life whether one is saved, and it is not, in fact, a mystery to others.

You say that because you and your supporters would like to rule out the saving of a Col. Green.

Let us say Col. Green commits mass murder, gets saved, repents, is in a morally ambiguous situation (by his own, flawed, situational lights,) commits mass murder again, repents very very sincerely recognizing the error of his ways, gets forgiven, and gets shot before he can backslide again.

Obviously this is different in scale from someone who tells a fib, gets forgiven, and a year later does it again. But the underlying theology is we are all flawed and all doomed to damnation, unless we accept the proffered messianic figure. Not even for sinning, because that's taken care of by being born. But the thing is, each repeat sin is also forgiven a priori. So the fact that the fibber is "not a little robot" and has fibbed repeatedly, is more than enough to damn the sinner (in addition to the sin of birth, of course.)

But once he's saved, he is forgiven.

How does this differ from the case of Col. Green, other than by degree?

 

[Lifer]

Oh, I only used "By their fruits..." as a neat little summing-up of the logical extension of the argument against Col. Green.

But you are saying that you can tell by one's life whether one is saved, and it is not, in fact, a mystery to others.

You say that because you and your supporters would like to rule out the saving of a Col. Green.

Let us say Col. Green commits mass murder, gets saved, repents, is in a morally ambiguous situation (by his own, flawed, situational lights,) commits mass murder again, repents very very sincerely recognizing the error of his ways, gets forgiven, and gets shot before he can backslide again.

Obviously this is different in scale from someone who tells a fib, gets forgiven, and a year later does it again. But the underlying theology is we are all flawed and all doomed to damnation, unless we accept the proffered messianic figure. Not even for sinning, because that's taken care of by being born. But the thing is, each repeat sin is also forgiven a priori. So the fact that the fibber is "not a little robot" and has fibbed repeatedly, is more than enough to damn the sinner (in addition to the sin of birth, of course.)

But once he's saved, he is forgiven.

How does this differ from the case of Col. Green, other than by degree?

Can I just give you the number of my Pastor?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

LOL I think we've all got his number already, albeit by proxy.

In all seriousness, thanks but no thanks

 

[Fogbuster]

Oh, I only used "By their fruits..." as a neat little summing-up of the logical extension of the argument against Col. Green.

But you are saying that you can tell by one's life whether one is saved, and it is not, in fact, a mystery to others.

You say that because you and your supporters would like to rule out the saving of a Col. Green.

Let us say Col. Green commits mass murder, gets saved, repents, is in a morally ambiguous situation (by his own, flawed, situational lights,) commits mass murder again, repents very very sincerely recognizing the error of his ways, gets forgiven, and gets shot before he can backslide again.

Obviously this is different in scale from someone who tells a fib, gets forgiven, and a year later does it again. But the underlying theology is we are all flawed and all doomed to damnation, unless we accept the proffered messianic figure. Not even for sinning, because that's taken care of by being born. But the thing is, each repeat sin is also forgiven a priori. So the fact that the fibber is "not a little robot" and has fibbed repeatedly, is more than enough to damn the sinner (in addition to the sin of birth, of course.)

But once he's saved, he is forgiven.

How does this differ from the case of Col. Green, other than by degree?

If I might just interject: one's belief is only the first step of who one becomes; how one loves determines one's destination. For example, Jesus shows us how to love even the unforgivable, yet he says "go and sin no more". Therefore, if we want to make Jesus happy, we should not sin. Of course, Jesus love for us is absolute and will never change, but what about our love for him? Are we loving him as much as he loves us? If we are not, then what kind of relationship is that? When we finally meet Jesus will he feel happy to see us, or will he say, "I never knew you"? How much we think about and care about others -- how much we love them -- determines our relationship with them. If we take Jesus' to heart, we will bring him joy; if we do not, we will not.

To me, being forgiven is important in that it means I've been recognized for my imperfection and still am loved; but to truly create an eternal relationship with someone is much more than being forgiven: it means to have a living relationship of love that continues forever.

I believe that kind of love is what Jesus is all about. He is the model of absolute love, and we do well to emulate his effort because surely it takes effort to forgive and love others; nothing is automatic or easy. All loving takes concerted effort. Jesus showed it is possible and fruitful, and he awaits others to join him in that effort.

//

 

[PatsFanInVa]

If I might just interject: one's belief is only the first step of who one becomes; how one loves determines one's destination. For example, Jesus shows us how to love even the unforgivable, yet he says "go and sin no more". Therefore, if we want to make Jesus happy, we should not sin. Of course, Jesus love for us is absolute and will never change, but what about our love for him? Are we loving him as much as he loves us? If we are not, then what kind of relationship is that? When we finally meet Jesus will he feel happy to see us, or will he say, "I never knew you"? How much we think about and care about others -- how much we love them -- determines our relationship with them. If we take Jesus' to heart, we will bring him joy; if we do not, we will not.

To me, being forgiven is important in that it means I've been recognized for my imperfection and still am loved; but to truly create an eternal relationship with someone is much more than being forgiven: it means to have a living relationship of love that continues forever.

I believe that kind of love is what Jesus is all about. He is the model of absolute love, and we do well to emulate his effort because surely it takes effort to forgive and love others; nothing is automatic or easy. All loving takes concerted effort. Jesus showed it is possible and fruitful, and he awaits others to join him in that effort.

//

Just a personal opinion, but if nobody got the idea that loving is fruitful prior to the time of Jesus, I think biologically speaking there'd be no Jesus in the first place.

So the question becomes: What is the Skinner Box for -- i.e., the reward/punishment system?

Since Jesus or God or the deity or deities of your choice can be pleased simply by treating others with lovingkindness? After all, the Buddha had the same message 500 years earlier, and it could be found balanced with other tenets in Judaism and Hinduism. I am sure other less popular faiths filled the same rhetorical niche: to make moral dictates that are better for a society and temper the self-interested momentary destructive impulses of the individual. And that translates to emphasizing our cooperative -- or loving -- nature.

So, we have decided that Jesus likes it when we behave ourselves. But so does the Monotheistic religion that preceded Christianity.

The new emphasis is that of Salvation.

A Salvation emphasis makes sense if the end times are upon us, as Christianity predicates. But it turns out in retrospect, the end times were not upon us, and never were.

So now, we keep talking about a judgement day something like 2000 years overdue, but with the need for salvation -- i.e., being judged worthy -- 2000 years removed, by the delay of the second coming.

Hence, the possibility of the use of salvation as pure marketing tool in a millenia-long effort. But while it's enormously appealing from a marketing point of view, it is, as outlined, flawed from the point of view of justice or incentives.

I don't think the mass murderer who agrees with you is better than the habitual aider of others who disagrees with you.

I believe that if God does so judge us, He is an unjust God.

I believe that calling such a deity "God" undoes the notion that God must be good.

Finally, I do not believe there is any mystery to the point of view that "God's logic is different from Man's logic," and that we must believe that the "unsaved" saint goes to hell because s/he believes incorrectly.

It is an easily understood grassroots organizing device at its bottom, with a flimsy out-of-context biblical excuse, as opposed to the core of Jesus' teaching, which, as you have correctly identified, is the radicalized expression of the "love" (chesed) facet of Judaism.

PFnV

 

[Den-in-NH]

Just a personal opinion, but if nobody got the idea that loving is fruitful prior to the time of Jesus, I think biologically speaking there'd be no Jesus in the first place.

Respectfully, you are intertwining the above poster's point on establishing a deep and personal love with Christ, with the physical act of love/sex neccessary for the propagation of the species. Obviously physical attraction/desire/sexual urge is an instilled drive, which I believe was placed in man by the Creator. Why create a species to love and to return that love if it will not perpetuate itself? Clearly God wants us to a.) perpetuate our own existance and b.) enjoy the act of procreation. As he told Abraham, "be fruitful and multiply."

I believe the above poster's point, however, was that although we are incapable of offering Christ a truly reciprocal and uncondition love (as he offers us), that must be what we strive for, however imperfectly, nonetheless.

So the question becomes: What is the Skinner Box for -- i.e., the reward/punishment system?

Since Jesus or God or the deity or deities of your choice can be pleased simply by treating others with lovingkindness? After all, the Buddha had the same message 500 years earlier, and it could be found balanced with other tenets in Judaism and Hinduism. I am sure other less popular faiths filled the same rhetorical niche: to make moral dictates that are better for a society and temper the self-interested momentary destructive impulses of the individual. And that translates to emphasizing our cooperative -- or loving -- nature.

Here you are intertwining morality with Christianity. One does not have to be Christian to have morals. There are many athiests and agnostics and followers of other theologies who are extremely moral, following a code of right and wrong that most people would find completly acceptable and admirable. A moral person is not neccessarily a Christian, nor are they neccessarily saved, however. Without the acceptance of Christ they are admirable and worthy of praise for their deeds, but they are not saved.

Here we find the basic flaw in your above hypothesis that one can determine who is saved by evaluating their deeds. A moral athiest who lives his life as flawlessly as a man can is not saved. Yet to judge him by his actions one would state that he is under your conditions. And one would be incorrect.

Conversely, the priest who by all outward appearances is moral and decent, but who secretly harbors hate in his heart and lacks true faith, is not saved either. But by outward appearances one would deduce that he is. Yet again, one would be wrong.

And although many before him preached of doing well, neither Buddha nor Mohammad nor any other was of one in being with the Father and died for our sins.

So, we have decided that Jesus likes it when we behave ourselves. But so does the Monotheistic religion that preceded Christianity.

The new emphasis is that of Salvation.

Here I agree with you. Understand how deeply connected Judaism and Christianity are. One could say that Christianity is an extension of Judaism. God established a covenent with the Jews, His chosen people. He then established the New Covenant by sending Christ to the world. Christ redifined many of the rules that preceeded him. Salvation did indeed become the new emphasis. No longer relevant were older commadments that God had dictated His people follow- circumscision, the eating of certain foods. All of these dictates were no longer neccessary. There was now only one requirement for salvation: acceptance of Christ as Lord and Messiah.

A Salvation emphasis makes sense if the end times are upon us, as Christianity predicates. But it turns out in retrospect, the end times were not upon us, and never were.

What do you base this statement on? In the millions of years since the creation of the earth, two millenia is insignificant. To God 2,000 years is the blink of an eye. regardless, salvation and the end of times are not codependent upon on another. Would you not wish to be saved regardless of when the world will end? The vast majority of the population will have seen earthly death well before the Second Coming.

The early Jews thought the Messiah would be sent to save them from the Romans. In actuality, He was sent to liberate them from sin, not in this life, but the next. The end times will come when they will come. Whether it is tommorow, in another two thousand years, or longer. Either way it is rather irrelevant to salvation.

So now, we keep talking about a judgement day something like 2000 years overdue, but with the need for salvation -- i.e., being judged worthy -- 2000 years removed, by the delay of the second coming.

Why is it 2000 years overdue? Would not God allow time for His message to spread before He judges the world based on said acceptance. If Christ walked the earth 2,000 years ago and the judgement happened shortly thereafter, likely no one would have know Christ message. Time has allowed technology to catch up and the Good News to spread - as God planned.

Hence, the possibility of the use of salvation as pure marketing tool in a millenia-long effort. But while it's enormously appealing from a marketing point of view, it is, as outlined, flawed from the point of view of justice or incentives.

I don't think the mass murderer who agrees with you is better than the habitual aider of others who disagrees with you.

I believe that if God does so judge us, He is an unjust God.

I believe that calling such a deity "God" undoes the notion that God must be good.

Finally, I do not believe there is any mystery to the point of view that "God's logic is different from Man's logic," and that we must believe that the "unsaved" saint goes to hell because s/he believes incorrectly.

It is an easily understood grassroots organizing device at its bottom, with a flimsy out-of-context biblical excuse, as opposed to the core of Jesus' teaching, which, as you have correctly identified, is the radicalized expression of the "love" (chesed) facet of Judaism.

PFnV

I'm not sure how to respond to the last part of your message. Here you have abandoned logic and allowed emotion to color your statements. Let me peresent you with an excercise in logic:

I. Christ, by His own words stated that He was God and that all salvation would come through Him.

II. His statements must have been either true or false.

III. If they were false, they were either false knowingly or unknowingly false.

IV. If they were knowingly false he was a liar.

V. If they were unknowingly false He was delusional, believing He was God when he was not.

So we have 3 options:

He was Lord, as He claimed to be.

He was a Liar.

He was a Lunatic.

It must be one of the three.

Examine first LIAR. Why would he lie about this. Surely He would have known the persecution he would face from the Romans, the Jewish Pharasees, and the common Jew who expected the Messiah to be a knight who would grant freedom from Rome. Why lie? His claims led to his death.

Examine next LUNATIC. Read Christ's Sermon On the Mount. Many psychiatrist and psychologists have refered to the Sermon on the Mount as one of the best guides to good mental health and hygiene ever recorded. Please read it. I challeng anyone to rad it and come to the conclusion that the speaker was a delusional lunatic.

If you rule out the LIAR and LUNATIC you are only left with LORD. There are no other options. (This is the LORD, LIAR, or LUNATIC excercise created by Josh McDowell.)

As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said, whenever you eliminate all other possibilities, whatever remains, no matter how unlikely must be true.

Please read, if you are interested in a logical examination of Christ's divinity:

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel

Thanks for the dialogue, I have found it most challenging and rewarding. You are a highly intelligent person. I look forward to hearing your critiques of the above books if you find the time.

Your friend,

-Den

 

[Fogbuster]

Just a personal opinion, but if nobody got the idea that loving is fruitful prior to the time of Jesus, I think biologically speaking there'd be no Jesus in the first place.

So the question becomes: What is the Skinner Box for -- i.e., the reward/punishment system?

Since Jesus or God or the deity or deities of your choice can be pleased simply by treating others with lovingkindness? After all, the Buddha had the same message 500 years earlier, and it could be found balanced with other tenets in Judaism and Hinduism. I am sure other less popular faiths filled the same rhetorical niche: to make moral dictates that are better for a society and temper the self-interested momentary destructive impulses of the individual. And that translates to emphasizing our cooperative -- or loving -- nature.

So, we have decided that Jesus likes it when we behave ourselves. But so does the Monotheistic religion that preceded Christianity.

The new emphasis is that of Salvation.

A Salvation emphasis makes sense if the end times are upon us, as Christianity predicates. But it turns out in retrospect, the end times were not upon us, and never were.

So now, we keep talking about a judgement day something like 2000 years overdue, but with the need for salvation -- i.e., being judged worthy -- 2000 years removed, by the delay of the second coming.

Hence, the possibility of the use of salvation as pure marketing tool in a millenia-long effort. But while it's enormously appealing from a marketing point of view, it is, as outlined, flawed from the point of view of justice or incentives.

I don't think the mass murderer who agrees with you is better than the habitual aider of others who disagrees with you.

I believe that if God does so judge us, He is an unjust God.

I believe that calling such a deity "God" undoes the notion that God must be good.

Finally, I do not believe there is any mystery to the point of view that "God's logic is different from Man's logic," and that we must believe that the "unsaved" saint goes to hell because s/he believes incorrectly.

It is an easily understood grassroots organizing device at its bottom, with a flimsy out-of-context biblical excuse, as opposed to the core of Jesus' teaching, which, as you have correctly identified, is the radicalized expression of the "love" (chesed) facet of Judaism.

PFnV

You touch a number of points, so I would like to isolate on just one for now, the one that is most important, at least for me: love.

To me there are two kinds of love: one is a love that centers on the self ("me"), with the self as the highest of all. "I am the center of the cosmos, the maker of all that I choose to believe or disbelieve; and all things exist to bring pleasure and happiness to me first and foremost." This is the most common form of "love" we see now, as well as what we have seen all throughout history.

There is another kind of love, however, the kind that Jesus spoke of (and lived) when he consolidated all the laws and prophecies of the Mosaic Judaic tradition: "Love God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul; then, love your fellow man as you love yourself."

The difference between Jesus' view of love and the commonly accepted view on love is due to the fact that Jesus was born without original sin. He was born in the pure true love of God, and thus Jesus could see that no love can surpass God's love, since God is the origin of love and the Creator of all life. In other words, to put love for God first and foremost is to set the template for viewing and relating with first of all one's self and one's place in the cosmos; secondly, it gives one the proper order how one should relate with all other beings in the cosmos.

Love God first and foremost means to love the way of God's creation. The way and the order of God's creation is the way and the order for our own "fitting in" with God's love order, and therefore it is the way for our own eternal peace, joy, and fulfillment.

History shows us that this divine order of love has been broken and distorted from the first human family until today. The Fall of Adam and Eve was the fall of their love from the divine to the rude, crude, and self-centered love that people have inherited down through the ages. The purpose of the Messiah is to set right the order of love, so that it conforms to God's order of love: living for the sake of others. That means to change our order of love from being self-centered to being other-centered. It means to sacrifice one's self -- even to death -- for the sake of love. The only reason why Jesus has been loved, worshiped, and revered for these past two thousand years is because he lived his life as the embodiment of that kind of self-sacrificial Godly love.

If Jesus had lived as everybody else lived, he would have been long forgotten. Jesus' quality of love is what sets him above. And yet, Jesus did not want to be alone, he did not want to live up on a pedestal all by himself. Who would? Nobody wants to live by themselves (normally); we all want to be with others. That is why he said "graft onto me, become a part of the true vine". Divine love is meant for all of us, but it is a choice we all must make. Once we do, our children will have a much better beginning to their lives, and a whole new race of humankind will fill the earth. It will be the "true love race", and the world will become "one family under God". Surely, the conflicts and bloodshed of today cry out for such a coming together of all peoples as one family under God.

//

 

[Den-in-NH]

I. The difference between Jesus' view of love and the commonly accepted view on love is due to the fact that Jesus was born without original sin.


II. The only reason why Jesus has been loved, worshiped, and revered for these past two thousand years is because he lived his life as the embodiment of that kind of self-sacrificial Godly love.

If Jesus had lived as everybody else lived, he would have been long forgotten. Jesus' quality of love is what sets him above.
//

Fogbuster,

I wanted to isolate two of your comments that struck me. I offer my own humble responses:

I. The notion of original sin is a creation of Catholic dogma. The Bible does not preach original sin. It does state that Adam and Eve (whether they were actual individuals or metaphors for God's first populace) introduced sin into the earthly world. Catholics have interpreted this as all individuals being born with an "original sin", which is cleansed at Baptism. Remember that Baptism in Jesus' time was performed after an age of accountability, not when one is a baby. (bear in mind, I am a Catholic and see nothing wrong with babies being Baptised- I just see it as largely cermonial and not neccessary. Infants and children who die before being accountable go to heaven -regardless of being baptised or not.) The Catholic's have introduced many non-biblical notions: Purgatory, Moral/Venial Sins,The Infallability of the Pope. etc.

I think it is more important to recognize that Christ LIVED without COMMITING a sin other than being born without "original sin".


II. Remember, however, that Christ is worshipped and revered because he PROVED his divinity to his contemporaries. It was not merely his message (although, that obviously is crucial), but the fact that he demonstrated command over nature, control over space and time. Jesus' miracles showed his people, who were skeptical of his divinity, that HE WAS GOD.

A message of peace and love is great, but as PFnV said, many before Christ preached a similar message. Christ has been remembered and revered because his command over the physical laws showed his followers that he was GOD. That is why all of the original disciples were so adament in spreading the word - they had seen His divinity - and why all but John (who was exiled) died a martyr's death in trying to tell the world of His divinity.




A few thoughts.


Your friend,

-Den

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Den, we would (and probably will) founder on the rocks of detail in history, but it's a striking improvement (in my eyes) to emphasize the love you see in the example of Jesus' life, and in his teaching, rather than the sorting-through of who among us is saved or damned.

Today is my last day at a job, with a lot yet left to do, so it wouldn't do to get into the depths of religious debate on this forum this morning.

Let me go now outside both Catholic and Protestant dogma, however, and suggest the following points:

1) To get to historical truth -- which departs from this theological conversation -- we are forced to observe the uses, styles, and historical context (sitz em leben) of various bits of the greek bible.

2) Even sticking with the notion that the greek bible is an accurate document written without purpose or bias, and trusting it to the letter, it is obvious that Jesus did almost all of his preaching to fellow Jews. (personally, I think it was all of it -- but again, that's another conversation.) He has chance encounters with, for example, a Samaritan (that is, someone who worshipped the same God and followed the same commandments of the early Jews, but without ascribing canonical status to writings from the times of the divided monarchy onward)

3) That being the case, and the Jews of the first century remaining un-converted, by and large, it is evident to me that Jesus did not, in fact, succeed in his mission.

4) Paul, on the other hand -- who centered the lion's share of his efforts on gentiles rather than Jews -- was enormously successful in his grassroots efforts. Likewise the church in the time of Paul.

5) In the time of Jesus, the outsider would observe his obsession with the end-times, and his radicalization of preexistent Jewish content. This becomes the nut of the idea of being "saved". Working from a preexistent apocalyptic tradition, Jesus stipulates that Judgement is coming within the lifetimes of his followers. Jesus also observes the letter of the law, and insists his audience go beyond the letter of the law and make their lives testaments to the spirit of the law. For example, he says to love not just your neighbor, but your enemy. He is not saying "instead of," he is saying "in addition to." Whatever the law says, try to see the next step and enact it.

6) Whether or not you believe the works of early Christians who wanted their faith to survive, the Jesus of the bible makes references such as "none come to the father save through the son."

7) From the outside, given the motives of the chroniclers of Jesus' life, there is a great deal of motive to ascribe such sayings to him regardless of historicity. We know that Q - the source from which the synoptic gospel writers worked - probably wrote mere years after Jesus death, certainly fewer than four decades after (probably in the 50s, in fact.) It would be interesting to determine in which sources such sayings do and do not appear. If they appear in all the synoptics, we can say "Jesus = Salvation" was a set policy by the 50s. If we find them in Mark and Matthew but not Luke (just as an example,) that may be an aspect of the retelling introduced later.

8) Regardless, it is evident that Jesus' teaching about Judaism, to Jews, was unsuccessful. Paul et al's teachings to gentiles, about Judaism, was successful. Whatever the merits of first century Judaism -- which indeed enjoyed some prestige around the Roman world at the time in its own right -- the most appealing differences the Christians provided might well have had nothing to do with martyrdom and everything to do with conveniences (such as the lack of a need to do anything particularly foreign, like circumcising children or observing dietary or other laws.)

9) Jesus taught that the entirety of the preexisting Jewish law must be preserved. Paul taught that they should be jettisoned on the strength of various dreams and other subjective evidence.

10) Paul's subjective opinions bore objective fruit, judging by the success of the rebranded faith among the gentiles.

But Jesus would never have lived like that, would he?

Finally: is it not possible that right up there with the convenience of Pauline Christianity, we should list the devolution of the faith into saved/unsaved linedrawing, in a way that never really applied in Judaism? That is to say, the innovation of "convert or face eternal torment" is an expansion of the theme that eternal torment awaits the wicked -- but prior to that time, apocalyptic salvation scenarios were essentially a theologically underdeveloped goad for people to be good, or face being thrown in with the oppressor on the day of judgement.

The apocalyptic goad reaches further exagerration when one brings into play the vivid afterlife beliefs the Christians developed. There is a day of judgement, which is no longer imminent; but now there is also a separate mechanics in an otherworldly realm. You might be cast on the wrong side of the final judgement, but now you might also be subject to a repeat of Nero on earth as well. You might be in an uncorporeal afterlife, but now you also might have to answer to a quite corporeal second coming... etc. Suffice it to say, the post-death world opened up wide and varied vistas in the Christian faith -- and there was a great deal of room for conversations about the state of the "eternal". Waiting forever for a guy to come back, at the same time supposedly believing that we have the mechanics to bypass judgement, can create fertile ground for such discussions.

Whatever the historical origin of this dual salvation system, and the historical patches that make them work together, and the dogmatic text-fitting that justifies these patches, Christianity had a much more robust system of post-death punishments and rewards than first of second century Judaism. Christianity was built with marketing in mind, whereas Judaism was puritanical in its adherence to its central teachings. Beyond that, the actual moral teachings of the religions are very similar.

So there is little reason to believe that the appeal of Christianity to the ancient world is due solely to the remarkable selflessness of Jesus, any more than one could ascribe such success to another faith based on the life of another martyr.

There is too much evidence to the contrary.

Regarding Chesterton's trilemma, it's of mind-bending importance if you're already a convert, but of no interest whatsoever to those who believe that one can be mistaken without being a madman, or who believe that one's words may not always be 100% correctly recorded, particularly after an intervening span of decades, when the recorder has overriding motives to have your words fit a commonly remembered narrative.

Thanks,

PFnV

 

[Den-in-NH]

Den, we would (and probably will) founder on the rocks of detail in history, but it's a striking improvement (in my eyes) to emphasize the love you see in the example of Jesus' life, and in his teaching, rather than the sorting-through of who among us is saved or damned.

Today is my last day at a job, with a lot yet left to do, so it wouldn't do to get into the depths of religious debate on this forum this morning.

Let me go now outside both Catholic and Protestant dogma, however, and suggest the following points:

1) To get to historical truth -- which departs from this theological conversation -- we are forced to observe the uses, styles, and historical context (sitz em leben) of various bits of the greek bible.

2) Even sticking with the notion that the greek bible is an accurate document written without purpose or bias, and trusting it to the letter, it is obvious that Jesus did almost all of his preaching to fellow Jews. (personally, I think it was all of it -- but again, that's another conversation.) He has chance encounters with, for example, a Samaritan (that is, someone who worshipped the same God and followed the same commandments of the early Jews, but without ascribing canonical status to writings from the times of the divided monarchy onward)

3) That being the case, and the Jews of the first century remaining un-converted, by and large, it is evident to me that Jesus did not, in fact, succeed in his mission.

4) Paul, on the other hand -- who centered the lion's share of his efforts on gentiles rather than Jews -- was enormously successful in his grassroots efforts. Likewise the church in the time of Paul.

5) In the time of Jesus, the outsider would observe his obsession with the end-times, and his radicalization of preexistent Jewish content. This becomes the nut of the idea of being "saved". Working from a preexistent apocalyptic tradition, Jesus stipulates that Judgement is coming within the lifetimes of his followers. Jesus also observes the letter of the law, and insists his audience go beyond the letter of the law and make their lives testaments to the spirit of the law. For example, he says to love not just your neighbor, but your enemy. He is not saying "instead of," he is saying "in addition to." Whatever the law says, try to see the next step and enact it.

6) Whether or not you believe the works of early Christians who wanted their faith to survive, the Jesus of the bible makes references such as "none come to the father save through the son."

7) From the outside, given the motives of the chroniclers of Jesus' life, there is a great deal of motive to ascribe such sayings to him regardless of historicity. We know that Q - the source from which the synoptic gospel writers worked - probably wrote mere years after Jesus death, certainly fewer than four decades after (probably in the 50s, in fact.) It would be interesting to determine in which sources such sayings do and do not appear. If they appear in all the synoptics, we can say "Jesus = Salvation" was a set policy by the 50s. If we find them in Mark and Matthew but not Luke (just as an example,) that may be an aspect of the retelling introduced later.

8) Regardless, it is evident that Jesus' teaching about Judaism, to Jews, was unsuccessful. Paul et al's teachings to gentiles, about Judaism, was successful. Whatever the merits of first century Judaism -- which indeed enjoyed some prestige around the Roman world at the time in its own right -- the most appealing differences the Christians provided might well have had nothing to do with martyrdom and everything to do with conveniences (such as the lack of a need to do anything particularly foreign, like circumcising children or observing dietary or other laws.)

9) Jesus taught that the entirety of the preexisting Jewish law must be preserved. Paul taught that they should be jettisoned on the strength of various dreams and other subjective evidence.

10) Paul's subjective opinions bore objective fruit, judging by the success of the rebranded faith among the gentiles.

But Jesus would never have lived like that, would he?

Finally: is it not possible that right up there with the convenience of Pauline Christianity, we should list the devolution of the faith into saved/unsaved linedrawing, in a way that never really applied in Judaism? That is to say, the innovation of "convert or face eternal torment" is an expansion of the theme that eternal torment awaits the wicked -- but prior to that time, apocalyptic salvation scenarios were essentially a theologically underdeveloped goad for people to be good, or face being thrown in with the oppressor on the day of judgement.

The apocalyptic goad reaches further exagerration when one brings into play the vivid afterlife beliefs the Christians developed. There is a day of judgement, which is no longer imminent; but now there is also a separate mechanics in an otherworldly realm. You might be cast on the wrong side of the final judgement, but now you might also be subject to a repeat of Nero on earth as well. You might be in an uncorporeal afterlife, but now you also might have to answer to a quite corporeal second coming... etc. Suffice it to say, the post-death world opened up wide and varied vistas in the Christian faith -- and there was a great deal of room for conversations about the state of the "eternal". Waiting forever for a guy to come back, at the same time supposedly believing that we have the mechanics to bypass judgement, can create fertile ground for such discussions.

Whatever the historical origin of this dual salvation system, and the historical patches that make them work together, and the dogmatic text-fitting that justifies these patches, Christianity had a much more robust system of post-death punishments and rewards than first of second century Judaism. Christianity was built with marketing in mind, whereas Judaism was puritanical in its adherence to its central teachings. Beyond that, the actual moral teachings of the religions are very similar.

So there is little reason to believe that the appeal of Christianity to the ancient world is due solely to the remarkable selflessness of Jesus, any more than one could ascribe such success to another faith based on the life of another martyr.

There is too much evidence to the contrary.

Regarding Chesterton's trilemma, it's of mind-bending importance if you're already a convert, but of no interest whatsoever to those who believe that one can be mistaken without being a madman, or who believe that one's words may not always be 100% correctly recorded, particularly after an intervening span of decades, when the recorder has overriding motives to have your words fit a commonly remembered narrative.

Thanks,

PFnV

Wow. That's a lot to get through.

I see you have encountered the trilemma before. You may have seen it presented by Chesterson and Lewis, but have you read McDowell's spin? (I believe it was he who tagged it "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic". ) If not I reccommend it. It is probably the most accessible to a modern audience.

In regards to the spreading of the Good News being deemed a failure on Jesus's part:

I accept that things were put into motion and guided by God's hand. Yes you can attribute much of the success to Paul or John, but consider this:

Why was Paul changed on the road to Tarsus? Because Paul was to be a major conduit of God's plan. His sucess was predetermined. Why was John's Gospel so effective at dispelling the early Gnostic movement that was arising at the time of it's publication? Again, God's chose the best person to carry out His plan. All of these things were put in motion intentionally.

Over 1/3 of the world's population is Christian. That's two billion people. And save for a few remote parts of the world, the Good News has been made accessible to all who are willing to hear it. failure? hardly.

As a Christian I do accept the accuracy of the Gospels. It is irrelevant when they were written - 10 years, 50 years, or 200 years after Christ walked the earth. The Holy Spirit used the authors to convey God's word. Obviously one must make this leap on faith, not historical evidence.

But let's put aside the hyperbole and psuedo-intellectual arguments for awhile.

One can be assured of Christ's divinity when one opens their heart to Him and accepts Him as Lord, Savior, Counsellor, and Friend. Once you have felt God's hand on your shoulder, no intellectual argument can dissuade you from your faith. You have felt the touch of God and know Him to be true. After experiencing it, there is no longer doubt. Read the last chapter of McDowell's book and you will get a sense of this if you have not experienced it for yourself.

I also urge you to investigate Strobel. he was an athiest and a journalist who set out to write a book DISPROOVING Christ's divinity. The result of his endeavor? His conversion and his book The Case for Christ (and subsequentally The case for Creator).

But again, try opening your heart, my friend, and see if you feel His touch. He will not turn down the invitation, and you will never be the same. What do you have to lose? Has being an athiest/agnostic made your life any better than it was before? There is a God and he wants a personal relationship with each and every one of us. He wants to know you and wants you to know Him. That is why His plan fell into place as it has.

Perhaps that's why you have found this particular forum on this partcicular message board.

Your friend,

-Den

 

[Fogbuster]

Fogbuster,

I wanted to isolate two of your comments that struck me. I offer my own humble responses:

I. The notion of original sin is a creation of Catholic dogma. The Bible does not preach original sin. It does state that Adam and Eve (whether they were actual individuals or metaphors for God's first populace) introduced sin into the earthly world. Catholics have interpreted this as all individuals being born with an "original sin", which is cleansed at Baptism. Remember that Baptism in Jesus' time was performed after an age of accountability, not when one is a baby. (bear in mind, I am a Catholic and see nothing wrong with babies being Baptised- I just see it as largely cermonial and not neccessary. Infants and children who die before being accountable go to heaven -regardless of being baptised or not.) The Catholic's have introduced many non-biblical notions: Purgatory, Moral/Venial Sins,The Infallability of the Pope. etc.

I think it is more important to recognize that Christ LIVED without COMMITING a sin other than being born without "original sin".

I am certain that early Christians, as well as their predecessors, the religious adherents of the Abrahamic faith, coined the notion of an "original sin" of the first human ancestors, known symbolically as "Adam and Eve". That original sin is important because it is the origin of all the problems of humankind. It is the beginning of humanity's loss of God's grace and blessing; it is where mankind tragically separated from God and forged instead a relationship of love with God's enemy, Satan. Humankind then came to serve two masters, and that is an impossible situation.

Original sin is not only a vague notion of "disobedience", as many Catholics and others may view it, but it is specifically the disobedience to God's commandment "Do not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil". To know evil is what God warned his children not to do; God wants us to know and practice only goodness. By the fall of Adam and Eve, that knowledge of evil began, and it became "known" in the way they loved: centered on themselves, no longer centered on God.

Thus, Jesus reminded us 2000 years ago in his first and great commandment ("upon which hang all the law and the prophets") to "love God with all your heart, mind, and soul...." to bring us back to the original relationship with God that we should always have had. And to demonstrate exactly what he meant, Jesus loved God and God's ideal to the extent that he allowed himself to be persecuted even to the point of crucifixion. Sadly, it became necessary to show what absolute love is rather than to just talk about it to those who did not understand ("You did not know know the time of your visitation." "You are of your father, the devil, and your will is to do your father's will." "If you knew Moses you would know me because he spoke of me.")

II. Remember, however, that Christ is worshipped and revered because he PROVED his divinity to his contemporaries. It was not merely his message (although, that obviously is crucial), but the fact that he demonstrated command over nature, control over space and time. Jesus' miracles showed his people, who were skeptical of his divinity, that HE WAS GOD.

A message of peace and love is great, but as PFnV said, many before Christ preached a similar message. Christ has been remembered and revered because his command over the physical laws showed his followers that he was GOD. That is why all of the original disciples were so adament in spreading the word - they had seen His divinity - and why all but John (who was exiled) died a martyr's death in trying to tell the world of His divinity.

A few thoughts.
Your friend,
-Den

I have a different view on the divinity of Christ Jesus: Jesus is a man born of a woman, but his birth was pure and without sin, unlike the rest of humankind who are born under the original sin committed by the first human ancestors. Thus, Jesus is "the only begotten son of God", one in heart with God; Jesus is one in love with God. Jesus knows God the way a true son knows his true Father. Which is why Jesus said he was God's son, NOT that he was God Himself. Jesus lamentation on the cross at God's forsaking him, as well as the many references to his "Father" indicate clearly that Jesus is the Son of God, not God Himself.

This is important because, as a human being, Jesus can then teach to the rest of us human beings how we should think, how we should speak, how we should act. Otherwise, there is no change in the human race, there is no restoration of God's ideal of creation which is the pure and sinless state of true love between mankind and God, as well as between mankind and his fellow human brothers and sisters.


//

 

[Den-in-NH]

I am certain that early Christians, as well as their predecessors, the religious adherents of the Abrahamic faith, coined the notion of an "original sin" of the first human ancestors, known symbolically as "Adam and Eve". That original sin is important because it is the origin of all the problems of humankind. It is the beginning of humanity's loss of God's grace and blessing; it is where mankind tragically separated from God and forged instead a relationship of love with God's enemy, Satan. Humankind then came to serve two masters, and that is an impossible situation.

Original sin is not only a vague notion of "disobedience", as many Catholics and others may view it, but it is specifically the disobedience to God's commandment "Do not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil". To know evil is what God warned his children not to do; God wants us to know and practice only goodness. By the fall of Adam and Eve, that knowledge of evil began, and it became "known" in the way they loved: centered on themselves, no longer centered on God.

Thus, Jesus reminded us 2000 years ago in his first and great commandment ("upon which hang all the law and the prophets") to "love God with all your heart, mind, and soul...." to bring us back to the original relationship with God that we should always have had. And to demonstrate exactly what he meant, Jesus loved God and God's ideal to the extent that he allowed himself to be persecuted even to the point of crucifixion. Sadly, it became necessary to show what absolute love is rather than to just talk about it to those who did not understand ("You did not know know the time of your visitation." "You are of your father, the devil, and your will is to do your father's will." "If you knew Moses you would know me because he spoke of me.")





I have a different view on the divinity of Christ Jesus: Jesus is a man born of a woman, but his birth was pure and without sin, unlike the rest of humankind who are born under the original sin committed by the first human ancestors. Thus, Jesus is "the only begotten son of God", one in heart with God; Jesus is one in love with God. Jesus knows God the way a true son knows his true Father. Which is why Jesus said he was God's son, NOT that he was God Himself. Jesus lamentation on the cross at God's forsaking him, as well as the many references to his "Father" indicate clearly that Jesus is the Son of God, not God Himself.

This is important because, as a human being, Jesus can then teach to the rest of us human beings how we should think, how we should speak, how we should act. Otherwise, there is no change in the human race, there is no restoration of God's ideal of creation which is the pure and sinless state of true love between mankind and God, as well as between mankind and his fellow human brothers and sisters.


//

I see. May I ask: Are you a Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, or something else?

 

[Lifer]

Respectfully, you are intertwining the above poster's point on establishing a deep and personal love with Christ, with the physical act of love/sex neccessary for the propagation of the species. Obviously physical attraction/desire/sexual urge is an instilled drive, which I believe was placed in man by the Creator. Why create a species to love and to return that love if it will not perpetuate itself? Clearly God wants us to a.) perpetuate our own existance and b.) enjoy the act of procreation. As he told Abraham, "be fruitful and multiply."

I believe the above poster's point, however, was that although we are incapable of offering Christ a truly reciprocal and uncondition love (as he offers us), that must be what we strive for, however imperfectly, nonetheless.



Here you are intertwining morality with Christianity. One does not have to be Christian to have morals. There are many athiests and agnostics and followers of other theologies who are extremely moral, following a code of right and wrong that most people would find completly acceptable and admirable. A moral person is not neccessarily a Christian, nor are they neccessarily saved, however. Without the acceptance of Christ they are admirable and worthy of praise for their deeds, but they are not saved.

Here we find the basic flaw in your above hypothesis that one can determine who is saved by evaluating their deeds. A moral athiest who lives his life as flawlessly as a man can is not saved. Yet to judge him by his actions one would state that he is under your conditions. And one would be incorrect.

Conversely, the priest who by all outward appearances is moral and decent, but who secretly harbors hate in his heart and lacks true faith, is not saved either. But by outward appearances one would deduce that he is. Yet again, one would be wrong.

And although many before him preached of doing well, neither Buddha nor Mohammad nor any other was of one in being with the Father and died for our sins.



Here I agree with you. Understand how deeply connected Judaism and Christianity are. One could say that Christianity is an extension of Judaism. God established a covenent with the Jews, His chosen people. He then established the New Covenant by sending Christ to the world. Christ redifined many of the rules that preceeded him. Salvation did indeed become the new emphasis. No longer relevant were older commadments that God had dictated His people follow- circumscision, the eating of certain foods. All of these dictates were no longer neccessary. There was now only one requirement for salvation: acceptance of Christ as Lord and Messiah.



What do you base this statement on? In the millions of years since the creation of the earth, two millenia is insignificant. To God 2,000 years is the blink of an eye. regardless, salvation and the end of times are not codependent upon on another. Would you not wish to be saved regardless of when the world will end? The vast majority of the population will have seen earthly death well before the Second Coming.

The early Jews thought the Messiah would be sent to save them from the Romans. In actuality, He was sent to liberate them from sin, not in this life, but the next. The end times will come when they will come. Whether it is tommorow, in another two thousand years, or longer. Either way it is rather irrelevant to salvation.



Why is it 2000 years overdue? Would not God allow time for His message to spread before He judges the world based on said acceptance. If Christ walked the earth 2,000 years ago and the judgement happened shortly thereafter, likely no one would have know Christ message. Time has allowed technology to catch up and the Good News to spread - as God planned.





I'm not sure how to respond to the last part of your message. Here you have abandoned logic and allowed emotion to color your statements. Let me peresent you with an excercise in logic:

I. Christ, by His own words stated that He was God and that all salvation would come through Him.

II. His statements must have been either true or false.

III. If they were false, they were either false knowingly or unknowingly false.

IV. If they were knowingly false he was a liar.

V. If they were unknowingly false He was delusional, believing He was God when he was not.

So we have 3 options:

He was Lord, as He claimed to be.

He was a Liar.

He was a Lunatic.

It must be one of the three.

Examine first LIAR. Why would he lie about this. Surely He would have known the persecution he would face from the Romans, the Jewish Pharasees, and the common Jew who expected the Messiah to be a knight who would grant freedom from Rome. Why lie? His claims led to his death.

Examine next LUNATIC. Read Christ's Sermon On the Mount. Many psychiatrist and psychologists have refered to the Sermon on the Mount as one of the best guides to good mental health and hygiene ever recorded. Please read it. I challeng anyone to rad it and come to the conclusion that the speaker was a delusional lunatic.

If you rule out the LIAR and LUNATIC you are only left with LORD. There are no other options. (This is the LORD, LIAR, or LUNATIC excercise created by Josh McDowell.)

As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said, whenever you eliminate all other possibilities, whatever remains, no matter how unlikely must be true.

Please read, if you are interested in a logical examination of Christ's divinity:

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell

The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel

Thanks for the dialogue, I have found it most challenging and rewarding. You are a highly intelligent person. I look forward to hearing your critiques of the above books if you find the time.

Your friend,

-Den

Awesome Post!!!!! We were fortunate to have Josh McDowell visit our church a couple of years ago. A terrific life story is his. Lee Strobels as well.

Great to have you here

 

[Den-in-NH]

I see. May I ask: Are you a Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, or something else?

Fogbuster - I have found your post in the other thread.

I feel compelled to clarify for others the distinction between the Unification movement and Christianity. I do not accept Unification/Universalism as a denomination of Christianity. Rev. Moon attempted to deify himself, claiming to be the savior and the second coming of Christ. Any sect that promotes it's leader as equal to or superior to Christ is, in my opinion, a cult. He also claimed to be the True Father, or an ideal man. yet examination of his life shows that he has led a far from ideal life.

There are some, what I consider to be, dangerous perversions of Christianity out there. Jehova's Witness, LDS and other Mormon sects, the U/U sects - these are all non-Christian groups.

Again - not attacking you personally FB. Just wanted to clarify for others that we are talking about two EXTREMELY different theologies and views of Christ when we each speak of Him.

Your friend,

-Den

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Wow. That's a lot to get through.

I see you have encountered the trilemma before. You may have seen it presented by Chesterson and Lewis, but have you read McDowell's spin? (I believe it was he who tagged it "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic". ) If not I reccommend it. It is probably the most accessible to a modern audience.

The "trilemma" is the "trilemma." I don't much care that someone's rephrased it again. It's evidently blindingly brilliant from the point of view of Christian believers, to hear them spreading it about every time they get an opportunity. It's singularly uninteresting to those who don't believe in Christianity, and for good reason: It sets up straw men transparently, in a way which, it would seem, would only be convincing to the weak-minded.

In regards to the spreading of the Good News being deemed a failure on Jesus's part:

I accept that things were put into motion and guided by God's hand. Yes you can attribute much of the success to Paul or John, but consider this:

Why was Paul changed on the road to Tarsus? Because Paul was to be a major conduit of God's plan. His sucess was predetermined. Why was John's Gospel so effective at dispelling the early Gnostic movement that was arising at the time of it's publication? Again, God's chose the best person to carry out His plan. All of these things were put in motion intentionally.

I am not arguing God or his plan with you in my previous post. I am discussing the evolution of the outreach aspects of early Christianity. My point in mentioning Jesus' failure, where Paul succeeds, is that Jesus fails because he is driven by message. Paul succeeds because he is a master at outreach. We have also examined the differences between their demands of followers: Jesus instructs them to behave as reawakened, radicalized Jews. Paul instructs them to behave as gentiles - to disregard the laws that are not convenient to the surrounding culture.

So as a committed Pauline, that is to say, a modern Christian, you will of course say it is God's plan that Christians not be Jews. Of COURSE I respect the right to believe this. I merely point out that Jesus himself did not believe in this course. This is of little import to me, though it might be of more import to you.

Over 1/3 of the world's population is Christian. That's two billion people. And save for a few remote parts of the world, the Good News has been made accessible to all who are willing to hear it. failure? hardly.

This is not a sports argument. Nobody in his right mind would say that Christianity as currently defined has been a failure in terms of marketing and outreach.

If we take Jesus' word for it, however, without homiletic gymnastics, Pauline Christianity has succeeded, not Jesus' mission. For example: Did Jesus keep kosher? Did Jesus' disciples keep kosher? Yes. Then Paul had a dream. No more kashrut.

So yes, Pauline Christianity has been enormously successful from a numbers perspective, as in marketing numbers, not the book of numbers. I have no qualm with identifying the numerical strength of either Christianity or Islam.

As a Christian I do accept the accuracy of the Gospels. It is irrelevant when they were written - 10 years, 50 years, or 200 years after Christ walked the earth. The Holy Spirit used the authors to convey God's word. Obviously one must make this leap on faith, not historical evidence

Here we are in agreement; the Christ of faith may not be the Christ of history, and one has every right to one's personal faith.

But let's put aside the hyperbole and psuedo-intellectual arguments for awhile.

I am fascinated by the use of the pejorative term "psuedo-intellectual" by those who argue points simplistically, as if to define any complexity or nuance as a sign that the pursuit of fine points is proof of another's mental inferiority. Or are you unaware that the prefix "psuedo" means "false"?

Feel free to "put aside" any such arguments when you encounter one. If you mean "let's slow down to an eighth grader's pace", perhaps that is what you should say.

One can be assured of Christ's divinity when one opens their heart to Him and accepts Him as Lord, Savior, Counsellor, and Friend.

You can be assured of my own divinity when you open your heart to me and accept me as Lord, Savior, Counsellor, and Friend.

What's wrong with this assurance? Oh, that's right, you don't believe that I am any of these things. If I argue you must accept me as all of these things, truly, really, really, truly accept me as all these things before it "works", you would correctly tell me to go to hell (rather than just charitably believing I will go there.)

I am in a similar position vis a vis your own preferred belief system, which is why I correctly find such suggestions offensive. It's an insult to my intelligence, however "false" you would like that intelligence to be.

I do understand that there is tremendous amount of lit-drop and advertising budget available for the Christian conversion project, and an endless pool of volunteer labor. Similarly, to paraphrase PT Barnum, there is a sucker re-born every minute. I am not, however, among them, nor shall I be.

Once you have felt God's hand on your shoulder, no intellectual argument can dissuade you from your faith. You have felt the touch of God and know Him to be true. After experiencing it, there is no longer doubt. Read the last chapter of McDowell's book and you will get a sense of this if you have not experienced it for yourself.

Ohhhh okay. So I must not have ever felt "God's hand on my shoulder", because I do not agree with you. Now have I imbibed the wisdom of the latest regurgitator of the usual platitudes, one Mr. McDowell. I won't waste my time or yours on that. Perhaps you should open your mind to the corpus of literature produced by historical critical biblical study. I'll omit your invitation to read this Strobel character as well. Thanks, but no thanks... every 20 minutes one or another evangelizing bozo believes he has found the text that will finally cut through my calluosed heart, and my "psuedo-" intellectual exterior, so that the scales will be removed from my eyes.

Hey, buddy! My eyes are open. Try it!

But again, try opening your heart, my friend, and see if you feel His touch. He will not turn down the invitation, and you will never be the same. What do you have to lose...

Look, there is no difference between your appeal -- to me -- and the appeals I see when I have left the TV on in the middle of the night. No, I don't need a bigger "certain part of the male body;" No, I do not need an herbal cleanser; and NO, I do not believe -- nor do I feel a need to believe -- a religion that derides intellectual endeavor, that employs strong-arm rhetoric threatening the outside with eternal torture, and that, at this point, has lost connection with the actual message of the Jesus of history.

But I would offer you the parallel offer:

Perhaps you would like to abandon your belief in the Jesus of Paul, and study the Jesus of History? Perhaps you should just examine the notion that it does matter what was written when. Perhaps it does matter if Jesus, as we can best discern him, differs from the Jesus of Pauline doctrine. Perhaps it does matter if there was a historical Jesus, and perhaps THAT Jesus -- the REAL Jesus -- had something different to say to you, than did the Jesus of Paul's doctrine.

Perhaps that's why you have found this particular forum on this partcicular message board.

Or why you have.

Your friend,

-Den

Thanks Den. You tried your best. Now I have tried as well. I doubt you will accept my invitation to study on your own. I doubt you will entertain questions in your mind; after all, I must be the devil or his agent for even suggesting them.

But I dare you to question the Pauline creed. I double-dare you. I dare you to look into whether the words of Jesus as they ended up in your bible, square with the entirety of the context of the early first century CE.

If not, hey -- I basically said "screw you," feel free to do the same.

PFnV

 

[Den-in-NH]

The "trilemma" is the "trilemma." I don't much care that someone's rephrased it again. It's evidently blindingly brilliant from the point of view of Christian believers, to hear them spreading it about every time they get an opportunity. It's singularly uninteresting to those who don't believe in Christianity, and for good reason: It sets up straw men transparently, in a way which, it would seem, would only be convincing to the weak-minded.



I am not arguing God or his plan with you in my previous post. I am discussing the evolution of the outreach aspects of early Christianity. My point in mentioning Jesus' failure, where Paul succeeds, is that Jesus fails because he is driven by message. Paul succeeds because he is a master at outreach. We have also examined the differences between their demands of followers: Jesus instructs them to behave as reawakened, radicalized Jews. Paul instructs them to behave as gentiles - to disregard the laws that are not convenient to the surrounding culture.

So as a committed Pauline, that is to say, a modern Christian, you will of course say it is God's plan that Christians not be Jews. Of COURSE I respect the right to believe this. I merely point out that Jesus himself did not believe in this course. This is of little import to me, though it might be of more import to you.



This is not a sports argument. Nobody in his right mind would say that Christianity as currently defined has been a failure in terms of marketing and outreach.

If we take Jesus' word for it, however, without homiletic gymnastics, Pauline Christianity has succeeded, not Jesus' mission. For example: Did Jesus keep kosher? Did Jesus' disciples keep kosher? Yes. Then Paul had a dream. No more kashrut.

So yes, Pauline Christianity has been enormously successful from a numbers perspective, as in marketing numbers, not the book of numbers. I have no qualm with identifying the numerical strength of either Christianity or Islam.



Here we are in agreement; the Christ of faith may not be the Christ of history, and one has every right to one's personal faith.



I am fascinated by the use of the pejorative term "psuedo-intellectual" by those who argue points simplistically, as if to define any complexity or nuance as a sign that the pursuit of fine points is proof of another's mental inferiority. Or are you unaware that the prefix "psuedo" means "false"?

Feel free to "put aside" any such arguments when you encounter one. If you mean "let's slow down to an eighth grader's pace", perhaps that is what you should say.



You can be assured of my own divinity when you open your heart to me and accept me as Lord, Savior, Counsellor, and Friend.

What's wrong with this assurance? Oh, that's right, you don't believe that I am any of these things. If I argue you must accept me as all of these things, truly, really, really, truly accept me as all these things before it "works", you would correctly tell me to go to hell (rather than just charitably believing I will go there.)

I am in a similar position vis a vis your own preferred belief system, which is why I correctly find such suggestions offensive. It's an insult to my intelligence, however "false" you would like that intelligence to be.

I do understand that there is tremendous amount of lit-drop and advertising budget available for the Christian conversion project, and an endless pool of volunteer labor. Similarly, to paraphrase PT Barnum, there is a sucker re-born every minute. I am not, however, among them, nor shall I be.



Ohhhh okay. So I must not have ever felt "God's hand on my shoulder", because I do not agree with you. Now have I imbibed the wisdom of the latest regurgitator of the usual platitudes, one Mr. McDowell. I won't waste my time or yours on that. Perhaps you should open your mind to the corpus of literature produced by historical critical biblical study. I'll omit your invitation to read this Strobel character as well. Thanks, but no thanks... every 20 minutes one or another evangelizing bozo believes he has found the text that will finally cut through my calluosed heart, and my "psuedo-" intellectual exterior, so that the scales will be removed from my eyes.

Hey, buddy! My eyes are open. Try it!



Look, there is no difference between your appeal -- to me -- and the appeals I see when I have left the TV on in the middle of the night. No, I don't need a bigger "certain part of the male body;" No, I do not need an herbal cleanser; and NO, I do not believe -- nor do I feel a need to believe -- a religion that derides intellectual endeavor, that employs strong-arm rhetoric threatening the outside with eternal torture, and that, at this point, has lost connection with the actual message of the Jesus of history.

But I would offer you the parallel offer:

Perhaps you would like to abandon your belief in the Jesus of Paul, and study the Jesus of History? Perhaps you should just examine the notion that it does matter what was written when. Perhaps it does matter if Jesus, as we can best discern him, differs from the Jesus of Pauline doctrine. Perhaps it does matter if there was a historical Jesus, and perhaps THAT Jesus -- the REAL Jesus -- had something different to say to you, than did the Jesus of Paul's doctrine.



Or why you have.



Thanks Den. You tried your best. Now I have tried as well. I doubt you will accept my invitation to study on your own. I doubt you will entertain questions in your mind; after all, I must be the devil or his agent for even suggesting them.

But I dare you to question the Pauline creed. I double-dare you. I dare you to look into whether the words of Jesus as they ended up in your bible, square with the entirety of the context of the early first century CE.

If not, hey -- I basically said "screw you," feel free to do the same.

PFnV

PFnV,

No direct offense toward you or your intelligence was intended. If I have offended, I sincerely apologize to you.

By "psuedo-intelligence", I was merely attempting to imply that any conversation of Christ as Messiah will ultimately come down to an issue of faith - not historical facts, logical arguments, or any other tangible.

I employed the use of psuedo-intellectualism in my previous posts as well, so it was more of a self-indictment than a criticsim of you. There comes a point in message boarding when things seem to invariably detoriorate into "let's see who has the biggest vocabulary". I do not want to go there, as most likely I will not win such a contest.

I do not believe you are the devil or his agent - indeed you are clearly a seeker of truth. I hope you do not see me as merely another "evangelicizing bozo" simply because I too am a seeker of truth and believe I have found it.

Obviously, neither of us is going to "convince" the other that we are correct so there is no longer any point in trying. My goal is only to offer a humble invitation in such an event as it has not been offered previously. I do respect your opinion and intelligence and I look forward to the challenging debates on other issues which I am sure are to come.

As far as your invitation to me to question my faith - already been there and done that. There is no true faith without doubt and anyone who has truly accepted Christ fully has wrestled with their own doubts, uncertainties, and feelings of complet isolation. I have gone through such a period as well and like anyone who is fervent in their love and total acceptence of The Risen Lord ************- I have come out of such a state with my faith stronger than it was before.

I look forward to speaking with you soon on any topic, be it theological or draft-day analysis. You clearly are an engaiging individual, PatsFaninVirginia.


Your friend,

-Den

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Hey Den, I'm sure I'm prickly on these topics. You seem decent enough. I agree, we're unlikely to convince each other, but around these forums, I find myself way more prickly than I am elsewhere.

I do believe that study of all these matters is incredibly engaging, but you are right that our beliefs are just going to be incompatible.

Unless of course you drop the superfluous "son of" guy and come back

Just kidding, as I'm sure any attempt to convert me was also in jest,

PFnV

 

[Den-in-NH]

Hey Den, I'm sure I'm prickly on these topics. You seem decent enough. I agree, we're unlikely to convince each other, but around these forums, I find myself way more prickly than I am elsewhere.

I do believe that study of all these matters is incredibly engaging, but you are right that our beliefs are just going to be incompatible.

Unless of course you drop the superfluous "son of" guy and come back

Just kidding, as I'm sure any attempt to convert me was also in jest,

PFnV

No jesting - any offer I extend is sincere.

But again, it is clear you have studied the matter extensively and come to the conclusions which you have come to.

We must simply agree to disagree on this matter and coexist. We will butt heads on other matters, soon eneough.

 

[Den-in-NH]

Unless of course you drop the superfluous "son of" guy and come back



PFnV

Out of curiosity, PFnV:

Do you consider yourself athiestic or agnostic? The line I reference above leads me to believe you may be open to some kind of monotheism.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Den, I am Jewish. I am reform Jewish, so there's no need to go the route of "you can't really be Jewish because the Temple sacrifices stopped and presto chango now the Temple sacrifices are replaced by (drumroll...)"

Simple answer, yes, I am a monotheist, and a Jew.

I do not start threads extolling my beliefs, because I have no desire to discuss them at quite the length others do theirs -- in other words, I don't particularly want or need you to become Jewish, so I prefer not to discuss the details of the religion with you. I am certain you would find my beliefs quite heterodox, but again, that is neither here nor there.

I do, however, comment in these threads from a "detatched" point of view, the idea being to say, "if I saw these features in, say, Yanomamo culture, what would I see the purposes of them as? If I saw this history in, say, a martian religion, what would I say about it?"

Obviously this approach would make anybody's blood boil, from the POV of a "believer" -- and this is precisely why I avoid starting threads on my own religion. I have no desire to hold up my own faith to ridicule, by attempting to convince others of its merits.

So, long story short, you probably got in the propwash on this one from the start.

As you say, we will agree to disagree. Just to clarify, in case (heaven forbid) you're still looking for a crack in the monolith through which just a tiny bit of divine light can seep, if only the right messenger approaches at the right angle... I do very much take offense at being proselytized to. I do not like it. I find it insulting to my intelligence.

Let's discuss civilly but please, refrain from saving my blackened and damned soul And to clarify that - of COURSE I do not believe my soul to be anything of the sort, nor can you get me to believe such things. I can't believe such tactics ever work, at least on adults

PFnV