If all you knew about Jesus

[Elijah John]

It is said that the apostle Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, only in a vision.

Yet he preached "Christ crucified".

Question for debate, if all you knew about Jesus was that he "died for your sins" would that be enough for salvation?

If you knew nothing of Jesus teachings, nothing of his vision of right and wrong, would it be enough just to believe that he died for you?

What does conventional, orthodox Christianity teach?

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Hey Mr. EJ!

There is a difference between knowing and believing. there are people on this forum that know Jesus died for our sins, but they don't believe it!

When we believe something so profound it changes us. It changed Paul's behavior, so much that he stopped persecuting Christians. We cannot know Christ so intimately and not be changed.

Hi PN...I agree with the distinction you make regarding what it means to believe, (knowledge or trust in) but what do you think saves, Jesus death and resurrection, or his teachings to love and obey YHVH? (and our fellow humans)

I think that it is his resurrection that saves us, or His death was for nothing. Even if we love all people, and love God, apart from Christ we cannot go to Him. Christ is the bridge that fills the gap so that we can have union with God.

If one was unfamiliar with his teachings, say, if the one never read the Gospels but only the letters of Paul, would that be enough? To only believe Paul's theology about Jesus death and resurrection?

It would be enough because Paul says that only through Christ can we see God.

Have a wonderful, fun filled, quiet evening!

[Elijah John]

It would be enough because Paul says that only through Christ can we see God.

Have a wonderful, fun filled, quiet evening!

You too, blessings PN...

What matters more, what Jesus said or what Paul said?

What reveals the Father, Jesus teaching on the Sermon on the Mount, of Paul's theology of the redemptive Resurrection...or both?

Is one dependent on the other? If so, which has presedence?

[ttruscott]

So the preaching was necessary to bring folks to repentance, but why isn't repentance enough? We agree on the distinction between belief as intellectual acceptance, vs belief as trust in....but why the blood? (NT OR OT blood sacrifice)

I don't know. It is written that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness in both books. What was necessary in the OT was fulfilled in Christ, but I don't know why this method of finding forgiveness was chosen. It has something to do with the life being in the blood but...<shrug>.

[Elijah John]

So the preaching was necessary to bring folks to repentance, but why isn't repentance enough? We agree on the distinction between belief as intellectual acceptance, vs belief as trust in....but why the blood? (NT OR OT blood sacrifice)

I don't know. It is written that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness in both books. What was necessary in the OT was fulfilled in Christ, but I don't know why this method of finding forgiveness was chosen. It has something to do with the life being in the blood but...<shrug>.

Isn't this contradicted by John the Baptist who performed baptisms of "repentance for the forgiveness of sins"? Water not blood. And by Jesus himself quoting Hosea with "I desire mercy, not sacrifice"?

Could it be that the author of Hebrews was only expressing his fallible opinion, theological speculation?

So it is also written in both books, that God does NOT need blood in order to forgive, just repentance, mercy, obediance and things like that.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]


Without the Resurrection, the Crucifixion is just the execution of a radical Jewish rabbi.

Why is this not a reasonable conclusion, based upon the sheer unlikelihood of a person being killed, then rising from the dead?

It is a reasonable conclusion, and one that I agree with, but it is not the point of the OP.

This is addressed to all.

OK, to spell it out, ASSUMING THAT SALVATION IS A REALITY, AND THAT THERE IS A GOD, AND THAT JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD...what is needed for salvation, knowlege of Paul's theology of "Christ Crucified" atonement, or knowledge of Jesus teachings as well?

The position of "none of this is true so none of this matters" is dismissive and off topic.

Perhaps if you would provide us with a list of responses that you consider relevant then we could provide the responses that you deem appropriate.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Without the Resurrection, the Crucifixion is just the execution of a radical Jewish rabbi.

Why is this not a reasonable conclusion, based upon the sheer unlikelihood of a person being killed, then rising from the dead?

It is a reasonable conclusion, and one that I agree with, but it is not the point of the OP.

This is addressed to all.

OK, to spell it out, ASSUMING THAT SALVATION IS A REALITY, AND THAT THERE IS A GOD, AND THAT JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD...what is needed for salvation, knowlege of Paul's theology of "Christ Crucified" atonement, or knowledge of Jesus teachings as well?

The position of "none of this is true so none of this matters" is dismissive and off topic.

I hear you about that particular position being off topic, I've read back through and your angle is more subtle. For me, the whole 'Jesus died for your sins' never made a lick of sense to me, it was a secret shame of mine whenever I tried yet again to be a Christian. Assuming, however it is true, and that salvation is a reality, you are asking if Paul's theology of atonement 'saves' on it's own, or not.

Since I never could assimilate or even understand atonement to begin with, this OP asks me to go places I'm not confident in. This builds character. I'll just say Jesus teachings seem so obviously important they MUST figure in there, somewhere, they can't be non-contributory to salvation. Yet isn't Paul's theology the cornerstone of evangelicism and fundamentalism? That they took Paul's letters as having been God-breathed, without wondering why they should or shouldn't, as would be prudent.

What good is it to just be 'saved' if you don't even know why? And for what purpose? And what is it about that person who saved you in the first place? As it looks to me, these two sects in particular do not openly demonstrate Jesus, their Savior, in speech or action. They've got his imbued righteousness, though, lots of it, to hear some of them!

I haven't read or heard a thorough debate about this issue. But it's a fascinating one, and one I guess I have thought about, but from the angle of never having understood how a crucified Jew's death does anything TO me, or anyone else for that matter. Now that sounded like religious mumbo jumbo to me, something that should have been elevated to symbol, rather than stuck in the mud of a literal 'effect' Jesus's death had on me personally. I already knew this was bad, and so I didn't ask a lot of questions about it when I was a Christian. I just couldn't connect with Jesus. That Jesus, as I've come to understand. The one I do understand is nothing like that one. Still, a huge number of people DO understand Paul's theology and that really alarms me, for some reason.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Without the Resurrection, the Crucifixion is just the execution of a radical Jewish rabbi.

Why is this not a reasonable conclusion, based upon the sheer unlikelihood of a person being killed, then rising from the dead?

It is a reasonable conclusion, and one that I agree with, but it is not the point of the OP.

This is addressed to all.

OK, to spell it out, ASSUMING THAT SALVATION IS A REALITY, AND THAT THERE IS A GOD, AND THAT JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD...what is needed for salvation, knowlege of Paul's theology of "Christ Crucified" atonement, or knowledge of Jesus teachings as well?

The position of "none of this is true so none of this matters" is dismissive and off topic.

I hear you about that particular position being off topic, I've read back through and your angle is more subtle. For me, the whole 'Jesus died for your sins' never made a lick of sense to me, it was a secret shame of mine whenever I tried yet again to be a Christian. Assuming, however it is true, and that salvation is a reality, you are asking if Paul's theology of atonement 'saves' on it's own, or not.

Since I never could assimilate or even understand atonement to begin with, this OP asks me to go places I'm not confident in. This builds character. I'll just say Jesus teachings seem so obviously important they MUST figure in there, somewhere, they can't be non-contributory to salvation. Yet isn't Paul's theology the cornerstone of evangelicism and fundamentalism? That they took Paul's letters as having been God-breathed, without wondering why they should or shouldn't, as would be prudent.

What good is it to just be 'saved' if you don't even know why? And for what purpose? And what is it about that person who saved you in the first place? As it looks to me, these two sects in particular do not openly demonstrate Jesus, their Savior, in speech or action. They've got his imbued righteousness, though, lots of it, to hear some of them!

I haven't read or heard a thorough debate about this issue. But it's a fascinating one, and one I guess I have thought about, but from the angle of never having understood how a crucified Jew's death does anything TO me, or anyone else for that matter. Now that sounded like religious mumbo jumbo to me, something that should have been elevated to symbol, rather than stuck in the mud of a literal 'effect' Jesus's death had on me personally. I already knew this was bad, and so I didn't ask a lot of questions about it when I was a Christian. I just couldn't connect with Jesus. That Jesus, as I've come to understand. The one I do understand is nothing like that one. Still, a huge number of people DO understand Paul's theology and that really alarms me, for some reason.

Not sure they fully understand, but they seemingly accept it without question, and that alarms me too.

Jesus martyrdom as a blood atonenent doesn't make sense to me either. Seems it was Paul's attempt to find theological significance in Jesus death. And how Paul's theology of vicarious atonement became a cornerstone, THE cornerstone of Church teaching baffles me, and has me just shaking my head. As DI, some other Theists, and many non-Theists have pointed out, there are many problems with vicarious blood atonement theology...even from a Theistic point of view, from any sense of justice, mercy and fairness. And how the letters of Paul gained the weight of authoritative Holy Scripture is a mystery to me.

But don't it beat all, that's exactly what has happened.with these patoral letters and theological meanderings.. and at the expense of Jesus own teachings, which are included in Church teaching, but have arguably taken on secondary importance. Some of the answers on this thread are evidence of this, that the theology of Jesus death and resurrection are more important than even his teachings in the Sermon on the Mount.

If his "atoning death and resurrection" were so important, why DIDNT Jesus prepare his disciples for this in the Sermon, and explain it's theolgical significance? (rhetorical question)

[Elijah John]

Perhaps if you would provide us with a list of responses that you consider relevant then we could provide the responses that you deem appropriate.

Only check out the positive exchanges in this thread, and you will see your answer. I don''t agree with all of them, but PN and ttruscott have addressed the issues, and Hamsaka did as well.

And on other threads, Danmark Z, and Ancient of Years and others have demonstrated deft capacity for understanding Theistic threads, adopting theistic positions for the sake of argument. And without betraying their own non-Theistic beliefs, they have argued as to which position is more Biblical or more reasonable.

It was pointed out to me how you DID address the OP , but sorry I either missed it, or still do not see how you did. It got lost in all our off topic debate about the debate..I bear some responsiblity in the derailment, as it takes two to have an argument. And let me give you credit for good intentions anyway, I no longer think that you deliberately tried to derail.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Without the Resurrection, the Crucifixion is just the execution of a radical Jewish rabbi.

Why is this not a reasonable conclusion, based upon the sheer unlikelihood of a person being killed, then rising from the dead?

It is a reasonable conclusion, and one that I agree with, but it is not the point of the OP.

This is addressed to all.

OK, to spell it out, ASSUMING THAT SALVATION IS A REALITY, AND THAT THERE IS A GOD, AND THAT JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD...what is needed for salvation, knowlege of Paul's theology of "Christ Crucified" atonement, or knowledge of Jesus teachings as well?

The position of "none of this is true so none of this matters" is dismissive and off topic.

I hear you about that particular position being off topic, I've read back through and your angle is more subtle. For me, the whole 'Jesus died for your sins' never made a lick of sense to me, it was a secret shame of mine whenever I tried yet again to be a Christian. Assuming, however it is true, and that salvation is a reality, you are asking if Paul's theology of atonement 'saves' on it's own, or not.

Since I never could assimilate or even understand atonement to begin with, this OP asks me to go places I'm not confident in. This builds character. I'll just say Jesus teachings seem so obviously important they MUST figure in there, somewhere, they can't be non-contributory to salvation. Yet isn't Paul's theology the cornerstone of evangelicism and fundamentalism? That they took Paul's letters as having been God-breathed, without wondering why they should or shouldn't, as would be prudent.

What good is it to just be 'saved' if you don't even know why? And for what purpose? And what is it about that person who saved you in the first place? As it looks to me, these two sects in particular do not openly demonstrate Jesus, their Savior, in speech or action. They've got his imbued righteousness, though, lots of it, to hear some of them!

I haven't read or heard a thorough debate about this issue. But it's a fascinating one, and one I guess I have thought about, but from the angle of never having understood how a crucified Jew's death does anything TO me, or anyone else for that matter. Now that sounded like religious mumbo jumbo to me, something that should have been elevated to symbol, rather than stuck in the mud of a literal 'effect' Jesus's death had on me personally. I already knew this was bad, and so I didn't ask a lot of questions about it when I was a Christian. I just couldn't connect with Jesus. That Jesus, as I've come to understand. The one I do understand is nothing like that one. Still, a huge number of people DO understand Paul's theology and that really alarms me, for some reason.

Not sure they fully understand, but they seemingly accept it without question, and that alarms me too.

Jesus martyrdom as a blood atonenent doesn't make sense to me either. Seems it was Paul's attempt to find theological significance in Jesus death. And how Paul's theology of vicarious atonement became a cornerstone, THE cornerstone of Church teaching baffles me, and has me just shaking my head. As DI, some other Theists, and many non-Theists have pointed out, there are many problems with vicarious blood atonement theology...even from a Theistic point of view, from any sense of justice, mercy and fairness. And how the letters of Paul gained the weight of authoritative Holy Scripture is a mystery to me.

But don't it beat all, that's exactly what has happened.with these patoral letters and theological meanderings.. and at the expense of Jesus own teachings, which are included in Church teaching, but have arguably taken on secondary importance. Some of the answers on this thread are evidence of this, that the theology of Jesus death and resurrection are more important than even his teachings in the Sermon on the Mount.

If his "atoning death and resurrection" were so important, why DIDNT Jesus prepare his disciples for this in the Sermon, and explain it's theolgical significance? (rhetorical question)

Without Paul's theology, Jesus's message alone may have been insufficiently dramatic or convicting, in the opinion of the church fathers who determined what scriptures would be considered canon, perhaps?

Jesus was executed three years into his rabbinical career. He barely had any time to present a comprehensive basis solid enough to ground a powerful new religion upon. It lacked a strong political angle, perhaps. One of our resident scholars of scripture would have a much better informed opinion than mine, but fwiw, that's my best shot at an explanation. Paul's theology had real political teeth church leadership could utilize to organize and conduct a powerful religious movement.

We humans tend to politicize (ie, insert useful power differentials) important ideals. Paul's theology may have provided what Jesus's truncated teaching career lacked. You have to admit, Paul's theology of atonement was genius. It must have been seen as such by the church fathers putting the canon together, or else his letters would have been laid aside like so many other scriptures.

[ttruscott]

If his "atoning death and resurrection" were so important, why DIDNT Jesus prepare his disciples for this in the Sermon, and explain it's theolgical significance? (rhetorical question)

imCo
Christians are saved by grace through or by faith. That means that even though all sinners are equal in their evil, some (for some reason) are scooped out of the population to be saved from their sin and the consequences of their sin. This is GOD's job and there is nothing anyone can do about it...that is, we are not saved by works. If you are chosen, it will happen to you.

IF our faith is saving faith it will be what is pleasing to GOD no matter the content or our ability to express that content. How and why HE saves us by the atoning death is immaterial, only that HE brings us to faith in the event as fact.

Since this seems arbitrary at best and favouritism at worst I am compelled to find a time and place and method by which such a decision to save some and not others is NOT arbitrary nor plays favourites but depends on the desires of the person themselves in relation to HIS self revelation. This I explain as our pre-conception existence.