Jesus most important sermon..

[Elijah John]

For debate:

1) Where in this most important sermon of Jesus, does he ever mention the supposed importance of believing in his impending sacrifice on the cross to "pay for" our sins in order to be saved?

2) If, as Paul suggests, believing in Jesus death on the cross as "payment for sins" is so important for one's salvation, why didn't Jesus teach this "most important doctrine," in his most important sermon?

[Elijah John]

...... we have so little! We have four Gospels, of which a great deal is repeated among them and sum total of those pages amount to a mere 142 pages. So little.

I'm sure he would not have wasted his breath if what he was teaching was of no importance. You are right that he never said that. If I implied that, I'm sorry.

And how terribly sad it is that a man of such importance didn't write anything down, and, as you say, his three years of preaching are confined to a few pages, much shorter than a Dickens novel. His 30 years of family life are virtually unknown.

Julius Caesar, though heavily engaged in war and politics, managed to record what he did in Gaul and during the Civil War. We can read his words today. Christ seems preoccupied by the present tense, by the people around him at the time and gives nothing of himself to posterity, but, as Tennyson says of Arthur, rumours of a doubt. It is sad that his very existence is often questioned - but he has only himself to blame, it would seem.

Authors such as John Dominic Crossan ague that was because Jesus was illiterate. Doubtful, as Jews prized literacy, and the story of Jesus reading from the Isaiah scroll does not stretch credulity.

I think our very own DI made a more convincing observation as to why Jesus didn't write for us. Jesus seems to have expected the end times in the lifetime of his own apostles.

If the end were coming soon, God's apocalyptic intervention, there would have been no need to write.

[tam]

Peace to you!

My Lord did not write things down because He said that He would be with them (us), and He also said that He had more to teach them (us) and also that the spirit would remind them (us) of everything that He had taught.


He did not NEED to write anything down because His sheep hear His voice. And we have examples of Him speaking to His own in what others did write down. He sent a vision to Peter about not calling unclean what God had made clean (Acts 10); He sent Philip to the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:29); He sent Ananias to Paul (Acts 9:9-11); He spoke to Paul, in both the vision on the road to Damascus and many other times (because Paul did not learn from the apostles, Paul learned from Christ). (Galations 1:11,12)

His sheep hear His voice. He KNEW that HE would continue to teach them; and so He KNEW that He did not need to write anything down. And they were to do as He instructed the apostles - be witnesses to/of Him.


We are to walk by FAITH (which is based upon what is HEARD).


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[ttruscott]

Or perhaps Jesus never taught vicarious blood atonement. That was Paul's baby.

1 Cor 12:7 The Spirit has given each of us a special way of serving others. 8 Some of us can speak with wisdom, while others can speak with knowledge, but these gifts come from the same Spirit.

If the message was Paul's to give, why usurp his place?

[marco]

think our very own DI made a more convincing observation as to why Jesus didn't write for us. Jesus seems to have expected the end times in the lifetime of his own apostles.

If the end were coming soon, God's apocalyptic intervention, there would have been no need to write.

I agree this is an explanation, but one that rules out the divinity of Christ, reducing him to a nice man who guessed wrongly. It doesn't explain how his sense of the future enabled him to be precise about Peter's triple denial, pinning it to the crowing of a cockerel. If we simply reject this weird prediction, then we are introducing large questions about the NT text.

It is clear that written statements by Christ would be invaluable. If he didn't write and was aware of this fairly simple truth then one may conclude he did not want his statements to be analysed. Compare this with the illiterate Muhammad, who dictated vast screeds of text so well composed that many believe they are God's composition. Did Christ miss a golden opportunity? Or did he lack the means to do what his successor did?

[Elijah John]

think our very own DI made a more convincing observation as to why Jesus didn't write for us. Jesus seems to have expected the end times in the lifetime of his own apostles.

If the end were coming soon, God's apocalyptic intervention, there would have been no need to write.

I agree this is an explanation, but one that rules out the divinity of Christ, reducing him to a nice man who guessed wrongly.

That seems to be evident from Matther 16.27-28 and from other verses. And the logical conclusions are that he was only a "nice man" or that the NT was wrong and put words on Jesus lips.

It doesn't explain how his sense of the future enabled him to be precise about Peter's triple denial, pinning it to the crowing of a cockerel. If we simply reject this weird prediction, then we are introducing large questions about the NT text.

Fair enough. Large questions should be introduced as to the veracity of NT texts. Some of it's passages are suspect, and were subject I fear, to revisionism.

[myth-one.com]

For debate:

1) Where in this most important sermon of Jesus, does he ever mention the supposed importance of believing in his impending sacrifice on the cross to "pay for" our sins in order to be saved?

2) If, as Paul suggests, believing in Jesus death on the cross as "payment for sins" is so important for one's salvation, why didn't Jesus teach this "most important doctrine," in his most important sermon?

Because while Jesus was alive as a man, the only path to salvation was to obey all of the commandments. That is, the wages of sin was death.

Only after His sinless life and His death did the New Testament path of salvation of believing in Jesus as one's Savior from their sins become active.

This New Testament replaced the Old Testament.

Thus, when preaching how to gain salvation during His lifetime, Jesus correctly preached that people should obey the commandments -- as given to Moses under the original Testament between God and man.

When preaching to people after Jesus' death, Paul correctly taught that the only path to salvation was believing in Jesus as one's Savior under the New Testament.

Both are correct.

[Elijah John]

Or perhaps Jesus never taught vicarious blood atonement. That was Paul's baby.

1 Cor 12:7 The Spirit has given each of us a special way of serving others. 8 Some of us can speak with wisdom, while others can speak with knowledge, but these gifts come from the same Spirit.

If the message was Paul's to give, why usurp his place?

Isn't Paul usurping Jesus place? Who is "the Way", Jesus or Paul?

Yes, people have different roles within the Mystical Body of Christ, but one should never usurp Jesus. That is if one wants to identify as a Christian.

[marco]

Isn't Paul usurping Jesus place? Who is "the Way", Jesus or Paul?

Even if he had no intention of so usurping Jesus, Paul is effectively the way to heaven for many Christians. He is quoted again and again and his words have become elaborations on and even replacements for Christ's own teaching.

[myth-one.com]

Paul is effectively the way to heaven for many Christians. He is quoted again and again and his words have become elaborations on and even replacements for Christ's own teaching.

What are you talking about?

Christians claim to believe the scriptures, which state that those who believe in Jesus will be saved.

Paul taught the same.

[tam]

Christ also said that He came to give His life as a ransom for many. (Matt 20:28, Mark 10:45) He also said,

Then He took the cup, gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26:28


So how can blood atonement have been Paul's idea?


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy