I have finally found a title which I think describes my religious views. I have created a usergroup to match. I accept many of the tenants of Christianity. I accept many of the core values and teachings. In fact let me just list them out.
I accept God exists.
I accept Jesus was his son and unique among men.
I accept that Jesus death atoned for sin.
I accept that Jesus performed miracles.
I accept that God inspired many of the writers of the bible.
Now begins my Heresy.
I accept that God inspired other great men of different faiths like Gandhi
I accept that salvation is a matter of the heart and faith is a byproduct or a symptom of the condition of this heart.
I accept that much of the bible can not be read literally
I accept that some of the stories of the bible are nothing more than stories, nor were they ever meant to be more than this.
I accept that people of other faiths have the potential for salvation just as any Christian would
I accept that the church has fallen far from where it originated.
I accept that the writings of Paul and the other disciples, while lead by God, are still personal interpretations and therefore subject to personal bias.
I do not accept the church taught concept of original sin.
I do not accept the sinlessness of Mary
I do not accept the concept of sainthoods
I do not accept that hell is a place for eternal torture in some fire lake
I accept (basically) some form of evolution/ID
I do not accept a young earth creation model.
I accept much of the current church as hypocritical and lazy
I accept that God reaches out to all men where ever they are through whatever beliefs they hold.
I accept that God knows just about everything, but can not know individual futures nor do I think this idea is supported well by scripture.
Now, I leave this WIDE open. I certainly will not take offense to anything written here. I want brutally honest opinions.
Who does not believe that my current beliefs allow for my own salvation (I am hell bound)?
Who believes that any of my current beliefs contradict another of my current beliefs?
Who here would not consider me a "true Christian"?
Which of my beliefs are directly contradicted by scripture?
What would Jesus say of my beliefs? What would you imagine him telling me?
Honesty people. Brutal, ugly, in my face, even to the point of suspending rule #1 for a moment, HONESTY
Implications of Heresy
Moderator: Moderators
-
achilles12604
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3697
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
- Location: Colorado
Implications of Heresy
Post #1
Last edited by achilles12604 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.
-
achilles12604
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3697
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
- Location: Colorado
Post #31
DISCLAIMER: I have had several profound understandings about our debate tonight. I think I am getting where we are coming from and why we are having a disconnect. However, before reaching this understanding I did about 4 hours of work. Well I am not about to simply delete all that work, but I lack the energy to go through all of it. So here is what I will do. I will include everything I have written so far tonight below. However, after it I will post again with my new understandings in place. Hopefully we will be able to communicate better now that I understand why we were having a disconnect.
Please feel free to read what I have written tonight, but understand while reading it that I wrote most of it before realizing WHY we were having a disconnect. So read it for understanding of my position but please only respond to the post after this one. (POST 32) Then finally in my third post of the night, I will address Salt Agent and I am excited that he has entered the discussion as well.
I am quite enjoying this little discussion. Of all the debates I have had this one is certainly on of the best.
Sorry. I was in the middle of this debate and ran across this passage again. I feel so dumb now.
You have said that there is no place where Jesus specifically says that salvation is a matter of the heart. *sigh* I am SOOO dense.
Back to the debate . . .
Paul conceived the idea. Then he wrote down the blueprint. You say that I am dealing with what if's. Well those what if's are the prototype. If something is true, then it must be true for various circumstances. There is not a singe person on this earth with a single set of circumstances. There are billions of different people all in different situations. Are there people that believe in a bodily resurrection? Heck yes. I am one of them. But are there people who believe in Jesus but only in a spiritual resurrection, also yes.
So if Paul's writings are to be taken as authoritative on the subject, then my what if's apply. Here is the situation. Paul's writings are authoritative and he is also 100% correct concerning the necessity for belief in the bodily resurrection. This means that someone who follows Jesus, believes in him as God, believes that his death took away his punishment for sin. But he believes that Jesus Spirit rose, and this was what Mary and the others talked to. But Jesus body was impure now and so it did not rise. According to the standards set by Paul's 100% correct and authoritative writings, this person is not saved, and will be condemned to hell.
The idea is fine. The Blueprint is fine. But when put into practice, it suddenly falls apart. This is the point I was trying to make with my "what if"s.
Also, as far as the pascal's wager goes (little p) this line of reasoning cuts deeper than I think you want it too because then we must accept EVERYTHING else along with it including almost all of the Roman Catholic traditions. After all they base these on a particular reading of books they consider holy, so where does it stop?
Once again, personal interpretation and when all is said and done, judgment of man by his own nature. This is where I say it stops.
If Jesus had said, "Keep believing in the Gospel, and receive eternal life." Then you would have a case. But he stops at "Keep believing in the good news." Now, belief in the good news is in itself a good and smart thing to do. People's lives are given hope, purpose and direction by believing in the Gospels. Jesus said I have come to give life, and give it more abundantly." This is (from what I have observed) exactly what happens when someone trusts in and believes and lives by the teachings of the Gospels. Their lives are improved.
But having a more abundant life is not equivalent to salvation. And saying believe in the good news, is not the same as believe in the good news, and salvation will come from it. This is a jump that you make here, and I don't think it is there.
Something else to consider with your line of thinking here is that it necessitates that total belief in the gospels is required for salvation. But there are clearly differences between the Gospel accounts. So which gospel should be observed? Furthermore, what if someone does not believe in one part of a gospel, but does in another. For example, Matthew records people being raised from the graves and walking around after Jesus death. But this event is not recorded in ANY other Gospel.
Now by your thinking, if someone does not believe this part of Matthew, then they are not accepting the whole Gospel and are therefore not saved. After all why should they reject this part and be saved, but rejecting the next paragraph will result in condemnation if believing the whole Gospel is required for salvation.
However, addressing the first point which was intended, Mark's Gospel does not stop at these two things being a requirement for salvation.
Mark 7 : 18-23 A man's heart must be clean
Mark 8 : 34-38 A man must not be ashamed of Jesus or his teachings
Mark 8 : 34-38 A man must follow Jesus (I take this to mean a man must adhere to his teachings)
Mark 10 : 14-15 A man must approach God like a little child (I take this to mean with child like innocence, which again would require a pure, clean, innocent heart or nature)
Mark 10 : 17-30 Now this passage can be read two ways. Literally it means that anyone who sells off all his stuff and follows the teachings of Jesus will be saved. I think that literally this can be true. But I also think it can be read as a parable type teaching, using symbolism. Selling off everything, taken symbolically could easily be read as giving up everything else that was important to them, and setting it all aside. Now if someone sets aside everything that is important to them, for something else, then that something else means more to them in their heart than all they set aside. Deep down they care less for what they are setting aside, and more for what they focus on. But then this once again returns to the idea of the heart of man deciding his fate concerning salvation.
Mark 12 : 29-33 Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Notice that in this section mention of a man's heart occurs twice in 4 lines.
These are ALL of the passages in Mark which I can find that pertain to salvation. The condition of a man's heart is said repeatedly and at length. Believing in the Gospel, is not associated at all. Neither is belief in a bodily resurrection.
I just don't buy it. I do not think that salvation is based upon someone's belief in a bodily resurrection. This idea is not found in the Gospels. The idea that belief in the Gospel itself leads to salvation isn't even found in the Gospels. Jesus spells it out . . . salvation is based upon the condition of a man's heart. NOT his beliefs.
I concede this point.
Let me make a more bold assertion which demands to be addressed. Jesus and Paul have very different ideas and teachings concerning placement of women in the church, placement in society, worth, needing to adhere to laws, and other various aspects of women's lives. This shows that Paul's teachings on the subject are his opinion, and not to be taken with the same authority that Jesus teachings have.
I put forth several points supporting this which you did not even mention. I think you may have missed them when reading my post. They are the very last thing I talk about in my previous post.
I was of the opinion that Paul was fairly condemning and would have been hard to get along with. To some degree I still think this because he does spend a lot of his time nitpicking details about proper procedures while at church and how and when to condemn your believing brothers. BUT, you have convinced me that he was not hard headed towards those outside of the church.
Now this being said, I would like to examine this idea of judging and condemning others a little closer. Especially concerning Jesus.
Jesus does condemn hypocrites. Paul also condemns hypocrites. I have no problem with this. However, I don't think that Jesus is truly condemning anyone in the passage above. In essence I read the above passage as such. . .
If you are wronged by someone (very key premise). . . . THEN you should do the following. Talk to him, try to get others to talk to him, have your closest and most trusted people talk to him with you under the pretext of your joint faith, and then if he still refuses to apologize, ignore him and move on.
This passage holds several implications. First, the one doing the hurting must have a pretty hard heart. For them to refuse to apologize for a wrong committed, even when confronted by several people indicates a HUGE amount of arrogance. Second, if this person is part of the church, and is so bull headed that he wont even acknowledge those who he says he trusts in faith, then he clearly holds himself higher than anyone or anything else. So given these circumstances, I think that ignoring and avoiding him would be good advise.
But does this ignoring and avoiding have the same connotations as judging and condemning? I say no.
Therefore, I don't think Jesus was advocating judging or condemning others in the passage you put forth, at least not in the same sense as he advised NOT to judge or condemn others because one implies active condemnation while the other implies separation and avoiding.
Now (and bear with me I am thinking out loud), does Paul hold the same position or a different position on this matter? On one hand, Paul does direct to condemn and expel the immoral brother. But this is only after reasoning with him, and then acting against the hypocritical actions of the person. Jesus himself was dead set against hypocrites. But Paul also allows for people to just chill out about details which are un-important. The 14th chapter of Romans and Jesus teachings about not judging others seem to be very similar.
Therefore, . . . (as much as I really HATE to admit it) you have won over your brother on this point.
I concede (albeit in my traditional long winded manner) that Paul's view on condemnation marries fairly well with Jesus. Good for you. (Hmm. twice in one night
)
Alrighty, so you have convinced me about condemning and marriage. I am totally unconvinced about their views concerning women.
You know, as I read through Paul's letters I am struck by some internal inconsistencies and his fascinations with traditions. The traditions about long hair, or short hair, or covering the head or not are obvious. But there are others which pose different problems in my opinion.
Take for example eating food offered to idols.
So which is it? Does Paul contradict himself here concerning traditions?
In the next chapter he goes on about proper eating and drinking of communion. He states that
Paul seems to be very in touch with traditions even when some of them contradict his own opinions in other writings. But when we look at Jesus teachings we see . . .
Jesus seems to be against the traditions of men. He considers them to get in the way of the spirit of the law.
Is this a difference between Jesus and Paul's teachings? What of the inconsistencies within Paul concerning food and idols?
I agree with much of what you wrote here. Each man did have his own views, beliefs, etc. Each one did write in a different manner and to different audiences. However, I disagree that this has anything to do with interpreting what they wrote. I will admit that the style does give the writing flavors. Matthew for example writes just like a tax collector. His writings are organized by theme and idea. Mark writings are nothing more than a brief over view. Luke seems to write in as great of detail as he could manage while still keeping things concise. But, this doesn't mean that any of these men input their own interpretations or understandings into their writings.
Consider an analogy. Two men write an account of the battle of the bulge. One is a historian, the other is a soldier at the battle. The soldiers account will certainly contain his own styles. And his writings will certainly be for a specific audience. But his rendition of events would remain about the same because he was simply reciting what he saw and experienced. On the other hand, the historian would have a the ability to insert MEANING into the events of the battle. He could write about how he felt things went. What went right or wrong. What should have been done differently. What this battle meant for the war. Agreeing or disagreeing with the decisions of the commanders as it pertained to the total strategy of the war. Basically, the historian would be able to insert his opinions about the meaning or impact of events, while the soldier would simply be able to recite the events as they occurred.
This is the difference between the style of writings that the Gospels take, and Paul's writings. On is simply a rendition of events. The other includes what the events ultimately mean.
So when you conclude that the Gospel writers inserted their own interpretations, I must disagree. They inserted their own experiences, styles, and audiences yes. But not any form of meaning or interpretations.
Yes. This is a fair summary of my position.
You would have to omit HUGE parts of the repercussions of Hitler's reign. Also, you would need to make sure that everyone else omitted these huge sections. For your analogy to work (which it could) you would basically need to falsify your record of events. Since biographies are supposed to be complete (or at the very least fairly complete) this simply wouldn't work with Hitler.
I think you are confusing my position again here. I never said that the Gospels weren’t biased. I never said they weren’t slanted. I just said that they weren’t interpreted.
The key is meaning. What was the meaning behind Jesus healing the sick? What was the meaning behind Jesus death? What was the meaning behind his miracles, parables, etc.
Here is a perfect example. Jesus gives them the parable about the bread of the Pharisees. They didn't understand so Jesus explained it to them. Jesus gave the parable meaning. However, Jesus did not explain the salt and light parable. And the meaning of this parable is being debated 2000 years later.
You see the author who recorded the Salt and light parable did not insert any meaning with this event. He just recorded it as it was. When Jesus gave meaning to other parables, he recorded that event too. But the author himself never gave any meaning to anything he recorded.
You provide another example of this...
No. I did not say the Gospels do not provide instruction. But just like Jesus explaining one parable and not the other, the instruction in the Gospel is RECORDED (key word) by the author. It is not GIVEN by the author. Since the author did not give this instruction, it was not his instruction and therefore not his opinion. I am perfectly find with being given Jesus opinion on things. But when I must weigh Jesus opinion vs Paul's opinion, I will side with Jesus every time.
I say the Gospels are not interpreted by the authors. I never said they were not biased, slanted, or written with opinionated men. I simply said they were not interpreted or given meaning by the authors. Paul's letters on the other hand are nothing but giving meaning. He does nothing but express his opinions about subjects. Granted most of the time his opinions are right. But because they are opinions, I will not give them the same precedence as writings with out inserted opinions.
I would not expect Paul to make these decisions in a vacuum. However, I do not think he was in total agreement with everyone else on every issue either. But this is really no matter as I think we may be coming to the heart of the issue.
I have said that Paul had a slightly different message. But perhaps not a different Gospel. . . . . . .
I just had an epiphany. You think that I am saying that Paul's GOSPEL was different when I am actually saying that his MESSAGE was different. Two different things. for example the women. No where in the Gospel does it mention the position of women within the church. This I do not think has anything to do with Paul's GOSPEL, but it is important concerning his MESSAGE.
I see now. I have been confusing you because of word choices.
And this is EXACTLY why I don't accept his writings as authoritative. His writings include and are directed by his Gospel, yes. But they go beyond his Gospel because they had to. The Gospel was not the unabridged "how do to everything in life" book. It was simply the teachings and message of Jesus concerning God, his kingdom, and moral actions here on earth.
While this is the standard of the faith, it is hardly all inclusive. So Paul had to include opinions which went beyond his Gospel.
As far as the GOSPEL message is concerned, Paul seems to be in very close touch with Jesus. But there are additions to the Gospel Paul had to make in order to guide his church, and I don't necessarily agree that these additions were in line with how Jesus would have viewed them.
The church traditions Paul harps about are another good example. I think that Jesus meant for religion to be a very personal thing, shared with others. I do not think that he cared about a specific manner of eating communion or the position of a person's head when praying, or the coverings of a woman’s hair, or its length or any of the other details Paul harps about.
Paul ADDS to the Gospel message. And it is these additions which I do not necessarily accept or reject. I think THIS is the heart of our issue.
Of course now I have re-read a couple of past posts and I see you wrote.. .
Consider me confused here. My apologies. Let me go at this one more time.
Ok. At this point I realized I need to go over the ENTIRE debate again with these new revelations in mind. So take what you want from the above and now allow me to re-collect my thoughts and approach this debate anew.
Please feel free to read what I have written tonight, but understand while reading it that I wrote most of it before realizing WHY we were having a disconnect. So read it for understanding of my position but please only respond to the post after this one. (POST 32) Then finally in my third post of the night, I will address Salt Agent and I am excited that he has entered the discussion as well.
I am quite enjoying this little discussion. Of all the debates I have had this one is certainly on of the best.
Sorry. I was in the middle of this debate and ran across this passage again. I feel so dumb now.
You have said that there is no place where Jesus specifically says that salvation is a matter of the heart. *sigh* I am SOOO dense.
I knew this verse. I have used this verse. But for some reason I couldn't think of it. Here is a very specific mention about a man's heart being the source of unclean.18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "
Back to the debate . . .
Whenever a new invention is thought of there is a process by which the thing comes into being. First there must be the idea. Then there must be the blueprints. Then finally a prototype must be built to see if the design on paper actually does work.Goose wrote:The problem, Achilles, is you are presenting hypotheticals - what if's. It's an argument by speculation. I can't say who will be saved with absolute 100% certainty, neither can you. We can only go with what the evidence suggests. The evidence from Paul suggests that belief in the Rez is necessary (and there is evidence in the Gospels as well, which I'll demonstrate). The million dollar question is: is that true? I don't know for absolutely sure, neither do you. It boils down to our interpretation, right? In these type of cases I would tend to err on the side of caution. The side of caution would be to include it, not delete it. If I and Paul are wrong and belief in the Rez is not necessary we haven't lost anything. If you are wrong, we have a serious problem. You may call this Pascal's Wager, but in some cases it's the wisest thing to do.achilles12604 wrote:
1)Does this end our debate? If the person would be saved even thought they believed in a spiritual resurrection, does this not mean that belief in a bodily resurrection is NOT required like Paul said it was?Goose wrote:At any rate, I don't see how one could say the Gospels are authoritative, then say one only believes in a spiritual Rez when the gospels clearly portray a physical one. Would this person be saved? I think so. That person would be saved because they've recognized what Jesus did for us and His claims to divinity by recognizing His death and Rez. In other words they believe in Him, who He said he was/is, and what He did.
Along those lines, we have the dilemma of who's interpretation to believe. If Paul was interpreting scripture as best he could with the tools he had just like you and me, who do we believe? You or Paul? How do we break the deadlock? Paul was on top of the events, interacted directly with the disciples, was endorsed by the disciples, had an experience with the risen Lord (that appears to be similar in many ways as the disciples), and obviously had God working in his life. You and I are 2000 years later. I'm sorry, I like you, I think you are great debater and have excellent points, but... I'm going with Paul.
Paul conceived the idea. Then he wrote down the blueprint. You say that I am dealing with what if's. Well those what if's are the prototype. If something is true, then it must be true for various circumstances. There is not a singe person on this earth with a single set of circumstances. There are billions of different people all in different situations. Are there people that believe in a bodily resurrection? Heck yes. I am one of them. But are there people who believe in Jesus but only in a spiritual resurrection, also yes.
So if Paul's writings are to be taken as authoritative on the subject, then my what if's apply. Here is the situation. Paul's writings are authoritative and he is also 100% correct concerning the necessity for belief in the bodily resurrection. This means that someone who follows Jesus, believes in him as God, believes that his death took away his punishment for sin. But he believes that Jesus Spirit rose, and this was what Mary and the others talked to. But Jesus body was impure now and so it did not rise. According to the standards set by Paul's 100% correct and authoritative writings, this person is not saved, and will be condemned to hell.
The idea is fine. The Blueprint is fine. But when put into practice, it suddenly falls apart. This is the point I was trying to make with my "what if"s.
Also, as far as the pascal's wager goes (little p) this line of reasoning cuts deeper than I think you want it too because then we must accept EVERYTHING else along with it including almost all of the Roman Catholic traditions. After all they base these on a particular reading of books they consider holy, so where does it stop?
Once again, personal interpretation and when all is said and done, judgment of man by his own nature. This is where I say it stops.
Ok for clarification, I understand you have written here that Jesus instructed everyone to believe in the Gospel message. I would agree that he did instruct those around him to do this. But I do not agree with the leap you make when you suggest that this indicates that belief in the Gospel equates to salvation. If fact I don't see that belief in the Gospel has anything to do with salvation other than the fact that the Gospel message includes portions of it which DO discuss salvation.Goose wrote:I disagree that belief in the Rez is not implied. I'll illustrate using Mark which is thought to based on Peter's preaching (cf. Acts 2:14-39).
Mark 1:1 This is the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Mark opens by telling his readers that the story they are about to read IS the gospel (good news). In other words, Jesus (or the story of Jesus' life) IS the gospel.
Mark 1:15 He[Jesus] said, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is near! Repent, and keep believing in the gospel!"
Mark tells his readers that Jesus said to repent and keep believing in the Gospel. In other words keep believing in Jesus' story which is who He is and what He does/did. We are instructed to repent and believe in the Gospel (Jesus).
If we could boil down Mark's Gospel to key events or ideas, what would they be? In my opinion they would be, but not limited to:
Jesus is the Son of God
Jesus is the Christ
Jesus performed miracles
Jesus died on the cross
Jesus rose (even with out the later addition of Mark 16:9ff we have a resurrection)
This was the message of Jesus: repent and believe the gospel - that is Christ's story - which is who He is and what He did for us. The gospel includes, then, the resurrection as it was written after the fact. It's part of the package.
If Jesus had said, "Keep believing in the Gospel, and receive eternal life." Then you would have a case. But he stops at "Keep believing in the good news." Now, belief in the good news is in itself a good and smart thing to do. People's lives are given hope, purpose and direction by believing in the Gospels. Jesus said I have come to give life, and give it more abundantly." This is (from what I have observed) exactly what happens when someone trusts in and believes and lives by the teachings of the Gospels. Their lives are improved.
But having a more abundant life is not equivalent to salvation. And saying believe in the good news, is not the same as believe in the good news, and salvation will come from it. This is a jump that you make here, and I don't think it is there.
Something else to consider with your line of thinking here is that it necessitates that total belief in the gospels is required for salvation. But there are clearly differences between the Gospel accounts. So which gospel should be observed? Furthermore, what if someone does not believe in one part of a gospel, but does in another. For example, Matthew records people being raised from the graves and walking around after Jesus death. But this event is not recorded in ANY other Gospel.
Now by your thinking, if someone does not believe this part of Matthew, then they are not accepting the whole Gospel and are therefore not saved. After all why should they reject this part and be saved, but rejecting the next paragraph will result in condemnation if believing the whole Gospel is required for salvation.
Mark is also telling us two very important aspects necessary for salvation:
1. Acknowledge your sin and that you deserve punishment for it.
2. That belief in Jesus is necessary. Why?
The criminal asks Jesus to remember him once Jesus enters HIS kingdom - heaven. Mark wants us to believe that heaven was Jesus' Kingdom. The criminal places his trust in Jesus, not God per se, as though the criminal knows that Jesus has the power to save the criminal from damnation - a right reserved for God. Jesus grants the criminal entrance to paradise. Mark wants us to know that Jesus had the power and authority to determine who gets into heaven, a right reserved for God.
You are kinda crossing lines here because I cited this as evidence that belief in the physical resurrection is not required for salvation, not that Jesus was divine.Mark wants us to know that Jesus had the power and authority to determine who gets into heaven, a right reserved for God.
However, addressing the first point which was intended, Mark's Gospel does not stop at these two things being a requirement for salvation.
Mark 7 : 18-23 A man's heart must be clean
Mark 8 : 34-38 A man must not be ashamed of Jesus or his teachings
Mark 8 : 34-38 A man must follow Jesus (I take this to mean a man must adhere to his teachings)
Mark 10 : 14-15 A man must approach God like a little child (I take this to mean with child like innocence, which again would require a pure, clean, innocent heart or nature)
Mark 10 : 17-30 Now this passage can be read two ways. Literally it means that anyone who sells off all his stuff and follows the teachings of Jesus will be saved. I think that literally this can be true. But I also think it can be read as a parable type teaching, using symbolism. Selling off everything, taken symbolically could easily be read as giving up everything else that was important to them, and setting it all aside. Now if someone sets aside everything that is important to them, for something else, then that something else means more to them in their heart than all they set aside. Deep down they care less for what they are setting aside, and more for what they focus on. But then this once again returns to the idea of the heart of man deciding his fate concerning salvation.
Mark 12 : 29-33 Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Notice that in this section mention of a man's heart occurs twice in 4 lines.
These are ALL of the passages in Mark which I can find that pertain to salvation. The condition of a man's heart is said repeatedly and at length. Believing in the Gospel, is not associated at all. Neither is belief in a bodily resurrection.
I just don't buy it. I do not think that salvation is based upon someone's belief in a bodily resurrection. This idea is not found in the Gospels. The idea that belief in the Gospel itself leads to salvation isn't even found in the Gospels. Jesus spells it out . . . salvation is based upon the condition of a man's heart. NOT his beliefs.
Ok, I will chalk up this point for you. After further review Jesus and Paul seem to be in sync concerning marriage in general. Paul's does seem to have a distaste for the institution which Jesus does not seem to hold. But "officially" they seem to be on a similar page.Considering that Paul tell us his views on marriage ARE his opinions, we are free to take it as such. BTW, where does Paul condemn marriage? He says it is better to be unmarried, true. But Paul also gives much instruction to married couples. However, there is no evidence to suggest Jesus was married. Does that mean Jesus condemned marriage? Paul being a very focused and serious follower of Christ was no doubt trying to emulate Jesus in as many ways as possible. Further evidence to suggest Paul was in sync with Jesus, not out in left field.
Jesus said in Matthew 19:12, "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[or become eunuchs] because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Isn't that basically what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7? Sounds to me like Jesus and Paul were on the same page regarding marriage.
I concede this point.
Seems is only a weak position if not supported with evidence. You chopped out every point of evidence I put forth (close to a 5th of my entire post) and didn't address any of it.Goose wrote:"Seems" is always a weak position. In that case you are presenting your opinion and speculation as evidence.Achilles12604 wrote: ..The position of women in church in another example. And this one seems to contradict Jesus opinion on the matter.
Let me make a more bold assertion which demands to be addressed. Jesus and Paul have very different ideas and teachings concerning placement of women in the church, placement in society, worth, needing to adhere to laws, and other various aspects of women's lives. This shows that Paul's teachings on the subject are his opinion, and not to be taken with the same authority that Jesus teachings have.
I put forth several points supporting this which you did not even mention. I think you may have missed them when reading my post. They are the very last thing I talk about in my previous post.
You know you have changed my mind, but perhaps not in the way you intended.Is this true that Jesus ALWAYS condemns judging others? Remember, Paul tells us it is acceptable with fellow believers in the context of the body of Christ - the church. Does Jesus? Yes He Does!
In Matthew chapter 18:15-17 Jesus gives instruction on how to deal with a brother that has sinned. Jesus said, "If your brother sins against you,[some manuscripts do not have "against you"] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Ouch! That's some nasty judgement Jesus is instructing us to pass on fellow believers - a pagan or tax collector. Shocking
Compare this passage in Matthew to Paul in 1Corintians 5:9-11 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
Paul is saying don't associate with these people if they "call" themselves believers but engage in these activities. Still think Paul was making this stuff up? Where did Paul get this notion if not from Jesus?
I was of the opinion that Paul was fairly condemning and would have been hard to get along with. To some degree I still think this because he does spend a lot of his time nitpicking details about proper procedures while at church and how and when to condemn your believing brothers. BUT, you have convinced me that he was not hard headed towards those outside of the church.
Now this being said, I would like to examine this idea of judging and condemning others a little closer. Especially concerning Jesus.
I think that this section should be read slightly differently than you suggest, although I do understand how you read it and acknowledge that this can be taken as you did.In Matthew chapter 18:15-17 Jesus gives instruction on how to deal with a brother that has sinned. Jesus said, "If your brother sins against you,[some manuscripts do not have "against you"] go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Jesus does condemn hypocrites. Paul also condemns hypocrites. I have no problem with this. However, I don't think that Jesus is truly condemning anyone in the passage above. In essence I read the above passage as such. . .
If you are wronged by someone (very key premise). . . . THEN you should do the following. Talk to him, try to get others to talk to him, have your closest and most trusted people talk to him with you under the pretext of your joint faith, and then if he still refuses to apologize, ignore him and move on.
This passage holds several implications. First, the one doing the hurting must have a pretty hard heart. For them to refuse to apologize for a wrong committed, even when confronted by several people indicates a HUGE amount of arrogance. Second, if this person is part of the church, and is so bull headed that he wont even acknowledge those who he says he trusts in faith, then he clearly holds himself higher than anyone or anything else. So given these circumstances, I think that ignoring and avoiding him would be good advise.
But does this ignoring and avoiding have the same connotations as judging and condemning? I say no.
In this context, judging others implies actions against someone else. Not ignoring and avoiding. Judging and condemning others implies that you are actively trying to change something about the other person. In the passage you put forth, all attempts to change the other person will have already failed and so different actions must occur.Judging Others
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Therefore, I don't think Jesus was advocating judging or condemning others in the passage you put forth, at least not in the same sense as he advised NOT to judge or condemn others because one implies active condemnation while the other implies separation and avoiding.
Now (and bear with me I am thinking out loud), does Paul hold the same position or a different position on this matter? On one hand, Paul does direct to condemn and expel the immoral brother. But this is only after reasoning with him, and then acting against the hypocritical actions of the person. Jesus himself was dead set against hypocrites. But Paul also allows for people to just chill out about details which are un-important. The 14th chapter of Romans and Jesus teachings about not judging others seem to be very similar.
Therefore, . . . (as much as I really HATE to admit it) you have won over your brother on this point.
I concede (albeit in my traditional long winded manner) that Paul's view on condemnation marries fairly well with Jesus. Good for you. (Hmm. twice in one night
)Alrighty, so you have convinced me about condemning and marriage. I am totally unconvinced about their views concerning women.
You know, as I read through Paul's letters I am struck by some internal inconsistencies and his fascinations with traditions. The traditions about long hair, or short hair, or covering the head or not are obvious. But there are others which pose different problems in my opinion.
Take for example eating food offered to idols.
This passage makes it clear that eating food sacrificed to idols unimportant. His only warning about it is do not eat it in front of those would do consider it a sin because it will damage their faith. But then 2 sections later Paul writes this . . .1 Cor 8: 4-8 wrote:So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
7But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
This passage disagrees with the above passage, and even with itself. The italics agrees that food sacrificed to idols in unimportant and therefore ok to eat. But then the section in bold stats just the opposite, that they shouldn't eat because he doesn't want them associated with demons.18Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons. 22Are we trying to arouse the Lord's jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
So which is it? Does Paul contradict himself here concerning traditions?
In the next chapter he goes on about proper eating and drinking of communion. He states that
Notice also this27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
2I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings,[a] just as I passed them on to you.
[a] # 1 Corinthians 11:2 Or traditions
Paul seems to be very in touch with traditions even when some of them contradict his own opinions in other writings. But when we look at Jesus teachings we see . . .
Mark 7:9-13 wrote:9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,'[d] and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[e] 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
Jesus Questioned About Fasting
14Then John's disciples came and asked him, "How is it that we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?"
15Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.
3He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that one[a] greater than the temple is here. 7If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
9Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"
11He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
Jesus seems to be against the traditions of men. He considers them to get in the way of the spirit of the law.
Is this a difference between Jesus and Paul's teachings? What of the inconsistencies within Paul concerning food and idols?
It implies an on-the-spot and absolutely 100% accurate recording (like having a video camera) of the events with absolutely no personality or view point interwoven into it - as though they were written with a completely objective perspective. I just don't see how one can read the Gospels and say that. It is obvious to even the most undiscerning reader that the writers of the Gospels had their own viewpoints, interpretations, and personalities woven into their respective works. Each writer chooses to add and omit certain events and some times has different wording for the same event or quote at some point. This alone shows an interpretation.
I agree with much of what you wrote here. Each man did have his own views, beliefs, etc. Each one did write in a different manner and to different audiences. However, I disagree that this has anything to do with interpreting what they wrote. I will admit that the style does give the writing flavors. Matthew for example writes just like a tax collector. His writings are organized by theme and idea. Mark writings are nothing more than a brief over view. Luke seems to write in as great of detail as he could manage while still keeping things concise. But, this doesn't mean that any of these men input their own interpretations or understandings into their writings.
Consider an analogy. Two men write an account of the battle of the bulge. One is a historian, the other is a soldier at the battle. The soldiers account will certainly contain his own styles. And his writings will certainly be for a specific audience. But his rendition of events would remain about the same because he was simply reciting what he saw and experienced. On the other hand, the historian would have a the ability to insert MEANING into the events of the battle. He could write about how he felt things went. What went right or wrong. What should have been done differently. What this battle meant for the war. Agreeing or disagreeing with the decisions of the commanders as it pertained to the total strategy of the war. Basically, the historian would be able to insert his opinions about the meaning or impact of events, while the soldier would simply be able to recite the events as they occurred.
This is the difference between the style of writings that the Gospels take, and Paul's writings. On is simply a rendition of events. The other includes what the events ultimately mean.
So when you conclude that the Gospel writers inserted their own interpretations, I must disagree. They inserted their own experiences, styles, and audiences yes. But not any form of meaning or interpretations.
I think what you are trying to say is the genre of the writing makes it either authoritative or not. The Gospels are a type of biography and Paul's letter are just that, letters. Biographies are supposed to be more impartial and record only the facts, therefore they are more trustworthy and should carry more authority.
Yes. This is a fair summary of my position.
But is this sole criterion a good one to determine what should be authoritative or not? One could write a biography of Hitler and make him sound like a great leader by adding or omitting events or choice of wording.
You would have to omit HUGE parts of the repercussions of Hitler's reign. Also, you would need to make sure that everyone else omitted these huge sections. For your analogy to work (which it could) you would basically need to falsify your record of events. Since biographies are supposed to be complete (or at the very least fairly complete) this simply wouldn't work with Hitler.
That would be the result of the interpretation of the writer that was witting the story. So to say that a biography (or the Gospels) are "documentaries" with out personalities and therefore unbiased is clearly wrong. The gospels ARE biased and they should be. They are written by believers who are proclaiming the Good News. They do contain interpretations.
I think you are confusing my position again here. I never said that the Gospels weren’t biased. I never said they weren’t slanted. I just said that they weren’t interpreted.
The key is meaning. What was the meaning behind Jesus healing the sick? What was the meaning behind Jesus death? What was the meaning behind his miracles, parables, etc.
Here is a perfect example. Jesus gives them the parable about the bread of the Pharisees. They didn't understand so Jesus explained it to them. Jesus gave the parable meaning. However, Jesus did not explain the salt and light parable. And the meaning of this parable is being debated 2000 years later.
You see the author who recorded the Salt and light parable did not insert any meaning with this event. He just recorded it as it was. When Jesus gave meaning to other parables, he recorded that event too. But the author himself never gave any meaning to anything he recorded.
You provide another example of this...
BTW, are you trying to tell me the Gospels are not meant to instruct us nor do not contain instruction? You can't seriously be saying that. They are full of instruction. I gave you one of many examples with Matthew ch 18.
No. I did not say the Gospels do not provide instruction. But just like Jesus explaining one parable and not the other, the instruction in the Gospel is RECORDED (key word) by the author. It is not GIVEN by the author. Since the author did not give this instruction, it was not his instruction and therefore not his opinion. I am perfectly find with being given Jesus opinion on things. But when I must weigh Jesus opinion vs Paul's opinion, I will side with Jesus every time.
I say the Gospels are not interpreted by the authors. I never said they were not biased, slanted, or written with opinionated men. I simply said they were not interpreted or given meaning by the authors. Paul's letters on the other hand are nothing but giving meaning. He does nothing but express his opinions about subjects. Granted most of the time his opinions are right. But because they are opinions, I will not give them the same precedence as writings with out inserted opinions.
I say he offered his OPINION based on his understanding (interpretation). What do you say?
Of course he did in these issues. I've already said the church did this as well. If the issue over circumcision is any indication on how Paul arrived at his opinions on these matters, he did NOT make all of them in a vacuum. But rather submitted himself to the collective authority of the disciples and leaders in Jerusalem. Which meant he was submitting himself to people that knew Christ's teaching first hand. Is that a problem?
I would not expect Paul to make these decisions in a vacuum. However, I do not think he was in total agreement with everyone else on every issue either. But this is really no matter as I think we may be coming to the heart of the issue.
Again, you're implying that because Paul had to interpret secondary issues not addressed by Jesus that Paul therefore must have altered Jesus' gospel as well. Notice that your argument can't get away from implying that Paul preached a different gospel. So far you have not produced EVIDENCE that Paul's gospel was different.
I have said that Paul had a slightly different message. But perhaps not a different Gospel. . . . . . .
I just had an epiphany. You think that I am saying that Paul's GOSPEL was different when I am actually saying that his MESSAGE was different. Two different things. for example the women. No where in the Gospel does it mention the position of women within the church. This I do not think has anything to do with Paul's GOSPEL, but it is important concerning his MESSAGE.
I see now. I have been confusing you because of word choices.
And this is EXACTLY why I don't accept his writings as authoritative. His writings include and are directed by his Gospel, yes. But they go beyond his Gospel because they had to. The Gospel was not the unabridged "how do to everything in life" book. It was simply the teachings and message of Jesus concerning God, his kingdom, and moral actions here on earth.
While this is the standard of the faith, it is hardly all inclusive. So Paul had to include opinions which went beyond his Gospel.
As far as the GOSPEL message is concerned, Paul seems to be in very close touch with Jesus. But there are additions to the Gospel Paul had to make in order to guide his church, and I don't necessarily agree that these additions were in line with how Jesus would have viewed them.
The church traditions Paul harps about are another good example. I think that Jesus meant for religion to be a very personal thing, shared with others. I do not think that he cared about a specific manner of eating communion or the position of a person's head when praying, or the coverings of a woman’s hair, or its length or any of the other details Paul harps about.
Paul ADDS to the Gospel message. And it is these additions which I do not necessarily accept or reject. I think THIS is the heart of our issue.
Of course now I have re-read a couple of past posts and I see you wrote.. .
I think you are confusing Paul's need to address particular problems in his churches and provide instruction or rebuke with this meaning that he taught a different message than Jesus.
Not at all. I was stating, and am stating, and will be stating that Paul's letters can not be read in the same light as the Gospels because he was forced to insert his own opinions based on how he interpreted the Gospel.
Consider me confused here. My apologies. Let me go at this one more time.
Ok. At this point I realized I need to go over the ENTIRE debate again with these new revelations in mind. So take what you want from the above and now allow me to re-collect my thoughts and approach this debate anew.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.
-
achilles12604
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3697
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
- Location: Colorado
Post #32
*deep breath*
Ok.
Alright . . .
*another deep breath because I realize that I still have probably 6 hours of writing before I get this post right*
We are having several different debate which are intertwined and dependent upon one another. I will re-organize and address each in turn.
1) Paul's writings being authoritative
I hope you read through the last post and saw just when I hit the revelation which forced me to re-write this entire post. I occurred to me when you wrote
I said in the last post that I had no problem with Paul's Gospel, but that his message was different. I still hold to this but perhaps I can explain it differently. Paul was in the process of planting churches. For this to occur he had to cover many subjects, and a great number of them were not directly covered by the Gospels. Therefore, he had to insert his opinion on the matter. It is some of these opinions which I take issue with. Not his Gospel message.
Example: Paul is obsessed with proper traditions. When I cited his opinion of women having to be silent, you came back with another example that the men shouldn't cover their heads when praying. Jesus on the other hand seems to be dead set against traditions of men. He indicates that traditions of men will interfere with true communion with God.
Paul writes
Jesus seems to be much more concerned with closeness to God and doing right than traditions. In Mark he comes right out and says that men's traditions get in the way of God and his work.
Now, I think that this is an example of Paul and Jesus disagreeing. However, I don' think that it means Paul's GOSPEL was incorrect. It means that Paul was including opinion above and beyond what the Gospel said. And in this case, I think that the opinion was incorrect and not in line with Jesus opinion on the subject.
I think there are other examples of Paul and Jesus disagreeing about details (like women . . . I will get to this later) but this doesn't necessarily mean that his Gospel was off. But it does carry with it great significance. Because since Paul HAD to include opinions on matters which went above and beyond the scope of the Gospel, this means his writings are not all Gospel backed. He has opinions of his own in his writings. And hence, I can not accept his writings as equally authoritative.
Perhaps I am having some trouble with this discussion simply because we are never given word for word what Gospel Paul preaches. I think you and I may be having extra issues because what you think is included in his Gospel I think is his opinion. The catalyst for this debate is a perfect example. You state that bodily resurrection is required for salvation because Paul writes it. I say it isn't because the idea is not in the Gospel. But you say it is in the Gospel.
This is an obvious disconnect about what exactly is Paul's Gospel. Now, of course we could start a whole separate debate about what Paul's gospel included, but that could easily double or triple the size of our posts. Perhaps just the understanding that what you think is included in his Gospel is not necessarily what I think is included in his gospel, and what you think is opinion, may not be what I think is opinion.
I have a feeling that you attribute a LOT more of his writings to his Gospel preaching, where I attribute a LOT more to his opinions.
Now you wrote
I disagree. There doesn't need to be any contention between Jesus and Paul. If Paul is writing his opinion, and you are taking his opinion as authoritative, are you saying that anything Paul says carries as much weight as what Jesus himself said?
This is an interesting position indeed because it would lend support to the idea of Paul inventing Christianity based on a few ideas that Jesus put forth. A LOT of the traditions in Christianity trace back to Paul and his writings. However, not nearly as many are found in the words attributed to Jesus.
This position is of course WHY I believe that most of his writings are not part of his Gospel and are rather simply his opinions.
So is your position here that anything Paul says is as authoritative and correct as what Jesus himself said?
Ok debate 2
2) Did the Gospel writers include opinions or interpretations in their writings? I still say no. Perhaps a definition is in order. I define interpreted as "Being given meaning or implications for specific situations or understandings."
I agree with much of what you wrote here. Each man did have his own views, beliefs, etc. Each one did write in a different manner and to different audiences. However, I disagree that this has anything to do with interpreting what they wrote. I will admit that the style does give the writing flavors. Matthew for example writes just like a tax collector. His writings are organized by theme and idea. Mark writings are nothing more than a brief over view. Luke seems to write in as great of detail as he could manage while still keeping things concise. But, this doesn't mean that any of these men input their own interpretations or understandings into their writings.
Consider an analogy. Two men write an account of the battle of the bulge. One is a historian, the other is a soldier at the battle. The soldiers account will certainly contain his own styles. And his writings will certainly be for a specific audience. But his rendition of events would remain about the same because he was simply reciting what he saw and experienced. On the other hand, the historian would have a the ability to insert MEANING into the events of the battle. He could write about how he felt things went. What went right or wrong. What should have been done differently. What this battle meant for the war. Agreeing or disagreeing with the decisions of the commanders as it pertained to the total strategy of the war. Basically, the historian would be able to insert his opinions about the meaning or impact of events, while the soldier would simply be able to recite the events as they occurred.
This is the difference between the style of writings that the Gospels take, and Paul's writings. On is simply a rendition of events. The other includes what the events ultimately mean.
So when you conclude that the Gospel writers inserted their own interpretations, I must disagree. They inserted their own experiences, styles, and audiences yes. But not any form of meaning or interpretations.
Yes. This is a fair summary of my position.
You would have to omit HUGE parts of the repercussions of Hitler's reign. Also, you would need to make sure that everyone else omitted these huge sections. For your analogy to work (which it could) you would basically need to falsify your record of events. Since biographies are supposed to be complete (or at the very least fairly complete) this simply wouldn't work with Hitler.
I think you are confusing my position again here. I never said that the Gospels weren’t biased. I never said they weren’t slanted. I just said that they weren’t interpreted.
The key is meaning. What was the meaning behind Jesus healing the sick? What was the meaning behind Jesus death? What was the meaning behind his miracles, parables, etc.
Here is a perfect example. Jesus gives them the parable about the bread of the Pharisees. They didn't understand so Jesus explained it to them. Jesus gave the parable meaning. However, Jesus did not explain the salt and light parable. And the meaning of this parable is being debated 2000 years later.
You see the author who recorded the Salt and light parable did not insert any meaning with this event. He just recorded it as it was. When Jesus gave meaning to other parables, he recorded that event too. But the author himself never gave any meaning to anything he recorded.
You provide another example of this...
No. I did not say the Gospels do not provide instruction. But just like Jesus explaining one parable and not the other, the instruction in the Gospel is RECORDED (key word) by the author. It is not GIVEN by the author. Since the author did not give this instruction, it was not his instruction and therefore not his opinion. I am perfectly find with being given Jesus opinion on things. But when I must weigh Jesus opinion vs Paul's opinion, I will side with Jesus every time.
I say the Gospels are not interpreted by the authors. I never said they were not biased, slanted, or written with opinionated men. I simply said they were not interpreted or given meaning by the authors. Paul's letters on the other hand are nothing but giving meaning. He does nothing but express his opinions about subjects. Granted most of the time his opinions are right. But because they are opinions, I will not give them the same precedence as writings with out inserted opinions.
On to debate 3
3) Matters of salvation.
You wrote:
Ok for clarification, I understand you have written here that Jesus instructed everyone to believe in the Gospel message. I would agree that he did instruct those around him to do this. But I do not agree with the leap you make when you suggest that this indicates that belief in the Gospel equates to salvation. If fact I don't see that belief in the Gospel has anything to do with salvation other than the fact that the Gospel message includes portions of it which DO discuss salvation.
If Jesus had said, "Keep believing in the Gospel, and receive eternal life." Then you would have a case. But he stops at "Keep believing in the good news." Now, belief in the good news is in itself a good and smart thing to do. People's lives are given hope, purpose and direction by believing in the Gospels. Jesus said I have come to give life, and give it more abundantly." This is (from what I have observed) exactly what happens when someone trusts in and believes and lives by the teachings of the Gospels. Their lives are improved.
But having a more abundant life is not equivalent to salvation. And saying believe in the good news, is not the same as believe in the good news, and salvation will come from it. This is a jump that you make here, and I don't think it is there.
Something else to consider with your line of thinking here is that it necessitates that total belief in the gospels is required for salvation. But there are clearly differences between the Gospel accounts. So which gospel should be observed? Furthermore, what if someone does not believe in one part of a gospel, but does in another. For example, Matthew records people being raised from the graves and walking around after Jesus death. But this event is not recorded in ANY other Gospel.
Now by your thinking, if someone does not believe this part of Matthew, then they are not accepting the whole Gospel and are therefore not saved. After all why should they reject this part and be saved, but rejecting the next paragraph will result in condemnation if believing the whole Gospel is required for salvation.
So I do not think that salvation is based on accepting all of the Gospel. I think that it is a wise thing to do, but as a requirement for salvation, I just don't see it.
You go on to use my quote in Luke. But then you cite this as Mark. While this is a simple oops, it did give me reason to go through all of Mark and read everything concerning salvation. Here is what I found.
Mark 7 : 18-23 A man's heart must be clean
Mark 8 : 34-38 A man must not be ashamed of Jesus or his teachings
Mark 8 : 34-38 A man must follow Jesus (I take this to mean a man must adhere to his teachings)
Mark 10 : 14-15 A man must approach God like a little child (I take this to mean with child like innocence, which again would require a pure, clean, innocent heart or nature)
Mark 10 : 17-30 Now this passage can be read two ways. Literally it means that anyone who sells off all his stuff and follows the teachings of Jesus will be saved. I think that literally this can be true. But I also think it can be read as a parable type teaching, using symbolism. Selling off everything, taken symbolically could easily be read as giving up everything else that was important to them, and setting it all aside. Now if someone sets aside everything that is important to them, for something else, then that something else means more to them in their heart than all they set aside. Deep down they care less for what they are setting aside, and more for what they focus on. But then this once again returns to the idea of the heart of man deciding his fate concerning salvation.
Mark 12 : 29-33 Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Notice that in this section mention of a man's heart occurs twice in 4 lines.
These are ALL of the passages in Mark which I can find that pertain to salvation. The condition of a man's heart is said repeatedly and at length. Believing in the Gospel, is not associated at all. Neither is belief in a bodily resurrection. I don't think Mark supports the idea that belief in a bodily resurrection is needed for salvation. I also don't think that Mark supports the idea that belief in the Gospel is a requirement for salvation. I think Jesus was really very clear on this subject. I was wrong about just how clear. I stated before that Jesus never directly implied or stated a connection between salvation and the heart. But Obviously, I was wrong. Not only is it implied, it is flat out SAID.
Ok. That was a brief summary of my last incomplete post. On to new material.
Debate 4) The divinity of Jesus.
I wrote extensively about my beliefs in this area and addressed several point you brought up. However, I did not receive much reply. Let me try again.
Moses was never unique. Nor did he perform miracles. Moses was a prophet just like Elijah, Elisha, Daniel, Isaiah, or many others. (maybe Gandhi
) Moses also did not perform miracles. He called upon God and made it clear that it was God, not he who was performing the action.
Mohamed never claimed to be unique either. He claimed to be the last prophet, which by the very definition means he is one of many. He also never performed any miracles at all. He was also never called upon to demonstrate that his message was not fraudulent. Bringing in a new message, without challenge, with no proof is hardly unique or miraculous.
Joseph Smith is in the same boat as Mohamed except that he was challenged, and failed his challenge. He made excuses, not miracles.
None of these men come close to claiming, or presenting the things that Jesus did. HOWEVER, your last sentence struck me as interesting given one of my declared beliefs.
I never said he was a mere man. In fact I said he was the unique chosen one of God. One doesn't have to be identical to God the Father to still be of God and unique. I think we are having an age old debate about the application of the trinity. Allow me to sum up my current thoughts on the matter.
GOD (the father, creator etc) is spirit. He is intangible to physical matter. It is in, through and about everything in the universe (and outside for all I know). Jesus was man but in place of an original soul, he had God's. Two parts, flesh and spirit. Body entirely in and of the world, Spirit entirely of God. The holy spirit is much like God the father. It was always with us. I am not even sure I would give it a separate designation from God the father.
Now . . . does this definition make Jesus divine? I don't know. It all depends on your definition of divinity, which is why I am still undecided.
LOL I just looked at the next section and I just re-quoted myself. Well at least I am consistent.
Granted. I see this as consistent with my view as well. When a spirit is driven out by Jesus, is it his physical finger that does the pushing? It is the muscle which controls the bone to give umph to his shove? No. It is his spirit which overpowered and drove out the spirit beings, or sickness, or mental illness as the situation dictates.
Spirit against spirit. not Flesh against spirit.
The I AM quotes. I was told this one as well until I researched it myself. I need to go home to look it up again, but I remember finding (with great disappointment) that the claims to the same I AM words that were told to Moses was inaccurate. I checked the original Hebrew writings and found that the I used by God in Luke is the same word as Jesus used. But it is also the same word as the OT writers used for I. Apparently it is just the word “I”.
Ah. I think I have determined the issue. You are writing all these as if I meant Jesus was only a man. But clearly this is not what I said because a man implies both man body and man spirit. This is not how I viewed Jesus as I described above. Fully man body, God spirit leading and strengthening. Is this matter cleared up now or do we go over it a different way again?
Other smaller debates
Paul on women. You stated you no longer wish to debate this. Let me know if you change your mind.
Jesus V Paul on Marriage - I conceeded. However, you made a later statement which I totally disagree with . . .
This is not accurate. Jesus says some people ARE eunuch (or missing their male parts). He doesn't say it is better.
Jesus V Paul on condemnation - I conceeded
Book of John - I used it as a reference because you stated that you accepted it. I have always felt that citing a source the opponent accepts was good debating. After all if atheists weren't allowed to cite the bible, we wouldn't be here. Besides, as I said earlier, I like John and I reference it for my own uses. I just don't use it as evidence because its history is questionable.
Ok.
Alright . . .
*another deep breath because I realize that I still have probably 6 hours of writing before I get this post right*
We are having several different debate which are intertwined and dependent upon one another. I will re-organize and address each in turn.
1) Paul's writings being authoritative
I hope you read through the last post and saw just when I hit the revelation which forced me to re-write this entire post. I occurred to me when you wrote
I can understand why you would think this. But this is not the position I have been trying to take. There are two separate sections of Paul's letters. Those dealing with his Gospel teachings and those dealing with material which is not covered by the Gospels.Again, you're implying that because Paul had to interpret secondary issues not addressed by Jesus that Paul therefore must have altered Jesus' gospel as well. Notice that your argument can't get away from implying that Paul preached a different gospel. So far you have not produced EVIDENCE that Paul's gospel was differnt.
I said in the last post that I had no problem with Paul's Gospel, but that his message was different. I still hold to this but perhaps I can explain it differently. Paul was in the process of planting churches. For this to occur he had to cover many subjects, and a great number of them were not directly covered by the Gospels. Therefore, he had to insert his opinion on the matter. It is some of these opinions which I take issue with. Not his Gospel message.
Example: Paul is obsessed with proper traditions. When I cited his opinion of women having to be silent, you came back with another example that the men shouldn't cover their heads when praying. Jesus on the other hand seems to be dead set against traditions of men. He indicates that traditions of men will interfere with true communion with God.
Paul writes
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
2I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings,[a] just as I passed them on to you.
[a] # 1 Corinthians 11:2 Or traditions
But Jesus . . .18Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons. 22Are we trying to arouse the Lord's jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,'[d] and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[e] 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
Jesus Questioned About Fasting
14Then John's disciples came and asked him, "How is it that we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?"
15Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.
3He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that one[a] greater than the temple is here. 7If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
9Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"
11He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
Jesus seems to be much more concerned with closeness to God and doing right than traditions. In Mark he comes right out and says that men's traditions get in the way of God and his work.
Now, I think that this is an example of Paul and Jesus disagreeing. However, I don' think that it means Paul's GOSPEL was incorrect. It means that Paul was including opinion above and beyond what the Gospel said. And in this case, I think that the opinion was incorrect and not in line with Jesus opinion on the subject.
I think there are other examples of Paul and Jesus disagreeing about details (like women . . . I will get to this later) but this doesn't necessarily mean that his Gospel was off. But it does carry with it great significance. Because since Paul HAD to include opinions on matters which went above and beyond the scope of the Gospel, this means his writings are not all Gospel backed. He has opinions of his own in his writings. And hence, I can not accept his writings as equally authoritative.
Perhaps I am having some trouble with this discussion simply because we are never given word for word what Gospel Paul preaches. I think you and I may be having extra issues because what you think is included in his Gospel I think is his opinion. The catalyst for this debate is a perfect example. You state that bodily resurrection is required for salvation because Paul writes it. I say it isn't because the idea is not in the Gospel. But you say it is in the Gospel.
This is an obvious disconnect about what exactly is Paul's Gospel. Now, of course we could start a whole separate debate about what Paul's gospel included, but that could easily double or triple the size of our posts. Perhaps just the understanding that what you think is included in his Gospel is not necessarily what I think is included in his gospel, and what you think is opinion, may not be what I think is opinion.
I have a feeling that you attribute a LOT more of his writings to his Gospel preaching, where I attribute a LOT more to his opinions.
Now you wrote
I'm sorry, that's not a valid reason to reject Paul as authoritative - because "he was forced to insert his own opinions to deal with the issues his churches faced." All you are really saying is, "I don't agree with Paul's opinion on matters of church life therefore I reject him as authoritative." That's not a methodology, that's your opinion about Paul's opinions. What you need to do is demonstrate that each of what you think is merely Paul's opinions ran counter to Jesus. I don't think you've even come close to doing that.
I disagree. There doesn't need to be any contention between Jesus and Paul. If Paul is writing his opinion, and you are taking his opinion as authoritative, are you saying that anything Paul says carries as much weight as what Jesus himself said?
This is an interesting position indeed because it would lend support to the idea of Paul inventing Christianity based on a few ideas that Jesus put forth. A LOT of the traditions in Christianity trace back to Paul and his writings. However, not nearly as many are found in the words attributed to Jesus.
This position is of course WHY I believe that most of his writings are not part of his Gospel and are rather simply his opinions.
So is your position here that anything Paul says is as authoritative and correct as what Jesus himself said?
Ok debate 2
2) Did the Gospel writers include opinions or interpretations in their writings? I still say no. Perhaps a definition is in order. I define interpreted as "Being given meaning or implications for specific situations or understandings."
It implies an on-the-spot and absolutely 100% accurate recording (like having a video camera) of the events with absolutely no personality or view point interwoven into it - as though they were written with a completely objective perspective. I just don't see how one can read the Gospels and say that. It is obvious to even the most undiscerning reader that the writers of the Gospels had their own viewpoints, interpretations, and personalities woven into their respective works. Each writer chooses to add and omit certain events and some times has different wording for the same event or quote at some point. This alone shows an interpretation.
I agree with much of what you wrote here. Each man did have his own views, beliefs, etc. Each one did write in a different manner and to different audiences. However, I disagree that this has anything to do with interpreting what they wrote. I will admit that the style does give the writing flavors. Matthew for example writes just like a tax collector. His writings are organized by theme and idea. Mark writings are nothing more than a brief over view. Luke seems to write in as great of detail as he could manage while still keeping things concise. But, this doesn't mean that any of these men input their own interpretations or understandings into their writings.
Consider an analogy. Two men write an account of the battle of the bulge. One is a historian, the other is a soldier at the battle. The soldiers account will certainly contain his own styles. And his writings will certainly be for a specific audience. But his rendition of events would remain about the same because he was simply reciting what he saw and experienced. On the other hand, the historian would have a the ability to insert MEANING into the events of the battle. He could write about how he felt things went. What went right or wrong. What should have been done differently. What this battle meant for the war. Agreeing or disagreeing with the decisions of the commanders as it pertained to the total strategy of the war. Basically, the historian would be able to insert his opinions about the meaning or impact of events, while the soldier would simply be able to recite the events as they occurred.
This is the difference between the style of writings that the Gospels take, and Paul's writings. On is simply a rendition of events. The other includes what the events ultimately mean.
So when you conclude that the Gospel writers inserted their own interpretations, I must disagree. They inserted their own experiences, styles, and audiences yes. But not any form of meaning or interpretations.
I think what you are trying to say is the genre of the writing makes it either authoritative or not. The Gospels are a type of biography and Paul's letter are just that, letters. Biographies are supposed to be more impartial and record only the facts, therefore they are more trustworthy and should carry more authority.
Yes. This is a fair summary of my position.
But is this sole criterion a good one to determine what should be authoritative or not? One could write a biography of Hitler and make him sound like a great leader by adding or omitting events or choice of wording.
You would have to omit HUGE parts of the repercussions of Hitler's reign. Also, you would need to make sure that everyone else omitted these huge sections. For your analogy to work (which it could) you would basically need to falsify your record of events. Since biographies are supposed to be complete (or at the very least fairly complete) this simply wouldn't work with Hitler.
That would be the result of the interpretation of the writer that was witting the story. So to say that a biography (or the Gospels) are "documentaries" with out personalities and therefore unbiased is clearly wrong. The gospels ARE biased and they should be. They are written by believers who are proclaiming the Good News. They do contain interpretations.
I think you are confusing my position again here. I never said that the Gospels weren’t biased. I never said they weren’t slanted. I just said that they weren’t interpreted.
The key is meaning. What was the meaning behind Jesus healing the sick? What was the meaning behind Jesus death? What was the meaning behind his miracles, parables, etc.
Here is a perfect example. Jesus gives them the parable about the bread of the Pharisees. They didn't understand so Jesus explained it to them. Jesus gave the parable meaning. However, Jesus did not explain the salt and light parable. And the meaning of this parable is being debated 2000 years later.
You see the author who recorded the Salt and light parable did not insert any meaning with this event. He just recorded it as it was. When Jesus gave meaning to other parables, he recorded that event too. But the author himself never gave any meaning to anything he recorded.
You provide another example of this...
BTW, are you trying to tell me the Gospels are not meant to instruct us nor do not contain instruction? You can't seriously be saying that. They are full of instruction. I gave you one of many examples with Matthew ch 18.
No. I did not say the Gospels do not provide instruction. But just like Jesus explaining one parable and not the other, the instruction in the Gospel is RECORDED (key word) by the author. It is not GIVEN by the author. Since the author did not give this instruction, it was not his instruction and therefore not his opinion. I am perfectly find with being given Jesus opinion on things. But when I must weigh Jesus opinion vs Paul's opinion, I will side with Jesus every time.
I say the Gospels are not interpreted by the authors. I never said they were not biased, slanted, or written with opinionated men. I simply said they were not interpreted or given meaning by the authors. Paul's letters on the other hand are nothing but giving meaning. He does nothing but express his opinions about subjects. Granted most of the time his opinions are right. But because they are opinions, I will not give them the same precedence as writings with out inserted opinions.
On to debate 3
3) Matters of salvation.
You wrote:
I disagree that belief in the Rez is not implied. I'll illustrate using Mark which is thought to based on Peter's preaching (cf. Acts 2:14-39).
Mark 1:1 This is the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Mark opens by telling his readers that the story they are about to read IS the gospel (good news). In other words, Jesus (or the story of Jesus' life) IS the gospel.
Mark 1:15 He[Jesus] said, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is near! Repent, and keep believing in the gospel!"
Mark tells his readers that Jesus said to repent and keep believing in the Gospel. In other words keep believing in Jesus' story which is who He is and what He does/did. We are instructed to repent and believe in the Gospel (Jesus).
If we could boil down Mark's Gospel to key events or ideas, what would they be? In my opinion they would be, but not limited to:
Jesus is the Son of God
Jesus is the Christ
Jesus performed miracles
Jesus died on the cross
Jesus rose (even with out the later addition of Mark 16:9ff we have a resurrection)
This was the message of Jesus: repent and believe the gospel - that is Christ's story - which is who He is and what He did for us. The gospel includes, then, the resurrection as it was written after the fact. It's part of the package.
Ok for clarification, I understand you have written here that Jesus instructed everyone to believe in the Gospel message. I would agree that he did instruct those around him to do this. But I do not agree with the leap you make when you suggest that this indicates that belief in the Gospel equates to salvation. If fact I don't see that belief in the Gospel has anything to do with salvation other than the fact that the Gospel message includes portions of it which DO discuss salvation.
If Jesus had said, "Keep believing in the Gospel, and receive eternal life." Then you would have a case. But he stops at "Keep believing in the good news." Now, belief in the good news is in itself a good and smart thing to do. People's lives are given hope, purpose and direction by believing in the Gospels. Jesus said I have come to give life, and give it more abundantly." This is (from what I have observed) exactly what happens when someone trusts in and believes and lives by the teachings of the Gospels. Their lives are improved.
But having a more abundant life is not equivalent to salvation. And saying believe in the good news, is not the same as believe in the good news, and salvation will come from it. This is a jump that you make here, and I don't think it is there.
Something else to consider with your line of thinking here is that it necessitates that total belief in the gospels is required for salvation. But there are clearly differences between the Gospel accounts. So which gospel should be observed? Furthermore, what if someone does not believe in one part of a gospel, but does in another. For example, Matthew records people being raised from the graves and walking around after Jesus death. But this event is not recorded in ANY other Gospel.
Now by your thinking, if someone does not believe this part of Matthew, then they are not accepting the whole Gospel and are therefore not saved. After all why should they reject this part and be saved, but rejecting the next paragraph will result in condemnation if believing the whole Gospel is required for salvation.
So I do not think that salvation is based on accepting all of the Gospel. I think that it is a wise thing to do, but as a requirement for salvation, I just don't see it.
You go on to use my quote in Luke. But then you cite this as Mark. While this is a simple oops, it did give me reason to go through all of Mark and read everything concerning salvation. Here is what I found.
Mark 7 : 18-23 A man's heart must be clean
Mark 8 : 34-38 A man must not be ashamed of Jesus or his teachings
Mark 8 : 34-38 A man must follow Jesus (I take this to mean a man must adhere to his teachings)
Mark 10 : 14-15 A man must approach God like a little child (I take this to mean with child like innocence, which again would require a pure, clean, innocent heart or nature)
Mark 10 : 17-30 Now this passage can be read two ways. Literally it means that anyone who sells off all his stuff and follows the teachings of Jesus will be saved. I think that literally this can be true. But I also think it can be read as a parable type teaching, using symbolism. Selling off everything, taken symbolically could easily be read as giving up everything else that was important to them, and setting it all aside. Now if someone sets aside everything that is important to them, for something else, then that something else means more to them in their heart than all they set aside. Deep down they care less for what they are setting aside, and more for what they focus on. But then this once again returns to the idea of the heart of man deciding his fate concerning salvation.
Mark 12 : 29-33 Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Notice that in this section mention of a man's heart occurs twice in 4 lines.
These are ALL of the passages in Mark which I can find that pertain to salvation. The condition of a man's heart is said repeatedly and at length. Believing in the Gospel, is not associated at all. Neither is belief in a bodily resurrection. I don't think Mark supports the idea that belief in a bodily resurrection is needed for salvation. I also don't think that Mark supports the idea that belief in the Gospel is a requirement for salvation. I think Jesus was really very clear on this subject. I was wrong about just how clear. I stated before that Jesus never directly implied or stated a connection between salvation and the heart. But Obviously, I was wrong. Not only is it implied, it is flat out SAID.
Ok. That was a brief summary of my last incomplete post. On to new material.
Debate 4) The divinity of Jesus.
Actually you said:achilles12604 wrote:
Fully man body, God spirit leading and strengthening.
But I've probably misunderstood, my apologies. How is this different than the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? If it's indwelling, it's part of me. If I have the indwelling of the Sprit and it is part of me and I work miracles through God that makes me the same as Jesus. I can become equal to Jesus in uniqueness. Or is Jesus the same as Benny Hinn and me?
I wrote extensively about my beliefs in this area and addressed several point you brought up. However, I did not receive much reply. Let me try again.
You just described Moses, Mohamed, and Joseph Smith. If your criteria were all it took it wouldn't make Jesus the messenger unnecessary, but it would make his sacrifice and resurrection unnecessary. Why aren't you a Jew or Muslim or a Mormon?
Moses was never unique. Nor did he perform miracles. Moses was a prophet just like Elijah, Elisha, Daniel, Isaiah, or many others. (maybe Gandhi
) Moses also did not perform miracles. He called upon God and made it clear that it was God, not he who was performing the action. Mohamed never claimed to be unique either. He claimed to be the last prophet, which by the very definition means he is one of many. He also never performed any miracles at all. He was also never called upon to demonstrate that his message was not fraudulent. Bringing in a new message, without challenge, with no proof is hardly unique or miraculous.
Joseph Smith is in the same boat as Mohamed except that he was challenged, and failed his challenge. He made excuses, not miracles.
None of these men come close to claiming, or presenting the things that Jesus did. HOWEVER, your last sentence struck me as interesting given one of my declared beliefs.
I accept that God inspired other great men of different faiths like Gandhi
How is Jesus' sacrifice any more significant than a soldier that dies on the battlefield if Jesus was just a man selected by God to deliver a message and die for our sins? The significance is that Jesus was God's son. Only a sacrifice of God's son could handle the task of bearing all of mankind's sin. In your view on salvation you said this:achilles12604 wrote:
...While in hell our sins burned away but Jesus spirit of God did not because it was not corrupted. When the sin had been destroyed, nothing was left to keep Jesus in hell, and he was able to once again enter the presence of his father. He rose and is seated at the right hand of the father.
Now try to reconcile a mere man selected by God that could accomplish this supernatural feet, then ascend to the right hand of the Father.
I never said he was a mere man. In fact I said he was the unique chosen one of God. One doesn't have to be identical to God the Father to still be of God and unique. I think we are having an age old debate about the application of the trinity. Allow me to sum up my current thoughts on the matter.
GOD (the father, creator etc) is spirit. He is intangible to physical matter. It is in, through and about everything in the universe (and outside for all I know). Jesus was man but in place of an original soul, he had God's. Two parts, flesh and spirit. Body entirely in and of the world, Spirit entirely of God. The holy spirit is much like God the father. It was always with us. I am not even sure I would give it a separate designation from God the father.
Now . . . does this definition make Jesus divine? I don't know. It all depends on your definition of divinity, which is why I am still undecided.
LOL I just looked at the next section and I just re-quoted myself. Well at least I am consistent.
But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." Then he said to the paralyzed man, "I say to you, get up, pick up your cot, and go home!" (ISV)
Why would Mark lead us to believe that only God has the authority to forgive sins then place Jesus in the situation of having the authority to forgive sin? What is Mark trying to tell us here?
Granted. I see this as consistent with my view as well. When a spirit is driven out by Jesus, is it his physical finger that does the pushing? It is the muscle which controls the bone to give umph to his shove? No. It is his spirit which overpowered and drove out the spirit beings, or sickness, or mental illness as the situation dictates.
Spirit against spirit. not Flesh against spirit.
Mark 6:48-50 He saw that they were straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. Shortly before dawn he came to them, walking on the sea. He intended to go up right beside them, but when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost and began to scream. All of them saw him and were terrified. Immediately he said to them, "Have courage! It is I. Stop being afraid!"
An argument can be made here that the Greek word Mark uses here for "I" is the same word used by John 8:58.
Mark 9:7 Then a cloud appeared and overshadowed them. A voice came out of the cloud and said, "This is my Son, whom I love. Keep on listening to him!" Suddenly, as they looked around, they saw no one with them but Jesus alone.
Is Mark telling us that Jesus was just a man or God's son?
The I AM quotes. I was told this one as well until I researched it myself. I need to go home to look it up again, but I remember finding (with great disappointment) that the claims to the same I AM words that were told to Moses was inaccurate. I checked the original Hebrew writings and found that the I used by God in Luke is the same word as Jesus used. But it is also the same word as the OT writers used for I. Apparently it is just the word “I”.
Mark tells us that Jesus believed people could work a miracle in his name. But if Jesus was only a messenger why would he think people could work miracles in his name? Jesus should have said worked miracles in the name of "God" if his self concept was only that of a man that was a chosen messenger. Apparently Mark wants us to think that Jesus believed he had similar powers to God.
Ah. I think I have determined the issue. You are writing all these as if I meant Jesus was only a man. But clearly this is not what I said because a man implies both man body and man spirit. This is not how I viewed Jesus as I described above. Fully man body, God spirit leading and strengthening. Is this matter cleared up now or do we go over it a different way again?
Other smaller debates
Paul on women. You stated you no longer wish to debate this. Let me know if you change your mind.
Jesus V Paul on Marriage - I conceeded. However, you made a later statement which I totally disagree with . . .
Jesus says it's better to be a eunuch (or unmarried). Ouch!
This is not accurate. Jesus says some people ARE eunuch (or missing their male parts). He doesn't say it is better.
Jesus says some people are. Paul says it is better to be.12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[a]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
Jesus V Paul on condemnation - I conceeded
Book of John - I used it as a reference because you stated that you accepted it. I have always felt that citing a source the opponent accepts was good debating. After all if atheists weren't allowed to cite the bible, we wouldn't be here. Besides, as I said earlier, I like John and I reference it for my own uses. I just don't use it as evidence because its history is questionable.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.
-
achilles12604
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3697
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
- Location: Colorado
Post #33
Mmmmm . . . sourkraut . . .Salt Agent wrote:Greetings,
I have to say this is probably one of the best threads i have seen anywhere on the entire site. Grace and peace from your Scots Irish American brother in Poland. I am a rookie, so i haven't got all the bugs worked out of the quote system. First of all, i consider both goose and achilles as brothers, and ones i deeply respect. If you were in my city, we could go to Pizza Hut, or Pierogi World and have great time.
I say this with grace and peace-- I have to say Goose is on track here. I see three major points, but not enough to say you are not a brother, and there are some other hiccups that are more problematic and they would make for some good posts. The other ones amount to why Batman is better than Superman, but are fun to toss around over a Big Mac or sourkraut.
Welcome Salty. Mind if I call you salty? I look forward to your insights. Goose has convinced me of two false ideas I was holding. Maybe you can bring me back into full traditional views. . .
This is interesting. I don't agree that it was the resurrection which grants salvation. I think it was the DEATH. And I think Paul actually agrees with me on this one.1. The resurrection of Christ is not only linked to salvation, but it is the most central issue to Christianity. Without this, the entire message of Christ crumbles, and it makes scripture to be totally unreliable. Without the resurrection, Christ becomes another dead religious leader, and Salvation becomes no more meaningful than Buddhism.
The way this reads to me, eternal life and being raised in Christ is the RESULT from Christ's death. Therefore the difference occured with the death, not the rising. The rising is the result or outcome of the death. Therefore, wouldn't it be his attoning death or substituting himself for our sin, leaving us clean which allows us to enter salvation?1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
Most people I have talked to have said that the resurrection proves that Jesus was right and Buddha was wrong (which of course is a whole seperate issue which Goose and I have not even scratched yet). But doesn't this spell out the reason for the resurrection; proof? I think that there is enough proof for Jesus even without the resurrection, but perhaps not for others. So it is a good thing that he did rise. and offered this proof. But, for the purposes of salvation alone, not proof of it, doesn't the cleansing stop with the death? Jesus died. We are clean right?
Ah, but one slippery slope leads to another. If these 66 books are inspired and the direct word of God, Why not the additional books the Catholics believe? Why not accept 1 or 2 Enoch? The Apocalypse of Adam or Baruch? The Psalms of Solomon or the Assumption of Moses?2. All Scripture as Inspired -God breathed. Christ stated that the words of Moses were equal with His own. [We are talking about the cannon of Scripture, 66 books, not apocrypha] Of course we don't take everything literally, --Proverbs, parrables, and apocalyptic literature, but when you start saying that the Gospels are authoritative, but the Pauline epistles are not, you are on a slippery slope, and then there is no basis for accepting anything. The issue of whether John the apostle was the author of John is really a red Herring. There is evidence to support the idea that it was not he, but for the sake of discussion, let's say it was not John the beloved, but another John who knew Jesus personally. Did you ever know two Chris' in the same class, or have two Bobs at work? Doesn't prove his eye witness account to be false, and the larger point is that it is included in the cannon.
For the NT, why not accept the Gospel of Thomas? Mary? The writings of Justin Martyr?
You see we must decide what is authoritative based on facts. I just happen to reject more than others for additional reasons. This doesn't mean that I reject all the content or value of the other documents. But I reject their authority.
As I said I have no issue with using the writings as "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness". However, when differences occur, there must be a hierarchy. And when something differs from the Gospels, I give preference to the Gospel accounts.2 Timothy 3:14-16 (New American Standard Bible)
Copyright © 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
14You, however, (A)continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
15and that from childhood you have known (C)the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16(G)All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
Cross references:
2 Timothy 3:15
2 Timothy 3:15 : John 5:47; Rom 2:27
Luke 16: 29-31**
29"But Abraham said, 'They have (A)Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'
31"But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"
John 5:45-48
45"Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope.
46"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.
47"But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"
John the Baptist wasn't unique. Jesus even didn't claim that he was unique. observe . . .3. Deity of Christ. Christ claimed he was God This is verified and supported not only by Paul and the Gospel writers, but prophecied in the Old Testament. It was ultimately the reason the Jews killed him, was that He claimed to be God. He claimed to forgive sins, and every Jew in Christ's day knew only God could forgive sins.
Achilles wrote:What would the differences be between someone being Divine and someone who was unique, blessed chosen by God to deliver his message and to perform miracles by His Spirit? This is John the Baptist. He did all these things, was unique, chosen by God, and blessed and performed miracles, but he was not sinless, nor did he claim to be God.
Jesus and John the Baptist
1After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee.[a]
2When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples 3to ask him, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?"
4Jesus replied, "Go back and report to John what you hear and see: 5The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosyare cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. 6Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me."
7As John's disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: "What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind? 8If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings' palaces. 9Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 10This is the one about whom it is written:
" 'I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way before you.'[c] 11I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. 13For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15He who has ears, let him hear.
16"To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:
17" 'We played the flute for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge
and you did not mourn.' 18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."
Jesus hands out tremendous praise for John. He declares him a great prophet. Even the greatest of the prophets. But not unique. He is compared to those he was like . . . the great Prophets. Moses, Elijah and John. Not unique. Not the one called by God as his son. We can see that Jesus is far different simply by observing John meeting Jesus. He is shocked and appalled at the tought of baptising Jesus because he knows how far below Jesus he really is.
No. John is not unique.
John did not perform Miracles. I am not sure where this claim came from. Care to elaborate?
Yes John is similar to Jesus. But only as similar as a soldier is to his general. Jesus performed miracles, John did not. Jesus was called by God as his son. No John was not. The differences can go on and on. Suffice to say, Jesus is unique, chosen by God, performed miracles, etc. So I still say that until someone can emulate Jesus and his attributes, he will always stand apart, even without being God himself.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.
-
Salt Agent
- Apprentice
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:36 pm
- Location: Poland, Central Europe
Post #34
Greetings. Just to clarify. "The Gospel"- means Good News, and is the plan of Salvation, summarized in John 3:14-16, and the Romans Road to Salvation, and the Four Spiritual laws, etc. the gospels are traditionally and historically understood as the first four books of the NT.** Matthew, Mark, Luke and John**. When we speak in terms of Paul's gospel, it is the same gospel message of salvation by grace though faith, not any books or writings. These are the Pauline Epistles -- all the books written by Paul, which comprise the bulk of the New Test.achilles wrote:The Gospels are not written as instruction. They are written as documentary. This style of writing has a much different reason behind it. It is not meant to instruct in any way. The gospels were meant to be recordings of what transpired. Nothing more. No opinions. No editorials. Just simply what happened.
B) Now because they are not written for the same reasons, they each have they own level of interpretations. You stated that the Gospels are simply the disciples interpretations of events. This is not quite true because the disciples don't offer their personal explanations of events. They only LIST what occurred. They don't offer to expound, explain, interpret, or otherwise add to the simple rendition of events. And THAT is the main difference why the Gospels are not subject to interpretation, while Paul's letters are. Paul's letters are supposed to be interpretations because they are his take on what SHOULD be done. The Gospels offer nothing in the way of explanation, or interpretation. They are simply observations of a series of events.
Now because Paul includes his own interpretations of what SHOULD be, where the Gospel writers only write what occurred in topographical or chronological or whatever order, I can not place Paul's letters at the same level of purity as the Gospels.
For the sake of brevity, i mentioned three points that Goose and others have commented on. I will again mention them but only comment on one at a time, so others can chime in and/or you can clarify.
1. Belief in the physical resurrection as necessary for Salvation, and taught by Christ, and Paul, though not explicitly stated.
2. Belief in the entire Bible as Scripture, and that all Scripture is inspired of God- literally God Breathed, and innerant. -- this of course does not mean that every chapter or story is to be taken literally, but that it is all equal in terms of its authority and authenticy.
3. Belief in the deity of Christ. Jesus is not just chosen and unique. He is God incarnate, sinless, and that not only did His followers believe this, the Jews of the day clearly understood Him to be making this claim, and that He claimed to be God, and predicted his own resurrection.
I think first and foremost, there may be a hiccup relating to your view of Paul's letters and the Gospels because of the belief that the Gospels are not meant to instruct.
"The Gospels are not written as instruction." This is incorrect. You are correct that the writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and some other guy, do not give their own opinions, commentary, or instruction, Jesus does. Case in point is the sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5-7 also known as the Beattitudes. Also many of the parrables are meant to teach spiritual truths. Many of the foundational core doctrines of Christianity are taught in the gospels, from the Virgin Birth, to the Trinity, to the Deity of Christ to his physical resurrection.
The Deity of Christ is explicitly stated in John chap 1.
The Virgin Birth is taught in Luke and Matthew.
"Some Other Guy"** clearly prepared and proclaimed Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah. John chap 20:30,31.
Another classic example is the Model Prayer, where the disciples specifically asked Christ to teach them to pray, and Christ did. Luke 11: 1-4, and Matt 6:9-13.
Christ also very clearly and specifically taught about not praying like the Pharisees, who desired to be seen of men, but then gave further instruction on how to pray.
Christ also taught specifically about fasting, and gave instructions not only about its importance, but principles that were in contrast to the religious leaders of the day.
** I understand that you and others have some doubts that the authorship of John is questioned. The question is really about whether this guy named John was the apostle John the Beloved, not whether his account is true.
Again, this is like two Chris' in the same class at school, or three Daves at the same office, It doesn't change or negate the fact that this John knew Christ and his disciples and was a personal eye witness, nor does it in any way discredit or invalidate his witness.
There were also two Judas mentioned in the Gospels, and to clarify this point, some passages even say "Judas -not Iscariot".
Did the Gospel writers give their own personal interpretations, or give instructions for young pastors or to be circulated in churches-- no, but their Gospels are filled with instruction and doctrine which is affirmed by Paul and other New Testament writers and much of which is the cornerstone for the pillars of Christianity.
The resurrection is not what saves us, per se, but it is crucial because it is inseparable from the Deity of Christ. What makes Christ God is not only that He was sinless, but that He claimed to forgive sins, and He predicted that He would physically rise from the dead. Separate the deity of Christ from the physical resurrection and all of Christianity crumbles -- it would mean that he was just a man, and a liar.
-
achilles12604
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3697
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
- Location: Colorado
Post #35
Salt Agent wrote: For the sake of brevity, i mentioned three points that Goose and others have commented on. I will again mention them but only comment on one at a time, so others can chime in and/or you can clarify.
1. Belief in the physical resurrection as necessary for Salvation, and taught by Christ, and Paul, though not explicitly stated.
2. Belief in the entire Bible as Scripture, and that all Scripture is inspired of God- literally God Breathed, and innerant. -- this of course does not mean that every chapter or story is to be taken literally, but that it is all equal in terms of its authority and authenticy.
3. Belief in the deity of Christ. Jesus is not just chosen and unique. He is God incarnate, sinless, and that not only did His followers believe this, the Jews of the day clearly understood Him to be making this claim, and that He claimed to be God, and predicted his own resurrection.
I think first and foremost, there may be a hiccup relating to your view of Paul's letters and the Gospels because of the belief that the Gospels are not meant to instruct.
"The Gospels are not written as instruction." This is incorrect. You are correct that the writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and some other guy, do not give their own opinions, commentary, or instruction, Jesus does. Case in point is the sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5-7 also known as the Beattitudes. Also many of the parrables are meant to teach spiritual truths. Many of the foundational core doctrines of Christianity are taught in the gospels, from the Virgin Birth, to the Trinity, to the Deity of Christ to his physical resurrection.
You are of course correct. My eloquence is an area which needs a lot of help. What I should have written is that the authors of the Gospels did not seek to offer their interpretations of events and thereby teach the meaning of the events. The Gospels themselves are full of instructions, but as I said to Goose, these instructions are from Jesus and I have no issue with this because recording someone else's instructions is not the same thing as offering your own views.Did the Gospel writers give their own personal interpretations, or give instructions for young pastors or to be circulated in churches-- no, but their Gospels are filled with instruction and doctrine which is affirmed by Paul and other New Testament writers and much of which is the cornerstone for the pillars of Christianity.
Thank you for allowing me this clarification.
I am a little confused here. Are you saying that christ teaching us how to pray is evidence of his deity? If so, I would certainly have to argue this point with you.The Deity of Christ is explicitly stated in John chap 1.
The Virgin Birth is taught in Luke and Matthew.
"Some Other Guy"** clearly prepared and proclaimed Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah. John chap 20:30,31.
Another classic example is the Model Prayer, where the disciples specifically asked Christ to teach them to pray, and Christ did. Luke 11: 1-4, and Matt 6:9-13.
Christ also very clearly and specifically taught about not praying like the Pharisees, who desired to be seen of men, but then gave further instruction on how to pray.
Christ also taught specifically about fasting, and gave instructions not only about its importance, but principles that were in contrast to the religious leaders of the day.
But this aside, I still left you a question. What would the differences be between someone being Divine and someone who was unique, blessed, chosen by God to deliver his message and to perform miracles by His Spirit?
You said that I described John the Baptist. But I pointed out several problems with this idea. So either my question still stands, or my points concerning John need to be addressed.
But you see, if it wasn't John the apostle but was actually in fact John the Elder, then it was not written by an eye witness. This is a major issue to be decided.** I understand that you and others have some doubts that the authorship of John is questioned. The question is really about whether this guy named John was the apostle John the Beloved, not whether his account is true.
Again, this is like two Chris' in the same class at school, or three Daves at the same office, It doesn't change or negate the fact that this John knew Christ and his disciples and was a personal eye witness, nor does it in any way discredit or invalidate his witness.
The resurrection is not what saves us, per se, but it is crucial because it is inseparable from the Deity of Christ. What makes Christ God is not only that He was sinless, but that He claimed to forgive sins, and He predicted that He would physically rise from the dead. Separate the deity of Christ from the physical resurrection and all of Christianity crumbles -- it would mean that he was just a man, and a liar.
I don't see how it would make him a liar, especially if he never claimed to be God himself. You see claiming to be the Son of God, is not the same as claiming to be God. Claiming to have the authority to forgive sins is perfectly fine if he was doing so with the spirit of God the father.
I think were we are having a disconnect is with my definitions. I have not claimed that Jesus was just a normal man. I have said he was a regular man, with God's soul or spirit. This difference is signficant. It accounts for Jesus being entitled to forgive sin, and perform miracles, and other such "God" oriented stuff. But just because he had the spirit of God within him and guiding him doesn't mean he was God the Father incarnet. Nor does it make him a liar for what he said and did.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.
-
Salt Agent
- Apprentice
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:36 pm
- Location: Poland, Central Europe
Post #36
1. Belief in the physical resurrection as necessary for Salvation, and taught by Christ, and Paul, though not explicitly stated.
2. Belief in the entire Bible as Scripture, and that all Scripture is inspired of God- literally God Breathed, and innerant. -- this of course does not mean that every chapter or story is to be taken literally, but that it is all equal in terms of its authority and authenticy.
3. Belief in the deity of Christ. Jesus is not just chosen and unique. He is God incarnate, sinless, and that not only did His followers believe this, the Jews of the day clearly understood Him to be making this claim, and that He claimed to be God, and predicted his own resurrection. [/quote]
Thank you for allowing me this clarification.
The hardest thing about being a member of the Usergroup, is that sometimes we get the chance to prove it. I made a mistake about John doing miracles. Don't know where that came from. Let the court note that Salt Agent acknowledged his error and let the jury disregard the statement that John worked miracles. 
See my quote above. Ok, so this was John the Boatmaker, or John Sailmaker. We don't know his last name, but many things are clear.
He shares eyewitness accounts and testimony that also are validated by the Three other gospel accounts.
He clearly not only knew Christ very well, but that he also knew the apostles by name, and witnessed some of the same events with them.
He clearly establishes the Deity of Christ.
Regardless of his last name, - his account is included in the Cannon of scripture, and he lists/records prophecies about the Messiah that were fulfilled, and the Gospel message contained in the book of John Boatmaker* is the same Gospel message proclaimed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, and the Pastoral Epistles.
His writing is still inspired, and have the same authority and authenticity as the words of Paul or Christ.
Also, John certainly was unique -- one of a kind, unusual, not typical. He was filled with the Holy Spirit from Birth. The Bible does not make this claim about anyone.
Claiming to have the authority to forgive sins is perfectly fine if he was doing so with the spirit of God the father. Only God has the power to forgive sins. Even the disciples who raised the dead by the Spirit of God, could not forgive sins. He also explicitly stated that He and the Father are one.
Also, he said that He would raise from the dead. Anyone can make this claim, but his resurrection proved his deity.
http://www.gotquestions.org/is-Jesus-God.html
Question: "Is Jesus God? Did Jesus ever claim to be God?"
Answer: Jesus is never recorded in the Bible as saying the exact words, “I am God.” That does not mean, however, that He did not proclaim that He is God. Take for example Jesus’ words in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” At first glance, this might not seem to be a claim to be God. However, look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement, “We are not stoning you for any of these, replied the Jews, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). The Jews understood Jesus’ statement to be a claim to be God. In the following verses, Jesus never corrects the Jews by saying, “I did not claim to be God.” That indicates Jesus was truly saying He was God by declaring, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). John 8:58 is another example. Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!" Again, in response, the Jews take up stones in an attempt to stone Jesus (John 8:59). Why would the Jews want to stone Jesus if He hadn’t said something they believed to be blasphemous, namely, a claim to be God?
John 1:1 says that “the Word was God.” John 1:14 says that “the Word became flesh.” This clearly indicates that Jesus is God in the flesh. Acts 20:28 tells us, "...Be shepherds of the church of God, which He bought with His own blood." Who bought the church with His own blood? Jesus Christ. Acts 20:28 declares that God purchased the church with His own blood. Therefore, Jesus is God!
Thomas the disciple declared concerning Jesus, “Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Jesus does not correct him. Titus 2:13 encourages us to wait for the coming of our God and Savior - Jesus Christ (see also 2 Peter 1:1). In Hebrews 1:8, the Father declares of Jesus, "But about the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom."
Again, no man could forgive sins -- only God. The point is that Christ did claim to be God and the Jews understood this claim, as did his disciples. Paul also confirms his deity.
2. Belief in the entire Bible as Scripture, and that all Scripture is inspired of God- literally God Breathed, and innerant. -- this of course does not mean that every chapter or story is to be taken literally, but that it is all equal in terms of its authority and authenticy.
3. Belief in the deity of Christ. Jesus is not just chosen and unique. He is God incarnate, sinless, and that not only did His followers believe this, the Jews of the day clearly understood Him to be making this claim, and that He claimed to be God, and predicted his own resurrection. [/quote]
I think first and foremost, there may be a hiccup relating to your view of Paul's letters and the Gospels because of the belief that the Gospels are not meant to instruct.
"The Gospels are not written as instruction." This is incorrect. You are correct that the writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and some other guy, do not give their own opinions, commentary, or instruction, Jesus does. Case in point is the sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5-7 also known as the Beattitudes. Also many of the parrables are meant to teach spiritual truths. Many of the foundational core doctrines of Christianity are taught in the gospels, from the Virgin Birth, to the Trinity, to the Deity of Christ to his physical resurrection.
You are of course correct. My eloquence is an area which needs a lot of help. What I should have written is that the authors of the Gospels did not seek to offer their interpretations of events and thereby teach the meaning of the events. The Gospels themselves are full of instructions, but as I said to Goose, these instructions are from Jesus and I have no issue with this because recording someone else's instructions is not the same thing as offering your own views.Did the Gospel writers give their own personal interpretations, or give instructions for young pastors or to be circulated in churches-- no, but their Gospels are filled with instruction and doctrine which is affirmed by Paul and other New Testament writers and much of which is the cornerstone for the pillars of Christianity.
Thank you for allowing me this clarification.
The Deity of Christ is explicitly stated in John chap 1.
The Virgin Birth is taught in Luke and Matthew.
"Some Other Guy"** clearly prepared and proclaimed Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah. John chap 20:30,31.
Another classic example is the Model Prayer, where the disciples specifically asked Christ to teach them to pray, and Christ did. Luke 11: 1-4, and Matt 6:9-13.
Christ also very clearly and specifically taught about not praying like the Pharisees, who desired to be seen of men, but then gave further instruction on how to pray.
My point there was as you understood it --simply that the Gospels are full of instruction, and also that the eyewitness of these Gospels confirm and affirm other major points of Doctrine.achilles wrote:I am a little confused here. Are you saying that christ teaching us how to pray is evidence of his deity? If so, I would certainly have to argue this point with you.
achilles wrote:But this aside, I still left you a question. What would the differences be between someone being Divine and someone who was unique, blessed, chosen by God to deliver his message and to perform miracles by His Spirit?
You said that I described John the Baptist. But I pointed out several problems with this idea. So either my question still stands, or my points concerning John need to be addressed.
The hardest thing about being a member of the Usergroup, is that sometimes we get the chance to prove it.
I made a mistake about John doing miracles. Don't know where that came from. Let the court note that Salt Agent acknowledged his error and let the jury disregard the statement that John worked miracles. ** I understand that you and others have some doubts that the authorship of John is questioned. The question is really about whether this guy named John was the apostle John the Beloved, not whether his account is true.
Again, this is like two Chris' in the same class at school, or three Daves at the same office, It doesn't change or negate the fact that this John knew Christ and his disciples and was a personal eye witness, nor does it in any way discredit or invalidate his witness.
achilles wrote:But you see, if it wasn't John the apostle but was actually in fact John the Elder, then it was not written by an eye witness. This is a major issue to be decided.
See my quote above. Ok, so this was John the Boatmaker, or John Sailmaker. We don't know his last name, but many things are clear.
He shares eyewitness accounts and testimony that also are validated by the Three other gospel accounts.
He clearly not only knew Christ very well, but that he also knew the apostles by name, and witnessed some of the same events with them.
He clearly establishes the Deity of Christ.
Regardless of his last name, - his account is included in the Cannon of scripture, and he lists/records prophecies about the Messiah that were fulfilled, and the Gospel message contained in the book of John Boatmaker* is the same Gospel message proclaimed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, and the Pastoral Epistles.
His writing is still inspired, and have the same authority and authenticity as the words of Paul or Christ.
The resurrection is not what saves us, per se, but it is crucial because it is inseparable from the Deity of Christ. What makes Christ God is not only that He was sinless, but that He claimed to forgive sins, and He predicted that He would physically rise from the dead. Separate the deity of Christ from the physical resurrection and all of Christianity crumbles -- it would mean that he was just a man, and a liar.
Also, John certainly was unique -- one of a kind, unusual, not typical. He was filled with the Holy Spirit from Birth. The Bible does not make this claim about anyone.
Jesus did Claim to be God. Not only did his disciples understand him to make this claim, but the Jews understood clearly that He claimed to be God. Twice they attempted to stone Him for claiming to be God. There was no ambiguity in their mind. He was sinless.achilles wrote:I don't see how it would make him a liar, especially if he never claimed to be God himself. You see claiming to be the Son of God, is not the same as claiming to be God. Claiming to have the authority to forgive sins is perfectly fine if he was doing so with the spirit of God the father.
Claiming to have the authority to forgive sins is perfectly fine if he was doing so with the spirit of God the father. Only God has the power to forgive sins. Even the disciples who raised the dead by the Spirit of God, could not forgive sins. He also explicitly stated that He and the Father are one.
Also, he said that He would raise from the dead. Anyone can make this claim, but his resurrection proved his deity.
http://www.gotquestions.org/is-Jesus-God.html
Question: "Is Jesus God? Did Jesus ever claim to be God?"
Answer: Jesus is never recorded in the Bible as saying the exact words, “I am God.” That does not mean, however, that He did not proclaim that He is God. Take for example Jesus’ words in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” At first glance, this might not seem to be a claim to be God. However, look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement, “We are not stoning you for any of these, replied the Jews, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). The Jews understood Jesus’ statement to be a claim to be God. In the following verses, Jesus never corrects the Jews by saying, “I did not claim to be God.” That indicates Jesus was truly saying He was God by declaring, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). John 8:58 is another example. Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!" Again, in response, the Jews take up stones in an attempt to stone Jesus (John 8:59). Why would the Jews want to stone Jesus if He hadn’t said something they believed to be blasphemous, namely, a claim to be God?
John 1:1 says that “the Word was God.” John 1:14 says that “the Word became flesh.” This clearly indicates that Jesus is God in the flesh. Acts 20:28 tells us, "...Be shepherds of the church of God, which He bought with His own blood." Who bought the church with His own blood? Jesus Christ. Acts 20:28 declares that God purchased the church with His own blood. Therefore, Jesus is God!
Thomas the disciple declared concerning Jesus, “Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Jesus does not correct him. Titus 2:13 encourages us to wait for the coming of our God and Savior - Jesus Christ (see also 2 Peter 1:1). In Hebrews 1:8, the Father declares of Jesus, "But about the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom."
achilles wrote:I think were we are having a disconnect is with my definitions. I have not claimed that Jesus was just a normal man. I have said he was a regular man, with God's soul or spirit. This difference is signficant. It accounts for Jesus being entitled to forgive sin, and perform miracles, and other such "God" oriented stuff. But just because he had the spirit of God within him and guiding him doesn't mean he was God the Father incarnet. Nor does it make him a liar for what he said and did.
Again, no man could forgive sins -- only God. The point is that Christ did claim to be God and the Jews understood this claim, as did his disciples. Paul also confirms his deity.
-
achilles12604
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3697
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
- Location: Colorado
Post #37
Salt Agent wrote:
** I understand that you and others have some doubts that the authorship of John is questioned. The question is really about whether this guy named John was the apostle John the Beloved, not whether his account is true.
Again, this is like two Chris' in the same class at school, or three Daves at the same office, It doesn't change or negate the fact that this John knew Christ and his disciples and was a personal eye witness, nor does it in any way discredit or invalidate his witness.
achilles wrote:But you see, if it wasn't John the apostle but was actually in fact John the Elder, then it was not written by an eye witness. This is a major issue to be decided.
See my quote above. Ok, so this was John the Boatmaker, or John Sailmaker. We don't know his last name, but many things are clear.
He shares eyewitness accounts and testimony that also are validated by the Three other gospel accounts.
He clearly not only knew Christ very well, but that he also knew the apostles by name, and witnessed some of the same events with them.
He clearly establishes the Deity of Christ.
It is interesting that you bring up these points. Because I read it totally the other way.
The Gospel of John only contains about 10-15 % of the material contained in the other 3 gospels. About 85-90% of John is unique to John. And this is especially true concerning his claims to be God. The "I AM" statements are almost exclusively found in John. As are other references to deity. Now I don't really hold this against the author of John because he does give us a disclaimer.
He begins his Gospel by telling us that the intent of it is to show us that Christ was really one in the same as God. So of course he would steer his Gospel in that direction on a regular basis. I give him point for being honest about his intentions. But does this mean we should equate it to the other 3 Gospels? I think not. His differences must be accounted for. It is also in the Gospel of John that I find the only direct contradiction which I have been unable to account for. And finally, in "The Case for Christ" Stroble in interviewing Michael Bloomberg (I believe, it has been a while). They were discussing the Council of Nicea and how the cannon was selected. Stroble was asking if they council was careful in its voting and Bloomberg (?) stated that they were so careful, they almost didn't include John for exactly the reasons I have stated. Well I am simply taking the side of those who voted against John because I see a lot of validity in their arguments and questions.
All of these things, combined with uncertain authorship, even among the church fathers, and the lateness of the writings give me great pause in using the Gospel of John with full authority.
Do I read it? Yes. I love that Gospel and its images and stories. But, just because I read it on my own doesn't mean I am able to defend it as an equivalent source to the other 3.
Like I said, I engage in the same process as the others who founded Christianity. I am just being much more careful.
The resurrection is not what saves us, per se, but it is crucial because it is inseparable from the Deity of Christ. What makes Christ God is not only that He was sinless, but that He claimed to forgive sins, and He predicted that He would physically rise from the dead. Separate the deity of Christ from the physical resurrection and all of Christianity crumbles -- it would mean that he was just a man, and a liar.
Also, John certainly was unique -- one of a kind, unusual, not typical. He was filled with the Holy Spirit from Birth. The Bible does not make this claim about anyone.
achilles wrote:I don't see how it would make him a liar, especially if he never claimed to be God himself. You see claiming to be the Son of God, is not the same as claiming to be God. Claiming to have the authority to forgive sins is perfectly fine if he was doing so with the spirit of God the father.
Jesus did Claim to be God. Not only did his disciples understand him to make this claim, but the Jews understood clearly that He claimed to be God. Twice they attempted to stone Him for claiming to be God. There was no ambiguity in their mind. He was sinless.
If my memory serves me, they wanted to stone him for claiming to the the same abilities and position as God. Not for claiming to BE God. Let me pull an example.
Mark 2
Jesus Heals a Paralytic
1A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. 3Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. 4Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. 5When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
8Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ."
Here Jesus claims to have the authority to forgive sins. He claimed, and was accused of claiming, to be able to perform the function of God on earth. But there is a fine line between claiming to have the authority of someone, and claiming to be that someone. Embassador regularly came to other kings with the authority of their Lord, but they of course never claimed to BE the other king.
I think that Jesus had the authority, granted to him by God's spirit and bidding, to forgive sins. I do not think however that this makes him God the Father. I think it makes him God's son, the chosen one of God. Incidentally, I agree with you that Jesus was sinless. But again I don't think this equates to him being actually God the Father.
This entire discussion is about how to interpret the trinity.
I think we may not ever agree because the church has been going over this same debate for 2000 years. And they STILL don't agree on it. This could indeed be a very long thread. achilles wrote:I think were we are having a disconnect is with my definitions. I have not claimed that Jesus was just a normal man. I have said he was a regular man, with God's soul or spirit. This difference is signficant. It accounts for Jesus being entitled to forgive sin, and perform miracles, and other such "God" oriented stuff. But just because he had the spirit of God within him and guiding him doesn't mean he was God the Father incarnet. Nor does it make him a liar for what he said and did.
Again, no man could forgive sins -- only God. The point is that Christ did claim to be God and the Jews understood this claim, as did his disciples. Paul also confirms his deity.
I went over an example of this above in detail. Please comment on my analysis of the verses and my analogy to an embassador.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.
-
Salt Agent
- Apprentice
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:36 pm
- Location: Poland, Central Europe
Post #38
Greetings, buddy,
You seem to be denying validity of John primarily based on the late date. Again, this goes to the lack of a clear and uniform standard for applying scripture that results in one picking verses he/she likes and throwing out others. I understand there may be some question as to the last name of this John, but Revelation gives a curse/punishment to anyone who adds to or takes away from Scripture. The byproduct or fruit of this is heresy and manmade doctrines such as the sinlessness of Mary, and the notion that she was always a virgin.
As to the analogy of the ambassador, there are some valid points, but several levels at which it fails. The issue is that of both the power and authority that Christ had.
Several times you mention that Jesus had the authority to forgive sins from the Holy Spirit. This however is contrary to what the Jews knew to be true from the Scripture itself. The passage in Isaiah 43 is called the Only Savior of Israel and points clearly to Christ. The Jews recognized that this was referring to the Messiah.
Also, no-one else in scripture is given the power or authority to forgive sins. Even before Christ came or the first gospel was written, the Pharisees fully understood that only God could forgive sins, He is the one offended. This is also why they clearly understood Christ's claim to BE GOD. Ultimately the reason they killed Him was for Blasphemy --claiming to be God, not claiming to simply have the authority to forgive sins. The ambassador can not possess all the same powers and abilitities as the King, himself, nor can he rightfully claim titles reserved for the King. The title King, His Royal Majesty, His Majesty, cannot be used by the ambassador, and/or these titles be used interchangeably with "Ambassador".
The powers and the authority of the King are by necessity greater. The ambassador has the limited authority as a representative of the King, but not the same power or rights.
Another way to illustrate this is the difference between a 50 lb boulder and a yellow vest. One has great power, but no authority, and the other has great authority, but no power. The boulder on the highway has the capacity to stop a mack truck full of steel and jam traffic. It has absolutely no authority whatsoever. The person in the yellow vest and the whistle has no power to stop a mack truck or even a small car, but there is great authority in the yellow vest and the whistle. So the ambassador has great authority, but relatively little power to enact or rescind/cancel treaties, declare war, etc.
The ambassador is the equivalent to the whistle and the yellow vest. Some seal, or badge shows the authority granted by the King. Without this, he is an ordinary man. The ambassador cannot be referred to correctly as the supreme protector of the country, or His royal majesty, and his scope or level of authority and power is less than the King. This is not the case with Christ. Christ is able to do what God does. Christ predicts his own resurrection. He commands the winds and elements. Demons not only obey him, they submit to His Lordship. He says that He and the Father are one. He says whoever sees Him has seen the Father. Then there are multiple titles given throughout the Bible which even call him God.
While John make the strongest case for the deity of Christ, it is clearly confirmed by all of Scripture, and the prophecies that were written by writers who lived from 400 to 1000 years before he was born, and in different countries. There was no way for them to corroborate their stories.
Just for this moment, in this post, just for the sake of discussion if we pretended that John was not in the cannon, multiple other passages together with His resurrection prove He claimed to be God and was God.
"Among the religious leaders who have attained a large following throughout history, Jesus Christ is unique in the fact that He alone claimed to be God in human flesh. A common misconception is that some or many of the leaders of the world’s religions made similar claims, but this is simply not the case.
Buddha did not claim to be God; Moses never said that he was Yahweh; Mohammed did not identify himself as Allah; and nowhere will you find Zoroaster claiming to be Ahura Mazda.
Yet Jesus, the carpenter from Nazareth, said that he who has seen Him (Jesus) has seen the Father (John 14:9).
The claims of Christ are many and varied. He said that He existed before Abraham (John 8:58),
and that He was equal with the Father (John 5:17, 18). Jesus claimed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5–7), which the Bible teaches was something that God alone could do (Isaiah 43:25).
The New Testament equated Jesus as the creator of the universe (John 1:3), and that He is the one who holds everything together (Colossians 1:17). The apostle Paul says that God was manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16, KJV), and John the evangelist says that “the Word was God” (John 1:1). The united testimony of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament is that He was more than mere man; He was God. Not only did His friends notice that He claimed to be God, but so did His enemies as well. T
here may be some doubt today among the skeptics who refuse to examine the evidence, but there was no doubt on the part of the Jewish authorities.
When Jesus asked them why they wanted to stone Him, they replied, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God” (John 10:33, NASB).
This fact separates Jesus from the other religious figures. In the major religions of the world, the teachings—not the teacher—are all-important.
Confucianism is a set of teachings; Confucius is not important. Islam is the revelation of Allah, with Mohammed being the prophet, and Buddhism emphasizes the principles of the Buddha and not Buddha himself. This is especially true of Hinduism, where there is no historic founder.
However, at the center of Christianity is the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus did not just claim to be teaching mankind the truth; He claimed that He was the truth (John 14:6).
What Jesus taught is not the important aspect of Christianity, but what is important is who Jesus was. Was He the Son of God? Is He the only way a person can reach God? This was the claim He made for Himself.
Suppose this very night the President of the United States appeared on all the major networks and proclaimed that “I am God Almighty. I have the power to forgive sin. I have the authority to raise my life back from the dead.”
He would be quickly and quietly shut off the air, led away, and replaced by the Vice-President. Anybody who would dare make such claims would have to be either out of his mind or a liar, unless he was God.
This is exactly the case with Jesus. He clearly claimed all these things and more. If He is God, as He claimed, we must believe in Him, and if He is not, then we should have nothing to do with Him. Jesus is either Lord of all or not Lord at all.
Yes, Jesus claimed to be God. Why should anyone believe it? After all, merely claiming to be something does not make it true. Where’s the evidence that Jesus is God?
The Bible gives various reasons, including miracles and fulfilled prophecy, that are intended to convince us that Jesus is the one whom He said He was (John 20:30, 31). The main reason, or the sign which Jesus Himself said would demonstrate that He was the Son of God, was His resurrection from the dead. When asked for a sign from the religious leaders, Jesus replied, “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40, RSV).
In another place He said, when asked for a sign, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up… but he spake of the temple of his body” (John 2:19, 21, KJV). The ability to raise His life back from the dead was the sign that separates Him not only from all other religious leaders, but also from anyone else who has ever lived.
Anyone wishing to refute the case for Christianity must explain away the story of the resurrection. Therefore, according to the Bible, Jesus proves to be the Son of God by coming back from the dead (Romans 1:4). The evidence is overwhelming that Jesus did rise from the grave, and it is this fact that proves Jesus to be God.
Josh McDowell, Answers To Tough Questions: Skeptics ask about the Christian Faith Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1993 by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart.
With that in mind, what scripture can you give to support any of these views**? [I also would accept any verses from John, which you find that shows any of these to be true.]
1. That there are some situations when we can throw out books that we doubt or are skeptical about. Luther tried to have the book of James taken out of the cannon because it taught that faith without works is dead.
2. That Christ did not claim to be God, or that He wasn't fully divine.
3. That anyone else has the power to forgive sins.
4. That Christ did not rise from the dead.
Grace and Peace.
Salt Agent.
You seem to be denying validity of John primarily based on the late date. Again, this goes to the lack of a clear and uniform standard for applying scripture that results in one picking verses he/she likes and throwing out others. I understand there may be some question as to the last name of this John, but Revelation gives a curse/punishment to anyone who adds to or takes away from Scripture. The byproduct or fruit of this is heresy and manmade doctrines such as the sinlessness of Mary, and the notion that she was always a virgin.
As to the analogy of the ambassador, there are some valid points, but several levels at which it fails. The issue is that of both the power and authority that Christ had.
Several times you mention that Jesus had the authority to forgive sins from the Holy Spirit. This however is contrary to what the Jews knew to be true from the Scripture itself. The passage in Isaiah 43 is called the Only Savior of Israel and points clearly to Christ. The Jews recognized that this was referring to the Messiah.
Also, no-one else in scripture is given the power or authority to forgive sins. Even before Christ came or the first gospel was written, the Pharisees fully understood that only God could forgive sins, He is the one offended. This is also why they clearly understood Christ's claim to BE GOD. Ultimately the reason they killed Him was for Blasphemy --claiming to be God, not claiming to simply have the authority to forgive sins. The ambassador can not possess all the same powers and abilitities as the King, himself, nor can he rightfully claim titles reserved for the King. The title King, His Royal Majesty, His Majesty, cannot be used by the ambassador, and/or these titles be used interchangeably with "Ambassador".
The powers and the authority of the King are by necessity greater. The ambassador has the limited authority as a representative of the King, but not the same power or rights.
Another way to illustrate this is the difference between a 50 lb boulder and a yellow vest. One has great power, but no authority, and the other has great authority, but no power. The boulder on the highway has the capacity to stop a mack truck full of steel and jam traffic. It has absolutely no authority whatsoever. The person in the yellow vest and the whistle has no power to stop a mack truck or even a small car, but there is great authority in the yellow vest and the whistle. So the ambassador has great authority, but relatively little power to enact or rescind/cancel treaties, declare war, etc.
The ambassador is the equivalent to the whistle and the yellow vest. Some seal, or badge shows the authority granted by the King. Without this, he is an ordinary man. The ambassador cannot be referred to correctly as the supreme protector of the country, or His royal majesty, and his scope or level of authority and power is less than the King. This is not the case with Christ. Christ is able to do what God does. Christ predicts his own resurrection. He commands the winds and elements. Demons not only obey him, they submit to His Lordship. He says that He and the Father are one. He says whoever sees Him has seen the Father. Then there are multiple titles given throughout the Bible which even call him God.
While John make the strongest case for the deity of Christ, it is clearly confirmed by all of Scripture, and the prophecies that were written by writers who lived from 400 to 1000 years before he was born, and in different countries. There was no way for them to corroborate their stories.
Just for this moment, in this post, just for the sake of discussion if we pretended that John was not in the cannon, multiple other passages together with His resurrection prove He claimed to be God and was God.
"Among the religious leaders who have attained a large following throughout history, Jesus Christ is unique in the fact that He alone claimed to be God in human flesh. A common misconception is that some or many of the leaders of the world’s religions made similar claims, but this is simply not the case.
Buddha did not claim to be God; Moses never said that he was Yahweh; Mohammed did not identify himself as Allah; and nowhere will you find Zoroaster claiming to be Ahura Mazda.
Yet Jesus, the carpenter from Nazareth, said that he who has seen Him (Jesus) has seen the Father (John 14:9).
The claims of Christ are many and varied. He said that He existed before Abraham (John 8:58),
and that He was equal with the Father (John 5:17, 18). Jesus claimed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5–7), which the Bible teaches was something that God alone could do (Isaiah 43:25).
The New Testament equated Jesus as the creator of the universe (John 1:3), and that He is the one who holds everything together (Colossians 1:17). The apostle Paul says that God was manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16, KJV), and John the evangelist says that “the Word was God” (John 1:1). The united testimony of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament is that He was more than mere man; He was God. Not only did His friends notice that He claimed to be God, but so did His enemies as well. T
here may be some doubt today among the skeptics who refuse to examine the evidence, but there was no doubt on the part of the Jewish authorities.
When Jesus asked them why they wanted to stone Him, they replied, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God” (John 10:33, NASB).
This fact separates Jesus from the other religious figures. In the major religions of the world, the teachings—not the teacher—are all-important.
Confucianism is a set of teachings; Confucius is not important. Islam is the revelation of Allah, with Mohammed being the prophet, and Buddhism emphasizes the principles of the Buddha and not Buddha himself. This is especially true of Hinduism, where there is no historic founder.
However, at the center of Christianity is the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus did not just claim to be teaching mankind the truth; He claimed that He was the truth (John 14:6).
What Jesus taught is not the important aspect of Christianity, but what is important is who Jesus was. Was He the Son of God? Is He the only way a person can reach God? This was the claim He made for Himself.
Suppose this very night the President of the United States appeared on all the major networks and proclaimed that “I am God Almighty. I have the power to forgive sin. I have the authority to raise my life back from the dead.”
He would be quickly and quietly shut off the air, led away, and replaced by the Vice-President. Anybody who would dare make such claims would have to be either out of his mind or a liar, unless he was God.
This is exactly the case with Jesus. He clearly claimed all these things and more. If He is God, as He claimed, we must believe in Him, and if He is not, then we should have nothing to do with Him. Jesus is either Lord of all or not Lord at all.
Yes, Jesus claimed to be God. Why should anyone believe it? After all, merely claiming to be something does not make it true. Where’s the evidence that Jesus is God?
The Bible gives various reasons, including miracles and fulfilled prophecy, that are intended to convince us that Jesus is the one whom He said He was (John 20:30, 31). The main reason, or the sign which Jesus Himself said would demonstrate that He was the Son of God, was His resurrection from the dead. When asked for a sign from the religious leaders, Jesus replied, “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40, RSV).
In another place He said, when asked for a sign, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up… but he spake of the temple of his body” (John 2:19, 21, KJV). The ability to raise His life back from the dead was the sign that separates Him not only from all other religious leaders, but also from anyone else who has ever lived.
Anyone wishing to refute the case for Christianity must explain away the story of the resurrection. Therefore, according to the Bible, Jesus proves to be the Son of God by coming back from the dead (Romans 1:4). The evidence is overwhelming that Jesus did rise from the grave, and it is this fact that proves Jesus to be God.
Josh McDowell, Answers To Tough Questions: Skeptics ask about the Christian Faith Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1993 by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart.
With that in mind, what scripture can you give to support any of these views**? [I also would accept any verses from John, which you find that shows any of these to be true.]
1. That there are some situations when we can throw out books that we doubt or are skeptical about. Luther tried to have the book of James taken out of the cannon because it taught that faith without works is dead.
2. That Christ did not claim to be God, or that He wasn't fully divine.
3. That anyone else has the power to forgive sins.
4. That Christ did not rise from the dead.
Grace and Peace.
Salt Agent.
-
achilles12604
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 3697
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 am
- Location: Colorado
Post #39
Well I do reject the authority of John, but for more reasons than simply the date or even the date and the authorship. There is the internal content, the conflicts with other Gospels, the theological ax to grind, unique view of Jesus as compared to the other 3, etc.Salt Agent wrote:Greetings, buddy,
You seem to be denying validity of John primarily based on the late date. Again, this goes to the lack of a clear and uniform standard for applying scripture that results in one picking verses he/she likes and throwing out others. I understand there may be some question as to the last name of this John, but Revelation gives a curse/punishment to anyone who adds to or takes away from Scripture. The byproduct or fruit of this is heresy and manmade doctrines such as the sinlessness of Mary, and the notion that she was always a virgin.
And as for the curse in revelations, why should we accept the authority of Revelations? If you ask an atheist it is the crazy ramblings and hallucinations of an old man cast off on an island. Hardly conclusive proof. But even if Revelations should be taken seriously, what about the Catholic bible? It was in place far before the Protestant version and includes many different books which ours does not. So the curse, if it exists, would be very hard to determine who was at risk because we are unsure of the original books which should be accepted or rejected.
It strikes me as more of a "I am right because I am and if you don't accept that then you can go to hell. (literally of course)."
I disagree that they understood him to be claiming to BE God. I thinkAs to the analogy of the ambassador, there are some valid points, but several levels at which it fails. The issue is that of both the power and authority that Christ had.
Several times you mention that Jesus had the authority to forgive sins from the Holy Spirit. This however is contrary to what the Jews knew to be true from the Scripture itself. The passage in Isaiah 43 is called the Only Savior of Israel and points clearly to Christ. The Jews recognized that this was referring to the Messiah.
Also, no-one else in scripture is given the power or authority to forgive sins. Even before Christ came or the first gospel was written, the Pharisees fully understood that only God could forgive sins, He is the one offended. This is also why they clearly understood Christ's claim to BE GOD. Ultimately the reason they killed Him was for Blasphemy --claiming to be God, not claiming to simply have the authority to forgive sins.
Mark 2
Jesus Heals a Paralytic
1A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. 3Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. 4Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. 5When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
This quote shows the people as angry at Jesus for being a mere man, yet claiming to be able to perform the abilities of God. If you examine my thoughts on the trinity, you can see that I claim Jesus did have the abilities of God, but not that he actually was God the Father himself. He had God's spirit, hence his abilities.
I think Jesus, because of God's spirit, was able to perform like God, yet remain a man in the flesh.
And I similarly do not think that God the Father is the appropriate title for Jesus either. So we agree on this point. As for having the authority, Jesus himself said that some were sent by the landlord to accomplish the same task as the landlord but they failed. Then instead of the landlord coming himself, he sent his son in his stead. The son obviously had the same power to collect from the tenents as the Landlord or else the landlord wouldn't have bothered sending him after his men had failed. The Landlord obviously felt that his son would wield greater influence than his previous men. For the landlord to trust his son with the same task that he himself would have done, and to trust him as having more influence and power than his men, the landlord set his son apart.The ambassador can not possess all the same powers and abilitities as the King, himself, nor can he rightfully claim titles reserved for the King. The title King, His Royal Majesty, His Majesty, cannot be used by the ambassador, and/or these titles be used interchangeably with "Ambassador".
I think that this story and others indicate not only a differences between Jesus and the prophets, but also between Jesus and God. We know that Jesus had the powers of God, but we also see him setting himself apart from God.
One way to illustrate this would be with a movie. Did you ever see X-men? There was a scene at the end when Magnito transfered his powers to Rogue so that his powers could still be used, but he wouldn't actually be forced to die himself to accomplish his goal. So for a short time, Rogue had the same powers as Magnito. Now she certainly wasn't Magnito. He was an old man, she was a young girl. But they had the same abilities because he tranfered them to her.
This is kinda how I view God and Jesus. Not the same thing, but one gave the other its powers for a specific purpose.
I am unaware of titles for Jesus which call him God. If you could provide these, I would be grateful. As for his abilities, I addressed this above.Another way to illustrate this is the difference between a 50 lb boulder and a yellow vest. One has great power, but no authority, and the other has great authority, but no power. The boulder on the highway has the capacity to stop a mack truck full of steel and jam traffic. It has absolutely no authority whatsoever. The person in the yellow vest and the whistle has no power to stop a mack truck or even a small car, but there is great authority in the yellow vest and the whistle. So the ambassador has great authority, but relatively little power to enact or rescind/cancel treaties, declare war, etc.
The ambassador is the equivalent to the whistle and the yellow vest. Some seal, or badge shows the authority granted by the King. Without this, he is an ordinary man. The ambassador cannot be referred to correctly as the supreme protector of the country, or His royal majesty, and his scope or level of authority and power is less than the King. This is not the case with Christ. Christ is able to do what God does. Christ predicts his own resurrection. He commands the winds and elements. Demons not only obey him, they submit to His Lordship. He says that He and the Father are one. He says whoever sees Him has seen the Father. Then there are multiple titles given throughout the Bible which even call him God.
As I wrote above, I would like to see these scriptures, especially the ones from the OT.While John make the strongest case for the deity of Christ, it is clearly confirmed by all of Scripture, and the prophecies that were written by writers who lived from 400 to 1000 years before he was born, and in different countries. There was no way for them to corroborate their stories.
Just for this moment, in this post, just for the sake of discussion if we pretended that John was not in the cannon, multiple other passages together with His resurrection prove He claimed to be God and was God.
It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice.
-
Salt Agent
- Apprentice
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:36 pm
- Location: Poland, Central Europe
Post #40
Greetings, buddy,
I will try to distill this so the post doesn't get too long. I don't usually like to just paste webpages, but i will do so and summarize a couple of the main points.
This post speaks to the lack of a clear transparent standard for recognizing the authenticity and authority of the Bible, and specifically relating to books of the NT, and their confirmation, collaboration of many things from the resurrection, to the deity of Christ, which are the main points.
What is the cannon, what was the "matrix" or grid to determine which books belonged, and why the apocrypha fails at every level.
The ambassador point as it relates to John the Baptist, and whether he was unique, is important, but more of a separate thread, and i think it merits further discussion, i just have to choose the most relevant for time and space.
Greetings, buddy,
We are not getting permission from atheists to validate the Bible. Not only do they lack an absolute standard for morality, [many of them even deny absolute truth of any kind], but they would say the entire Bible is the ramblings of crazy men.
You reject John for various reasons, seem to reject Revelations, and have at least not shown or given any standard by which you interpret scripture, and you mentioned the Catholic Bible.
Without a standard --Cannon-- there is no basis for establishing truth, nor is there any way to preclude "new revelation" or lost books, such as the "Gospel of Judas" from being added.
Without such a standard that Goose has mentioned and I have mentioned, --The 27 Books of the NT, the result is someone throwing out John because we don't know his surname, and someone else adding "The Lost Gospel of Thomas" and someone else saying that Mary was perpetually a virgin, or that clergy should not marry, or that people are bought out of purgatory. The cannon was closed by the end of the first century. First a note on the trustworthiness of the NT, (including John)
The Reliability of the New Testament
Just how reliable are the New Testament documents?
There are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions (MSS) and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament. This means that no other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Iliad by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century.74
This contrast is startling and tremendously significant.
Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 B.C) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day.
Question: "What is the canon of Scripture?"
Answer: This is a very important question because Christianity does not start by defining God, or Jesus Christ, or salvation. The basis of Christianity is found in the authority of Scripture. If we can't identify what is Scripture, then we can't properly distinguish any theological truth from error.
The word "canon" comes from the rule of law that was used to determine if a book measured up to a standard. But it is important to note that the writings of Scripture were canonical at the moment they were written. Scripture was Scripture when the pen touched the parchment.
http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-of-Scripture.html
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=697
http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/canonicity-scriptural.html
"We are careful to say that God determined the canon, and the church discovered the canon. The canon of Scripture was not created by the church; rather, the church discovered or recognized it. In other words, God's Word was inspired and authoritative from its inception-it "stands firm in the heavens" (Psalm 119:89)-and the church simply recognized that fact and accepted it.
The criteria the church used for recognizing and collecting the Word of God are as follows:
1) Was the book written by a prophet of God? Or an apostle/or eyewitness.
2) Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message? Does it even claim to be inspired, or ring with the authority and evidence of being inspired by the Holy Spirit.
3) Does the book tell the truth about God, with no falsehood or contradiction? -- Does it concur with other already agreed-upon scripture.
4) Does the book evince a divine capacity to transform lives?
5) Was the book accepted as God's Word by the people to whom it was first delivered? Is the book accepted by the Body of Christ --Church at large.
Of these criteria, the one of most importance was the first one-was the book written by a prophet? Its corollary, did the book receive apostolic approval?, was the chief test of canonicity in the early church. This criterion is a logical result of knowing what an "apostle" was. The apostles were gifted by God to be the founders and leaders of the church, so it is reasonable to accept that through them came the Word governing the church."
But even if Revelations should be taken seriously, what about the Catholic bible? It was in place far before the Protestant version and includes many different books which ours does not. So the curse, if it exists, would be very hard to determine who was at risk because we are unsure of the original books which should be accepted or rejected.
The apocrypha --the extra 14 books and additions added by the Catholic Bible, was never part of the original Jewish Cannon, nor was it accepted by Jewish scholars as even being inspired.
In addition, it was not written in Hebrew, which the Jewish Scriptures were. The early Jewish Christians all rejected the apocrypha as part of their cannon.
You must be referring to the Vulgate??? It was included in Jerome's Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible, but because of pressure, and he noted specifically in his translation that it was not inspired.
The Anglican church also includes it, "for it's devotional value", but explicitly states that they do not consider it inspired or the same level as other scriptures.
The Apocrypha makes no claim of being inspired. It does however admit that there are mistakes.
The Apocrypha was never part of the OT Jewish Cannon, nor was it even written in Hebrew.
The apocrypha contains numerous geographical and historical errors, in addition to direct contradictions of clear doctrine taught in scripture, for example giving of alms for salvation, praying to dead saints, selling of indulgences, and other doctrines spread by the Catholic church.
The vast majority of the early church Fathers agreed on the contents of the cannon, and one of the earliest Church councils was held in about 320 AD and the Apocrypha was not included in the cannon. Council of Laodicea.
Jesus, nor any of the NT writers ever quotes from the apocrypha -- they were familiar with it, but did not regard it as inspired.
The New Testament quotes all books of the Old Testament except 3, but never quotes the apocrypha.
The notion that the cannon was included in the Septuagint --The Greek translation of the Old Testament] and portions of the Septuagint were discoved in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Qumran caves, is irrelevant- proves nothing, because portions other extra Biblical documents were also found there.
Perhaps one of the most significant notes about the Apocrypha is that the Catholic Church "decided" to included 1500 years later, at the Council of Trent, as a response to the Reformation, to justify their practices after Martin Luther denounced the UnBiblical doctrines, exposed the heresy and also put the Bible in the hands of the people so they could read it in their own language.
The Vulgate was in Latin, which was the language of the elite, primarily clergy. Because they wanted to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common people, it was illegal to even own a Bible.
Bible scholars today are uncertain at best at to who wrote Hebrews exactly, some guess Luke, some think Paul, but it is complete speculation. The point being, like with John the boatmaker, or John the dude who was an eyewitness to Jesus and the Disciples, it doesn't take away from his testimony, or lesson the validity or inspiration of his message. John has some unique accounts and perspectives, but his message about Christ doesn't contradict any other portions of Scripture.
Most importantly, it is included in the cannon. You may be cautious, about the exact details of John, as most Bible scholars and Christians are about Hebrews, but without a clear standard, you have no justifiable reason for excluding that, than excluding James, or Mark, nor can you give a solid reason why other "Gospels" should not be added.
Regards,
Salt Agent.
I will try to distill this so the post doesn't get too long. I don't usually like to just paste webpages, but i will do so and summarize a couple of the main points.
This post speaks to the lack of a clear transparent standard for recognizing the authenticity and authority of the Bible, and specifically relating to books of the NT, and their confirmation, collaboration of many things from the resurrection, to the deity of Christ, which are the main points.
What is the cannon, what was the "matrix" or grid to determine which books belonged, and why the apocrypha fails at every level.
The ambassador point as it relates to John the Baptist, and whether he was unique, is important, but more of a separate thread, and i think it merits further discussion, i just have to choose the most relevant for time and space.
Greetings, buddy,
Salt Agent wrote:You seem to be denying validity of John primarily based on the late date. Again, this goes to the lack of a clear and uniform standard for applying scripture that results in one picking verses he/she likes and throwing out others. I understand there may be some question as to the last name of this John, but Revelation gives a curse/punishment to anyone who adds to or takes away from Scripture. The byproduct or fruit of this is heresy and manmade doctrines such as the sinlessness of Mary, and the notion that she was always a virgin.
If you ask an atheist it is the crazy ramblings and hallucinations of an old man cast off on an island. Hardly conclusive proof. I know you can do better than that.Achilles wrote:Well I do reject the authority of John, but for more reasons than simply the date or even the date and the authorship. There is the internal content, the conflicts with other Gospels, the theological ax to grind, unique view of Jesus as compared to the other 3, etc.
And as for the curse in revelations, why should we accept the authority of Revelations? If you ask an atheist it is the crazy ramblings and hallucinations of an old man cast off on an island. Hardly conclusive proof. But even if Revelations should be taken seriously, what about the Catholic bible? It was in place far before the Protestant version and includes many different books which ours does not. So the curse, if it exists, would be very hard to determine who was at risk because we are unsure of the original books which should be accepted or rejected.
It strikes me as more of a "I am right because I am and if you don't accept that then you can go to hell. (literally of course)."
We are not getting permission from atheists to validate the Bible. Not only do they lack an absolute standard for morality, [many of them even deny absolute truth of any kind], but they would say the entire Bible is the ramblings of crazy men.
You reject John for various reasons, seem to reject Revelations, and have at least not shown or given any standard by which you interpret scripture, and you mentioned the Catholic Bible.
Without a standard --Cannon-- there is no basis for establishing truth, nor is there any way to preclude "new revelation" or lost books, such as the "Gospel of Judas" from being added.
Without such a standard that Goose has mentioned and I have mentioned, --The 27 Books of the NT, the result is someone throwing out John because we don't know his surname, and someone else adding "The Lost Gospel of Thomas" and someone else saying that Mary was perpetually a virgin, or that clergy should not marry, or that people are bought out of purgatory. The cannon was closed by the end of the first century. First a note on the trustworthiness of the NT, (including John)
The Reliability of the New Testament
Just how reliable are the New Testament documents?
There are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions (MSS) and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament. This means that no other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Iliad by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century.74
This contrast is startling and tremendously significant.
Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 B.C) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day.
Question: "What is the canon of Scripture?"
Answer: This is a very important question because Christianity does not start by defining God, or Jesus Christ, or salvation. The basis of Christianity is found in the authority of Scripture. If we can't identify what is Scripture, then we can't properly distinguish any theological truth from error.
The word "canon" comes from the rule of law that was used to determine if a book measured up to a standard. But it is important to note that the writings of Scripture were canonical at the moment they were written. Scripture was Scripture when the pen touched the parchment.
http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-of-Scripture.html
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=697
http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/canonicity-scriptural.html
"We are careful to say that God determined the canon, and the church discovered the canon. The canon of Scripture was not created by the church; rather, the church discovered or recognized it. In other words, God's Word was inspired and authoritative from its inception-it "stands firm in the heavens" (Psalm 119:89)-and the church simply recognized that fact and accepted it.
The criteria the church used for recognizing and collecting the Word of God are as follows:
1) Was the book written by a prophet of God? Or an apostle/or eyewitness.
2) Was the writer authenticated by miracles to confirm his message? Does it even claim to be inspired, or ring with the authority and evidence of being inspired by the Holy Spirit.
3) Does the book tell the truth about God, with no falsehood or contradiction? -- Does it concur with other already agreed-upon scripture.
4) Does the book evince a divine capacity to transform lives?
5) Was the book accepted as God's Word by the people to whom it was first delivered? Is the book accepted by the Body of Christ --Church at large.
Of these criteria, the one of most importance was the first one-was the book written by a prophet? Its corollary, did the book receive apostolic approval?, was the chief test of canonicity in the early church. This criterion is a logical result of knowing what an "apostle" was. The apostles were gifted by God to be the founders and leaders of the church, so it is reasonable to accept that through them came the Word governing the church."
But even if Revelations should be taken seriously, what about the Catholic bible? It was in place far before the Protestant version and includes many different books which ours does not. So the curse, if it exists, would be very hard to determine who was at risk because we are unsure of the original books which should be accepted or rejected.
The apocrypha --the extra 14 books and additions added by the Catholic Bible, was never part of the original Jewish Cannon, nor was it accepted by Jewish scholars as even being inspired.
In addition, it was not written in Hebrew, which the Jewish Scriptures were. The early Jewish Christians all rejected the apocrypha as part of their cannon.
You must be referring to the Vulgate??? It was included in Jerome's Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible, but because of pressure, and he noted specifically in his translation that it was not inspired.
The Anglican church also includes it, "for it's devotional value", but explicitly states that they do not consider it inspired or the same level as other scriptures.
The Apocrypha makes no claim of being inspired. It does however admit that there are mistakes.
The Apocrypha was never part of the OT Jewish Cannon, nor was it even written in Hebrew.
The apocrypha contains numerous geographical and historical errors, in addition to direct contradictions of clear doctrine taught in scripture, for example giving of alms for salvation, praying to dead saints, selling of indulgences, and other doctrines spread by the Catholic church.
The vast majority of the early church Fathers agreed on the contents of the cannon, and one of the earliest Church councils was held in about 320 AD and the Apocrypha was not included in the cannon. Council of Laodicea.
Jesus, nor any of the NT writers ever quotes from the apocrypha -- they were familiar with it, but did not regard it as inspired.
The New Testament quotes all books of the Old Testament except 3, but never quotes the apocrypha.
The notion that the cannon was included in the Septuagint --The Greek translation of the Old Testament] and portions of the Septuagint were discoved in the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Qumran caves, is irrelevant- proves nothing, because portions other extra Biblical documents were also found there.
Perhaps one of the most significant notes about the Apocrypha is that the Catholic Church "decided" to included 1500 years later, at the Council of Trent, as a response to the Reformation, to justify their practices after Martin Luther denounced the UnBiblical doctrines, exposed the heresy and also put the Bible in the hands of the people so they could read it in their own language.
The Vulgate was in Latin, which was the language of the elite, primarily clergy. Because they wanted to keep the Bible out of the hands of the common people, it was illegal to even own a Bible.
Bible scholars today are uncertain at best at to who wrote Hebrews exactly, some guess Luke, some think Paul, but it is complete speculation. The point being, like with John the boatmaker, or John the dude who was an eyewitness to Jesus and the Disciples, it doesn't take away from his testimony, or lesson the validity or inspiration of his message. John has some unique accounts and perspectives, but his message about Christ doesn't contradict any other portions of Scripture.
Most importantly, it is included in the cannon. You may be cautious, about the exact details of John, as most Bible scholars and Christians are about Hebrews, but without a clear standard, you have no justifiable reason for excluding that, than excluding James, or Mark, nor can you give a solid reason why other "Gospels" should not be added.
Regards,
Salt Agent.
