Did Paul base creeds on “mystery� or blind-faith?

[paarsurrey1]

Did Paul base creeds on “mystery� to make Christianity a blind-faith?

But Jesus believed with reason.
Paul, for his own suitability, wanted that people should inculcate blind-faith in them instead of reason and Revelation from God, to bring them under his control.
The truthful Religion has got nothing to do with blind-faith, please.
Regards

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 16 by Elijah John]

The only thing that comes close to addressing the example (evidence) I provided is this line here:

Quote:
What Paul wrote was not a "condition" but a sum up of where every true believer stands, in view of what Jesus has done and who and where he is.
.

That is actually a fairly thoughtful reply.

"Thank you for small mercies", EJ, as I recall my mother putting it eons ago.

.
You're welcome, Checkpoint.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 16 by Elijah John]

How about this summary from Jesus himself, the essence of his teachings:

in all things, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, for that is the Law and the Prophets.

Or "love the LORD your God with all your heart...and love your neighbor as yourself". (ref Luke 10.25-28)

Notice there is no talk of belief, blood atonement or Christ's impending resurrection, in Jesus' summaries.

The emphasis is on the DOING, (treat others) not on the believing.

Notice first, what this summary is and is not of.

It is a summary of "The Law and the Prophets", not of belief or salvation, not of blood atonement, not of his impending resurrection.

That is why the emphasis in that summary is on the doing, not on the believing.

Notice second, what he said about "The Law and the Prophets", and where his emphasis really lay in his preaching and teaching:

Luke 16:16

The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is eagerly embracing the way into it.

That summary of the law and the prophets is also a summary of Jesus plan of salvation. The passage was provided in conjunction with the other portion referred to which reads thus:

Luke 10.25-28

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,� he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?�

26 “What is written in the Law?� he replied. “How do you read it?�

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’�

28 “You have answered correctly,� Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.�

Doesn't sound much like Paul's plan, does it? No instruction to "believe in your heart that God will raise the Messiah from the dead" as a condition for salvation...at all.

And to reason it out...Remember Jesus said it was not those who say "Lord Lord" who will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but those who do the will of my Father which is in Heaven".

And what is the Father's will? It is revealed in the Law.

And what is the essence of the Law? Jesus provides the answer in two ways,

-Treat others as you would have them treat you, that is the Law and the Prophets..(Mt. 7.12)

-And love God an neighbor, that too he characterized as the Law and the Prophets.(Mt.22.40) (and in Luke, the way of salvation, as demonstrated above)

Nothing about being "bloodwashed" nothing about believing the "right" theology, nothing about "believing in your heart that God raised (or will raise) Jesus from the dead", only loving God and neighbor, treating others the way you would like to be treated.

Jesus, being a good Torah observant Jew, taught salvation from the very same Torah, his own Bible.

Could it be that the plan of salvation changed after the first Easter? A pre-Easter plan preached by Jesus and the prophets, and a post-Easter plan preached by Paul.

If so, they are indeed "different Gospels".

[Monta]

[Replying to post 22 by Elijah John]


"Jesus, being a good Torah observant Jew, taught salvation from the very same Torah, his own Bible. "

Some were quoting from Torah or what Moses said;
Jesus did not go along with it but responded - 'but i say unto you'.

Christianity was new religion with some connection to the OT.

[paarsurrey1]

Did Paul base creeds on “mystery� to make Christianity a blind-faith?

But Jesus believed with reason.
Paul, for his own suitability, wanted that people should inculcate blind-faith in them instead of reason and Revelation from God, to bring them under his control.
The truthful Religion has got nothing to do with blind-faith, please.
Regards

No, Paul did not base anything on "mystery" and did not espouse blind faith. I see Paul as being very reasonable, and he had no interest in "bringing anyone under his control." I agree that true Religion is not about blind faith. There are real, true things that are the basis for faith.

"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1)

It is evident that all things were created by Someone or some Intelligence. As verse 3 goes on to say: "By faith we perceive that the systems of things were put in order by God's word, so that what is beheld has come to be out of things that do not appear."

Reason is involved, is it not? Paul never encouraged blind faith.

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved"

Since only Paul and a very few others actually saw the "Risen Christ", how is that not blind faith?

And how is expecting others who have not encountered the Risen Christ (in a vision or otherwise) to embrace that belief, reasonable?

Is it reasonable that Paul added conditions to salvation, beyond what Jesus himself taught?

Ironic that Paul condemns some for preaching a "different Gospel" when it is Paul himself who preached a different Gospel.

Since only Paul and a very few others actually saw the "Risen Christ", how is that not blind faith?

I understand that even Paul did not see Jesus going up on the skies. Did he. please?

Regards

[Elijah John]

Did Paul base creeds on “mystery� to make Christianity a blind-faith?

But Jesus believed with reason.
Paul, for his own suitability, wanted that people should inculcate blind-faith in them instead of reason and Revelation from God, to bring them under his control.
The truthful Religion has got nothing to do with blind-faith, please.
Regards

No, Paul did not base anything on "mystery" and did not espouse blind faith. I see Paul as being very reasonable, and he had no interest in "bringing anyone under his control." I agree that true Religion is not about blind faith. There are real, true things that are the basis for faith.

"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1)

It is evident that all things were created by Someone or some Intelligence. As verse 3 goes on to say: "By faith we perceive that the systems of things were put in order by God's word, so that what is beheld has come to be out of things that do not appear."

Reason is involved, is it not? Paul never encouraged blind faith.

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved"

Since only Paul and a very few others actually saw the "Risen Christ", how is that not blind faith?

And how is expecting others who have not encountered the Risen Christ (in a vision or otherwise) to embrace that belief, reasonable?

Is it reasonable that Paul added conditions to salvation, beyond what Jesus himself taught?

Ironic that Paul condemns some for preaching a "different Gospel" when it is Paul himself who preached a different Gospel.

Since only Paul and a very few others actually saw the "Risen Christ", how is that not blind faith?

I understand that even Paul did not see Jesus going up on the skies. Did he. please?

Regards

A better word may be that he "encountered" the Risen Christ, who presumably spoke to him from a cloud.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 22 by Elijah John]

Could it be that the plan of salvation changed after the first Easter? A pre-Easter plan preached by Jesus and the prophets, and a post-Easter plan preached by Paul.

If so, they are indeed "different Gospels".

Could it be that you are mistaken?

Could it be that any change that may have taken place came from the resurrected Christ and from the early church as they faced new situations?

If so, they are not "different Gospels" but a clarification of the commonly understood way of salvation.

Jude 3:

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 22 by Elijah John]

Could it be that the plan of salvation changed after the first Easter? A pre-Easter plan preached by Jesus and the prophets, and a post-Easter plan preached by Paul.

If so, they are indeed "different Gospels".

Could it be that you are mistaken?

Could it be that any change that may have taken place came from the resurrected Christ and from the early church as they faced new situations?

If so, they are not "different Gospels" but a clarification of the commonly understood way of salvation.

Jude 3:

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

Of course I could be mistaken. Seems it's a matter of a difference in approach. The Church puts more stock in what they believe a "resurrected Jesus" may have said, and historical Jesus scholars put more stock in what the flesh and blood Jesus probably said when he actually walked the earth.

I favor the HJ scholars and their approach.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 22 by Elijah John]

Could it be that the plan of salvation changed after the first Easter? A pre-Easter plan preached by Jesus and the prophets, and a post-Easter plan preached by Paul.

If so, they are indeed "different Gospels".

Could it be that you are mistaken?

Could it be that any change that may have taken place came from the resurrected Christ and from the early church as they faced new situations?

If so, they are not "different Gospels" but a clarification of the commonly understood way of salvation.

Jude 3:

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

Exactly. If someone were to ask me about Jesus and Redemption, I'd say it in my own words but the message will be the same as recorded in the NT.

Not one phrase/book makes same impact on everybody. For me, I seem to understand the Gospel of Mark the best where I find things most suitable for my spiritual growth. Next year it might be Mark or John.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 27 by Elijah John]

Exactly. If someone were to ask me about Jesus and Redemption, I'd say it in my own words but the message will be the same as recorded in the NT.

Not one phrase/book makes same impact on everybody. For me, I seem to understand the Gospel of Mark the best where I find things most suitable for my spiritual growth. Next year it might be Mark or John.

Not one phrase/book makes same impact on everybody.

Is it for this that the Pauline Christianity has 32000+ sects/denominations, all losing grounds in the West vis-a-vis Atheism etc, please?

Regards

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to Elijah John]

A better word may be that he* "encountered" the Risen Christ, who presumably spoke to him from a cloud.
(*Paul)

But Paul was not a witness of Jesus going to the skies/heaven to start with.

Regards