01 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KWhat was the point of Jesus speaking of what is and is not righteous, repentance, how one must be righteous in heart and deed in order to have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation", etc.?
[b]Well, Paul tells you that you can't stop committing sin.
Does he? Then why is he constantly writing to communities, rebuking them for their immorality and exhorting them to lead holy lives? If sin were inevitable, what would be the point of any moral instruction?[/b]
It certainly wasn't Jesus that taught that you can't stop committing sin. Jesus taught the opposite. From what I've seen, those who believe it impossible point to Paul. You'll have to ask them for specific verses, though I suspect it might be Romans where Paul tries to prop up the idea of the "offering" of Jesus as some sort of super duper atonement for all sin for all time which is another thing that wasn't taught by Jesus.
When I read Paul, I see a politician talking out both sides of his mouth in order to gain power. So you get a little bit of everything out of him. It's tragic how so many supersede the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Paul.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
01 Feb 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI think that is a sad attitude. As I see it, Paul gives the best commentary on the gospels. For example, he is the first to explain the relationship between the two covenants, how Christ completes and makes obsolete the first covenant. In this, he gives the liberating idea that all creation is fundamentally good and that prohibitions of foods and drink are wrong. Jesus certainly does hint at it; Paul just makes it explicit.
What was the point of Jesus speaking of what is and is not righteous, repentance, how one must be righteous in heart and deed in order to have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation", etc.?
It certainly wasn't Jesus that taught that you can't stop committing sin. Jesus taught the opposite. From what I've seen, those who believe it impossible point to P ...[text shortened]... 's tragic how so many supersede the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Paul.
I think that some Christians misrepresent Paul. He certainly does not promote any kind of religious apathy like some do here. He does not teach that all you have to do is profess belief in Christ and everything is well. He imposes some heavy moral strictures, he emphasises the need for self-sacrifice and he rebukes those who fail to witness to the gospel even under persecution. Furthermore his discourse on the virtues, that love is the greatest, seems to me to strike at the heart of the gospels. It is unfortunate that some Christians dwell too much on his discourses about redemption than on these other sections.
01 Feb 10
Originally posted by Conrau KHe certainly does not promote any kind of religious apathy like some do here. He does not teach that all you have to do is profess belief in Christ and everything is well.
I think that is a sad attitude. As I see it, Paul gives the best commentary on the gospels. For example, he is the first to explain the relationship between the two covenants, how Christ completes and makes obsolete the first covenant. In this, he gives the liberating idea that all creation is fundamentally good and that prohibitions of foods and drink are ...[text shortened]... some Christians dwell too much on his discourses about redemption than on these other sections.
From what I can tell, they get this from Romans 10. He is what he is.
01 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhen I read Paul, I see a politician talking out both sides of his mouth in order to gain power.
What was the point of Jesus speaking of what is and is not righteous, repentance, how one must be righteous in heart and deed in order to have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation", etc.?
It certainly wasn't Jesus that taught that you can't stop committing sin. Jesus taught the opposite. From what I've seen, those who believe it impossible point to P 's tragic how so many supersede the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Paul.
A testament, do doubt, to your impoverished discernment.
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them..." (1 Cor. 2:14).
01 Feb 10
Originally posted by epiphinehasIf Paul had the "Spirit of God", he wouldn't have contradicted the teachings of Jesus.
[b]When I read Paul, I see a politician talking out both sides of his mouth in order to gain power.
A testament, do doubt, to your impoverished discernment.
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them..." (1 Cor. 2:14).[/b]
That you believe Paul is a testament, no doubt, to your desire for cheap salvation which ran contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
01 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasNot the usual "hit and run"?
Where do you think Paul contradicts Jesus?
If you're really interested, start another thread, though I'd have thought this would have answered your question:
"That you believe Paul is a testament, no doubt, to your desire for cheap salvation which ran contrary to the teachings of Jesus."
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
01 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnePauline soteriology is certainly complex and I do not think this passage gives a comprehensive expression to Paul's teachings on salvation. This passage might suggest that salvation is merely confessional but other passages suggest otherwise. For example, he writes: "Put to death, then, the parts of you that are earthly: immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and the greed that is idolatry. Because of these the wrath of God is coming" (Col 3:5-6). Immorality does exclude the believer from salvation and will incur divine retribution.
From what I can tell, they get this from Romans 10. He is what he is.
If I should hazard an interpretation of Romans 10, I would say that Paul believes that by faith, the belief in Jesus and the hope for salvation, a person no longer fears death or temptation and can therefore lead a moral life. The belief in Christ saves because it offers the believer confidence and hope. As Peter writes, "In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3). I do not think Paul imagines the possibility that there would be a believer who could be apathetic and morally dissolute. The belief in Christ should impel the believer into righteousness.
01 Feb 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne[/b]
Why do you play these games.
I showed it earlier:
[quote]For someone who purports to "seek Truth", you play extremely fast and loose with it. In your effort to find something disparaging to say, you time and again resort to misrepresentations, half-truths and outright lies.
For example you said:
[b]At least you accept that this is speculation and ...[text shortened]... ur posts have similar misrepresentations, half-truths and outright lies. Do you ever stop?
Why do you play these games?
It's no game. The game you are playing with yourself is to think its a game. You put out to others the very thing you do yourself , and I actually think you don't know that you are dong it.
You indulged in some severe speculation regarding Jesus's actions at the temple with the moneychangers.
However, when I speculate about the meaning of Jesus's words at the last supper , you criticise me for "speculating".
My speculation was on much firmer ground than yours.
Work the rest out for yourself.
02 Feb 10
Originally posted by Conrau KYour not the first I've spoken with who calls Paul' teaching "complex" in order to give him the benefit of the doubt. But none have been able / willing to unravel the "complexity" and provide a coherent all inclusive explanation. I think the tendency is a, "it's in the Bible, so it must be coherent", attitude. Often "complexity" is ultimately nothing more than incoherence which is what I see in what I've read from Paul.
Pauline soteriology is certainly complex and I do not think this passage gives a comprehensive expression to Paul's teachings on salvation. This passage might suggest that salvation is merely confessional but other passages suggest otherwise. For example, he writes: "Put to death, then, the parts of you that are earthly: immorality, impurity, passion, evil ...[text shortened]... c and morally dissolute. The belief in Christ should impel the believer into righteousness.
I've also heard the "a person no longer fears death or temptation and can therefore lead a moral life" theory. However, this doesn't seem to hold water. For one, it doesn't seem to be borne out by its "fruit". For another, so far as I know, Jesus did not subscribe to this theory. If you believe Jesus sincerely wanted everyone to have "eternal life" and this was the best approach, then why didn't He advocate it? I think that there is hope in the teachings of Jesus. Time and again, he tells us, "This is the way, follow me". But that doesn't seem to be easy enough for most. They want to get as much as they can for as little as possible.
02 Feb 10
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterTake a deep breath and try to comprehend what I actually wrote:
Why do you play these games?
It's no game. The game you are playing with yourself is to think its a game. You put out to others the very thing you do yourself , and I actually think you don't know that you are dong it.
You indulged in some severe speculation regarding Jesus's actions at the temple with the moneychangers.
Howev
My speculation was on much firmer ground than yours.
Work the rest out for yourself.[/b]
"Jesus explicitly taught that righteousness, i.e., following the will of God, is required for 'eternal life' / 'heaven' / 'salvation'.
You can speculate all you want about "symbolism", but that's all it is is speculation."
To this you replied:
At least you accept that this is speculation and not explicitly stated. I presume that it's Ok for you to speculate about stuff like this but not Ok for me to speculate about Matt26:28?
However , it seems I am not allowed to speculate , but ToOne is.
Interesting.........
I never said that you are "not allowed to speculate" or even implied it. Yet, you make this assertion as if I had some sort of double standard.
You even say, "At least you accept that this is speculation and not explicitly stated", so evidently on some level, you understand that speculation falls short of what is explicitly stated which was the point I was making.
You indulged in some severe speculation regarding Jesus's actions at the temple with the moneychangers.
However, when I speculate about the meaning of Jesus's words at the last supper , you criticise me for "speculating".
Even here, you twist things to try to make it seem as if I have a double standard. The speculation about the money changers was just that "speculation" and I acknowledged it. I fully understand that "all it is is speculation". What's more, it wasn't really "my speculation". It was speculation that I had come across and merely asked for vistesd's opinion on it since he is much better grounded in the ancient Jews and Judaism than I. The premise seemed reasonable enough on the surface and I wanted to know if he thought it reasonable with what he knows about ancient Jews and Judaism. For all I knew, he could have said that it was ridiculously flawed and explained why. To couch it in terms that you have here is deceitful and dishonest. But that's who you keep proving you are: a deceitful and dishonest person. You are free to change that at any time. The truth will make you free.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
02 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYour not the first I've spoken with who calls Paul' teaching "complex" in order to give him the benefit of the doubt. But none have been able / willing to unravel the "complexity" and provide a coherent all inclusive explanation. I think the tendency is a, "it's in the Bible, so it must be coherent", attitude. Often "complexity" is ultimately nothing more than incoherence which is what I see in what I've read from Paul.
Your not the first I've spoken with who calls Paul' teaching "complex" in order to give him the benefit of the doubt. But none have been able / willing to unravel the "complexity" and provide a coherent all inclusive explanation. I think the tendency is a, "it's in the Bible, so it must be coherent", attitude. Often "complexity" is ultimately nothing more r most. They want to get as much as they can for as little as possible.
I am not saying it is incomprehensible or incoherent, just that it is complex -- a few quotes hastily excised from their context will not be very illustrative of the breadth of his belief. There is an Anglican bishop who is an eminent authority on this subject, N.T Wright, who has dealt with this issue. Anyway, I think from the quote I gave, it can be seen that Paul does not see a profession of faith as saving in itself.
I've also heard the "a person no longer fears death or temptation and can therefore lead a moral life" theory. However, this doesn't seem to hold water. For one, it doesn't seem to be borne out by its "fruit". For another, so far as I know, Jesus did not subscribe to this theory. If you believe Jesus sincerely wanted everyone to have "eternal life" and this was the best approach, then why didn't He advocate it? I think that there is hope in the teachings of Jesus. Time and again, he tells us, "This is the way, follow me". But that doesn't seem to be easy enough for most. They want to get as much as they can for as little as possible.
At several points in the Scripture, Jesus does mention eternal life. For example, he says 'Everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life' (Matthew 19:29). Jesus says that 'He who loses his life gains it' (implying that self-sacrificing death leads to a new and greater life.) Eternal life figures prominently in Jesus' teaching. At many other times, Jesus also teaches about eternal fire and hell. He clearly believes that the afterlife will be eternal and in it, God will enact divine justice, punishing evil-doers and rewarding followers.
Anyway, whether you buy this theory or not, the relevant question is whether St Paul believed it. Given his often shrill moral exhortations and discourses about the dangers of divine wrath, it is clear that he departs from those Christians who think that a mere profession of faith wins salvation. Confessing belief in God will lead to salvation but if a person becomes morally dissolute, if he fails to follows Christ's commandments, then that profession will be valueless. That, at least, is what St Paul believes. St Paul has a lot of other things to say about this in relation to grace, the law and faith, but that is another story.
02 Feb 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat's more, it wasn't really "my speculation". It was speculation that I had come across and merely asked for vistesd's opinion on it since he is much better grounded in the ancient Jews and Judaism than I.
Take a deep breath and try to comprehend what I actually wrote:
"Jesus explicitly taught that righteousness, i.e., following the will of God, is required for 'eternal life' / 'heaven' / 'salvation'.
You can speculate all you want about "symbolism", but that's all it is is speculation."
To this you replied:
[b]At least you accept that this is specu ...[text shortened]... are free to change that at any time. The truth will make you free.
------------ToOne-----------------------------
Oh , come on. Don't try and pull that one out of the bag. You talk as if you merely stumbled across this accidentally. You also validated it as "reasonable speculation" therefore admitting that some speculations are valid in your mind.
This is the whole point. To say something is "mere speculation" is pointless . The issue is whether the speculation itself is valid and reasonable or not. You criticised my point by saying "all it is is speculation" as if that in itself was enough.
It is not enough. You must show that the speculation itself is invalid. You did not invalidate it , but you dismissed it anyway - and then presented some other speculation as valid without asking yourself whether "all it was was speculation".
If I dismissed your speculation as invalid on the basis of the mere fact it was "speculation" you would have cried foul and asked me for my reasoning.
Any speculation has to be considered on it's own merits , I would be happy to do this with you but you just won't go there.
You just dismissed my speculation out of hand and then posted one of your own choosing. You play with loaded dice.
The analogy is clear. If a man who knows what the Passover festival means to Jews and knows what the symbolism is about deliberately says that the passover wine is HIS blood and it's sheds for remission of sins , then we had better take him seriously and it's logical to think he is alluding to something symbolic and significant , especially if his name is Jesus.