The Bible

Jesus also said, “No man comes to the Father save through me.” If works can get us into heaven that means Jesus was lying.

 

The "no one comes through the Father save through me" is a very poor argument for Sola Fide. See Matt 25 - Sheep and Goats parable - where Jesus is depicted as Judging who gets through the pearly gates and who does not.

Interestingly - in this passage - those who do not know Jesus but do good works get in. Those who know Jesus but lack good works do not get in.

I agree that the Jesus of Matt/Mark contradicts the Jesus of John (or at least the one passage you quote). This does not mean Jesus was lying. What it could mean is that the author of John was engaging in Pious Fraud ... which is pretty common back in the day.

There is no doubt however that the Jesus of Matt contradicts Sola Fide doctrine "Salvation by Faith Alone". Have you never read the Sermon on the Mount ? Matt 5-7 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5-7&version=NIV

This is the most famous Sermon of Jesus. The main theme of this sermon is how one get's into heaven. Unfortunately for "Sola Fide" adherents - the Sermon is all works works and more works. Not one mention of "believe in Jesus and you will be saved" - (unless of course this belief in Jesus is interpreted in "belief in the teachings of Jesus" but, this is not Sola Fide.

What is also worth noting is that the Majority of Christianity (Catholic Orthodox - and even some Protestant denominations) do not accept Sola Fide.

John 3:16 could also be interpreted as "believe in the teachings of Jesus".

Given the Jesus of Matt - the above interpretation would negate the contradiction. I claim this is the best option given that rather than 1 passage that is subject to interpretation. Jesus is crystal clear in the Sermon on the mount - and in other places in Matt that works are required. Rather than one passage subject to interpretation - you have a whole sermon where things are stated in a way that is very clear and straightforward = essentially "This is what you need to do to get into heaven".

 

Jesus accepted their good deeds as being done FOR HIM! How then does this mean that they don't know Jesus?

Why can't you respond? Do you want to try again? Why would Jesus use them as a benchmark?

What does Matt 7:21 say about those who "have faith in Jesus?"

Are you saying even IF the 500 wasn't disputed? If so, what about Paul's mention of Jesus' appearing to James, then to all the apostles?

 

The people did not know they were doing the deeds for Jesus = they did not know Jesus. The deeds were not done on the basis of serving Jesus. The moral of the parable is that Jesus accepts all good deeds as done for him. When you do a good deed, you are doing it for Jesus = doing the will of God.

Jesus used the Pharisees as a benchmark in order to set the bar very low. Being more righteous than the Pharisees is not to difficult.

We have been over this numerous times. Jesus says that not all who "have faith in Jesus" will get in.

Correct - whether or not the story of the 500 was a later addition is irrelevant to the central point = Paul likens the appearances of Jesus after death to his vision = no zombie Jesus.

 

I'd say you are and odd one Trevor.. however the ability to dismiss any and all possibility of God, regardless of your own experiences, is not that odd anymore. BTW.. there are no ghost.. just demons pretending to be your long lost loved one. Give 'em and inch .. and they'll take your soul.

 

If good works are required to get into heaven those who did not do good works would not be saved. This is proven to be not true by the cases of the tax collector and the thief on the cross. Tax collectors were despised by observant Jews but when the tax collecorepented Jesus let him know he was saved. The thief crucified with Jesus did not do good works. All he did was ask Jesus to save him and Jesus assured him he would join him (Jesus) in heaven. If works were required neither the tax collector or the thief would have been saved.
The Bible consist of two parts. The 66 books are split between the 39 books of The Law and the 27 of salvation through Christ. In the Old Testament deeds are very important. Mosaic law must be observed in order to have a chance at salvation. Sacrifices must be made in prescribed ways. Ritualistic defilement must be negated in prescribed ways. Almost all actions had to follow certain rules that necessitated particular actions or works.
The New Testament is the testament of how Jesus Christ has fulfilled the need to perform certain deeds for us. Through his life, death, and resurrection he has made the performance of deeds unnecessary. The New Testament declares the we are saved SOLA FIDE, SOLA GRATIA, SOLA SCRIPTURA. We are saved by faith which comes to us by the grace of God as explained in the scriptures.

 

Your understanding of "Good works" is weak. You should read the sermon on the mount "objectively" = not from the perspective of your man made dogma or from the writings of Paul or the authors that came after.

There is nothing about the tax collector that negates him from being saved in the Salvation formulation put forth by the Jesus of Matt. You are deeply confused with respect to the teachings of Jesus.

Your mission - should you choose to accept it - is to read the Sermon on the mount (objectively as described) and answer 2 questions.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5-7&version=NIV

1) What is the main rule on which Jesus bases his teachings ?
2) What is "the will of the Father" ?
3) learn how to use the quote function (hit reply on the post you are responding to) so I know you have responded.

 

What does your god say. 'Chris155au, believe what the Bible says is true, even if I've added bits from other pagan religions.'
Chris replies 'Er, God, aren't your teachings sufficient. Do you have to borrow from heathen beliefs?'

I can't continue this brief conversation as I don't know how God, in his infinite wisdom, would reply.

Much of archeaology (Biblical) is settled by its cross-reference in History and the Bible. Back to the good old walls of Jericho. They fell - fact. When ? Debateable. How is disputed by Christians. . Geology shows this is an earthquake zone. The walls of Jericho have fallen before - several times in its 9000 year old history - by enemies and earthquakes. And once since in the middle ages. Again they were shaken, as was the whole area, in 1926. Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain are all in the same area. It's the Northern tip of the Great Rift Valley, that extends from central Africa up through Egypt and into the Dead Sea region.
.

 

But that's only your opinion. Many religions have taught that their deceased relatives are still with them. And those religions were around before Christianity. Wasn't it a witch that was supposed to have called up a righteous man (Samuel) from the grave?

I've said before - I am agnostic. I see no evidence for a god - certainly not the Biblical God. As I've told someone else, if you trace the Christian God back through the OT you have the acceptance of Yahweh, the god Jesus talked about as his father. Jahweh was taken from the Ugarit Pantheon of Gods earlier. He was a son of El - the main God of much of the ancient middle east and given the nation of Israel to 'control'. In fact, it is Ugarit scriptures and writings that influence the Psalms and Proverbs.
"
The Canaanite backgrounds of the Psalms emerged as an important topic of biblical research after the 1930s following the discovery of texts at the site of Late Bronze Age Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra) in Syria. Scholars have identified many similarities between the Ugaritic texts and the Hebrew Bible, including the Psalms, leading to speculation that these corpora belonged to the same larger cultural milieu. As a result, the Bible’s emphasis on the foreignness of the Canaanites and other peoples, such as the Amorites and the Hittites, appears to be a polemic against Israelites who fail to conform to monotheistic worship of Yahweh, rather than against a foreign culture or society. This article examines the Psalms’ Canaanite backgrounds as represented mainly by the Ugaritic texts, first by discussing the relationship between Ugarit and Canaan. It then looks at poetic style, various literary genres or types, and type-scenes. It also considers the hymnic motif of praising the divine name for the Ugaritic texts and the Psalter, with reference to Psalm 29 which shows a strong “Canaanite background”. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view...9783335.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199783335-e-003

Historians divide the world's 13 million living Jews into three groups: Middle Eastern, or Oriental, Jews; Sephardic Jews from Spain and Portugal; and Ashkenazi Jews from Europe. Although the Bible traces Jewish roots back to the time of Abraham some 4000 years ago, most historians have concluded that the actual Jewish identity dates to only a little over 2000 years ago.

Egyptian history offers no evidence of the Hebrews in Egypt. Sure, there were Semetics, Canaanites and the Hyksos even controlled Lower Egypt for a century or so. They were ejected by the Upper Egypt Pharaoh Ahmose I. But we know there were still some places which were occupied by foreigners. Having thrown out the Hyksos Ahmose then went on further and left Egypt to make more conquests. While away he left his Qyeen in charge and when a section of foreigners in a city rebelled the Queen sent troops and had them expelled. Egypt had foreigners in Upper Egypt and foreigners in Lower Egypt. So foreigners were entering and leaving Egypt all the time.

The Armana letters show the state in Palestine of the time. There was rebellion by the natives against Egytp, probably supported by mercenaries hired, some believe, from Hittite slaves and escaped slaves. Whatever, the area was taken from the Egyptians who were to busy elsewhere to send aid. The Bible uses the Exodus and invasion story to explain the change. In 1274 Egypt and the Hitties fought probably the greatest chariot battle of all time at Kadesh. Both sides claimed victory but in reality neither really won. Both eventually agreed to a pact and withdrew to their home countrues. From that time both nations grew weaker over a period of time. The Hittites eventually disappear from History as a nation. The Egyptians, over the next millenia, fell prey to Libyans, Nubians, Assyria, Persian and finally Rome..

Have you ever thought of these ex-slaves entering Palestine, throwing out the indigenous population and taking over? They had never had land. They had no experience of agriculture. They'd never used an ox driven plough, never broadcast seed, grown crops, harvested the fields. They knew nothing of the land, the weather patterns, the culture of growing grapes, figs etc. .These are not things learnt in 6 months. Palestine was not a land flowing with milk and honey. It was a land that demanded knowledge and hard work.

Now I'm going to have 30 minutes of choral music and prepare for bed.

 

Name an example of such a teaching?

You don't believe in God anymore do you?

 

I'm agnostic.

Yahweh is part of the Ugarit Pantheon - before Judaism - and used by Judaism. Monotheism stems from their time in Babylon - Zoroaster. Before that they worshipped several gods. Archaeology shows us that. When digging up homes of the period they found Teraphims. They were never monotheistic until after the Babylonian exile adapting Zoroastic influences. . It was then that the real power changed from the kings to the Priesthood. Study the Maccabean period. It is full of Priests fighting to be High Priest from different factions. That's where the power lay. It was on such literal battle between 2 brothers armies to be High Priest that settled the fate of the Maccabean Kingdom. One brother asked Pompey, the Roman General for help. He gave it,and then annexed Palestine for the Roman Empire..
Study Egyptian rituals and artefacts and note the similarity to the Jewish.
The 10 commandments are just another form of contract that ancient rulers made with their people. Even attributing this contract to their God. Hammurabi credits Marduk for instance at the start of his contract. (Code)

 

"This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." Hebrews 8:10

 

[

Read the intro. to the Code of Hammurabi.
When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.....
When Marduk sent me to rule over men, to give the protection of right to the land, I did right and righteousness in . . . , and brought about the well-being of the oppressed.

That's part of the covenant and it's followed by the laws/commandments

Of course the writers of Hebrews believed that Moses actually existed and received this covenant. At least we have evidence of Hammurabi and his kingdom.

 

How do you equate not knowing they were doing the deeds for Jesus with not knowing Jesus?

You have previously said that "righteousness is doing the will of the Father." Doesn't this mean that the Pharisees did the will of the Father?

Jesus says, "not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord..." You think that means "have faith in Jesus?" Surely you can't be serious.

How the hell does he "liken" the appearances of Jesus after death to his vision? He simply says that Jesus appeared to
the 500, James and the apostles and then he says that Jesus appeared to him. Two difference forms of appearing.

 

God created them. Of course they're going to know his law.

 

Its called having an understanding of context and literary device. No need to confuse yourself further over these things though. Sola fide is refuted by the fact that those who get into heaven do so on the basis of works and those who do not are barred because of lack of works.

<Rule 2>

Of course it doesn't - where on earth do you come up with this nonsense? Obviously the Pharisees are acting against the will of the Father.

Obviously the people that are calling "Lord Lord" and doing things like casting out demons in the Lords name .. have faith in Jesus. <Rule 2>

When Paul says Jesus appeared - and then to me last - he is obviously referring to his vision.. a spiritual presence of God. Paul says all these appearances occurred in the same sentence.

Paul does not say ... all the others met Jesus in the flesh .. and appeared to me in spiritual form - as a vision. He is using the term appeared in the same context.

 

Don't you know that Matthew was a tax collector?

Matthew 10:3 (CEB) = "3 Philip; and Bartholomew; Thomas; and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus; and Thaddaeus;"

 

And I presented evidence of the Exodus.. which you summarily dismissed out of hand. I believe I am very near ending my debate with you... I'll outline my reasoning tomorrow.It's late here now.

 

So Anu and Bel gave Hammurabi a similar covenant that Jahweh gave Moses, And the gods Nanna and Utu gave the King of Ur Nammu laws which include 'the banishment of malediction, violence, and strife, as well as the protection of society’s weakest individuals. the text deals with the laws themselves., are invoked, after which the king is said to have established equity in the land. This included the banishment of malediction, violence, and strife, as well as the protection of society’s weakest individuals. After the prologue, the text deals with the laws themselves'..
Ditto other codes under other gods.

If God created them and they knew his law, why bother with all the fantasy of Moses etc. Why the supposed Flood? .What about original sin?

The stories in the Torah were written in the 7-5th century by scribes using the known history of the area. They had no national origin so they created one. Historical novels all use the same principles today. The use of genuine History in a fictional story. The fact that the preacher Jesus believed them is his upbringing in the religious teaching of the day.

 

I understand your exasperation but if you had seen how many times the Exodus has been 'proved' over the past decades you would want more proof. I've read reports of the film and listened to several interviews, even with people involved in it, I'm not convinced.

Down the years 3 different times have been given for the Exodus, and different scenarios for those dates. Still there is not accepted date for that Exodus.

There were cities in Egypt that contained foreigners. Avaris itself was the capital of the Hyksos. So it was in their style and contained Canaanite/Semetic houses and paraphernalia. The finding of a house with a 'Midianite statue' in it is not surprising and the 'colour coat' relationship to Joseph is just wishful thinking. If you remember Joseph was a Sumerian descendant, not a Midianite. Even before the Hyksos arrived there were established communities of Canaanites in Egypt.

Don't you find it strange there is nothing in Egyptian history about any mass Exodus in theur own country, yet we have records of what was happening in their dominions. The Armarna letters. Why do these people set out to prove something and ignore actual proof in front of them. . Canaan was in uproar. Many cities were being destroyed by rebels, and yet the Bible tells us that only 3 were destroyed by the 'Exodus'. One we know that was already in ruins long before the supposed Exodus (Ai), and Jericho. Why would the Hebrews destroy Jericho? It was theirs to live in after its capture. Few conquerors ever destroyed cities that were going to be useful to them. They usually conquered the city and 'used' the civilian population to keep things running. The Assyrians sometimes emptied cities of its occupants and moved them away. But then they replaced them with conquered people from other areas. As with the Samaritans in Palestine in Jesus time. And the Greeks built cities in Palestine in Alexanders time - The Decapolis.

There are so many questions about these stories that need answers.

Why did Terah, Abrahams father, set out for Canaan and end up in Haran. Half way to Haran there was a trade route which would have taken him across country, cutting the journey by over a half.
How did Abraham buy land from the Hittites when they weren't around or ever owned the land around Machpelah?.
How was Sarai so beautiful at 70 years of age that Pharaoh - 700 miles away - could have heard of her. And why would he want her when he had many foreign princesses in his household?
How did Moses call Ur - of the Chaldees? They don't appear until Moses had been dead several hundred years.
Abrahams household numbered around 600 people How did he feed and cloth them all? He had problems when his and Lot's shepherds were fighting over grazing and water. But we never hear about any disputes with the indigenous shepherds. I bet they weren't pleased.
Why go into Egypt? He had to pass through the Judaean hill country and the Negev desert. Then he just made himself look silly while there by giving his wife away.

Ah well. You can't beat a good novel

 

Giftedone,
There is no need to be either snide or smug and talk down to those who disagree with you. While you may think you have a superior knowledge of The Bible and a deeper insight into what it’s message is, scores upon scores of theologians disagree with you, theologians like Martin Marty and Jaroslav Peliken.
Good deeds are just that, good deeds, and we should do them for various reasons. We should do them because they make us feel good. We should do them to please our fellow man. We should do them to please God.
The fact that good deeds please God does not give them any efficacy in our being saved or going to heaven. No good deed is good enough, or compilation of good deeds large enough to pay for our sins. Only one thing can do that. That one thing is faith, given us by grace and revealed to us in the scriptures. We are saved, not as a result of what we do but as a result of what we ask. We are saved if we ask Father God to save us in the name of Jesus Christ who paid the price for our sin. We can not pay that price on our own but if we have faith in Jesus Christ and ask for forgiveness of our sins, the cost is marked, paid in full.

 

That's Christian teaching. The Jews, and other religions would disagree with you.

On the OT a man accused of a crime could seek shelter in a city of Refuge where he would be safe from his accusers. When the High Priest of the time died, he was then free from his 'sins' and could return to his own place. In the NT a sinner can fly from his sins to the cross where the High Priest died, and be free from those sins.
Most of the NT is adapted from the OT. Jesus the Jewish preacher practised Judaism, preached Judaism, to the Jews. The Gospel writers added a few touches of their own to make Jesus divine, including the contradictory Nativity stories, confusing Crucifixion story.

 

Good works follows faith.
good Morning Brothers! I pray the God removes evil from our presence!
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word I God.
The Word was made flesh, and came to be among us.

 

I was not being snide nor talking down to you. Asking you to go to the Sermon on the Mount and answer a few questions is a simple prelude to providing evidence for my claim.

My question is why are you so desperate to avoid discussing the teachings of Jesus ? I could have just posted portions of the Sermon on the mount - as I have done previously in this thread - where it is crystal clear that Jesus is giving a works based salvation formulation. Instead I thought - being a rational person - you could just read that sermon and we could discuss from there.

Rather than discuss the teachings of Jesus directly - you rely on logical fallacy "Appeal to Authority" - as if this somehow supports your claim. You citing a couple theologians that "may" happen to agree with you (you did not even bother to quote their arguments) is ridiculous on a number of levels - in addition to being logical fallacy .. namely - it is a fact that the Majority of Christianity does not accept Sola Fide.

The council of Trent calls Sola Fide an "anathema". The difference between you and I however - is I do use this fact to try to support my claim .. because obviously there are a huge number of theologians and "so called theologians" ( you did not even bother to give credentials of the two you cited never mind cite what they had to say - so bad is this logical fallacy) that are biased towards their personal dogma and thus who do nothing but try and fit selected teachings of Jesus into dogma rather than adjust their dogma to fit the teachings of Jesus - which is exactly what you are doing.

After completely avoiding discussion of the teachings of Jesus - you then close by putting words in God's mouth. WOW .. just WOW.

Do you realize - at least by my interpretation - that this is what is referred to as the "unforgivable sin" ? WOW - just WOW.

I asked two simple questions in my post which - in a tizzy of ad hom and other fallacy - you completely avoided answering. What's more, is that these questions should be simple for any Christian to answer.

1) What is the main rule on which Jesus bases his teachings ?

How can anyone call themselves a serious Christian - or claim to have any significant understanding of the teachings of Jesus (as you have done - never mind - you claim to know the mind of God - WOW) if you can not even attempt to answer this question ?

Matt 7:12 Jesus calls this "The rule that sums up the Law and the Prophets" Think on that for a moment. There is no rule on which Jesus puts such emphasis (sans Love God) - not even close.

Given the huge emphasis that Jesus placed on this rule - you would think this would be first on the lips of every follower of Jesus would you not ?

Apparently however, you don't care. You have done everything in your power to avoid discussing or learning this rule.

2) What is "the will of the Father" ?

This is another thing that every Christian who wants entrance through the pearly gates should be able to answer off the top of their head should then not ? I mean really - is this not one of the primary purposes for being a Christian - the promise of the resurrection ? Life after death ?

On this you offered an answer. Your answer came from ingested dogma. The problem is that the question is not in relation to your dogma or my dogma. The question asks "What does Jesus claim is the will of the Father" ?

Jesus states directly "Only those that do the will of the Father" will get into heaven. Matt 7:21.

Unfortunately - the answer Jesus gives contradicts your answer. It is quite something for you to claim that you know more about the mind of God than Jesus ... and basically claim defacto that Jesus is wrong and you are right.... WOW ... just WOW.

 

So all the good work done by atheists is not really good work? Well, well. Don't stop them, the world will be a lot poorer.