"Christ" and "Christians"

You are wrong . Jesus was answering the question--who is my neighbor.
So , this scripture is easy to research...the Bible is entirely online. You could be having trouble comprehending, or this could be be purposeful twisting which would fit the hatred tone within the thread.

 

So what you are saying as I ponder the difference to it's logical conclusion is there is no logical conclusion.

 

You are obviously the one who is willfully twisting the meaning.

Jesus was answering the question "Who is my neighbor" in the context of "Who is the neighbor I must love to enter the Kingdom of God."

I'm sure you get that........but you don't want to admit that by answering as he did--Jesus destroyed the "Grace" theology that was later invented by Saul/Paul the liar.

And Saul/Paul is the one card that, when pulled, causes the whole illegitimate "Christian" house of cards to collapse.

Jesus was ok.

Saul/Paul was the Pat Robertson of his time.......simply a self-serving religious charlatan.

 

I wouldn't go that far.

It is certainly a possibility that among the impossible array of possibilities that there is no logical conclusion.

That's for each of us to figure out in our own way.

 

Wrong.

Read it before posting. Start at Luke 10:25, read it all.

25 On one occasion an expert in the (Mosaic) 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; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

Then Jesus presents the story of the Good Samaritan.

Did you catch your error? Jesus answered you get eternal life by loving God with all you have, and then by loving others. The requirement to love others is actually embedded in the "love God" answer, and the expert in the Law would know that already.

The story of the Good Samaritan is simply an explanation of who your neighbor is. Jesus used it to open the mans eyes to the real meaning of "love your neighbor". And to a Jew of that time, the simple phrase "good Samaritan" is an oxymoron, to Jews there was no such thing as a "good" Samaritan.

It in no way undermines salvation through faith.

 

This whole thread is screwy as it assumes Christianity to be a works-based religion like false religions. We are saved by faith, which very often accompanies a changed, repentant life. You can find fault with every Christian (or atheist) who ever lived, you won't find fault in the life of Jesus Christ.

 

Thanks for laying it out so nicely.

This teaching from Jesus absolutely DOES undermine the Faith/Grace theology of Paul that lets people sin all they want and still go to heaven.

You get to the Kingdom of God by doing works of love to your neighbors........not through the suffering of the mythical "Christ" creature that Saul/Paul borrowed from Gentile mythology and applied to the stories of Jesus.

You'll notice that JESUS DIDN'T MENTION THAT AT ALL (well, you'll notice if you can ponder this honestly).

When you do as the "Good Samaritan" did.......you have entered the Kingdom of God.

That's what Jesus was all about. All the rest is prevarication from Saul/Paul.

Saul/Paul invented "Christ" and Christianity strictly to attain power and riches. His stories of being poor are just that.....stories.

He was the Pat Robertson of his time.

 

Not really.

This thread reveals that Christ and Jesus are two different concepts and that Jesus had nothing to do with the new religion of "Christianity" that was later invented by the charlatan with two names (both Saul and Paul).

 

Calling one religion "False" seems to imply that others are true.......when none have been proven to be true.

True or not.......some may have great value.

Some may also do great harm.

Maybe we has met the enemy and he is us.

 

People who are saved can sin and still go to Heaven. And people who are saved can deliberately sin and still go to Heaven. Salvation does not make a person perfect, it only forgives the persons past and future sins. Christians will fall to temptations, they will slip into sinful ways at times.

But the idea that a person will honestly accept Jesus and be saved just as an insurance policy so the person can live a life of sin is wrong. A person who accepts salvation takes a life altering step. They accept the truth of the bible, they want to change, and their actions and motivation are different after salvation. Such a person wants to live in a manner pleasing to God, not in a manner that is openly contemptuous of God.

Paul addressed this idea of "sin all you want" in Romans 6. Romans is Paul's formal scholarly argument in the form of a scholastic diatribe (a classical Greek structure for presenting a thesis, common at the time in Greek intellectual circles). The thesis is stated in Romans 1:16-17 - salvation (righteousness) through faith. 1:18 to 3:20 is the demonstration by antithesis, it argues the thesis from the perspective of the opposite. 3:20-31 is the thesis restated, Chap 4 is demonstration of the thesis, Chap 5 is the exposition of the thesis, Chaps 6-11 addresses anticipated objections to the thesis (such as why cant people just sin all they want to), 12:1 - 15:13 are practical implications of the thesis, and 15:14 to the end (16:27) is the conclusion.

When you “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind;" then you go to Heaven. "‘Love your neighbor as yourself." is a subset of the first requirement, the "golden rule" is an Old Testament (Leviticus) concept, but it is not primary.

"Love God" is fundamental in Mosaic Law, for example stated in Deuteronomy 6:4-7 which is called the Sh'ma and is what is in the little scroll you find on Jewish door frames. It is also often repeated in the morning when a Jew first leaves his house. It encompasses everything in Judaism, including the Golden Rule.

This is repeated in Matthew 22:36, in which Jesus is asked “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” and Jesus responds
"37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

There is no place in the New Testament which states that good works get a person into Heaven.

 

I'm sure Christians would like to believe that, but it's simply not so.

Jesus clearly taught that the way to the Kingdom of God was by emulating his life--A LIFE OF GOOD WORKS.

Thus he gave the story of the Good Samaritan as an example of how we should live to enter the Kingdom of God.

Jesus never taught about the "Grace" concept that Saul/Paul later invented.

His brother James (later killed by the charlatan Saul/Paul) wrote the same in his letter to the church......"True religion is caring for widows and orphans."

It's easy to see that Saul/Paul invented a new religion for his Gentile friends (based on old Gentile mythology vicarious suffering to pay for sin) that was diametrically opposed to the teaching of Jesus and his true followers.

 

You are taking one small part of the Bible - Luke 10:29-37 (the Good Samaritan story) - and ignoring everything else, including Luke 10:25:28. You ignore Matthew 22:36 (not written by Paul) which clearly restates what is in Luke 10:25-37.

And you are wrong about James, both the book and the man. In Acts during the Council of Jerusalem, it was unanimously agreed by all including James that the Mosaic Law was not required for salvation (as argued by Paul and Barnabas at the Council) - the Mosaic Law is works and deeds (doing what the Law requires). Salvation was through grace.

And the book of James argues that salvation which is not demonstrated through deeds is not true salvation. Since salvation is a life altering event, it will be seen in the saved persons works. This also goes back to your earlier argument that a saved person can sin as much as they want - James says no, a saved person will not sin as much as they want but will live a life pleasing to God and that includes helping others.

James says salvation through faith and demonstrated through deeds, not salvation through deeds.

 

Paul and the Apostles knew each other, they reference each others writings, Peter mentions Paul favourably in 2 Peter. Paul was killed about the same time as Peter, around 66 AD. Several others were killed in the early 60's. At least 3 other Apostles well outlived Paul (Simon, John, Jude).

Paul did not come along after the other Apostles but was contemporary to them. There is nothing in the New Testament or in various church writings that supports your arguement that Paul usurped the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

 

There is another interpretation, though.

The question is whether a true believer could do anything other than emulate the life of Christ.

The "works" aspect isn't necessarily something that has to be done.

It's not that Christian are working their way to heaven.

It's more that a real Christian, one who actually gets it, one who God accepts, couldn't behave in some other way.

There is no "fire insurance". You can't "accept Jesus as your personal savior" AND continue in a life of sin or even just lack of "works". It's not that the works are required. It's more that the lack of such works identifies you as not having actually become saved.

 

That's just more of the nonsense that Christians use to comfort themselves.

You said, "The "works" aspect isn't necessarily something that has to be done."

Wrong!!!!

The truth is that the "works" DO INDEED have to be DONE.

Jesus commanded the people to obey the Golden Rule.........and if they didn't?

Jesus taught salvation by works.

The liar Saul/Paul taught "sin all you want and still go to heaven."

 

Duh.........how would church writings ever go against Saul/Paul?

They were all written and heavily edited for 200 years by the followers of Saul/Paul.

Yes.......all the wonderful early stories of the brave Saul/Paul were written by either Saul/Paul himself or his disciple Luke.

Nobody else.

It was a scam. A Pat Robertson scam. Saul/Paul was a fake and a liar. Jews and Muslims know it.......they totally reject the crafty old Saul/Paul.

Christians deny it.

Naturally.

 

Acts, you say???

And who wrote the wonderful book called "Acts?"

Saul/Paul and his crooked disciple Luke wrote it all.......a cynical fictional work to represent Saul/Paul as a courageous hero and a true Apostle of Jesus.

But the lying Saul/Paul never met Jesus and was an enemy of the disciples of Jesus ....... he just took some old Gentile mythology and tacked it onto the stories of Jesus to invent a new religion for his rich Gentile friends......a religion that allowed them to sin and still get to heaven.

Wildly popular.......and why not?

Jesus was not popular.......he taught that the gate to heaven was NARROW and few would pass.......and in order to pass you had to be like the Good Samaritan and do substantial works of love and compassion......and give generously of your worldly goods.

Not popular.

Saul/Paul's easy way took over........and became one of the great religions.

Highly predictable.

 

I think you missed my point.

I'm saying that that if you are really saved, the works would demonstrate that - they would be a result.

If the works don't exist, then the conversion was a failure.

I agree Jesus made some strong statements about the nature of the works - how a life should be led.

I'm just saying that anyone actually converted would do those things. And, if they aren't, then it's a strong indication that they weren't actually converted.

 

I didn't miss your point.

Your "point" is just more of the nonsense that Christians use to comfort themselves.

If you are a true follower of Jesus you have entered the Kingdom of God.

If you are a follower of Saul/Paul and you're not doing what Jesus said but counting on his death on the cross to save you.......you're just another selfish bastard.

 

My suggested interpretation should NOT be "comforting" to Christians - AT ALL.

It's a direct tie between their behavior and whether they are even considered by God to BE Christians!

I think this leads to another question: Is "entering the Kingdom of God" while on Earth some sort of irrevocable condition?

I'm suggesting as one possible interpretation that "works" does NOT help you get to heaven. BUT, it IS a reflection on whether you were ever actually "saved" in the first place.

After all, how could a "saved" individual NOT strive to live up to the commandments of Jesus?

 

Doesn't mean you aren't one either.

 

It's not rocket science.

Either you obey Jesus or you follow Saul/Paul.

Now you can't do both.

Figure it out.

 

Like I was interested in EITHER!

 

Spiritual sects have devolved into political movements. The religious lack true leadership and the blind are lead straight to the slaughterhouse.

 

yep thats how culture is created