The Bible

I wrote the post but can't find it so it must not have gone through.

You claimed that Jesus was referring to people prophesying in his name and casting out demons as "works" = "the will of the father".
This is obviously not true as Jesus states that the people calling "Lord Lord" and doing the above will not make it through the pearly gates.

The people Jesus is referring to is the "faith alone" crowd and they do not make it. The people that do make it are those that do the works contained in the Sermon on the mount. Did you bother to read Matt 5-7 ? This is what Jesus is referring to as "the will of the Father" .

Jesus then doubles down on this claim in the next paragraph by saying that it is not the hearers of the word (the faith crowd) that have a solid foundation but those that do what Jesus has taught = the works he give in the Sermon. What is it that you think Jesus is referring to ?

In summary - you can call "Jesus Jesus" all you like .. Say "I believe in you Jesus- I believe in you Jesus" all you like ... this will not do you any good according to the Jesus of Matt.

It is those that "do the will of the Father" - the one who "Puts these words into practice" that make it through the gates.

It is not like this is some single phrase passage or that Jesus is talking in riddles. It is very straight forward and clear.

Matt 25 - sheep and goats parable - gives the same salvation formulation. In this parable Jesus is depicted as Judge, Jury and Executioner.

Those that do not know Jesus but do good works get through the gates. Those that know Jesus but do not do good works do not.

Only those in deep dark denial can claim that the Jesus of Matt does not contradict "Sola Fide". It is not for nothing that the majority of Christianity refers to "Sola Fide" - Salvation by Faith Alone - as an anathema.

 

Read post 1526.

 

Why would prophesying in His name, driving out demons in his name and in His name performing many miracles not be acceptable works?

Where does the sermon on the mount state that only certain works are acceptable?

 

1) because Jesus says they are not acceptable ... what is your problem ?
2) Jesus lists the works he is referring to as "The will of the Father" Perhaps works not listed are also acceptable but, definitely the "SPECIFIC THINGS HE CONDEMNS" are not acceptable.

This is getting friggen painful once again. Either get a grip or flock off.

 

Do you think that acceptable works in the sermon the mount are only those which are followed by "the will of the Father" or a reference to entering in the Kingdom?

 

This sentence makes no sense ? If you want the simplified version ... there is only one rule. Follow this rule and you will be good.

Matt 7: 12 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

This follows from a famous Rabbi - Rabbi Hillel - who came just before Jesus. "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

Jesus did not invent the Golden rule .. he did however base his teachings on this rule. To be clear - "this rule sums up the entire Law and everything the Prophets said"

Jesus realized the ignorant masses would not get it on the first go so he restated this rule a number of ways (most which are in the Sermon on the Mount which it seems you have yet to read). Love neighbor as self, Judge not lest you be Judged, Take log out of own eye before picking speck out of brothers, Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone .. and so on.

This rule seems simple on the surface but .. it is very deep. The principles of Western Democracy and the principles on which the US was founded are based on this rule as per the "social contract" .. construct by which the people give power to some authority - aka Gov't.

Now if Christians would just follow this rule - the world would be a better place

 

So are you saying that the Great Commission in both Matthew and Mark have the exact same problem?

This can't be explained by the translation from Greek? The same work in Greek was used and it had two meanings.

Well hopefully I didn't keep you up.

 

"You will be good" as in will receive salvation?

"Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone." This isn't in the Sermon on the Mount, is it?

 

Correct on both accounts.

 

"Follow this rule and you will be good." How the hell can the verse MEAN that if it doesn't SAY that?

So "let ye who is without sin cast the first stone". Is this the will of God?

You ARE a Christian aren't you?

 

We have no idea what was in the first written gospels. All we have are scraps of manuscripts. At best we have unverified stories and experiences of mostly unknown writers. We believe the Gospels are true because of what was written much later in the form of 'complete' gospels. Certainly the first two centuries were a riot of various interpretations of any contemporary gospels and non canonical 'gospels'.

My Greek linear New Testament uses the Koine Greek word for anger. As per Strongs. Still, its irrelevant in the scheme of things.

For me, the evidence is sufficient to accept a Jewish preacher called Jesus. He lived as a Jew, preached as,,and to,,the Jews. His baptism, his 'temptation' are in tune with Jewish teaching in the OT. He kept the Law (10 commandments) but rejected many observances put on the people by Jewish religious leaders. Even the 'Beatitudes' in the Sermon on the Mount are adapted from the OT Scriptures. Jesus simply put a different interpretation on them. He died because he was destroying the authority of the religious heirarchy on the eyes of the people, and they could not allow that.

 

According to Jesus - this is the "will of the Father". Obviously if "do unto others" is the will of God - then a restatement of this rule "Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone" also falls into that category. That is just a variation of "Judge not lest you be Judged".

What is the point of asking me if I am a Christian or not ?

 

But I thought that you believed that the will of God is only found in the Sermon on the Mount.

Well if you are indeed a Christian, then saying "if Christians would just follow this rule - the world would be a better place" would be an odd thing to say, if you are one of them.

 

As usual - your thought process are flawed. Second .. once again you have drifted out of the discussion into mindless gibberish.

Only an idiot would not realize that I did not mean "all Christians" given the context of the conversation. If it makes you feel better .. insert the word "more" in between "If" and "Christians"

 

What works are you referring to that He condemns?

 

This topic has seriously numbed your brain. I do not think you are intentionally pretending to be unaware of our previous conversations. I think this actually may be a subconscious denial/avoidance mechanism being triggered.

You were the one that referring to the people crying "Lord Lord" and Prophesying in Matt 7:21-22 as "works". This is not works... and - even if you want to dwell on semantics and call this "works" - it matters not as these are obviously not the actions Jesus is referring to as "the will of the father".

These are the actions - along with casting out demons and performing miracles in his name - that Jesus condemns.

Your brain is shutting down because of information that conflicts with ingested dogma. Your brain can not deal with this information because it is coming from scripture.

When a child is told that if they "question" or "do not believe" certain tenets of some holy book - that the worst thing the mind can imagine will happen to them (eternal torture in the afterlife - forever and ever and ever and ever) - this gets lodged deep into the child's subconscious. This is a sophisticated mind control technique. It works on adults who ingest this dogma as well.

When ever the adherent comes across information that conflicts with dogma - a fear response is triggered. The adherent is not even aware that this is what is happening. The fear of eternal punishment in the after life should this information turn them from this dogma.

The mind of the adherent will do almost anything to avoid the "bad thought". Common responses are denial and avoidance of the bad thought. Often they will first try to "demonize the messenger" rather than address the "bad thought". Obviously demonizing the messenger does not work very well if the messenger is scripture itself. Not that you have engaged in this kind of ad hom but it creates a dilemma. The default options are then denial and/or avoidance.

Denial is not working - because the "bad thought" is coming directly from scripture - and so your mind is desperately trying to avoid the bad thought - pretending to be unaware of previous conversations.

You know that Martin Luther was the author of Sola Fide doctrine. This doctrine did not exist within the Church - at least from the time of Constantine in 325 AD until Luther. Luther went as far as claiming that James should be removed from scripture. The Church at the time declared this doctrine heresy - an anathema at the council of Trent.

I was raised Lutheran - named after Martin of course - and have close family members in the clergy. If I was to choose a major Christian sect which best follows the teachings of Jesus I would say Orthodox - Orthodox does not accept Sola Fide either.

I personally do not give a hoot about Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant dogma/doctrine. I have probably spent more time than you have been alive studying these things and what I am interested in is "What did Jesus have to say" ? What is obvious to me is that you are not so much interested in this question. What you are interested in doing is making the words of Jesus fit into the dogma you have ingested.

FACT - Christianity has two different and contradictory Salvation formulations.

1) Sola Fide "Salvation by faith alone" Protestant formulation
2) A combination of works and faith Orthodox/Catholic formulation.

If you want my opinion - both are wrong but that is another story.

Your mission - should you choose to accept it - is to come to grips with the idea that at the end of the day - you simply do not know. None of us do.

 

I assume that you are "by WORKS ALONE?"

None of us know what?

 

"Works Alone" - it depends on the context in which you are asking the question and the assumptions made.

For example if you are asking me what I think the Bible says - as in the NT as a whole including Paul, James and the various Pauline epistles that were not written by Paul - this is a different question than what does the Jesus of the Bible Say. There is no good answer to this question because Pauline scripture and Jesus say two different things. Paul de-emphasizes works but does not de-emphasize them completely. Paul had an issue with certain things in relation to Jewish Law such as circumcision. Jesus on the other hand emphasizes certain works - in particular in relation living a righteous life ( righteous = in particular, observance of the Golden Rule).

If you are asking what Christian doctrine says - I have already answered - there are two different salvation formulations.

If you are asking what I think the Jesus of the Bible is saying - we have to ask which Jesus ?.. the Jesus of Mark/Matt or the Jesus of John.
There are short sentences in John that "could" be interpreted as favorable to a Sola Fide perspective. The Jesus of Mark/Matt is staunchly on the side of "works" - living a righteous life. We have no just single short sentences that are open to interpretation as in Paul. In Mark/Matt we have an entire Sermon devoted to the issue, lengthy parables, and specific situations where the question is addressed directly.

Now if you want my opinion on this whole dilemma - my opinion of what Jesus thought ? - that is a separate question yet. The problem I have with Paul is that he did not know Jesus and was not part of the Church of Jerusalem (founded by the disciples and led by James) - and in fact was at odds with the disciples - just on the basis of the interactions with Peter/James as described in Luke. If we include James things get more problematic. Pauline scripture is roughly half the OT but, in all this, Paul seems unaware of the life of Jesus - there are no stories of the events of the life of Jesus.

This problem is further compounded by the fact that Luke was not written by Paul and is dated from 80 AD to as late as 130 AD. Even the earlier dating has the author writing decades after Paul's death - during a time where the doctrine of Pauline Christians is evolving which complicates the issue. A later dating presents even more complications with respect to how much credibility we can give the author's perspective on what Paul had to say. I put almost no stock in the Pauline epistles that were not written by Paul.

The problem with taking Paul seriously is even further compounded if we give credence to the Epistle of James - in particular in James 2 where James calls out the doctrine of "Faith Alone" as foolish. Obviously James is addressing a dogma "faith alone" that was present among some group of Pauline Christians at that time and James strongly disagrees with this dogma.

One could debate whether or not Paul would even support a strict "Sola Fide" position but to simplify let us assume that he did. Now we are faced with the dilemma of whether to accept what we think Paul thought - or whether we accept what the Jesus of Mark/Matt has to say ?

This is not easy either. Tradition holds that author of Mark a disciple of/interpreter for Peter. While we can not claim "first hand account" - this author does related what are claimed to be first hand accounts of the life of Jesus through Peter. This is as close as we get to the "real Jesus". Mark is dated around 65 AD - nearly 3 decades after the death of Jesus but, this is as close as we get.

The author of Matt is writing a few decades after Mark - and possibly as late as 100 AD. This author uses Mark as a source document. The entirety of Mark is found in Matt - sans a few passages that depict Jesus and/or the disciples in a negative light. The author also adds some things that are not found in Mark.

Regardless - Matt (unlike Pauline Scripture) is at least an attempt to record the life and times of Jesus. Some Scholars suggest that this author worked from two sources .. the first is Mark .. the other information perhaps coming from a source that is now lost to us.

Now for some History. The dating of John is 90-120 AD. Up until 90 AD (assuming Matt - or at least part of it- was written) Christians have Matt/Mark and the writings of Paul to work with. At this time you have many different groups of Christians each with differing belief. I will leave out these other groups - such as the Gnostics - and focus in just two of the other major groups.

You had the Pauline Christians - Greek speaking Gentiles most of whom were Greek - and Jewish Christians spawned out of the Church of Jerusalem. The beliefs of the Pauline Christians were heavily rooted on the writings and theology of Paul - Obviously. The Jewish Christians we know very little about - unfortunately. These would have been following the theology given in Mark/Matt. These folks would have had little regard - and may not have even heard of - the writings of Paul. They had the "real deal" from their perspective and they would also have other writings and oral tradition to go by - both of which are now mostly lost to us - unfortunately.

After the fall of the temple was not a good time for Jews - Christian or otherwise. They were a pariah. There were heavy taxes levied on Jews - just for being Jews called the "Fiscus Judaicus".

The Pauline Christians were trying to distance themselves from anything Jewish at this time. The later gospels John/Luke have a distinctly anti-Jewish character. The Pauline Christians were also distancing themselves from the OT at this time.

http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Fiscus Judaicus.pdf

What happened to the Church of Jerusalem and the Christians that followed from this tradition - Jewish Christians who would have actually known and associated with the disciples (some of whom were alive at the time of Jesus and some who would have even met the man) - we do not know. What we do know is that this sect disappeared -and also disappeared from the history of the Church after the first century AD.

We have more history in relation to Christian groups such as the Gnostics than we do for the original Judeo Christians. Part of this is due to the dead sea scrolls/Nag Hammadi. Part is due to some of the discourse of the early Pauline Christian fathers criticizing these groups.

One of the reasons we know so little is because when the Church got power in 325 under Constantine - it spent the next many centuries destroying the history of the Church - in particular anything that they felt conflicted with the dogma of the day.

The only reason we have the dead sea scrolls/Nag Hammadi is because these documents were hidden away and survived the massive purge.

So which does a first century Christian we go with ? The doctrine of Paul (as per what was available at the time) .. or the doctrine of the Church of Jerusalem as per Matt/Mark. (Note that we are not considering other options such as the Gnostic doctrines).

I will stop here and wait for your response.

 

None of us know what?

 

The correct salvation formulation. I am still waiting for your response to post 1543.

 

So you think that Solda Fide MAY be the true one?

Oh its coming. I just need some prerequisites.

 

Of course. Since neither you know I has any idea what God thinks .. anything is possible.

My guess is that an all knowing all powerful God who has lived forever would not be an irrational flip flopping, xenophobic, genocidal, child sacrificing maniac with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics. This then rules out the God of the Israelite's and sola fide.

When you ask complicated questions - sometimes the answer is not simple. Just remember your mission and you will do fine.

 

Why would the sort of God described above rule out Sola Fide?

 

I gave two different sorts of Gods. I assume you are referring to the one that is not the irrational xenophobic genocidal, child sacrificing maniac with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics.

1) The idea that one can do anything one wishes - violate all the "commands" - be a horrible human being in general ... and on ones death bed call out "Lord Lord" - and all is forgotten - yet someone who lives a good life, helping others, observing the golden rule, not killing raping and killing children - gets sentenced to eternal punishment (even though they have never heard of Jesus) .. is as irrational as it gets.

What is even more preposterous is that this God is so vein, proud and arrogant (some of which are claimed to be things that God Hates in proverb's) that it would even care about the worship of some petty good for nothing human.

"I am a jealous God" .. Jealous of what ? What does a God that is all knowing and all powerful have to be jealous of ? This is stupidity on steroids. If God cared one iota about some group of people not doting all over him .. God could just create a gazillion souls that would do just that 24/7 day in day out .. 365.25 days a year .. for eternity.

Do you seriously think God is this fickle and thin skinned ? Do you not think after the first million years ... this might get a little repetitive, mundane and boring ?

If you woke up one morning, and everyone you encountered was doing nothing by chanting your name "Chris Chris Chris" ...saying how great you were, chanting praises to you ... the first day it might be OK ... after a million years of this .. do you not think it might get a little old - to the point where you would tell these people "Shut up already .. I got after the first hundred thousand years" !!

2) It is irrational to condemn someone for something that is not their fault and something over which they have no control. Condemning someone to eternal torture who has never heard of Jesus. This is the action of a murderous irrational mindless maniac .. with the most petty and nasty of human characteristics.

3) What is the point of God giving you a brain .. if not to use it ? Faith is the abdication of rational thought - belief in something with no proof.

If God was really that interested in people worshiping him - why does God not just show up once in awhile and write this command in the clouds. "Worship me or God be tortured for eternity" !

If God did in fact have something to do with the Bible - why does it contain so many contradictions ? Why would he not just transport the official version of his holy book down to earth - making that book impossible to change and intelligible to every human ?

Should we kill gays and "unbelievers" and adulterers - and kill children and babies because of the sins of their parents as the God of the OT "Commands" .. or should we "love neighbor as self, judge not lest we be judged, let ye who is without sin cast the first stone, treat others as we would like to be treated ?

Or - do none of the teachings of Jesus matter because all one needs to do is call out "Lord Lord" near the end of ones life and the slate will be wiped clean.

What is the point of giving a bunch of rules .. and then say but, if you break all these rules and call out "Lord Lord" near the end - whether or not you followed those rules does not matter ? This an exercise in silly futility. Do you think God is not the sharpest tool in the toolbox ?

What is the point if having a brain - if you are not required to use it from time to time ? If all you have to do is repeat "Lord Lord" like some broken record .. no different than some robot that is programmed to do just one thing ?

Giving someone two contradictory choices - where the person has no idea which of those choices is correct - and then condemning that person to eternal torture on the basis of the wrong choice - a choice no different than flipping a coin - is not the action of a rational being.

What is the point of having a brain if one's fate will be determined by the flip of a coin ? God told me to throw the stone - Jesus - who speaks for God told me not to throw the stone .. or .. in the case of killing children for the sins of their parents God told me not to kill children for the sins of their parents - God told me to kill children for the sins of their parents. ... ab ba ba ba ba ... which is the correct choice ?

God (El, Enlil) looks down on "that which he created" and says to himself ... Genesis 6

1) "his heart was deeply troubled" What ? how so. God created humans ..did he not know how the cake would turn out before he put it into the oven ? So much for the "all knowing" idea. If he knew humans would turn out wicked prior to creating them .. and that he would be troubled if they turned out wicked .. why on earth is God torturing himself ?

2) So this fallible God regrets his mistake - he created humans thinking they would turn out to be good but the reverse happened. In fact his experiment turned out to be so bad that "every inclination of these humans was "ONLY EVIL" .. ALL OF THE TIME.

I wonder if El was chided by the other Gods about his pathetic ability as a scientist/baker and perhaps was a little embarrassed.

Solution ! wipe the mistake off the fact of the map... not by snapping his fingers but through some natural disaster. OK no accounting for efficiency but - God can do what he likes.

Except hold on here ? He decides to let 8 of these "Only Evil - All of the time" creations live .. knowing full well that they will propagate like fruit flies and the situation will end up the same as it was prior to God unleashing the mass extinction.

This makes no sense ? Why bother exterminating a plague that is ravaging the earth - if one is going to intentionally let some of the plague go unextinguished and ravage the earth once again.

Perhaps God is just a sucker for punishment - he was deeply troubled the first go round and obviously he will deeply troubled the second go round.

This is STUPID .. Do you really think God is as dumb, irrational and mistake prone as is depicted in the above passage ?

But Hey ... just shut off your brain and "just have faith" and all will be well

 

Is this what happened to you? You rail against anyone who does not believe YOUR Indoctrination? How can you project your issues on everyone else?