Bigfoot3814
Deity
If I were you, I wouldn't give that much sanction to someone obviously be provacative, but your improvised(?) story was pretty good. Your post is similar to my response in this thread.
What makes a Christian a good Christian?
- Thread starter LucyDuke
- Start date
If I were you, I wouldn't give that much sanction to someone obviously be provacative, but your improvised(?) story was pretty good. Your post is similar to my response in this thread.
Veritass
Emperor
I have heard this story in several different forms; I was just making up a quick version of it for the reply.
To comment on the last page (or the last few posts, Erik), according to my understanding of Christianity, Christ isn't the only route to God. One can partake of all the blood rituals and atonement rituals available to the pre-Christ peoples in order to wash away the sins. It's what the early priesthood was mostly for.
So, a person can endeavour to be as non-sinning as possible and then use the priests to wash away any resulting sins.
The other option is to rely on Christ's forgiveness and sacrifice, but that route could be just as hard as seen by Jesus's comments about how he won't accept all who ask.
Well, then your understanding of Christianity is wrong.
So is Paul's, too, I guess. Considering he was pretty clear that people had the choice to follow the law or rely on Jesus.
Jesus said that belief in him would be sufficient, but he seemed to think that belief could move mountains, too. I don't know Jesus's stance on choosing to follow the law, though he did cite 'complete and total charity' as sufficient when talking to the rich guy.
Jesus said that belief in him would be sufficient, but he seemed to think that belief could move mountains, too. I don't know Jesus's stance on choosing to follow the law, though he did cite 'complete and total charity' as sufficient when talking to the rich guy.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
Paul's understanding of Christianity was wrong. He was never an apostle and frequently contradicts what Jesus says.
holy king
Deity
how do you follow something that occasionally contradicts itself?
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
How do you know this?
Originally Posted by El_Machinae
To comment on the last page (or the last few posts, Erik ), according to my understanding of Christianity, Christ isn't the only route to God. One can partake of all the blood rituals and atonement rituals available to the pre-Christ peoples in order to wash away the sins. It's what the early priesthood was mostly for.
yes this is wrong, christianity isn't so much a new religion as a reformation of jewish faith according to jesus. To claim jesus believed the old faith (remember christians were a denomination of Judaism until it became popular enough to be a religion on it's own accord) of Judiasm was just as good as his word totally denies what jesus claimed was his purpose on earth.
To comment on the last page (or the last few posts, Erik ), according to my understanding of Christianity, Christ isn't the only route to God. One can partake of all the blood rituals and atonement rituals available to the pre-Christ peoples in order to wash away the sins. It's what the early priesthood was mostly for.
yes this is wrong, christianity isn't so much a new religion as a reformation of jewish faith according to jesus. To claim jesus believed the old faith (remember christians were a denomination of Judaism until it became popular enough to be a religion on it's own accord) of Judiasm was just as good as his word totally denies what jesus claimed was his purpose on earth.
Because people who follow Paul's interpretations don't have sufficient faith to move mountains or walk on water.
Quildavyr
Man of sick jokes!
Taking crusade?
philippe
FYI, I chase trains.
If I understand you correctly, only apostles can understand Jesus' word? Sure, he wasn't one of the original 12, but if only the original 12 can understand his word, doesn't that mean only 12 people in history have understood Jesus' word? The story of Paul emphasizes a realization of faith/God's power/the universality of Jesus' word to the words and teachings of Christ. I would like to know some of those passages in which Paul contradicts Jesus too. I've never heard this claimed before.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
They still had to have faith in God. The Bible clearly states that faith in God comes before the law was given. In Genesis we see that when Abraham believed God, is was counted to him for righteousness. I think that is found in Genesis 15:6. This is many hundreds of years before the law was given.
You really need to back up this statement with quotes.
Granted. I never meant to imply otherwise. Though the rituals were still very necessary.
You're misunderstanding. When Paul contrasted following the Law with following Christ, he wasn't showing two different, yet equally valid paths to God. (I don't even understand how you could come to that view if you've read the entire NT, see Romans 8, for instance) He was contrasting the way of death, with the way of life. The whole point of what Paul was condemning was people who tried to follow the Jewish law, and insist that it was necessary for salvation, and yet claimed to be Christians. Paul was saying, in effect "No, you can't do that - the law cannot save you. The law exists to show your imperfections and your inability to be perfect."
Those who tried to follow the law and Christ were condemned because they were de facto saying Christ wasn't enough - You also must be circumcised , avoid unclean foods, etc. What Paul was saying is that you have two choices: to rely on the law, or to rely on grace. If you rely on the law, and therefore on your own ability to follow the law, you will fail. (This is why Paul talks about the "law of sin and death" in Romans 8:2 - not because the law was wrong, per se, but because relying upon it instead of Christ would lead you to eternal death.) Alternatively, you can choose grace through Christ, and allow the Spirit of God to live in you.
You're taking pretty much the opposite conclusion away from Paul's writings that he intended. Remember: Jesus did not claim to be a way, but The Way to the Father.
I don't think we're disagreeing. Neither Jesus nor Paul claim that following the law was an easy way, just that it was (technically) available as a route.
But a route to what?
According to Paul, choosing the Law instead of Christ is a route to hell. Now maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but it sounds like you're suggesting the following the Law instead of Christ is a valid and possible path to God. If so, that's directly contrary to any common sense reading of Scripture.
The difficulty with this question is that there are unclear definitions of Christian. Let's agree to call a Christian someone who believes that Jesus Christ was the Savior. Now, whether or not he's good or bad depends simply on which morals you choose to apply.
No, I don't think so. I think that it's fairly clear that the law is available as a route to Heaven. It's just that people aren't fully capable of following it, and thus have to rely on Christ. It's a route, it's just too hard. And I don't see anything about the blood rituals no longer being able to hide/wash way sin.
Remember, Christianity is not only Paulinity. We integrate his teachings with quotations attributed to Christ. Christ clearly gives a (viable) path to Heaven outside of belief in him. He also claims that he won't save everyone who asks, either.
Now, in a scholarly view, Christ says different things in different books. The book that says the Jesus is the only way is the least credible of the four gospels. But Christians (tend to) integrate the teachings across the different gospels.
It's directly contrary to any 'common sense' reading, if by 'common sense' you mean that the text you read in english after 200 years of Protestant tradition behind the interpretation.
'Common sense' reading indicates that amputees would be healed, too.
Similar threads
