Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by CowboyX: Basically Polycarp is a major big wig in the catholic church and picking that for a screen name is like calling yourself MotherTeresa only Polycarp was bigger than MT.

To Tjun & Cowboy X:

Cowboy X’s psycho-analysis of me is not entirely on target, and slightly misguided. Sometimes people choose screen names to be intentionally cryptic. For example, did I choose "Polycarp" because I enjoy the study of early Christianity? Because he lived to a very old age and I am also quite advanced in years? Or because I am young and want people to believe me to be older than my true age? Because he is a saint in the Catholic Church and I am Catholic? Or to sidetrack others into this belief? Hmmm… Or because it could mislead people into believing it to be synonymous with “many fish”? One never knows… Any of these questions could be answered in the negative or affirmative to support my choice of screen names.

On the other hand, I’m almost certain of the origin of “Cowboy X’s” moniker. He is a fan of hard rock music, specifically that involving a spiritual aspect. Therefore, he is a fan of two bands with such a background: “Galactic Cowboys” and “King’s X”. He simply molded the two band names into one, arriving at “Cowboy X”.

Hey – this is kinda fun !

Peace,

Polycarp

CX

Bwahahahahaha! I like the hard rock music thing. That's pretty good. You're alright. Anyway, I apologize, I didn't mean to say you chose the name you did because you were arrogant. I should have said you should expect some amount of flack for choosing that name. Now since we ahve descended into completely off topic rambling can anyone (who doesn't go to the F.A.C.T.S. board) tell me where my name actually came from? And after that could one of the moderators delete this whole ridiculous thread?

Benjamin Franklin

Hi CowboyX, this is actually a very interesting point. In my years as a former "Christian", I never realised that belief in the resurrection was so crucial to orthodox Christianity.It seemed to me following Jesus teachings was much more important. It was only later when I started reading material explanining the difference between Christ and Paul's teachings then aha hit me, I have never read beyond the Gospels into Paul's letters.

I would also like to see Polycarp defend the position that there is no biblical support for this dogma. I am currently debating my catholic friend on this point. He does not want to admit
that there is biblical support as he knows that would do serious damage to credibility of the bible as the Word of God. Maybe I should start a new thread on this issue.

I agree we have seriously gone off topic, but the moderators could just delete the irrelevant posts instead of the whole thread. I am not as knowledgeable as you and the information here could prove useful to me the next time my inerrantist friends try to foist some unsubstantited claims on me .

CX

I hate to harp on it, but what would be more useful to you would be to pick up a copy of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0800629523/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings</a> by Udo Schnelle.

{Edited to add a link to the book - Pantera}

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Polycarp

[quote]Originally posted by TJUN KIAT TEO:

Quote:

In my years as a former "Christian", I never realised that belief in the resurrection was so crucial to orthodox Christianity.It seemed to me following Jesus teachings was much more important. It was only later when I started reading material explanining the difference between Christ and Paul's teachings then aha hit me, I have never read beyond the Gospels into Paul's letters. I would also like to see Polycarp defend the position that there is no biblical support for this dogma. I am currently debating my catholic friend on this point. He does not want to admit that there is biblical support as he knows that would do serious damage to credibility of the bible as the Word of God. Maybe I should start a new thread on this issue.

It seems as though two separate issues are being confused: requirements for salvation and orthodox Christian beliefs. Entrance into heaven is not contingent on having all of the proper answers to a theology exam. There will be people in heaven who DO NOT have orthodox Christian beliefs. There will be people in hell who DO have orthodox Christian beliefs. Belief in the resurrection is an orthodox Christian belief, but it is neither the sole, nor necessary, criterion for a ticket to heaven. Here is a recap of an earlier post in which I summarized my views on these issues:


1. What is my definition of "Christianity"?
Answer: Belief in Jesus as the divine revelation of God sent to this world to save us from the mess we're in, while teaching us how to bring about God's will on earth.

2. What are my criteria for salvation?
Answer: I struggle with this issue. Since only God alone knows, I refuse to label people. I don't have the knowledge necessary to say this person goes to heaven, but that one doesn't. The one sure way to know we have salvation is through trust in Jesus. Will there be other people in heaven who don't meet this criteria? Yes, I think there will be, but I don't know all the loopholes. I see no need to look or hope for a loophole when I know the real deal. It doesn't make sense to look for an alternate route if I already know a sure way.

3. Would people like Buddha/Ghandi go to hell for rejecting God/resurrection and divinity of Christ?
Answer: I hope I covered this in my answer to the previous question, but I'll elaborate more. I don't know who is in heaven or hell, only God does. Heaven isn't obtained through having all of the proper doctrines. There isn't a theology exam at the gates of heaven where we are tested on our beliefs. I hate to quote Bible verses in a context like this, but there is one that just sticks out for me in an issue like this. It's Jeremiah 29:13: "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."

I think this statement is very true. Those who are doing everything they can to find God WILL find him. However, if we set up a bunch of standards that our god must meet in order for us to believe in him/her, then we are not seeking god with all of our heart. The problem in answering your question is that we have no way of knowing who is "seeking God with all their heart". I'm convinced there are millions of self-professed Christians who are not "seeking God with all their heart". I hope this answers your question. I don't have all the answers and wouldn't pretend to know something as great as who is in heaven and who isn't.

Peace,

Polycarp

Benjamin Franklin

Hi Polycarp

Maybe I am not being clear enough in what I am trying to say. I understood what you are trying to say about salvation criteria and orthodox Christian beliefs. I think the issue CowboyX and I is trying to address is whether there is biblical support for orthodox christian beliefs i.e specifically the dogma that salvation depends on belief in the resurrection of Christ.

This is the issue that I would like you to address. Because it ties in with what I asked you regarding inerrancy of the bible and how would you deal with problematic passages in the bible. To a certain extant this is related to the questions I posted in the thread regarding liberal Christianity

Tjun Kiat

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by TJUN KIAT TEO: Maybe I am not being clear enough in what I am trying to say. I understood what you are trying to say about salvation criteria and orthodox Christian beliefs. I think the issue CowboyX and I is trying to address is whether there is biblical support for orthodox christian beliefs i.e specifically the dogma that salvation depends on belief in the resurrection of Christ. This is the issue that I would like you to address. Because it ties in with what I asked you regarding inerrancy of the bible and how would you deal with problematic passages in the bible. To a certain extant this is related to the questions I posted in the thread regarding liberal Christianity

I think I understand your question. I'll give a quick reply. Let me know if I'm on the right track in addressing you, and I can pursue it further if we're on the same page.

Christianity does not teach that salvation is contingent on belief in the resurrection. You brought up Romans 10:9. This verse does not say that resurrection belief is the sole criterion of salvation. All we have to do to see this is flip back a few pages to Romans 2:12-16. Paul clearly says that salvation will be given to people who’ve never even heard of the Mosaic law (or presumably the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection).

1 Corinthians 15:14 is probably the closest thing to the point your friends are trying to make. In this passage, Paul is talking to people who claim to be Christians. He’s saying that they’re wasting their time if Christ was not raised from the dead. Paul would not have said that this meant people would go to hell if Christ wasn’t raised. Instead, he would say that Christianity was false and a move to Judaism would have been in order. We know this from reading the next verse (15) where Paul talks about misrepresenting God if Christ was not raised.

Does this help at all?

Peace,

Polycarp

CX

I think we are not too far apart here. It is my opinion that Pauline theology states or implies that salvation IS contingent on belief in the ressurection IF one has heard the Gospel. For those who have not if they are convicted in their heart of the truth of God (either through observation of the creation or by some other unspecified means) they are also saved.

The point is that for any of us in the west, unless we've been living in a cave for the last 2000 years, salvation is contingent on believing in the redemptive action of Jesus' death on the cross and subsequent resurrection. It seems pretty clear from the gospel accounts that the evangelists also consider the crucifixion a blood sacrifice according to Jewish tradition.

Benjamin Franklin

I agree with that but what about God fearing and noble people like Ghandi who have heard the Gospel but have rejected both the divinity and resurrection of Christ. Belief in the resurrection of Christ would obviously be not the sole critieria (since Hitler claimed to be a believer) for salvation but is it a necessary criteria for people who have heard to Gospel of Christ.

PS - CowboyX even though I enclose your comments in quote, my question is addressed to Polycarp because he has not addressed the issue of whether there is biblical support for the dogma that people who have heard Gospel but have rejected the resurrection will be condemned. Polycarp, I am not asking whether you know what is the criteria of salvation. I am asking whether the writers of the bible do and if so what is criteria.

Tjun Kiat

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: TJUN KIAT TEO ]</p>

CX

My reading is that Gandhi is cooked like a Xmas goose and that belief in the salvific nature of the resurrection (which therein entails that the resurrection actually occured) is the sole criteria for salvation according to Pauline theology.