manimal2878

What do these things mean in the binble sense?

I always thought they mean the following:

Faith: accepting god and believing in jesus
Works & Deeds: living a good life and doing good things

but now i have been reading the bible and it seems in some places
they really mean the following:

faith: doing good things and leading a good life because of your belief
Works & Deeds: the rituals and deeds such as sacrifice called upon by religion

The way faith, works, and deeds is used is def. not consistant yu really do have to look at the whol passage to see what faith or which works def is being used. either way the more I read of the bible i really see not much evidence that you have to accept jesus as having died for our sins

Julian

You are making the mistake of assuming that the bible carries a coherent message. It doesn't. Whatever your viewpoint you can find scriptural backing for it. Anyways...

Usually when the bible talks about works (specifically James) it generally means the Jewish laws. This is the Jewish christianity heritage in the bible, e.g. Petrine christianity versus Pauline christianity which emphasizes faith over works, mostly as exhortations from Paul to his followers to resist the preaching of (presumably) Jewish christian preachers that buzz around his congregation. James's point was that it is not enough to have faith but that you must also actually do stuff with that faith or it is useless. Paul preached that faith was the truly important thing and that the Jewish laws didn't matter so much anymore. Take your pick...

Early christianity was incredibly fragmented and much of the contradictory writings have made it into the bible, giving rise to your issues.

Julian

gee

manimal2878;

I disagree with Julian here. I think the message is coherent but given to folks from radically different backgrounds and understanding (2500 - 3000ish years worth not including the 2000 years from AD1 to 2005).

The sermon on the mount is a great standard to judge the differences between "the law" that God gave the Jews - with the "new covenant" that Jesus (God's Son; in my view) ushered in. Jesus is very clear on the role of "the law" and his fulfilling of it.

I know there's a can of worms here; but if you're interested we can discuss it.

gee

Nero's Boot

You mean the "law" that states a rape victim must marry her rapist for life?

--you mean that law? NB

lpetrich

That "fulfillment" business seems to me like a way of having it both ways -- of believing in the Law of the Old Testament, while feeling free to break much of it with impunity and a clear conscience.

Sort of like the genealogies of Matthew and Luke -- both of them trace his human father, Joseph, to King David, but then go on to state that Joseph was really Jesus Christ's stepfather, and that JC's biological father had been the Holy Spook itself.

Julian

The bible is not nearly as old as that. A few tings were probbaly written down in the last century of the northern kingdom with the bulk of it written during Josiah and after the return from exile. Maccabees and Daniel being from the second century BCE.

The message is not coherent. The OT is southern kingdom propaganda combined with an attempt to bury a clear polytheistic foundation. The Israelites reinvent their past by making up a variety of nonsensical stories like Exodus and the patriarchs. But, no matter...

The NT is from the later part of the first century into the second century.
The four gospels, which were just the four selected from a rather large selection of gospels, each cater to a different Jesus community. You will notice that Jesus is very specific about upholding old the OT laws in both Luke and Matthew. He says nothing about the old laws not being important anymore, just the opposite. This shows decided Jewish influence in the gospel tradition.

Paul, preaching to the gentiles, opposes this teaching. He obviously has very little regard for the Jewish christians. Mark is an adoptionist document that is very opposed to apostolic tradition. I cannot for the life of me understand how Mark made it into the NT.

Early christianity is characterized by numerous sects who all had their own agenda and understanding of what it meant to be a 'christian,' used here in quotes since the term was unknown to them at the time. It is also worth noting that in Edessa, the term christians was used about the Gnostics. The orthodox, late comers in Edessa and who we today know as the regular or orthodox church, were referred to as Palutians after their bishop, Palut.

In fact, there were so many sects in the first centuries that we don't even know the names of all of them. Most of their writings were destroyed but enough of them made it into the NT giving rise to conflicting messages, such as the conflict between Paul and James. This is not a function of elapsed time but simply of early christian politics that has left its indelible fingerprint on the epistles and elsewhere.

You are right, of course, Jesus was very clear on the role of 'the law' as in

Matthew
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


Luke 16:17
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

The topic is rather broad. I would be happy to discuss aspects of this but a narrower focus might be worthwhile. Perhaps a faith vs. works discussion?

Julian

gee

Nero's boot;

"You mean the "law" that states a rape victim must marry her rapist for life?"

Didn't know about that one. I'll look at it. Where is it?

Ipetrich;

".....believing in the Law of the Old Testament, while feeling free to break much of it with impunity and a clear conscience."

The sermon on the mount doesn't go line-by-line through the entire law, but in my view it raises the bar of the law to an impossible standard. Adultry for instance. The law gave provisions for divorce, but Jesus said (paraphrasing) "look, if you look at a woman lustfully you've broken the law in your heart." In another place he tells questioners (again, paraphrasing) "Moses gave you the law on divorce because of your hard hearts but if you divorce your wife (except for unfaithfulness) you are guilty of adultry." The theme is throughout; Jesus "raises the bar" to an impossibly high standard.

Julian;

Appreciate your response. Lots of ideas you presented. I'm not an expert in OT (or NT really), but lots of good scholarship would argue with some of your ideas. I'll just address some of the stuff that jumps out at me as a layman OTologist.

"Israelites reinvent their past"

They should have reinvented it more positively. It makes them look bad.

"bury a clear polytheistic foundation"

They didn't bury it very far, they worshipped baal in Exodus. Made Moses mad.

"The NT is from the later part of the first century into the second century"

Depends on who you listen to here....lots of good scholarship on the other side..

"He says nothing about the old laws not being important anymore, just the opposite. This shows decided Jewish influence in the gospel tradition."

We agree here. Jesus was a Jew. Operating within the Mosiac law. The fact that he made pronouncements concerning it riled the religious of the day. None can talk about doing anything to the law given by God; except God.

"..........numerous sects"

We agree here. Just like atheism. The truth of the idea doesn't change because folks search for truth can yield disagreements.

"...were referred to as Palutians after their bishop, Palut"

Neat point. However, canonic scripture handles the "wrongheadedness" of ideas like this. Doesn't mean that people won't do stuff like this; but the truth doesn't change because of some goofs.

"Most of their writings were destroyed"

You bet. But a strong canon has survived.

"conflict between Paul and James"

What would Christians' motive be for putting such a conflict into its canonic scripture?

"This is not a function of elapsed time..."

2000 years worth, even if we don't agree on the dating of the OT.

Finally, sorry so long..

"Perhaps a faith vs. works discussion?"

Don't have a solid answer for you. However if you take the "whole" of the revealed canon esp. 1. the Gospels 2. Pauline writing 3. and James in particular. I think you get a great balanced view. Taking anything by itself, out of context, is sure to get an incoherent view.

The OT has a lot to say on this issue as well! In many ways, Jesus wasn't saying anything new.

gee

Julian

First off, you need to learn how to use the quote function. It would make your posts much easier to read. Just sayin'...
It makes them look bad to us, but not to a citizen of Judah. And later, they had to explain why shit kept happening to them. *shrug*
Exodus is just a fictional story. The polytheism goes much deeper and it is revealed in subtle ways that polytheism was extremely common at least up until the first century BCE. And probably afterwards as well...
In which direction? Paul is generally set in the 50s and after and the gospels in the late 1st century to the early 2nd century. I don't really know of anybody who disagrees with this. If you do, I would love to see some links.
The pharisees getting upset, and trumped, by Jesus and the Jewish religion is a reflection of the trouble the christian communities had with the pharisaic pestering of them, especially after the pharisee where forced into the diaspora after 70. Since we have no evidence of Jesus we can hardly know if, and how, he dealt with the pharisees.
Indeed. It does explain the mismatched NT scriptures, though.
My point was to illustrate that it wasn't just some goofs, but rather a major movement. Or rather, many movements. The fact is that orthodox christianity was a minor heresy in many places in the beginning. The church fathers wrote page after page against the heresies, interesting since many of them became heretics themselves later. The term heretic is misleading in this case since there could be no heresies since there was no orthodoxy in those days. 'Heresy' was the norm and 'orthodoxy' just a minor movement which eventually won out for a variety of reasons too lengthy to discuss here.
A sanitized, corrected, still somewhat conflicted canon has survived. Look at the richness of the Nag Hammadi find and wonder what was lost.
Fabulous question, and probably the one that has made me interested in biblical studies. What indeed could possess them to do that? There are only really two explanations.

1) They were morons.

2) Some scriptures were so popular, or traditional, that they had to be included.

The second option seems the likely one. These scriptures were well-known and popular and had to be included as they were, although much editing had been done on them and continued to be done. If a church wants to be truly orthodox then it must include most of the people. That would mean include many of the various scriptures. Thus we see the adoptionist Mark, the Jewish Matthew, the Jesus-didn't-die-for-our-sins Luke and the near-gnostic John, in addition to the primitive Paul of faith, the James of works, the pseudepigraphical Paul and a variety of others. That satisfied many of the followers. In addition they had the political document of Acts which told everybody that they had apostolic rights.
I find the opposite. Taking each little chunk by itself it works mostly okay, but looking at the whole picture you see too many contradictions. The birthday of Jesus works fine in Luke and fine in Matthew, yet they are irreconcilable.
I am no OT expert, unfortunately.

Don't forget about that quote function.

Julian

gee

Julian;

Thanks. I figure its time I figured out some "post etiquette." Now spelling......

Moses called them "a stiff necked people." David, a HUGE hero and historical personage (is that a word?) (and his son Solomon for that matter) had serious lust issues. Solomon's cost the kingdom when he died. Lots of the old testament is God-sent prophets telling Israel to straighten up (some were killed).

My point is that the entire OT is very unflattering. What would the motive be to include all that crap? RE: same issue in NT.

I agree. Got e'm into lots of trouble with God. Many subsribed to the common worship of the areas in which they lived - and it was documented in teh scriptures. However, as a whole - Judaism is known for its monotheism.

We agree here. Some place Matthew earlier a little earlier.

Eyewitness to Jesus by a Dr. Carsten posits this. He's a Christian writer. I really try not to get into "my scholars are better than your scholars". Unless you dismiss any scholar who's a Christian , I'll concede "late first" century. I have no problem with that.

Heresy and orthodoxy (I'm not even familiar with these terms) don't cause me to loose sleep. I think the canon is very well established. God gave me a brain. If somebody on any pulpit says something contrary to scripture I can check it out for myself. The interesting thing is how the clear message got through in spite of Christianity. What keeps the "boat steady" (in my view) is my belief in an absolute truth. It wouldn't change if many or few Christians believed wrongly. Catholics have an infatuation with Mary that I don't understand, and protestants have some unbiblical ideas but it doesn't dismiss the truth. I think that finding the truth is an honorable pursuit.

In the sense that spurious (unclear authorship/contradictions from the known infant 'canon'/etc) and little "respected" and "not widely" held views are discarded today. I find a strength here. If Christians were as gullible as folks say, anything would be in the canon. Revelation is still being debated - D.L. Moody, a respected evangelical, argued that it should be stricken. However, people started thinking differently as some stuff rang true in it. (Israel becoming a state, for example - after 2000 years).

In the sense that today's holocaust "denyers" are "rich". I dismiss them. It has only been 60sih years ago and there is plenty of evidence that it happened (even though it was before I was born). Future generations will stand on our shoulders and condemn "holocause revisionists" - for good reason. Same with scripture in my view.

Why would they be popular? Do we agree in two areas?

1. People during this time were persecuted for Christian belief..
2. Corinthians itself makes Christians look like absolute idiots!

No church today would ever consent to somebody coming in and airing out the church's dirty laundry so that it could be included in a canon that would be read worldwide for 2000ish years. I submit that no church would ever do that - not willingly. There's just something else there. With all do respect "popular" and "traditional" simply don't cut the mustard.

Paul was anything but primitive. Re: Romans.

Consider what happens when different folks from different backgrounds witness anything. You get different perspectives. This prevades anything that is written down in history. Only in the 20th Century is there anything with pictures that we can give to later generations (maybe the 19th too, not an expert in photography). Even then they will be viewed in different contexts. Doesn't change the basic truth of it.

If you're interested, read Malachi. It's the last OT book before 400 years of silence from God before Jesus. Talks alot about "you're doing the religion but forgetting what its all about" kinda' stuff.

gee