FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-31-2008, 06:05 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default John 3:16 and Salvation for Gentiles

Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticdude View Post
Do you know what John 3:16 means?

If so, how do you explain why the apostles felt the need to give Judaizers a fair hearing at the Council of Jerusalem?

Jesus made it perfectly clear from the beginning of his ministry that Gentiles may receive salvation just as much as Jews, right? Why then are his original apostles debating that question, when Paul made it clear in Galatians that the Judaizers were confirmed heretics deserving of nothing more than scorn and cursing (Galatians 1:6-9)?

Maybe James, who headed that council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), was not entirely convinced that Paul's arguments against the Judaizers were as sound as you think they are? You come along 2000 years after Paul, James was a contemporary of Paul, who is more likely to correctly assess the soundness of Paul's arguments, you or James?
The issue of Galatians related to the need to be circumcised. The early church in Jerusalem apparently continued to practice circumcision and that was not an issue so long as they reached out only to Jews. When Paul comes with Titus, the issue becomes front and center because Titus was not circumcised and some of the Jewish converts (or tares) insisted that circumcision was needed. The apostles and leaders of the church all agreed that circumcision was not necessary to salvation. Paul condemned those who then continued to teach that salvation required circumcision. John 3:16 is consistent with this.
rhutchin is offline  
Old 12-31-2008, 10:20 PM   #2
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Small Town, Missouri
Posts: 200
Default

So can circumcised people enter the kingdom of heaven, or not? All the sudden I am on pins and needles.. LOL
SeekingKnowledge is offline  
Old 01-01-2009, 12:18 AM   #3
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bismark, ND
Posts: 325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticdude View Post
Do you know what John 3:16 means?

If so, how do you explain why the apostles felt the need to give Judaizers a fair hearing at the Council of Jerusalem?

Jesus made it perfectly clear from the beginning of his ministry that Gentiles may receive salvation just as much as Jews, right? Why then are his original apostles debating that question, when Paul made it clear in Galatians that the Judaizers were confirmed heretics deserving of nothing more than scorn and cursing (Galatians 1:6-9)?

Maybe James, who headed that council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), was not entirely convinced that Paul's arguments against the Judaizers were as sound as you think they are? You come along 2000 years after Paul, James was a contemporary of Paul, who is more likely to correctly assess the soundness of Paul's arguments, you or James?
The issue of Galatians related to the need to be circumcised. The early church in Jerusalem apparently continued to practice circumcision and that was not an issue so long as they reached out only to Jews. When Paul comes with Titus, the issue becomes front and center because Titus was not circumcised and some of the Jewish converts (or tares) insisted that circumcision was needed. The apostles and leaders of the church all agreed that circumcision was not necessary to salvation. Paul condemned those who then continued to teach that salvation required circumcision. John 3:16 is consistent with this.
I wasn't talking specifically about the circumcision issue in Acts 15 debate, I was talking about the more general problem of Gentile salvation being a point of contention, when, if conservative Christian assumptions are granted, such debate should not have existed. The first followers of Peter had criticized him for eating with Gentiles, and his response that God gave him a vision that Gentiles are to recieve salvation too (Acts 10 and 11).

Jesus made it perfectly clear from the beginning of his ministry that Gentiles should be saved as much as Jews, so why is the salvation of Gentiles such a point of contention, such a "new thing", within the church after Jesus died? Did they also have debates about whether Jesus claimed to be a man? How many other obvious truths did they "forget"?

or....could it be that the Gentile-loving Jesus we know in our 4 gospels today, wasn't quite the same story character originally?
skepticdude is offline  
Old 01-01-2009, 12:22 AM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Allegedly Peter and the Apostles walked and talked with Jesus during his ministry, and were taught by him all things pertaining to him and the kingdom of heaven, and the acceptance of the Gentiles- 'ceptin he just plumb-done forgot to mention the subject of gentile circumcision to them, -or did he?
They seemed pretty convinced, otherwise they would not have been found teaching contrary to Johnny-come-lately Paul's writings.
Someone was full of something, and you can bet that it wasn't the Holy Ghost.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 01-01-2009, 04:59 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: American Southwest
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticdude View Post

Jesus made it perfectly clear from the beginning of his ministry that Gentiles should be saved as much as Jews,...
Perhaps. But practicing Jews for Jesus get to call them "dogs" first...
Uralman is offline  
Old 01-01-2009, 05:32 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekingKnowledge View Post
So can circumcised people enter the kingdom of heaven, or not?...
Of course they can. Whether a person is circumcised does not determine whether a person can enter the kingdom of heaven, or heaven itself, and never did.
rhutchin is offline  
Old 01-01-2009, 05:46 AM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticdude View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
The issue of Galatians related to the need to be circumcised. The early church in Jerusalem apparently continued to practice circumcision and that was not an issue so long as they reached out only to Jews. When Paul comes with Titus, the issue becomes front and center because Titus was not circumcised and some of the Jewish converts (or tares) insisted that circumcision was needed. The apostles and leaders of the church all agreed that circumcision was not necessary to salvation. Paul condemned those who then continued to teach that salvation required circumcision. John 3:16 is consistent with this.
I wasn't talking specifically about the circumcision issue in Acts 15 debate, I was talking about the more general problem of Gentile salvation being a point of contention, when, if conservative Christian assumptions are granted, such debate should not have existed. The first followers of Peter had criticized him for eating with Gentiles, and his response that God gave him a vision that Gentiles are to receive salvation too (Acts 10 and 11).

Jesus made it perfectly clear from the beginning of his ministry that Gentiles should be saved as much as Jews, so why is the salvation of Gentiles such a point of contention, such a "new thing", within the church after Jesus died? Did they also have debates about whether Jesus claimed to be a man? How many other obvious truths did they "forget"?

or....could it be that the Gentile-loving Jesus we know in our 4 gospels today, wasn't quite the same story character originally?
First, there is the growing period where people come to know the full meaning of that which Jesus taught. Thus, we have the letters of Paul, Peter, and others explaining what Jesus taught and how it applied to those who follow Him. Just because God saves a person does not make that person pure and sinless. That person still must deal with the sinful habits he has learned in his life. He begins to learn what Jesus taught but can promote actions (like circumcision) until he learns the truth.

The problem also comes about because not all who call themselves Christians are actually Christians.

Jesus warned:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. (Matt 7:15-16)

Reiterated by Jude:

For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 4)
rhutchin is offline  
Old 01-01-2009, 06:10 AM   #8
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
Jesus warned:

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15-16)
Not necessarily. There is not sufficient historical evidence that Jesus said anywhere near everything that the Gospels say that he said. Speculation and guesswork is not evidence. The Gospels are quite speculative.
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 01-01-2009, 06:21 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
Jesus warned:

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15-16)
Not necessarily. There is not sufficient historical evidence that Jesus said anywhere near everything that the Gospels say that he said. Speculation and guesswork is not evidence. The Gospels are quite speculative.
So is every account of historical events. You just can't believe anything you read about events in the past. Can you?
rhutchin is offline  
Old 01-01-2009, 04:38 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic View Post

Not necessarily. There is not sufficient historical evidence that Jesus said anywhere near everything that the Gospels say that he said. Speculation and guesswork is not evidence. The Gospels are quite speculative.
So is every account of historical events. You just can't believe anything you read about events in the past. Can you?
The problem with trying to compare the gospels with other historical events is that other historical events are well documented.

Let's compare Josephus Flavius with Jesus.

Josephus has writings attributed to him (Antiquities of the Jews, Jewish War), writings about him by his contemporaries, busts made of him, among other evidences. Jesus has none of these things. No contemporaries of Jesus wrote about him, Jesus himself didn't write anything, sayings of Jesus are only written some 40 - 70 years after his alleged death and there are no images of Jesus until about 300 years after his alleged death.

Some things are just better evidenced than others. It's fallacious to claim that if the gospels are unreliable therefore everything is unreliable.
show_no_mercy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:45 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.