Soul Invictus

I haven't avoided or missed this post. I've had limited computer use and I should be getting my PC back tonight hopefully. I'll post my thoughts on it then.

Gamera

Doubt is not an issue. You're conceivieng faith as if it is intellectual consent. If it were, you could boast about it, as being more intellectual than nonbeleivers. Rather, faith is acceptance of the gospel message, which is the message that God loved you so much, he was willing to allow his only son/himself to die, to show that love. Accepting or rejecting a gift is not an intellectual excercise. It is a matter of choice, not thought.

So I accepted the gospel of God's love, and thus was given the Holy Spirit. Do I intellecually doubt the historicity of the bible or God's existence. All the time. It's called being human. God doesn't mind that at all. It's part of being in relationship with him to have doubts. But having accepting his love, I'm his son and part of his family, and even my doubts can't change that.

Gamera

[QUOTE]You have to help me outabout what you count as the problem.

If you mean, Paul taught that and so I don't accept it as Jesus' teaching, I have one answer.

If you mean, the gospels don't show Jesus teaching that, I have another answer.

If you mean, you don't believe the veracity of any of the NT mss, I don't have an answer. Either one accepts them or rejects them. All we have is the testimony in those texts, and every person must decide for himself on that matter.

Gamera

I know people often misinterpret James 2:17 to mean the opposite, but of course it doesn't. True acceptance of God's grace results in good works. And those without goods works who claim to be Christians are false: the fact that they produce no good works belies their claim to being saved.

James 2:17 merely embodies what Jesus says in Matthew 25:31-et seq about the sheep and goat.

No mystery here, accept the fact that the religious right, with its love of money, would prefer that Jesus's message about the sheep and goats would go away. It won't.

John123

Does it make any sense that Jesus, as reported in the Gospels, who spent his whole life castigating the Bani Israel and warning them of their manipulation of God's law for their own end, was sent to abrogate the sins of mankind through the crucifixion though during his life on earth, he never claimed such a thing? Where is the logical connection between Jesus' teachings as exepmlified by his preaching and castigating the hypocrisy of the Pharisses thorugh his whole life with that taught by Paul and those who came afterwards? How does one make that jump?

Gamera

Makes perfect sense. The Law led to hypocrisy, to the Pharisees who boasted that they were better than others because they kept the Law better. It was the Law itself that brought out the worst in people.

Jesus is plain about this:

Matthew 19:8 - He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Quit worshipping the Law and worship God, who is greater than any law, through his love.

Chili

I can say a million things but I think I'll pass.

Javaman

Yes, I have serious doubts about what Paul taught and wrote as it relates to what an HJ may have said based on what was written in the gospels.Yes, that is also true in as shown in both Matthew and Luke. Just so you know, we're talking 'doubt'. The teachings here are in no way clear. My personal belief is that Paul corrupted whatever may have been taught prior to his hallucination/whole-cloth-story for his own benefit.
{emphasis mine} There is much more testimony that exists and that is one part of the problem. I mean, there's more stuff written about JC such as:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4. And some days after, when Jesus was going through the midst of the city, a boy threw a stone at Him, and struck Him on the shoulder. And Jesus said to him: Thou shalt not go on thy way. And directly falling down, he also died. And they that happened to be there were struck with astonishment, saying: Whence is this child, that every word he says is certainly accomplished? And they also went and reproached Joseph, saying: It is impossible for thee to live with us in this city: but if thou wishest to do so, teach thy child to bless, and not to curse: for he is killing our children, and everything that he says is certainly accomplished.

5. And Joseph was sitting in his seat, and the child stood before him; and he took hold of Him by the ear, and pinched it hard. And Jesus looked at him steadily, and said: It is enough for thee.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As to 'The Law', I've asked this of other Christians, both here and in the Real World:

Do you try to follow the Ten Commandments? Do you try to follow other parts of The Law? Would it please God for you to follow all of The Law? If so, why don't you try?

Gamera

I do NOT follow any part of the Law, either the 10 commandment or the other 160 or so ordinances. There is no distinction between the 10 commandments and any other law -- they all constitute the Law, both the profound (thou shalt not murder) and the inane (don't mix linen with cotten). And none of them are applicable to Christians. If you claim to be a Christian, and you avoid killing people because of a law, rather than because you love people, then you need a gut check, in my opinion.

Jesus promises us that if we accept God's love, we will be filled with the Holy Spirit, who will give us the ability to be loving people (even to the point of loving our enemies, a hard thing to do). I beleive that promise. And so I don't avoid killing people because I follow the Law (as if I really want to kill people but am dissuaded from doing so by a law), but rather I don't kill people because I love them, and I love them because God loved me.

Jesus specifically tells us that if we follow the Law, but don't have love in our hearts, we're subject to judgment. It's what's in your heart that counts with God. The Law means nothing, less than nothing, after Jesus's died for us.

Thus:

Matthew 5:22 21 "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' 22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. 23

Gamera

My answer to this is as follows:

1. Nobody doubts the historicity of Paul. Sounds like you accept this too.

2. Paul's letter writing begin at about 55 ad, give or take a few years. We know this from internal and external evidence. While the mss of Paul's letters are later, no serious scholar doubts that he was writing at about that time.

3. This means that Paul's writings antedate the gospels, which take form a decade or two latter, at the earliest.

4. Thus, Paul has been accused of "inventing" the Christianity of the gospels, and that the gospel writers were influence by his messianic view. So argues Crossant and Wilson. (you seem to take and opposite approach and argue that the gospels differ from Paul's view)

5. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus. He knew Peter, who knew Jesus. He knew James, who was Jesus' brother. Paul's claims about Jesus were known to Peter and James.

6. This is important since Peter and James had undeniable firsthand knowledge of Jesus' teachings. And, Peter and James had deep disagreements with Paul. Indeed, James, being a legalist, sent "spies" to watch Paul, and persuaded Peter to accept the legalist position (at least until Paul set him staight). Galatians 2:4.

7. Yet, despite their disagreements with Paul, there is no evidence that they ever contradicted his claims about Jesus. Not one ms from Peter or James or their churches says, "You know, Paul's a good preacher, but he got it all wrong about Jesus, who never claimed he was the messaiah."

8. Indeed Peter states that Paul's letters are "scripture", i.e. inspired by God (though you perhaps doubt the authenticity of Peter's letters).

9. In any case, not one ms exists in which Peter or James, men very active in the early church, attack Paul's conception of Jesus.

10. There are only two options in light of this: (1) that in a radical purge that reached across continuent, Constantine or one of his ilk was so motivated to support Paul that he hunted down and destroyed every single mss by James and Peter or their followers that questioned Paul, every copy kept in an attic or a dresser drawer of every possible follower, and this without a modern police force; or (2) Paul got it right, and James and Peter therefore didn't challenge him.

Now, which is more likely?