gotigrz's Christianity topic, part 2 Options

[Pokey]

And if there is one God, and you believe that Jesus was God (one in the same) then why would God care if you are a Christian and you direct your religious experience through his personified figure of Jesus or directly to God without the side-car. If a Jew has a direct relationship with God, and a Christian has a relationship with Jesus and prays to Jesus, who the Christian believes is the same God as the Jew's God, then why would anyone care whether the Jew accepts the Jesus aspect of God. Why would God care which process is used by a person to establish a relationship with the same God? It all goes to the same God right? Doesn't the same hold true for other non-Christians? Why would God care how you get there if it all leads to the same place?

Never thought of it like that ... really good point.

It also brings up problems that religion causes in the world as far as holy wars and such go .. not so much in the sense of something as epic as the crusades or anything. But when you have different sects of the same religion .. catholic and protestant for example. I know there are other factors at work in these situations too .. but esentially they believe in the same God with little variations in how they go about their belief ... yet this can cause some major problems amoungst which violence and death. Fair enough you can use the "free will" argument when you have people wanting to follow a completely different religion and God to the Christian one. But if you view this as children fighting..

When 2 different religions are involved .. lets say Christianity and Muslim .. it's akin to 2 children fighting over "my Dad is better than your Dad" ... Dad being God (or Zman in my case). Ok i can see the argument for God/Dad to go "listen son, he can believe whatever he wants, he has free will" ... But when it is 2 Christian sects fighting, it could be viewed as 2 children .. brothers, fighting over who loves the Dad more. Surely Dad/God would step in and stop that out of love? It doesn't have to do with free will because neither is choosing to believe in different God or no God at all..

This is probably terribley worded at 4am .. but .. hey hang on I said I was done here. I am!

This post has been edited by Pokey: Mar 26 2010, 2:23 pm

[gotigrz]

Belief-oriented Christianity has emphasized the idea that if a person believes a certain set of facts about events that occurred 2,000 years ago are true, then you go to heaven and if you don't, you go to hell

well, this isn't 100% accurate... you're not saved by "faith" alone... you have to live the life that true "faith" would have you live. just saying "i believe" isn't true belief. true belief and life that follows Christ goes hand in hand. a true Christian, imho, doesn't think to himself... "well, i believe in Jesus, so that means that i can do whatever i want and suffer no consequences"

Why would God set up such an arbitrary system that has such high stakes?

well, if you really believe in God then you know that us humans are the ones that made the "system" arbitrary on ourselves. it's like the kid that gets in trouble for talking in school... he may get mad that he gets in trouble for doing something that is so natural to humans... but, he still disobeyed the teacher and therefore will suffer punishment. a true arbitrary system would be for the kid to get in trouble w/o the teacher first telling him not to talk.

i find it hard to believe that anyone thinks they can live their life without an eternal or ultimate reward or punishment when all they've done their entire life is live a life of reward or punishment.... aka... choices or actions and consequences.

Why would God need to make himself into his only son, and then suffer torture and resurrection and then test whether people believe that happened for the next 2,000 years in order for sins to be forgiven and in order to attain salvation?

well, i believe that in order to be with God you have to be like God and you have to be sinless or at least forgiven for your sins. if there was no need for forgiveness of sins to be with God then God's law is no longer "law"... cause without punishment... what good is "law"? and, the only way for us to be forgiven is for one of us to give up their life in perfect form... w/o sin... and the only One who could do such a thing is God, himself. and, since He does love and care for His creation... He did just that by sending Himself through Jesus to be one of us and to live the perfect life and be whipped, speared, and nailed to a cross to die so that all of human sin would be atoned for.

and as far as "test whether people believe that happened for the next 2,000 years in order for sins to be forgiven"... it's not a test... it's a simple requirement. your sins are not forgive BECAUSE you believe... your sins are forgiven regardless... but, you have to accept the gift of forgiveness before everything is complete. if a man does you wrong and you forgive him and he says he doesn't want your forgiveness... then there is always gonna be "that" between you two. if you never accept God's gift of forgiveness then you'll always be separated from God because of that.

why would anyone care whether the Jew accepts the Jesus aspect of God

cause they're denying a part of Him. they're accepting God in one form but not another... meaning.. they're not accepting all of Him. if your son is gay and you don't approve, and you say.. "i love you, son, but i hate the gay thing"... well, then your son is gonna believe that you don't love him cause the "gay thing" isn't some meaningless thing about him such as his clothes or the music he likes... it is part of him...it's who he is. if Jesus is God, then you can't accept one w/o the other...

Why would God care how you get there if it all leads to the same place?

like i said.. i believe that it matters cause you're denying a part of God and what He said He would do for mankind and what He did for mankind.

But when it is 2 Christian sects fighting, it could be viewed as 2 children .. brothers, fighting over who loves the Dad more. Surely Dad/God would step in and stop that out of love? It doesn't have to do with free will because neither is choosing to believe in different God or no God at all..

i see your point, but they're not fighting over who loves the Dad the most... they're fighting over "stuff" that isn't even important. the original Church of Christ was far more simple than todays churches because we have changed them to fit our needs in what we think the "right" church should be.. but, the "stuff" that we change is to suit our needs instead of what God really wants. and, like it or not, God allows this for the same reason He allows all "wrongs" in this world... free will. free will is seen by non believers as an easy way out of a sticky situation. but, free will is either that or it's the divine will of God... it's up to you what you believe. but, if you choose to believe that free will isn't what God said.. then you're denying the fact that you can choose differently than someone like me.

This post has been edited by gotigrz: Mar 29 2010, 9:39 am

[FishOutaWater]

well, i believe that in order to be with God you have to be like God and you have to be sinless or at least forgiven for your sins. if there was no need for forgiveness of sins to be with God then God's law is no longer "law"... cause without punishment... what good is "law"? and, the only way for us to be forgiven is for one of us to give up their life in perfect form... w/o sin... and the only One who could do such a thing is God, himself. and, since He does love and care for His creation... He did just that by sending Himself through Jesus to be one of us and to live the perfect life and be whipped, speared, and nailed to a cross to die so that all of human sin would be atoned for.

Here is the part that I can't make rational sense out of.

I don't think that the only way you can be with God is to be sinless or forgiven of sins. But let's just accept that as a true statement. How can a rational person accept what you describe as the set of rules for overcoming that?

You say that "the only way for us to be forgiven is for one of us to give up their life in perfect form". Is God bound by some strange, arcane rules involving human blood sacrifice in order to be able to forgive sins? Didn't he have the power to forgive sins without the sacrifice of a perfect, sinless human being who happens to be himself? Really? What about God's ability to forgive sins before Jesus - like on Yom Kipur? Who set up these rules of engagement for God? God himself? Why would he subject himself or us to these strange rules so that sins can be forgiven? It really doesn't make any sense at all. In fact, it seems silly. It probably made theological sense 2,000 years ago when people made animal sacrifices in the temple as offerings to God, but today it's hard to believe that God required the substituionary blood sacrifice of a perfect human so that he could forgive sins and so that people could be with him after they die.

I believe that Jesus lived, taught and was crucified and most likely appeared to his followers in some way after he died. And his followers tried to make some theological meaning out of the violent death of their spiritual leader. And later, the Church wrapped these stories in theology and doctrines and liturgy.

cause they're denying a part of Him. they're accepting God in one form but not another... meaning.. they're not accepting all of Him.

Do you accept the Jewish aspect of God? Did you celebrate Passover last night, like Jesus did every year of his life, including the night before he died? Do you honor the sabath on Saturday and follow the Jewish dietary laws like Jesus and all of his desciples did throughout their lives? Jesus was an observant Jew his entire life. So was his family and his followers. The reason that he was hastily buried and the women went back to the grave on Sunday was because of observance of the sabath and the Jewish ritual of annointing the body with oils. Why did Jesus feel the need to be a good Jew? It was central to his spirituality. Don't good Christians feel the need to practice the central and defining practices of Jesus' own spirituality? Indeed, the aposltes who followed Jesus throughout his entire public ministry (notably James and Peter) believed after Jesus dies that a person had to convert to Judaism if they weren't already Jewish in order to follow the ways of Jesus. Peter wouldn't sit with unclean people eating unkosher food and James yelled at Peter for doing so after he was convinced to by Paul. That's right in the bible. Don't you think that the apostles who knew Jesus best understood what it meant to follow Jesus's ways? They thought you needed to be Jewish.

I would bet that you aren't Jewish, and the only reason that you aren't a Jew as a follower of Jesus is that Paul, who never met Jesus except for a vision on the Road to Damscus that none of his fellow travelors who were with him saw (and later the imperial influence of the Roman empire that adopted Christianity as the official religion of the empire under Constantine) Gentilized, Paganized and Romanized the Jesus movement and extended it to non-Jews as we see it today. At the same time, they alienated and villinized Jews, which is a pretty sad irony.

But again, do you think you are not going to be saved because you accept the Jesus form of God but you deny the Jewish form of God?

I'm not trying to belittle any elses beliefs. I just think that if you stop and stand back and look at this stuff, it is really hard to reconcile and understand.

[gotigrz]

thanks for the reply, fish... but, no, i don't deny the jewish form of God. they believe in the same God that we do, but we refer to Him as God the Father.



You say that "the only way for us to be forgiven is for one of us to give up their life in perfect form". Is God bound by some strange, arcane rules involving human blood sacrifice in order to be able to forgive sins?

all i can say to that is that God is the same God that has always been.. he is unchanging. He doesn't adapt to our ways. what may seem old fashioned to us, will always be the same to God is timeless.

Didn't he have the power to forgive sins without the sacrifice of a perfect, sinless human being who happens to be himself? Really? What about God's ability to forgive sins before Jesus - like on Yom Kipur? Who set up these rules of engagement for God? God himself? Why would he subject himself or us to these strange rules so that sins can be forgiven? It really doesn't make any sense at all. In fact, it seems silly. It probably made theological sense 2,000 years ago when people made animal sacrifices in the temple as offerings to God, but today it's hard to believe that God required the substituionary blood sacrifice of a perfect human so that he could forgive sins and so that people could be with him after they die.

well, like i said before, i believe that God is timeless, so what seems "silly" to us, today, is still as relevant today as it was 2,000 yrs ago to God. but, let me ask you a question: if it seems "silly" today for that to be the requirement to forgive sins,... what do you think would be acceptable or appropriate as a requirement to get to Heaven?

I believe that Jesus lived, taught and was crucified and most likely appeared to his followers in some way after he died. And his followers tried to make some theological meaning out of the violent death of their spiritual leader. And later, the Church wrapped these stories in theology and doctrines and liturgy.

i can see how you might believe that IF Jesus didn't say that He was going to be raised 3 days after His death. Jesus told His followers exactly what was gonna happen before He was crucified... and, according to eye witnesses... all of what Jesus said was going to happen... HAPPENED. so, when Jesus said that He is the Son of Man, and that He would die for our sins and only through Him can one be saved... why would someone believe some of that and not all of it? it makes more sense to believe none of it, to me, than to pick and choose parts to believe.


Do you accept the Jewish aspect of God?

i accept the Jewish aspect of God as God the Father

Did you celebrate Passover last night, like Jesus did every year of his life, including the night before he died?

yes, i do celebrate the passover

Do you honor the sabath on Saturday and follow the Jewish dietary laws like Jesus and all of his desciples did throughout their lives?

well, i honor the sabbath on Sunday. and, no i don't follow the jewish dietary laws... for one, i'm not jewish, and two, i think "believing" in Jesus and who He is and following His ways of treating others and loving His Father is what Jesus cared about.

Why did Jesus feel the need to be a good Jew? It was central to his spirituality. Don't good Christians feel the need to practice the central and defining practices of Jesus' own spirituality?

well, i believe we do. i believe every Christian and Jew, alike, should practice exactly what Jesus taught.


Indeed, the aposltes who followed Jesus throughout his entire public ministry (notably James and Peter) believed after Jesus dies that a person had to convert to Judaism if they weren't already Jewish in order to follow the ways of Jesus. Peter wouldn't sit with unclean people eating unkosher food and James yelled at Peter for doing so after he was convinced to by Paul. That's right in the bible. Don't you think that the apostles who knew Jesus best understood what it meant to follow Jesus's ways? They thought you needed to be Jewish.

fish, i'm not doubting you, but i need to see this in the bible... that the followers of Jesus thought you should be Jewish. please give me a verse of scripture if you don't mind.


But again, do you think you are not going to be saved because you accept the Jesus form of God but you deny the Jewish form of God?

like i said... Christians don't deny the jewish form of God, Jehovah... Christians believe in the Trinity.. God the Father(Jehovah), God the Son(Jesus), and the Holy Spirit(God's spirit inside you). the only ones denying any part of God is the Jews denying Jesus as God's Son.

I'm not trying to belittle any elses beliefs. I just think that if you stop and stand back and look at this stuff, it is really hard to reconcile and understand.

it is very hard to understand,... but, only if you make it hard. Believing Jesus is who He says He is and believing He did what He and others say He did, and believing Jesus when He said that "no one comes to the Father but through Me"... isn't hard to understand. it is strict... but, fair.

oh, and sorry,.. my little quote button didn't work for me...

This post has been edited by gotigrz: Mar 31 2010, 8:40 am

[Deku]

this thread blows

[FishOutaWater]

I will post the citations to the Letters of Paul and Acts where the conflict between Paul and James and Peter are described. I have read analysis of those verses in numerous books written by biblical scholars, but I need to look back at them for the exact verses.

It is universally accepted that Peter and James, who were the leaders of the Jesus movement within Jerusalem after Jesus died believed and followed the practice that the followers of the Jesus movement must first be Jewish. In fact, in their ministry after Jesus died, they only spread the word of Jesus to those in the Jewish community. It was Paul, who moved from town to town in the "east" around Greece, who was setting up small Christian communities in those towns, attracting non-Jewish gentiles. Paul seemed to believe that salvation through Jesus was made available to all people outside of the Jewish religion. While doing so, he continued to endorse the continuing and enduring convenant between God and the Jewish people, which is described in Chapter 11 in the letter to the Romans. He describes Judaism and its covenant with God as an olive tree - and Christianity which extends God's love to the gentiles is described as a branch that is grafted on to the olive tree. Paul warns that the branch is just grafted on and can easily be torn off. He also warns that if the olive tree dies, so does the branch. He affirns the ongoing covenant with God and the Jews. This is the basis for Pope John Paul's numerous official statements that Jews are in an enduring, irrevocable covenant with God and that they do not need to be converted because the Jewish religion is salvic for Jews.

A big reason that Paul fought against the requirement that followers convert to Judaism is that his followers were established adults in Roman society who assimilated into Roman life. The Jewish dietary laws and having male adults get circumcized and to show that off in the naked Roman gymns was a hard sell.

The only reason why Christians are not first required to become Jewish and follow all of the Jewish laws is because of the theology of Paul. There is a story in both the letters of Paul and in Acts about an encounter between Paul and Peter. It was an argument over Jewish dietary laws. James strongly reprimanded Peter (one of the many reasons why scholars think that it was actually James who was initially in charge) for dining with unclean Gentiles with Paul. Paul then describes major arguments he had with Peter and James over these issues. Many of Paul's letters are actually debates about the importance of "the law" (i.e. Jewish laws and identity) verses faith superceding the law.

Incidentally, another argument between Paul and James is the importance of faith verses works. In the letter of James in the bible, he clearly stresses the importance of works over faith. Paul stresses works alone is not enough - that you need works plus faith. The difference between the letter of James and Pauls letters on this point is very clear in the bible. This argument between works and faith is as old as Christianity itself. Incidentally, I remind you again that James, who is referred to at least a half a dozen times in the new testament as "the brother of Jesus", and is referenced even more times as the "beloved desciple", actually knew Jesus and he seemed to think that good works is the important thing for being with God. Peul, who never met Jesus, thought faith alone was enough.

So back to the arguments between Paul and Peter and James. Paul describes in one of his letters about how he was trying to raise money to take back to the leaders in Jerusalem. The Jewish followers in Jerusalem were poor because they were Jewish peasants who were unable to gain wealth in the Roman empire. On the other hand, the gentiles that Paul was converting in the East were wealthy Roman citizens who were tax collectors and upstanding people in Roman society. In one of Paul's letters and in Acts, it describes Paul as going to Jerusalem to meet with Peter and James. He brought money that he raised from the followers in the East to fund the ministries in Jerusalem. It was that money offering that convinced James and Peter to reluctantly allow Paul to continue his ministry to the non-Jewish gentiles, which eventually resulted in the break from Christianity from Judaism. In the very beginning, what we think of as "Christianity" was just a Jesus movement within Judaism, and it was the force of Paul ( and frankly his money offering) that dramatically changed that.

Most of Christian theology is based on Paul's theology, as reflected in his letters. You have to remember when you look at those letters that you are essentially reading someone else's 2,000 year old mail. What Paul did was go into a community and try to develop a following for Jesus. Then he would leave that town and go on to the next town. From there he would get reports that the community he established were losing faith or going back to their pagan ways. Or he needed to update them on things or ask for help. He would write them letters. About a half a dozen times, Paul mentions in his letters that Jesus was going to come back and the kingdom of heaven would be established on earth within their lifetimes. Paul was under the false impression that the end was coming very soon. It is clear that Paul had an eschatalogical world view, which created an urgency in his letters. When you read the morality and urgency of faith and salvation in Paul's letters, you have to read them in the context of Paul, writing to a community he had set up and left, who reverted to their pagan ways of sleeping with their sheep, etc., from his perspective that the end times were coming during their generation. The letters read a little differently through that perspective.

All of what I wrote here is universally accepted by scholars and seminarians alike. It's all right in the bible and they teach this in seminaries.






Now about the things that some of the Gospels say that Jesus predicted before he died - you have to remember one inportant fact - the Gospels were written between 60 to 120 AD. They were written after the fact, based on hindsight and oral history that was passed down until they were reduced to writing. None of the things that the gospels say that Jesus said were exact quotes. And they reflect after-the-fact versions of what Jesus said. Interestingly, Mark is the earliest written gospel, followed by Luke and Matthew, which are based on Mark and then added to. These are called the synoptic gospels because they basically lay out the facts without a lot of theology. John is the latest written gospel, written around 120 AD. That is the gospel that includes most of the theology. "In the beginning was the word" - which suggests that Jesus always was God from the beginning of time and the word became flesh. The famous statement in John 3:16 "I am the eway, the truth and the light, no one comes to the father except through me." John is the only gospel that attributes Jesus with proclaiming his own divinity. Most of the pre-Easter predictions about his death and resurrection are in John. The bottom line is that by the time John was written, much of this theological interpretation of Jesus had become more developed and was reflected in the gosepel. John has to be understood through that perspective. Of course, I do understand that you believe that the 4 gospels are divinely inspired and literally true. I don't believe that.

There are many factual inconsistencies between the 4 gospels. For example, just in the Easter story alone, John has a different number of angels at the grave (two sitting at the grave) and he has Peter and James arriving at the tomb to experience that Jesus was not there. Luke has Mary Magdelane and several other women arriving at the tob to see Jesus was missing. Matthew and Mark have Mary Magedelane and the other Mary (mother of Jesus?). Matthew has an earthquake and the stone rolling away before them by the angel of the Lord (only one angel). Mark has the stone already rolled away and a young man sitting by the grave. John has the crucifixion happening at a different time on the calendar relative to Passover than the other gospels. In Matthew, the chief priests and Pharisees went to Pilate and told him that they wanted guards to stand by the grave and make sure that no one would steal the body of Jesus and would make sure that the stone was sealed because they said that Jesus predicted he would be resurected. Matthew is the only gospel to state this and there are no guards in the other gospels. Scholars believe that this was added into Matthew because at the time Matthew was written, the author fealt the need to dispel crticism that Jesus didn't really raise from the dead and his apostles stole his body to make up the resurrection story. Many think that Matthew (only Matthew) added this to the story to try to provide evidence that it must have been a miracle because there were guards outside the tomb.

There are many other factual discrepancies between the gospels. They can't all be literally true.

This post has been edited by FishOutaWater: Mar 31 2010, 10:07 am

[crazy1]

[FishOutaWater]

Sorry it bores you. If you don't like it, don't read it. This thread has been set aside and devoted to a discussion with gotigrz about religion. If you take the time to read my long posts, I think there is a lot of interesting information in there that people just don't know and just don't think about. I have an interest in setting forth information about this subject that I think many people are not aware of because they don't take the time to really look closely. I think that if you really take time to look deeply at the early development of Christianity and the origins of the texts, the whole religion takes on a different meaning. I think too many people blindly follow the limited path that they are taught without independantly thinking about it, challenging it and seeking to understand it with their own intellect and not just be bound by the one, limited perspective they are taught.

[Pokey]

I've found gotigrz replys harder to read seeing as he seems to be writing them now in interview style as if he is being interviewed.

[VoodooLady]

Sorry it bores you. If you don't like it, don't read it. This thread has been set aside and devoted to a discussion with gotigrz about religion. I

I agree with most of what you posted Fish on this subject. But this thread really has turned into a debate btw you and gotigrz - few others post comments that add much to the discussion on the topic (Pokey chimes in now and then). When folks do post, it frequently takes the tone of them being bored or exasperated that this "discussion" is still going on...

Neither you nor gotigrz are going to convince others here that your position and viewpoint is valid. And if a thread is only 2 people going back and forth, then why not simply take it off the board, and continue on in another format like email.

This post has been edited by VoodooLady: Mar 31 2010, 11:18 am

[Pokey]

It's still not hurting anyone by being here .. if they want to go back and forth then not coming into the thread wont kill you.

That being said, imagine if we converted gotigrz! Or scarier, imagine if gotigrz converted me.

I find the discussion interesting on both sides of different reasons. I find the things Fish is bringing up to be incredibly interesting, he's pretty much just expressing a lot of my views a lot better than I could. But admittedly he is more well read on the subject than myself too.
Gotigrz I find fascinating more so that in the face of all this more convincing posting than he is producing, he chooses to stand fast and is completely undetered. It must be amazing to have that much faith in something that so many people can give such convincing arguments against not existing, or not adding up properly.

[FishOutaWater]

I agree with most of what you posted Fish on this subject. But this thread really has turned into a debate btw you and gotigrz - few others post comments that add much to the discussion on the topic (Pokey chimes in now and then). When folks do post, it frequently takes the tone of them being bored or exasperated that this "discussion" is still going on...

Neither you nor gotigrz are going to convince others here that your position and viewpoint is valid. And if a thread is only 2 people going back and forth, then why not simply take it off the board, and continue on in another format like email.

I just thought that this was a thread for this exact discussion. That's why it was moved from the EK thread. And I thought that others (maybe even just one other) might learn something or be interested in it - if not today, then maybe a month from now when they find it on here. Better yet, I was hoping to open gotigrz's eyes to some new ideas and perspectives.

But OK, if you don't like us having this discussion in a thread, then I'll bail out on it. No problem. It takes too long to write these long posts anyway.

[gotigrz]

[quote] Paul warns that the branch is just grafted on and can easily be torn off. He also warns that if the olive tree dies, so does the branch.[/quote]

i think this is directly related to the fact that most Christians believe that if Israel is brought down then that will be when Jesus will come back. but, i don't think we can rush such a thing... i believe that there is an "end time" and that "time" will happen when all prophecies have been fulfilled... God's time.

[quote]He affirns the ongoing covenant with God and the Jews. This is the basis for Pope John Paul's numerous official statements that Jews are in an enduring, irrevocable covenant with God and that they do not need to be converted because the Jewish religion is salvic for Jews.[/quote]

i so hope this is right. i don't want ANYONE to live an eternal life separated from God. not even osama bin laden. Matthew 20:16 says "the first will be last and the last will be first"... this is just my opinion, but i think that may imply that the Jews were first to know God, but may be the last to accept Him, Jesus. and, the gentiles were the last to know Him but the first to accept Him. just my opinion, not basis of fact.


[quote]
The only reason why Christians are not first required to become Jewish and follow all of the Jewish laws is because of the theology of Paul. There is a story in both the letters of Paul and in Acts about an encounter between Paul and Peter. It was an argument over Jewish dietary laws. James strongly reprimanded Peter (one of the many reasons why scholars think that it was actually James who was initially in charge) for dining with unclean Gentiles with Paul. Paul then describes major arguments he had with Peter and James over these issues. Many of Paul's letters are actually debates about the importance of "the law" (i.e. Jewish laws and identity) verses faith superceding the law.[/quote]

i really do think faith supersedes the law, here. i mean, even Jesus was looked down upon from many for eating with tax collectors. Jesus was tested many times and always put those in their place by showing them that there is ALWAYS a "right" thing to do no matter if it breaks "laws". the law says to keep the sabbath holy and not work, but Jesus said if your donkey is in a ditch and it requires you to work to get it out... you have to get it out. this is not an excuse to ignore "law" but that all laws are bendable. honestly, i don't honor the sabbath the way i should... my family usually goes out to eat after church... that is enabling the restaurant worker to work... if i don't go... they can't work. i know it would take more than just me for this to happen, but i know that my actions should not be based on what others do, but instead on what God would have me to do.

[quote]... James, who is referred to at least a half a dozen times in the new testament as "the brother of Jesus", and is referenced even more times as the "beloved desciple", actually knew Jesus and he seemed to think that good works is the important thing for being with God. Peul, who never met Jesus, thought faith alone was enough.
[/quote]

interesting... i, for one, don't think that faith w/o works is enough. honestly, i just don't think you can have TRUE faith w/o works. if you truly love your spouse... you will act like it. if you just say you love them to get what's beneficial to you... that relationship WILL fail. and, honestly this thread, alone, has made me realize that i need to do a lot of work on my relationship with God... for that, i thank anyone who has replied with honest reply's cause that can only help me. i just wish i could help someone, too.


[quote]
The famous statement in John 3:16 "I am the eway, the truth and the light, no one comes to the father except through me." [/quote]

i don't mean to be a stickler, cause you are obviously very well read on this subject, but John 3:16 is "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, and that whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life"...


[quote]Of course, I do understand that you believe that the 4 gospels are divinely inspired and literally true. I don't believe that.[/quote]

i know that the men that wrote the gospels were not God. they were not perfect... there are details in the gospels that, in my mind, don't contradict, but just differ... if i told you and another person that i had $100 and the two of you went and told people that i had $100, but one of you said i had 5 $20's and the other said i had 2 $50's... does that make the fact that i have $100 any less true. my point being is that there may be some differences in the gospels, but i believe that to be only because fallible men wrote them. but, i firmly believe that the main point of the gospels is to let others know that Jesus is the Christ, and that He did resurrect. details may vary, but the subject is still the same.

[quote]Many think that Matthew (only Matthew) added this to the story to try to provide evidence that it must have been a miracle because there were guards outside the tomb.[/quote]

well, i think it's a fact that either Jesus' body was stolen or was resurrected. if it was stolen, then it only makes sense that it would have been stolen by the ones who wanted to keep the resurrection story alive, and that would have been Jesus' followers. but, Jesus followers later said to have been willing to give up their life for Jesus after His death... now... would you be willing to give up your life for something that you KNOW not to be true? if Jesus' body was stolen then it wasn't by the ones wanting Jesus out of the picture. the romans stealing Jesus' body would only validate the story of the resurrection even if it were not really true.

[quote]There are many other factual discrepancies between the gospels. They can't all be literally true.[/quote]

like i said, the differences are details that don't change the validity of the stories. in a way, it kind of humanizes it. this tells me that each had their own interpretation of what happened and that each were not told... "this is what you are to say"... i think they all told a story just like any human today would tell a story. the main objective is the same with minor details differing, all the while, not changing the objective.

and, fishoutofwater,... i must say you are very smart in this subject. i applaud you for that. did you take religion?

This post has been edited by gotigrz: Mar 31 2010, 1:38 pm

[FishOutaWater]

i don't mean to be a stickler, cause you are obviously very well read on this subject, but John 3:16 is "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, and that whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life"...

Oops. That is another famous quote. The one I quoted is John 14:6.


I enjoy a good discussion about this stuff.

[Merica]

It's only the bible... it's not.... gospel.