Biblical/Religious Questions

All right I'll just post two links because they are long articles

http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/gjkeane/1chap13.html

http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/gjkeane/2chap13.html

 

I apologize for carrying on three separate conversations.

Friendly Fan - Interesting and logical theory. I can come up with some examples where it would be true for OBL, but I'm not too sure about Paul. Can you give me some examples of Paul's beliefs that are separate from what Jesus taught?

_____________________________________________

Lil Pun - You could always be an agnostic evolutionist. Then you could wait till someone gave you proof that evolution was for real.

_____________________________________________

twhy77 - Can you please break it down for me? Can you
explain, or find an article that explains, how these verses point to transmutation? My first reaction upon reading it is that He didn't turn the bread into His own flesh, He just gave them some bread as a metaphor. The same goes for the contents of the cup. Maybe there are other examples within the Bible that could support your claims.

 

It depends on how literal one takes certain portion of the Bible and how much faith one has on the theory of evolution. Although I have my opinion on this, I don't think it is the central issue of Christianity. In that I mean either way you stand on this issue, you can still be a genuine Christian.

I do think that evolution needs to be challenged on scientific ground, not from the religious side.

 

Once again, you seem to make it arbitrary, that some will recieve faith and others won't. You have to account for free will. I don't think this takes away salvation by merit at all, but I guess that is just where I disagree with Luther.

 

Let US make MAN in OUR own IMAGE.


sounds like an alien culture deciding to manipulate a simian gene pool to produce something more like them and less like chimps.





I don't believe evolution produced humankind, but I don't believe the literal biblical text, either. However, if we take the words literally, it suggests an alien culture created us, probably 200,000 years ago when they launched the first model, the Neanderthal. the second model, CroMagnon, came along 35,000 years ago. Also probably a gene pool manipulation by a higher intelligence.

 

What DIDN'T he add? All that crap about better to marry than to burn, better to remain unmarried, his wacky rulings on circumcision and eating sacrificed meats. The guy took what Jesus said, but then he interpreted, and thereby created the rules which acted as the basis for the church structure.

I don't think Paul got it right any more than I think the Pope or Jerry Falwell get it right. They are men providing their interpretation, ego driven men who think the jumbled thoughts in their head are real. the demons they hide from are the ones they create.

 

Mr. Gootan, he first describes the bread as being work of the field, and the wine as fruit of the vine, and then he describes them as his body. The bread is him, he is the new covenant. He says that the bread is his body, it is done for us, to keep doing it... I don't think you can take it as a metaphor. I'll search for a link...

EDIT: http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

 

Heaven, Hell, or somewhere in between?


I love the differing views of heaven. It's eternity. It's with Jesus, or God, or Allah. It's ... what? Is it better than a bacon sandwich? Is it better than an orgasm? Is it better than a cigarette after an orgasm? It's a strange concept to start with, a mythical place of wonderfulness. A veritable Neverland with no monkey or pedophile.

And then there are the variations, with levels of heaven for those who do certain things here on earth. Or the purgatory, where some souls apparently reside until their families contribute money to the church.

Judgment day, billions of people to be judged, records kept for millenia, no appeal, millions who thought they were on the right page being sent to eternal damnation in a firey pit.

Revelations is like the epilogue that the Devil added just to eff the whole thing up. you know all that stuff about goodness? well forget that. do this or your soul will burn forever.

 

I understand the difference between inerrancy and reliability. But you seems to make inerrancy too rigid a concept. Here's the official statement on inerrancy. They have some qualifications in there. Inerrancy does not require verbatim quotes, which is a very modern concept.

Friendly Fan, the excerpts you quoted are pretty one-sided. They portrayed the formation of organized Christianity as something Constantine dreamed up to control the empire. That is just not the whole picture. Way before Nicaea, they already had recognition of New Testament scriptures. The earliest known was the "Muratorian Canon" which was around AD 200 (more than a century before Constantine). Even earlier, people like Polycarp and Ignatius had been quoting the Gospels and Paul's letters as authoritative scriptures in the early part of 2nd century.

Theological discussions had been going on ever since the apostolic age. Don't forget that these Christian thinkers did not have the luxury of ecumenical councils because for the first 300 years, they were facing hard persecution and martyrdom was common. They needed to be sure what they preach was worth giving their lives. Politics and "Christian empire" was the farthest thing in their minds.

Constantine did have some political motive for holding the Nicene Council. But it was more of a negative reaction than a positive tactic. He feared that the theological dispute centered on Arianism would split the empire. It was not a calculated political move actively weaved up by the emperor.

 

Those who believe in inerrancy usually see it as more open minded than those who don't. It's a difference we won't soon bridge for it goes to the heart of what we believe.

The point of the story of Nicaea is that it is merely ONE of many, many times where men sat down to decide what would and would not be doctrine.

You will always see the Bible as something that God created. I won't. It has messages I believe are from God, but that's only a tiny portion of it. The rest is man telling himself what he wants to hear.

 

line from Catholic hymn-- "Not in some heaven light years away"

"Here on this Earth a new day is dawning"

"Let us build the kingdom of God, let our tears be turned into dancing"

On an unrelated note, if there are any Baptists here, is it true, and if so why, that you guys don't allow dancing, or is this just some myth that goes around like the one where you guys think we worship MAry? Just a question, not accusing anybody. I like dancing, it is fun.

 

twhy77 - Thanks for the article. I've read it and John 6. This is where I think we disagree in interpretation. This is from the article:

I don't understand how he can just dismiss this interpretation as utter nonsense without exploring it further. Jesus was known to speak figuratively so that the people could understand, eventually.
The interpretation of the phrase is exactly what has happened (is happening) on the cross at Calvary. Our sin was placed on His perfect life so that He would receive the justice of our sins (death) while we received mercy. The bread and cup ceremony is a reminder of that.
All our sins have already been paid for. This is where we disagree.

 

I am not saying that inerrancy is "open minded." It's just not as rigid as popularly believed.

I still have problem with your tone. You sounded like those men just sat down and say, "Well, let's see. What doctrines should we make this time so we can benefit from them the most?" Most doctrines are born out of theological debates, which mostly are stemmed from real life circumstances.

It is true that sometimes the motives behind the disputes might not be purely religious. But I think you give too little religious credit for the development of doctrines.

Your position seems as dogmatic as mine.

 

No see, we agree in that he dies for our sins, but its not a bartering chip, I mean the way you use pay for makes it sound like he was a big ransom chip... God is something we must ontalogically choose to participate in and with, and for Catholics, the way to do that is through Jesus... He was speaking directly to his disciples, and if you look at Mark I think it is, the wording is the excact same.... it is a direct statement...and he's not dismissing the statement as utter nonsense, hes saying that the different interpreatation makes it utter nonsense... Its about learning to accept and recipricate the gift that was given, the gift of grace, and that means in works, and in faith.... it can also not be solely by works alone, its as if the two are almost melded into one....

 

Easy: we disagree fundamentally. What is the point of attempting to argue finer points? You say Word of God, I say Harry Potter. You say forces of religion, I say men feeding their egos and pursuing power.

Religion is almost exclusively the story of evil men doing evil, from my view. There's more God in a waterfall than in all the churches ever built.

 

Is that the NAB translation? This translation doesn’t really change any meanings for me. You’ll have to be more specific with what you are seeing that you read differently.

Let’s clarify the points we agree on. I think you and I would agree that good works appear in people who have a genuine faith. You suggest that a person of faith must chose to perform good works else they will lose their salvation. I suggest that a person of faith will do good works because that’s who they are as a spiritually transformed Christian.

Let me go back to the analogy of the tree. A good tree doesn’t bear good fruit because it decides to. It bears good fruit because that what it is. That’s its nature. The quality and amount of its fruit may be altered by various factors, but it will always produce the same kind of fruit. The passage from Gal 5 listing the fruit of the spirit is also informative. Again, these are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. These are not works, but they are qualities that lead to good works. This is more powerful than simply referring to works, and more reliable. Bad people, to use a simplistic term, can do things that appear to be good, but it’s very difficult for them to show joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc. These are the things that reveal the nature of the soul. Further, what is a good work? This is often not as obvious as it seems. Things that at one time appeared good can later reveal themselves to have been quite bad, (i.e. residential schools for indigenous Canadians). If something is done in accordance with the spirit, however, it is much harder for it to become intellectualized and corrupted. To bring this closer to home I’ll ask you, why do you do good works? Is it because you want to, you feel compelled to, it gives you joy to do so? Or do you do it just to obey the law? I suspect that you do them for the former reasons, and I submit that deeds done only to obey the law are in the end largely meaningless acts.

Back to Romans, let’s look at this passage from the NAB translation of Romans 3. This is how I read it.

21 6 But now 7 the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets,
22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction;

Yes, it doesn’t say “apart from the law alone” but it also doesn’t say “apart from the law except for.” It just says “apart from” and I think that that is what it means. It also doesn’t say “for all who believe and do good deeds.” It just says “for all who believe.” And I also think that that means what is says at face value.


23 all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God.
24 They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus,

Note the mention of the phrase “they are freely justified by grace.” Again, no caveats. The word freely is particularly important. Free, not earned. Using the “alone” argument here would be quite awkward. It would be hard for it to be free and yet not free. I think it just means what it says, free “through the redemption in Christ Jesus…”

25 whom God set forth as an expiation, 8 through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed,
26 through the forbearance of God--to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus.

Again, it doesn’t say “through faith and works” or that God will “justify the one who has faith and does works.” It says “through faith” and “by faith.”

27 What occasion is there then for boasting? 9 It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith. 10
28 For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Verse 28 is particularly direct. “A person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” How then, would a person’s justification be also based on law bases works?!

Yes, in response to this very verse your paper says this:
If Paul did not intend to teach faith alone, then how do we explain his statement in Rom. 3:28, "that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law"? Could one not argue that the phrase "apart from" is very similar to the word "alone," and thus conclude that St. Paul really did teach that faith is alone in justification?

To answer this, we must realize that "justified by faith alone" does not mean the same thing as "justified by faith apart from works of the law." Grammatically, the phrase "faith alone" means that faith is the ONLY instrument for justification, while the statement "faith apart from works of the law" merely means that "works of the law"—whatever St. Paul means by them—are the only thing that cannot be coupled with faith for justification. In other words, "faith alone" excludes everything from being added to faith, while "faith apart

from works of the law" excludes only "works of the law" from being added to faith. This leaves open the possibility that perhaps something may be added to faith that is not considered "works of the law," or, that we could understand "faith" as being associated with other virtues that are not technically related to "works of the law." [See Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 7].

This is simply convoluted rationalisation. The meaning of “works of the law” is quite clear in this context, not obscure as the author is suggesting. And the suggestion that something might later be added to the faith seems quite bizarre. God’s character is timeless. Doesn’t the Catholic Church now believe this?! It was and is the suggestion that religions leaders have the authority to change the word and character of God that has lead to so many abuses over the centuries.

29 Does God belong to Jews alone? Does he not belong to Gentiles, too? Yes, also to Gentiles,
30 for God is one and will justify the circumcised on the basis of faith and the uncircumcised through faith.
31 Are we then annulling the law by this faith? Of course not! On the contrary, we are supporting the law. 11

The final point in this passage is that faith does not annul the law. This harkens back to the verses immediately before this passage. Romans 3: 19-20

19 Now we know that what the law 4 says is addressed to those under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world stand accountable to God,
20 since no human being will be justified in his sight 5 by observing the law; for through the law comes consciousness of sin.

The law makes us conscious of our sin, and we are all sinners. No human being will be justified in His sight by observing the law. But by becoming aware of our sins we can choose to humble ourselves, turn to God for forgiveness, and accept the sacrifice Jesus made for us which absolves us of our sin. This is the purpose of the law, to make us aware that we can’t make it on our own, that we fall miserably short, and that we need to humble ourselves and submit to God, and accept and rely on God’s forgiveness and grace. I find the suggestion that we would have to do X good deeds on the side too to be out of character with this message. Yes we want to do good deeds, but these flow from the fruits of the spirit we receive after we are justified by faith. They are the nature of the transformed tree that we have become. This is not only my reading of this section; it’s also my personal experience.


The case put forward by the paper is that the implied qualifier “alone” has not been recognised by some readers of the Bible. I submit to you that I have shown that other qualifiers would be needed to sustain the overall meaning the author is suggesting, even in just this one small section, and these qualifiers aren’t there either.

More generally, the bible was not written to be understandable only to “experts” who would be free to exercise great contortions of logic in its interpretation. The bible was written to all, to “those who have the ears to hear and the eyes to see.” It was written in a way that needs to be interpreted by the reader. No one can tell you what it means, they can only tell you what they believe it means. This protects the masses from being manipulated by corrupt religious leaders who would manipulate it for their own purposes. This was a factor even in Jesus’ time (see Matthew 23). The Bible should, therefore, be written in a relatively straight forward way grammatically. Yes, there is much that needs to be interpreted, but the structure and grammar should be relatively straight forward. This author’s argument about the use of the word “alone” is too obscure and just doesn’t ring true to me.

I’ll also add that I’m puzzled by the Catholic position on this. I don’t see the point or the significance of it and it does not seem to fall obviously from the text. What has been the historical significance of this belief to the Catholic Church?

 

You sound like a friend of mine who has some major issues with Paul. He’s an ex-Catholic and seems to view Paul as the great legalist. That’s not the way I read him. In Romans, for example, he uses a lot of harsh judgmental language, but he does this to make a point. He ends up emphasising grace and forgiveness. Which “wacky” things that he’s said are you most put off by?

 

Originally posted by Lil Pun
So where did the idea for the devil come from? (I asked this question and got no answer.) Yeah, sorry about that. Let me just start with the concept that the Bible deals with God's relationship with man. So in depth information concerning the devil is limited. (The main information can be found in the beginning of Genesis, Job, few chapters in Isaiah and Ezekiel, the temptations in the Gospels, and Revelations) We can get that Satan was previously known as Lucifer, and was created by God to be one of the "lead" angels (If not "the" lead angel.) We can get that, although perfectly created, Lucifer wanted to be worshipped as God instead of leading worship of God. (The following part is unclear, but can be inferred) Because God is just, God has given the devil an opportunity to prove that being 'apart from God' can be just as good as being 'with' God, or in other words, a chance to redefine what is 'good'.

Also what about the ideas of heaven and hell? These concepts can be found in the Bible as well. (I'm not sure how to answer these questions because it seems like you're asking how man could even come up with these concepts, which seems strange in a thread titled 'Biblical/religious questions'.) In the Bible, they relate to the ideas of 'being with God' and 'being apart from God'.

If there are so many different denominations of the Christian faith and people add and take out what they believe is right, not necessarily the Bible, how can you be sure your denomination is worshiping the correct way? Most denominations of Christianity differ on arbitrary points, but agree on the core message of the Bible, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God did not come into the world to condemn the world. But, that through Him, the world might be saved." Worship is basically admitting that God is who He says He is, and that He is worthy of our worship. If that is the intent of the worship, then it is being done in the correct way.

What makes Christianity so much better than Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, or any other known religion or what makes it more right? This is what we have been discussing on this board, right? Salvation is guaranteed without having to kill someone. (security that only Jesus had to die for us) Although it might be the hardest to accept, salvation is the easiest to achieve. (God did it all. Once accepted, no other works needed.) Future is brightest of monotheistic religions, unless you worship sex. (We are central to God's focus and love, and will be given authority by Him.) The path to salvation is more sure than in polytheistic religions. (One supreme authority establishing one set of conditions) And finally, to me, it's the most up-close and personal of all the religions, even moreso than satanism. (God wants to work with and through us to accomplish His plans.)

Is Scientology a denomination of the Christian faith or a totally different religion, if it is a religion at all? That's the L. Ron Hubbard non-christian belief that aliens (thetons) are our ticket to better things. I think you're really asking about Mary Hubbard's Christian Scientists, who have their own interpretation of the Bible (such as they don't believe evil exists at all). Other Christians don't consider them as Christian.

Why do some denominations of the Christian faith feud? Ex. Catholics and Protestants It boils down to the arguments of Martin Luther. I think it has been discussed (and is being discussed) in this thread.

What is the oldest religion in the world?Depends on who is grading this test. Many religions believe their's is first because it comes straight from God. The first one to be documented may be Hinduism.

 

Paul says some wonderful things, but like a guy with 15,000 posts, it ain't all gold, and some of it is considerably less. He's the primary architect of Christianity and it's most prolific author. He IS Christianity. Jesus was the inspiration, but Paul created THE CHURCH.


As for my concerns with Paul, I don't mind exchanging positions with Christians, but discussing how Paul addressed the post sacrificial treatment of show meats, or his edict on circumcision for Gentiles, or whether "effeminates" were condemned for homosexuality or temple prostitution - is not a discussion I want to have with someone who does not share my historical, rather than spiritual, perspective of such things.


to me, he's a man figuring out a way to bob and weave between and among competing factions

to you, he's God's personal pick to divine the church Jesus is alleged to have contemplated