I don’t know how much farther I want to carry this torch, it’s clear that you are letting your faith control your interpretation. I’ll see if I can get you to admit there is a contradiction in faith vs works.
The important thing to look at is to see how each author compares his belief to how Abraham was justified.
Paul believed that Abraham was solely justified by faith. Now Paul writes elsewhere that faith CAN LEAD to good works, but nowhere in his epistles does he state such is necessary. Paul’s overwhelming message is that grace is by faith alone.
The author of James however, clearly thinks that faith WITHOUT works is barren. Faith alone is not enough to be saved.
This is but one of the many contradictions in the canon. If you admit that there is a clear contradiction here we can continue, on the other hand if you try justifying that there is no contradiction the conversation can go no further as you have let your faith guide your reason.
You are equivocating based on the usage of “works.” Paul always couples “works” with the Law (i.e. Jewish Law). Paul never denies that one’s faith is proved by one’s works, which is the same thing James implies when he says that “faith without works is dead”. Notice who James is writing to: people already justified. Look at Paul’s writing in 1 Timothy 6:17-19
Paul and James agree that one’s works are the proofs of one’s faith. Furthermore, there is no evidence that James disagrees with Paul that one is saved solely by one’s faith (which, btw, Paul writes that it is not really one’s faith, but God’s faith that is placed in that one).
As i have said before, you seem to take parts of the text without their context and place them against each other. This is a poor practice in hermeneutics. It would be like taking this quote of yours:
and treating it as such:
i take Richard Hays’s (and Keirkegaard’s, for that matter) point that one cannot understand Scriptures from a Christian perspective without first being committed as a Christian. As Kierkegaard says:
Furthermore, i, as a believer, follow Anselm’s idea of “faith seeking understanding”. So, yes, my faith does guide me. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem is when one’s faith overtakes one’s reason. That would be seen in one denying evidence without proof for the denial, waving off other arguments without rebuttal, and in taking things out of context to prove one’s point. i’d argue that you have thus far appeared to be practicing all of these.
proof:
(taken from books that were definately written by Paul)
“Paul” on work (the law):
The christian perspective?
It seems to me the christian perspective on the bible is relative, how else could so many variations on the “holy book” arise? Do you really think it is because they are interpreting the same words differently?
Look above, in some spots, it’s clear that you are justified and saved through faith in christ ALONE. In other spots, you have to follow the laws, and commit good deeds as well.
Your faith blinds you to these contradictions, because you don’t believe in the other way… clearly you’re one of the believers that think that faith is justified through works done through faith… and you wouldn’t be wrong the bible says that.
But it also says clearly… faith is enough.
The abraham and rahab examples above clearly point that out.
Of course not… unless you are trying to critically examine something. The best analogy I’ve heard is that everyone has a cornea blind spot right in the middle of their vision. You could be in a large room with a lot of people and somebody in the crowd is missing a head. You don’t notice it, becuase our minds have learned to “fill” in the blind spot.
Faith does the same thing, when a contradiction or critical reasoning is applied to something you believe in… you use faith to fill in the holes.
Justification does not include living a “good Christian life.” It only includes “dying and going to heaven.” Until you make that distinction, you’ll continue reading into James’s statement.
Nope. There’s nothing i can do to merit “salvation.” That comes by faith alone. But, since i have been given this awesome gift of “salvation”, doing good deeds without expecting something in return is part of my loving my neighbor as myself. It seems you missed about half of my post which stated that pretty clearly. Again, more evidence for my claim from my last post.
True faith does not “fill in the holes”. True faith deals with the holes and tries to understand them. As Keirkegaard said (my paraphrase of Philosophical Fragments): those who doubt have the strongest faith. In many ways, doubt produces the most faithful. Mere acceptance or “hole-filling” only betrays the weakness of faith one has as it exchanges faith for certainty in order to “prove” that which was once believed (my paraphrase of Concluding Unscientific Postscript).
Because you have already been given something in return, your salvation. So you are really just respecting a contract, god gave me faith-salvation I will act good. Would you do good deeds if you were not saved ? Would you do good deeds even if god did not give you faith-salvation ? Are you 100 % sure you are saved ? If you are not 100 % sure you are saved, aren’t the good deeds a way to either deceive yourself or god into trying TO BUY your way towards salvation once again by works ?
This is one of the very sophisticated deceptions of christianity. If it is only faith, then you are not obliged to do anything else, you are saved just by faith. If it is works, then you can boast of how talented you were in achieving your salvation. So which is it ? the christian will never be able to say either without getting into a contradiction. Then if it is by works, then “how much” works ? How much are you going to follow the rules ? How much will you love your brother, for example, how much MONEY will you give the poor ? 10 % of your income, why not 95 % percent ? Are you sure that is enough to be saved by works and BOAST about how GOOD you are ? Oh but then they say works REFLECTS the fact that you have faith. So faith is a gift from god and then you can see this in action by how a person acts. Can you clearly distinguish if you are not unconciously acting out the part, thus fooling god and yourself and trying to get saved by works ? You may deny this to yourself, saying I have faith given by god and now I act good, but you may actually be BOASTING to yourself and god on how good you are and how thus you DESERVE to be saved.
You had no right to tell me that I was going to go to hell if I didn’t obey your God. You have no right to ever spread your lies!
God has no right to eternally torture people who choose to do what is most reasonable to them, instead of submission.
God is a complete idiot for creating evil, and then turning around telling us to go against his own creation.
No, he doesn’t explain the full logic of his commands, he just says things and expects it all to work! It never has and it never will!
Don’t you see!? The jews shit out a quick fix for the things that eventually desotroyed their entire civilization! This got passed down to us, here and now. We play blame games, and live in fear. We make things look like they have a holy perpose, even though they don’t mean anything! Universal justice is false!
Get out, and don’t come back! Lies need to stop![/b]
When a parent brings up children in a family, they get what they give. They need to teach their kids and pay attention to them and interact with them.
The same applies to your bullshit of a creator.
Instead of telling us to be loving, he should be the first to do so!
Instead of us always praying to Him and begging for answers, he should get the hell down here and start taking the initiative with us, and be our friend, and give us some answers.
Human sacrifice, within the ancent Aztex religion, was evil, wasn’t it? Human hearts, and blood, for some angery sun-god?
But all of a sudden, Jesus’s sacrifice was nessisary, holy and heroic!?
BULLSHIT! You know it’s bullshit! You all know that sending your own son to die doesn’t help remove the killers.
God’s little sacrifice was below useless, and he is one evil son-of-a-bitch for ever expecting me to agree with is idiotic crap!
Dear scythekain,
How many years of your life have you spent working out this book that had aimed to control your entire mind and life?
And how would you feel about this sort of loss,
compared to working for 3 years,
and then having 50,000$ stolen away from you,
and the police not even caring or reacting?
It’s only ok, because we all think that it’s ok, because it told us to think that it’s ok.
Dan, while your point may be worth discussing, they have no relevancy to the discussion of the historical background of the Christian scriptures (i.e. “Bible”).
Salvation and one’s response to it are two different things. Salvation by faith, response by works. It’s not a term of the contract as the contract was unconditional. Both Paul and James attest to that. But, as a result of this “new creation”, one should desire to “do good deeds” and “not do bad deeds”. For instance, when one has a child (either by adoption or by birth), one generally decides to treat the child well and this is a result of the having a child, not a term of its contract. There’s nothing someone signs saying that “I will treat this child well and raise it properly” when one gives birth. It’s a result. Nobody is obliged to raise the child well, nor is a Christian obliged to do good deeds. All good deeds done apart “from Christ” (whatever that may mean) is worthless in comparison. But, as i have already stated, this will remain difficult to understand until one has become a Christian.
Disclaimer: though I am not using quotations, the material I am presenting is taken from various sources, that were mentioned earlier.
There have been charges of anti-semitism leveled against the author of the first gospel. First, it must be remembered that Matthew’s account depicts Jesus as being sent only to Israel (Mt. 15:24 and records Jesus forbidiing his disciples from extending their ministry beyond Israel (10:56) At the same time Jesus gives the Great Commission (28:19,20) and anticipates the people from all partsof the world participating in the Jewish messianic banquet(8:11,12) Second, there are two factors that may present this anti-semitic tension. 1) Matthew attempts to distinguish what happen “back then,” during Jesus’ ministry, from what was happening in his day. 2) Matthew’s ambivalent treatment may well be shaped in part by the confusing cross currents between Christianity and Judaism at the time of the writing. Jews were still being converted, and Matthew wanted to woo them and possibly stabilize the faith of the new Jewish converts; since there was opposition to the up start faith, Matthew wanted to warn his readers against the views of the Jewish leadership and against their rejection of Jesus as their Messiah.
As to Matthew’s adoption into the canon of scripture, there seems to be little doubt that it was universally received almost as soon as it was published; It was the most frequently quoted gospel by the early church. More to follow.
In order to know the truth, one must percieve it. Therefore, what you know is an interpretation of the truth , and not actually the truth.
By reading the bible, you are percieving it, and because a perception is not the truth, you cannot claim to know the truth by reading the bible.
Equally by studying history, you cannot claim to know the past, (because you are studying a perception of it)
Therefore since you cannot possibly know a true past AND you cannot say the bible is the truth, there cannot possibly be ANY historical evidence that corroborates the bible as the truth.
Therefore the bible is not a historically accurate document.
Is there a god or isn’t there?
None of you will ever know.
I hope you realize you own perception is just as faulty. Any statements you make about truth are to be understood as meer opinion, not justified true belief. Therefore, your argument is not true, or at best, a mere opinion.
I think he’s on to something. Why are the four gospels held up to high standards yet the stories of Jesus pushing his fellow playmates off a roof? it’s obviously a fake.
Why ignore obvious contradictions of theology? Clearly James wrote to get people following the rules of the church to perform works for the church… we can’t have people just believing in something.
Why ignore that the majority of christians killed prior to the nicea council were gnostics?
Because otherwise you would not believe you are following the right faith. We only challenge those things that we don’t believe in, and seek to support those things we do.
This post is not an exhaustive presentation, those interested may use the references cited earlier, and as stated, most of this material is taken from other sources. Citing all my sources would consume much time and space.
Mark’s connection with the gospel has been generally accepted since 125 A.D… The earliest indication are found in the testimony of Papias, bishops of Hierapolis, dated about 130 A.D. There is plenty of writing supporting Markan authorship of the second gospel, so I will not dwell on this subject.
The date for Mark’s gospel range from the 40’s to the 70’s. In my opinion and what I have gathered in my reading, the 40’s are too early, but not necessarily impossible. The one problem would be the account would not have enough time to circulate. The opposite extreme, the 70’s is based on too many assumptions, and the reference of Mark 13 to the actual destruction of Jerusalem is suspect. The date for Mark’s account in the 50’s has more substance, approaching from Markan priority, there would be enough time for Luke to acquire a copy and use it as a spring board for his own account. Based on this and the fact that Luke’s account in Acts ends with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome, Mark could not be dated later than 60 A.D. If this is true then Mark probably was written in the early 50’s, giving it plenty of time to circulate. Dating Mark’s gospel in the 60’s or the 70’s has very few positive supports. The conclusion would be to date Mark’s accont around the early 50’s.
Luke-
I have found very little dispute as to the author of Luke who is also identified as the author of Acts. Marcion the heretic identified Luke as the author of both accounts.
Other evidence, we have the prologues of Luke and Acts are similar in language. From the account of Luke we realize the author was not an eyewitness, this would support his use of Mark’s gospel as a source. In addition while Paul was in prison in Caeseria for two years, Luke would have had time to interview many of the eyewitnesses. From these sources Luke presented an orderly account. The author’s considerable interest in the Gentiles may point to a Gentile author; apparently Luke was a well educated man, as testified by his excellent use of Greek grammar, and a great knowledge of medical language which is used in both accounts. The latter parts of Acts, the author employs the third person plural “we” passages, seem to identify Paul’s companion as Dr. Luke. There is significant testimony from the early church fathers idetifying Like as the author of Luke and Acts.
The date of Luke is contingent on the date of Mark’s gospel, if Luke utilized Mark as a source. There are several reasons for dating Luke in the early 60’s. First, Acts makes no mention of any events from 65 to 70 A.D., such as Nero’s persecution, martydom of Peter or Paul, or the destruction of Jerusalem. Second, Acts ends with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome, which is 62 A.D. Third, Acts doesn’t account for Paul’s brief release from prison and subsequent martydom. Therefore, a likely date for Luke would be the late 50’s to 61, and Acts 62 A.D.
Christendom has but one goal:
Your absolute trust and obediance.
Messengers like Meno + whatever church he’s in on – is allot like the borg. They adapt and try to bend science/archeology to their own will/beliefs, and they spend time assimilating minds. Resistence is futile, because the all-mighty God will get you in hell once you die.
You do realize that the church usedto be in a seat of government, and all of the teachings are used to support absolute compliance to morals and beliefs.
Admit it Meno, you’d be happy if everyone on earth joined you and your religious belief.
I find it interesting you are seeking such tenuous claims to back up your belief. here’s a few sticking points, I’m not going to touch everything, I don’t have time for a shower.
Luke, and Acts were written for Theophilus of Antioch. The author is clearly addressing an individual and not the general assembly generally implied.
Why not?
If this were true, early church fathers would’ve quoted from the work, Barnabas, Ignatius, James, Paul himself. All silent. Ignatius gives us a brief imagery of the virgin mary. Nothing about the gospels though. What we do have of the gospels in the early second century is a fragment from John. Now, It’s my theory that John was written first, and was the first transitional document when Jesus was being transformed from a purely heavenly figure, “logos” , “word of god”, into an actual living person. Mark was probably written after that, for a different community, it deals with Jesus less in the sense of logos and more in the sense of a person. Matthew and Luke take from the pre-existing documents to build their own stories. The two earliest, John and Mark, don’t have a nativity scene. Clearly this was a later addition to the story, and matthews nativity borrows the exodus tale of the destruction of the young children, to stop the future savior.
If you are willing to further challenge yoru belief read Earl Doherty:
Aight - I’ve resolved to post once in this thread, and only once.
It's all been said before, but:
If you want to make the study of the bible an exercise in objective thought, start with no assumptions. We cannot assume (without evidence) that the bible is anything but a manuscript - just like the Illiad is a manuscript, just like The Anarchist's Cookbook is a manuscript. That said, proving that it came from where it came from doesn't tell us anything about what it means and what's true about it. If you want to prove the bible, stop teaching it. If people who haven't been told a story about a world-wide flood can find evidence of it, I'd take that as unbiased. If people who haven't been told a story of a man being resurrected can examine a grave-site and tell us that he must have risen from death, I'd take that as objective. If either an evangelical scientist or a biasedly atheist scientist performed the examination, it would be colored.
All that said, that kind of unbiased report is almost impossibly rare, so all we can do is analyze what this manuscript claims and compare it with our observations about the world in general. If we assume that things worked the same back then as they have day in and day out for the 2000-or-so years of recorded history we have, we find that most of the stories in the bible (while compelling stories) are directly contradictory to the way we observe the world to be.
I'll stress again that I don't care where the bible came from - if it's true (we'll argue on your terms) it is true regardless of historical circumstance. If The Great Gatsby is a good story, it's a good story now, it will be in 2100, and it would have been in 200 BC. The only thing that can be argued for (if you want to claim that the bible is actually true) is the veracity of the claims in the bible itself. Historical evidence doesn't matter, unless your only aim is to prove that the bible itself exists, which none of us would contest.
Mark could have written it in 1999 - if it's true, then it's true - if it's false, then it's false.
More to follow. 