Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 56 of 56
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity and the Salvation of Unbelievers

    Quote Originally Posted by EVEN
    It is not at odds if one believes that all men the world over for all time have had their sins forgiven. Because of that clean slate given to everyone, Christians, Jews, Muslims and unbelievers alike will be judged by their works, not by their sins.
    Except.. Jesus didn't enable the law to save.
    What it is said He did, is that He offered a new Law, the law of faith. Which, again is drawn in contrast with the law.
    So I don't see the resolution you see.

    Now, on the other hand, because I don't want to come across as not kinda.. almost seeing where you are coming from.
    I do believe that Jesus died for everyone. So, I think that point is sound.

    The biggest challenge man, is that no one was ever saved by works, they were saved by their faith. That is the point of Romans talking about Abraham. It was his faith that was counted as righteousness. The "children" are thus children according to faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by EVEN
    I'm not advocating that anyone preach works to unbelievers. Why would they believe that, if they don't even believe in God?
    Fair enough

    Quote Originally Posted by EVEN
    No, I'm explaining because for me it resolves the question "Why would Jesus automatically condemn people who never hear or are otherwise unable to accept the Word?" He won't, if they do good works by following their conscience.
    I guess i don't share the pressure of that question. The verse about God's attributes being evident.. etc.. weighs heavily on my opinion on that point. I basically reject the idea that each person has not had an internal struggle with God.

    Quote Originally Posted by EVEN
    I know my interpretation would not readily be accepted by most Christians. I'm open to being convinced otherwise if anyone wants to offer more Bible passages for review.
    Fair enough. I think I can see how your getting there, but I just don't see it as flowing very naturally from the Biblical Data.
    Especially in the contrasts the Bible brings up.

    I mean, the Jews had the law.. but failed to achieve righteousness because they sought it through works. If Jesus Fixed that, and the gentiles are then saved by their works, when the Jews who had the written law failed.. I think the author of Romans would have addressed that point. Instead of addressing the law of Faith over the works of the law.
    To serve man.

  2. Thanks evensaul thanked for this post
  3. #42
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity and the Salvation of Unbelievers

    @ sig.. (on Jesus Claiming to be God)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1N5Mh42ziA

    Jesus very clearly and powerfully claims to be God. Sometimes in ways that are not very apparent to us today, because we are not Jews, and don't know the OT very well. The Jews sought to kill Jesus because he claimed to be God. In the above link, it is a preaching about the topic. Which I submit for your consumption.

    I say this in response to the impression that it is a kind of later addition to the fundamental story of Christ.
    To serve man.

  4. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  5. #43
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity and the Salvation of Unbelievers

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Except.. Jesus didn't enable the law to save.
    What it is said He did, is that He offered a new Law, the law of faith. Which, again is drawn in contrast with the law.
    The law of faith is not well defined in the Bible. But it's pretty clear that works are an integral part of it, as in "Faith without works is dead".

    James 2: 14-26

    4 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

    18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I mean, the Jews had the law.. but failed to achieve righteousness because they sought it through works. If Jesus Fixed that, and the gentiles are then saved by their works, when the Jews who had the written law failed.. I think the author of Romans would have addressed that point. Instead of addressing the law of Faith over the works of the law.
    The Jews failed because they sinned, in violating Mosaic law. But now that all sin has been wiped away, all that is left to judge is the quantity and quality of good works.

    Note that in Matthew 25 and the parable of the sheep and the goats, the goats are not condemned for a lack of faith, for sins, or even for doing relatively bad things. They are condemned for not doing good works. That is from Jesus, Himself, telling the story, and it seems pretty clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If Jesus Fixed that, and the gentiles are then saved by their works, when the Jews who had the written law failed.. I think the author of Romans would have addressed that point. Instead of addressing the law of Faith over the works of the law.
    The author was writing to the church at Rome, Christians who already believed in Christ and already had faith, about how Christians should live their lives, endure trials, resist temptations and serve the Lord. He was not writing to unbelievers, about unbelievers, or about how to convert unbelievers.
    Last edited by evensaul; March 15th, 2019 at 06:07 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  6. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  7. #44
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity and the Salvation of Unbelievers

    Quote Originally Posted by EVEN
    The law of faith is not well defined in the Bible. But it's pretty clear that works are an integral part of it, as in "Faith without works is dead".

    James 2: 14-26

    4 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

    18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
    The law of faith is laid out and explored, juxtaposed to works, and explained the role of works (which is not a salvific role).
    https://www.simplybible.com/f828-thi...w-of-faith.htm

    Romans 3

    Quote Originally Posted by ROMANS 3:21
    21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.
    In the middle of discussing works, and faith... he says the above.
    The shed blood of Jesus is to be received by faith.
    He says that Jesus died for all.. but that it is to be received by faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by ROMANS 3:27
    27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
    The focus is still faith. The new law, is the law of faith explained above, and it upholds the old law, but is superior to it, because the law of works was weak through the flesh.
    IE.. one can not be saved through works alone.

    Quote Originally Posted by EVEN
    The Jews failed because they sinned, in violating Mosaic law. But now that all sin has been wiped away, all that is left to judge is the quantity and quality of good works.
    That isn't what romans says about the matter.
    When
    Quote Originally Posted by ROMANS 8
    3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,[b] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
    That end part is not an appeal to works. Living according to the spirit is directly linked to Faith. Specifically, faith in Jesus Christ.

    Salvation is by faith.
    Quote Originally Posted by ROMANS 4:16 -
    16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17 As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”[c] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.
    The above is what I was talking about earlier, when I said that salvation was always by faith, even when the law was given. We simply are not Children of Abraham if we do not share in the faith that he had. This is really significant.
    Works are inherently, fundamentally, and explicitly incapable of bring us to salvation. They are useless, without faith.
    and while faith is also useless if it does not bring forth fruit, it is the prior and utmost importance.


    Quote Originally Posted by EVEN
    The author was writing to the church at Rome, Christians who already believed in Christ and already had faith. He was not writing to unbelievers or about unbelievers. He was writing about how Christians should live their lives, endure trials, resist temptations and serve the Lord. It wasn't a letter about how to convert nonbelievers.
    I think that really limits the applications of romans unnecessarily.
    Because he is teaching on the nature of salvation, and importantly for our discussion, he is addressing works directly, and often.. very often.
    He is speaking to Jews, who failed to be saved by the law.
    If the law was able to save, then faith would be nullified.
    Now your arguing that the law can save now, because of Christ. But that is not taught here.
    We have two options, the law or the law of faith. If there were some married middle, Paul in Romans would have been addressing it and teaching on it.


    Now I appreciate that James uses the same example to emphasis works. He and Paul are addressing the same issue at the time, which was that people were using their "salvation" to license sin.
    They aren't in contradiction to each other, and James in not teaching a different Gospel in 1 or 2 verses, than Paul expounded on for 8 chapters.



    ---
    Even, I appreciate your exchange on this. I think that if you would walk me through Romans and explain how your POV plays into each time Faith and Works is talked about.. that would be helpful to me.
    I am pretty familiar with James. I took the McCarther challenge to read a book 30 days in a row, and the book I started with is the one with my Name on it. I got about 15 days in, and then forgot for 7 days.. like totally forgot to pick up the bible and read it. As though I had never started the challenge.
    It would be like going to the gym for 15 days strait.. then waking up, and not remembering I had been or that I intended to go.

    anyway, point is, you get to where you can quote the book from heart at the end of 30 days... and this story doesn't really have any relevance to the thread, so sorry.. rabbit got me.
    To serve man.

  8. Thanks evensaul thanked for this post
  9. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity and the Salvation of Unbelievers

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    That kind of argument is utterly without persuasive power.
    I had no intention to persuade but to point out God’s criteria for judgment doesn’t seem to be subject to how man judges.

    If I can know them by their fruit, and I see bad fruit, then well, they must be bad.
    But no, I may see bad fruit but I can't see all the invisible good fruit God can see.
    Sorry but that's just making invisible excuses. That kind of reasoning can simply lead to any belief you want it to:
    Christ addressed this point. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. What may seem invisible to us is only so because we may be simply looking at the outer manifestation, the fruit and not the tree.

    For example, a person who enjoys helping out the homeless and poor in the ghettos may appear to have a wonderful outer fruit. But in a completely different city, he’s selling meth to teenagers to get his cash flow. So if we carefully observe and get to know the ghetto helper, a person could pick that up. But we have to look deeper and not just rely on the outer stuff.

    I take it to mean that he is teaching people not to judge one another for something that is none of their business because they are just as bad as she is and if we all punished one another's sins there would be no end to it. He couldn't do it with every woman in the city because he was just one mortal man and could not be everywhere at once.
    Why would Jesus have to personally visit them if he chose to do the same to every adulterous woman? On more then one occasion he healed and brought back to life people from afar. One such event was the Centurian’s Servant which he healed from afar.

    You are just creating a circular argument that anyone who is good must have true faith and anyone who has true faith is someone who does good.
    A changed heart naturally compels a person to faith; the good is the natural fruit. And if a bad fruit comes out of a good tree, that won’t last, it will eventually be exposed, die off because a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit and visa versa, good acts from bad trees won't survive.

    But many people do good without any faith in God what so ever so it falls apart very quickly when compared to reality.
    What falls apart?

    And I think it can be done without any belief in God what so ever.
    It can. And in that helping and loving our neighbor sounds like a simple idea, I think it’s very powerful because regardless of belief, “as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

    With that said, belief in God has a lot of perks.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  10. #46
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity and the Salvation of Unbelievers

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ sig.. (on Jesus Claiming to be God)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1N5Mh42ziA
    Ugh. So I went and watched that. Do you really find this persuasive? The guy spends a long long time talking about shepherding, points out that it is used as a metaphor in the old testament, and argues that because Jesus also used it as a metaphor that means he is claiming to be God.

    And the guy apparently can't read the bible either. he says that Jesus was accused by the priests of the temple of claiming to be God. But in the Bible, it is clear they accuse him of claiming to be king of the jews, the Messiah and of subverting Cesar's authority. And the Jewish Messiah is not God himself but a righteous king given to them by God. (and he doesn't quote it, just throws that wild claim out there presumably since scripture says otherwise)

    Frankly, I think the guy's theology is pretty bad. And Jesus did not powerfully or clearly claim to be God because he used a Shepard parable to try and explain why he would be helping sinners find redemption. That is neither clear nor powerful. It is simply the most often used metaphor in the bible from a people that were largely nomadic animal tenders who felt lambs were the very best sacrifice you can make to their God.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  11. #47
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity and the Salvation of Unbelievers

    @ sig, it is persuasive in the same way that math class or history class is persuasive. You are clearly approaching the subject matter as an American in the 2000s. Not as the Jews who were hearing it at the time, or even very accurate to what the bible clearly says
    Fir example the Jews sought to kill Jesus several times. When he healed the paralitic man lowered from the roof. Hesaid your sins are forgive.
    Do you know what the Jewish leaders said?
    Not that he is making himself king over ceaser.
    No they said only god had the power to forgive sins.
    When the Jews were questioning him he said "I am" and they tore their garments.... Why? Because he applied the name of God spoken to Moses to himself.

    What you should have gotten from the video, is not that Jesus was applying some common metephore, but that jesuse was applying THE metephore for God to him self.
    When he said "I am the good Shepherd" the Jews understood that as him equating himself to God and the role of God over isreal.

    So you are simply ignoring the contextual underatanding. Apparently by ignoring the culture the bible actually occurs in. You are of course free to do it, but it is without any accademic merit on the topic. Akin to saying America dropped the bomb because it was expansionist.
    To serve man.

  12. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  13. #48
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity and the Salvation of Unbelievers

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ sig, it is persuasive in the same way that math class or history class is persuasive. You are clearly approaching the subject matter as an American in the 2000s. Not as the Jews who were hearing it at the time, or even very accurate to what the bible clearly says
    Most jews hearing it for the first time thought Jesus was an apostate and a liar. And basically all Jews alive today share that opinion.

    Fir example the Jews sought to kill Jesus several times. When he healed the paralitic man lowered from the roof. Hesaid your sins are forgive.
    Do you know what the Jewish leaders said?
    Not that he is making himself king over ceaser.
    No they said only god had the power to forgive sins.
    When the Jews were questioning him he said "I am" and they tore their garments.... Why? Because he applied the name of God spoken to Moses to himself.
    More to the point he is proclaiming to be the Messiah, not God himself. If you read your Torah you would understand that the Messiah was not God, but a king sent by God prophesized in the OT. There were lots of people who have made this claim over the centuries. There still are people making that claim today. Jesus was very explicit that this was who he claimed to be. For purposes of authority, its a moot difference. The Messiah has all of God's moral authority, just as a son has the authority of his father.

    What you should have gotten from the video, is not that Jesus was applying some common metephore, but that jesuse was applying THE metephore for God to him self.
    When he said "I am the good Shepherd" the Jews understood that as him equating himself to God and the role of God over isreal.
    So anyone who compares themselves to a Sheppard is claiming to be God? Sorry, it's silly. Jesus is answering a question, he is not making a claim to be God. He is explaining that God wants to bring sinners to redemption like a Shepard collects lost sheep. Trying to read hidden meaning into everything is ridiculous because I can choose any meaning I want and just say, well it's hidden you see. Jesus could easily say, By the way folks, I am God. That would be easy, direct, and clear. He says a lot of things easily directly and clearly, and then folks ignore it for some "hidden meaning" because they find what he said directly hard to follow.

    What he did say clearly was he was the son of God, spoke with God's authority, and was the Messiah. He never claimed to be God himself. That was an invention of later theologians.

    So you are simply ignoring the contextual underatanding. Apparently by ignoring the culture the bible actually occurs in. You are of course free to do it, but it is without any accademic merit on the topic. Akin to saying America dropped the bomb because it was expansionist.
    I am not, because at the time no one understood him to be God. He was understood as a person claiming to be the Messiah of the Jews. Mostly the Jews rejected him and it was only much later he found wide popularity through the Roman Empire which codified him as an actual God. That is the actual history of the religion in question. Mostly the Jews went on being Jews waiting for an earthly king that would re-build the tempol and unite them in a godly kingdom on earth just like it describes in the Torah.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  14. #49
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity and the Salvation of Unbelievers

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Most jews hearing it for the first time thought Jesus was an apostate and a liar. And basically all Jews alive today share that opinion.
    That is not relevant.
    The question is how his claims was it understood at the time.
    It is expressly clear how they did, and those direct quotes (below) support my position and falsify yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    More to the point he is proclaiming to be the Messiah, not God himself.
    That is incorrect. As already explained.
    Further, it was understood at the time that He was claiming to be God.

    John 10:30-33

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHN 10:30-33
    30 I and my Father are one.

    31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

    32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

    33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    If you read your Torah you would understand that the Messiah was not God, but a king sent by God prophesized in the OT. There were lots of people who have made this claim over the centuries. There still are people making that claim today. Jesus was very explicit that this was who he claimed to be. For purposes of authority, its a moot difference. The Messiah has all of God's moral authority, just as a son has the authority of his father.
    This is also not relevant. What is relevant is what he was saying.
    and He said that he was God, and it was said of him that he was God.
    See again john 10:30-33

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    So anyone who compares themselves to a Sheppard is claiming to be God?
    That is really a shallow understanding of what is being said by Jesus, and what is being said by the verse he is referencing.
    God is the Good Shepard to Israel, and Jesus says that HE is the Good Shepard of Israel.
    So yes, ANYONE who claims to be the Good Shepard of Israel as a direct reference to the OT passage, IS claiming to be God.
    Just like anyone claiming to be the Alpha and Omega, is claiming to be God.
    Or that anyone who says they can forgive sins, is claiming to be God. (because it is understood that only God can forgive sins). (see earlier post)
    Or anyone who claims to be the ONLY BEGOTTEN son of God. Is claiming to be God. (John 3:16)
    Or anyone who says that they and the father are one in the same. (John 10:30). Is claiming to be God.
    Or if people are saying that nothing that has been made, was made without him. (John 1:1-14)
    .. and that is just off the top of my head dude. Do we need to go full bible study on this? Because the level at which the Good Shepard analogy applies to this is not something we easily grasp as Americans, but Jews at the time understood those verse he was talking about and referencing to be about God. I bet there are a lot more examples like that where our ignorance of the culture causes us to miss clear connections.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Sorry, it's silly. Jesus is answering a question, he is not making a claim to be God. He is explaining that God wants to bring sinners to redemption like a Shepard collects lost sheep. Trying to read hidden meaning into everything is ridiculous because I can choose any meaning I want and just say, well it's hidden you see. Jesus could easily say, By the way folks, I am God. That would be easy, direct, and clear. He says a lot of things easily directly and clearly, and then folks ignore it for some "hidden meaning" because they find what he said directly hard to follow.
    The examples given are not hidden meanings, and most times people at that very moment recognized that he was calling himself god. You seem set on denying the obvious, most of which I grant because I think you simply aren't aware of them.
    But your claim that people at the time didn't understand him to be saying he was god is DIRECTLY falsified by John 10:30. So, I'm sorry you are wrong and you have over simplified the references and don't fully understand the significance of what he was saying or the imagery and OT verses he was clearly appealing to.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    He never claimed to be God himself. That was an invention of later theologians.
    This is false, and you are welcome to support it if you wish to keep saying it (as this is the second time you have made the assertion).
    Leaving it just as an assertion is not a sufficient rebuttal and you may consider it rejected.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I am not, because at the time no one understood him to be God.
    False again. His disciples clearly did, as it is testified and clear in their writings.
    further, while some at the time did not believe him, it is very clear in scripture that they understood him to be making that exact claim, and thus tried to stone him.
    so, wrong again.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    He was understood as a person claiming to be the Messiah of the Jews. Mostly the Jews rejected him and it was only much later he found wide popularity through the Roman Empire which codified him as an actual God. That is the actual history of the religion in question. Mostly the Jews went on being Jews waiting for an earthly king that would re-build the tempol and unite them in a godly kingdom on earth just like it describes in the Torah.
    Again the first part is false, and the rest is irrelevant. that the Jews rejected him is simply not relevant to the claim or how they understood it.
    I don't see any substantive rebuttal to how the scriptures (i reference) were understood at the time, or that the understanding is incorrect.
    I have shown how you have error in your understanding of the scriptures quoted, and don't see a single quote or reference from you to counter.
    I say this, because you have got to do better than just give your personal overview of the situation. What you personally think of history, or what you personally think of how the Jews thought at the time.
    You have the burden to support those assertions with some kind of evidence or scholarly work on the topic.
    To serve man.

  15. #50
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity and the Salvation of Unbelievers

    I'll focus on this passage for the moment....

    That is incorrect. As already explained.
    Further, it was understood at the time that He was claiming to be God.

    John 10:30-33
    You really should have expanded it to include 34 through 38

    30 “aI and the Father are 1one.”

    31 The Jews apicked up stones again to stone Him.

    32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?”

    33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for ablasphemy; and because You, being a man, bmake Yourself out to be God.”

    34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in ayour bLaw, ‘cI said, you are gods’?

    35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

    36 do you say of Him, whom the Father asanctified and bsent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘cI am the Son of God’?

    37 “aIf I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;

    38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe athe works, so that you may 1know and understand that bthe Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”

    When they accuse Jesus of claiming to be god he cites a passage in the bible where the Jews are called Gods and then points out this is because they are God's people. He then goes on to say that he is God's chosen son and that God the Father and he are of one mind. So if the Jews can be called God, he is, even more, to be able to say as much. But this is not a claim that he is the Godhead himself. It is to say that he is a full representative of God and speaks with his authority. The proof of this is his miracles and good works.

    All through history, agents of kings were to be treated as if they were the king. It is a long tradition in that part of the world and in that time. So anyone who speaks for God is to be treated as God is. Jesus is claiming to be a disciple, a messenger, and the Messiah. He takes great pains to distinguish himself from God the Father as an individual. But he does assume the mantle of authority of God as his son, just as the son of a king has all the moral authority of his father.

    In the OT, the Jewish kings are called the Sons of God because he is their chosen ruler and the earthly holder of his authority. This is the claim Jesus is making. It is also why some pains are taken to do genealogy for Jesus to conict him to David because God had promised that the Sons of david would be the lantern bearers in perpetuity.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. #51
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity and the Salvation of Unbelievers

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    When they accuse Jesus of claiming to be god he cites a passage in the bible where the Jews are called Gods and then points out this is because they are God's people. He then goes on to say that he is God's chosen son and that God the Father and he are of one mind. So if the Jews can be called God, he is, even more, to be able to say as much. But this is not a claim that he is the Godhead himself. It is to say that he is a full representative of God and speaks with his authority. The proof of this is his miracles and good works.

    All through history, agents of kings were to be treated as if they were the king. It is a long tradition in that part of the world and in that time. So anyone who speaks for God is to be treated as God is. Jesus is claiming to be a disciple, a messenger, and the Messiah. He takes great pains to distinguish himself from God the Father as an individual. But he does assume the mantle of authority of God as his son, just as the son of a king has all the moral authority of his father.

    In the OT, the Jewish kings are called the Sons of God because he is their chosen ruler and the earthly holder of his authority. This is the claim Jesus is making. It is also why some pains are taken to do genealogy for Jesus to conict him to David because God had promised that the Sons of david would be the lantern bearers in perpetuity.
    The long and short, is that you are miss-enterpretting the bible.
    The evidence of that is the perception of what he said at the time. Here is an extra biblical source. The person I am quoting is "Ben Stevens" I know him through face book, and had this linked to me. I could go dig up the original sourcing, but I want to give credit to Ben, as he is actually trained in Ancient literature, and I don't want to borrow from his intelligence and pass it off as though I knew about this on my own or some such.

    The point is that Jesus was commonly held as a Liar by the Jews contemporary with Christ. A liar specifically about his claim to be God. This was the "response" of critics of Jesus, appealing to Jewish tradition.. specifically Jewish tradition that rejected Christ.

    Notice. They accepted that Jesus claimed to be God incarnate.
    I can't imagine better support, or a better falsifier to your interpretation and understanding of the topic sig. You can cast doubt through various interpretations if you like, but the contemporary understanding is here supported.

    https://www.quora.com/Can-you-prove-...hout-the-Bible
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    But beyond Josephus, we must also consider the late 2nd century Greek critic of Christianity: Celsus, who also claimed to rely on earlier Jewish traditions in his criticisms of Christianity. The Christian theologian Origen responded to Celsus’ criticisms and it is through Origen’s work that we have access to some of Celsus’ arguments.

    And one of the most common arguments Celsus, as well as Jewish traditions he uses prior to the late 2nd century (though it’s unclear how much earlier they represent Jewish views) is that Jesus was a liar and “imposter” who performed miracles, indeed, which he obtained from Egyptian sorcery and claimed to be “a god.” In other words, there’s no question Celsus and whatever Jewish polemic he had access too accepted Jesus CLAIMED to be God incarnate. You will see few Christian critics seriously disputed the general picture of Jesus in the traditional Gospels (even John apparently) but ironically used them as their own fodder convinced such accounts only proved Jesus was a liar.

    Quote Originally Posted by link
    [EXCERPT] “And if such were the life of Jesus, how could any one with reason compare Him with the sect of impostors, and if not, on the contrary, believe, according to the promise, that He was God, who appeared in human form to do good to our race?”
    “The Jew [of Celsus] continues his discourse thus: How should we deem him to be a God, who not only in other respects, as was currently reported, performed none of his promises, but who also, after we had convicted him, and condemned him as deserving of punishment, was found attempting to conceal himself, and endeavouring to escape in a most disgraceful manner, and who was betrayed by those whom he called disciples?...We therefore charge the Jews with not acknowledging Him to be God, to whom testimony was borne in many passages by the prophets, to the effect that He was a mighty power, and a God next to the God and Father of all things. For we assert that it was to Him the Father gave the command, when in the Mosaic account of the creation He uttered the words, Let there be light, and Let there be a firmament, and gave the injunctions with regard to shoe other creative acts which were performed; and that to Him also were addressed the words, Let Us make man in Our own image and likeness; and that the Logos, when commanded, obeyed all the Father’s will.”
    (Origen, Against Celsus, 1.68, 2.9) [EXCERPT]
    To serve man.

  17. #52
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity and the Salvation of Unbelievers

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    You really should have expanded it to include 34 through 38

    30 “aI and the Father are 1one.”

    31 The Jews apicked up stones again to stone Him.

    32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?”

    33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for ablasphemy; and because You, being a man, bmake Yourself out to be God.”

    34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in ayour bLaw, ‘cI said, you are gods’?

    35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

    36 do you say of Him, whom the Father asanctified and bsent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘cI am the Son of God’?

    37 “aIf I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;

    38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe athe works, so that you may 1know and understand that bthe Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”
    Since your expanding Biblical verses that reference Jesus Christ, would you agree these passages are also relevant and speak to the nature of Christ?

    "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live" (John 11:25)

    "Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live." (John 14:19)

    "He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” (Luke 24:6-7)

    And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him." (Mark 16:6)
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  18. #53
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity and the Salvation of Unbelievers

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The long and short, is that you are miss-interpreting the bible.
    The short of it is you are. We can play the na-say game all you like but it's tedious. If you have an actual rebuttal to the textual argument I gave above let me know, otherwise, it stands that Jesus is not claiming to be God allmighty in the above passage.

    The evidence of that is the perception of what he said at the time. Here is an extra-biblical source. The person I am quoting is "Ben Stevens" I know him through Facebook, and had this linked to me. I could go dig up the original sourcing, but I want to give credit to Ben, as he is actually trained in Ancient literature, and I don't want to borrow from his intelligence and pass it off as though I knew about this on my own or some such.
    So let us ignore what Jesus said and instead ask an extra-biblical source to mind read ancient Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah and claimed he was a liar because they can better tell us what Jesus was saying that the words of Jesus in the bible can.

    Sorry, I'd prefer to stick to his actual words thanks very much. There are in fact no serious contemporary Jewish writings about Jesus. They never thought him important enough, if indeed he existed, to make note of him for posterity. The only source for their "thoughts" is the said same bible, and if we are going to talk about what Jesus was saying in the bible, it makes a lot of sense to look at his actual statements in the bible. Not whan a historian thoght people who never wrote down their thogughts thought about some guy starting a new religion on based on theirs.

    ---------- Post added at 07:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Since your expanding Biblical verses that reference Jesus Christ, would you agree these passages are also relevant and speak to the nature of Christ?
    Let's see....

    "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live" (John 11:25)
    Here Jesus claims the power and authority of God as son of God. Seems fine. That is not saying he is God himself.

    "Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live." (John 14:19)
    No one disputes he will be resurrected, this does not make him God.

    "He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” (Luke 24:6-7)
    This only speaks to him being resurrected and that he is the subject of prophecy.

    And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him." (Mark 16:6)
    Again this only speaks to his resurection.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. #54
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity and the Salvation of Unbelievers

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Here Jesus claims the power and authority of God as son of God. Seems fine. That is not saying he is God himself.
    Your point seems to be that your interpretation of the Bible is that God the Father is not equal to the Son (Christ) or for that matter the Holy Spirit. I will let you hash that out with MT. But towards your argument, Jesus is:

    1. The Son of God
    2. The Son of Man
    3. Is one with God
    4. Has the authority of God
    5. Is the Christ of God
    6. Commands even the winds and the water, and they obey Him
    7. Can forgive sin
    8. Mediator between God and men
    9. Can raise the dead and then some
    10. Resurrected

    Do you believe this?
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  20. #55
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity and the Salvation of Unbelievers

    @ sig, I did not quote a historian. I quoted an early opponent of Christianity, who was appealing to the traditional Jewish response at the time. That time being the second centry, and hardly can it be said he was trying to mind read ancient Jews at the time. As they were not ancient.
    Further I offered evidence as to how what Jesus said was understood at the time. Which is more important than what you or I think that it means and is an important tool in understanding scripture.

    I will still address the scriptures you brought up when I am not on the phone and can quote better.

    ---------- Post added at 12:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 PM ----------

    @ sig, I did not quote a historian. I quoted an early opponent of Christianity, who was appealing to the traditional Jewish response at the time. That time being the second centry, and hardly can it be said he was trying to mind read ancient Jews at the time. As they were not ancient.
    Further I offered evidence as to how what Jesus said was understood at the time. Which is more important than what you or I think that it means and is an important tool in understanding scripture.

    I will still address the scriptures you brought up when I am not on the phone and can quote better.
    To serve man.

  21. #56
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Christianity and the Salvation of Unbelievers

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    When they accuse Jesus of claiming to be god he cites a passage in the bible where the Jews are called Gods and then points out this is because they are God's people. He then goes on to say that he is God's chosen son and that God the Father and he are of one mind. So if the Jews can be called God, he is, even more, to be able to say as much. But this is not a claim that he is the Godhead himself. It is to say that he is a full representative of God and speaks with his authority. The proof of this is his miracles and good works.
    He is drawing a contrast in this, not a parrallel.
    The contrast is that if mear men can be called Gods because God's word was in them.
    How can the word of God made flesh not be called God as well.
    and this evidenced by the fact that he did the works of God.



    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    All through history, agents of kings were to be treated as if they were the king. It is a long tradition in that part of the world and in that time. So anyone who speaks for God is to be treated as God is. Jesus is claiming to be a disciple, a messenger, and the Messiah. He takes great pains to distinguish himself from God the Father as an individual. But he does assume the mantle of authority of God as his son, just as the son of a king has all the moral authority of his father.
    It is fine to understand it that way, but that is not how anyone took it at the time, or in the early church.
    The critic understands him to be claiming to be God. He is equating himself with God. Not simply in authority, but in essence.

    https://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/10-30.htm
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
    (30) I and my Father are one.—The last clause of John 10:29 is identical with the last clause of John 10:28 if we identify “Father’s” with “My.” This our Lord now formally does. The last verses have told of power greater than all, and these words are an assertion that in the infinity of All-mighty Power the Son is one with the Father. They are more than this, for the Greek word for “one” is neuter, and the thought is not, therefore, of unity of person, but is of unity of essence. “The Son is of one substance with the Father.” In the plural “are” there is the assertion of distinctness as against Sabellianism, and in the “one” there is the assertion of co-ordination as against Arianism. At recurring periods in the history of exegesis men have tried to establish that these words do not imply more than unity of will between the Father and the Son. We have seen above that they assert both oneness of power and oneness of nature; but the best answer to all attempts to attach any meaning lower than that of the divinity of our Lord to these His words is found here, as in the parallel instance in John 8:58-59, in the conduct of the Jews themselves. To them the words conveyed but one meaning, and they sought to punish by stoning what seemed to them to be blasphemy. Their reason is here given in express words, “because that Thou, being a man, makest thyself God” (John 10:33).
    Basically, anyone of authority in the matter will say that the Jews understood him correctly. He was claiming to be God, and for that they were going to stone him.
    Your asserting that they misunderstood, and that the context of Jesus correction, is to help them better understand.
    Rather, it is actually him pointing out their hypocrisy.

    and again
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Barnes' Notes on the Bible
    I and my Father are one - The word translated "one" is not in the masculine, but in the neuter gender. It expresses union, but not the precise nature of the union. It may express any union, and the particular kind intended is to be inferred from the connection. In the previous verse he had said that he and his Father were united in the same object that is, in redeeming and preserving his people. It was this that gave occasion for this remark. Many interpreters have understood this as referring to union of design and of plan. The words may bear this construction. In this way they were understood by Erasmus, Calvin, Bucer, and others. Most of the Christian fathers understood them, however, as referring to the oneness or unity of nature between the Father and the Son; and that this was the design of Christ appears probable from the following considerations:

    1. The question in debate was (not about his being united with the Father in plan and counsel, but in power. He affirmed that he was able to rescue and keep his people from all enemies, or that he had power superior to men and devils that is, that he had supreme power over all creation. He affirmed the same of his Father. In this, therefore, they were united. But this was an attribute only of God, and they thus understood him as claiming equality to God in regard to omnipotence.

    2. The Jews understood him as affirming his equality with God, for they took up stones to punish him for blasphemy John 10:31, John 10:33, and they said to him that they understood him as affirming that he was God, John 10:33.

    3. Jesus did not deny that it was his intention to be so understood. See the notes at John 10:34-37.

    4. He immediately made another declaration implying the same thing, leaving the same impression, and which they attempted to punish in the same manner, John 10:37-39. If Jesus had not intended so to be understood, it cannot be easily reconciled with moral honesty that he did not distinctly disavow that such was his intention. The Jews were well acquainted with their own language. They understood him in this manner, and he left this impression on their minds.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    In the OT, the Jewish kings are called the Sons of God because he is their chosen ruler and the earthly holder of his authority. This is the claim Jesus is making. It is also why some pains are taken to do genealogy for Jesus to conict him to David because God had promised that the Sons of david would be the lantern bearers in perpetuity.
    Actually, no. He isn't claiming to be just a man who has the authority of God.
    He is claiming ot have descended from the father. To have seen the father etc.

    The Jews are not being corrected by Jesus because they have misunderstood. He is pointing out their hypocrisy.

    I challenge you to support your position with ANY authority on scripture.

    https://www.biblestudytools.com/comm...ohn-10-36.html
    This link supports my assertion of a contrast. He is using an argumentative form, that the jews understood. This is why they again tried to stone him after He makes the argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God;
    for what he had said in ( John 10:30 ) is equivalent to it; and in it he was rightly understood by the Jews, and what he here and afterwards says confirms it: the argument is what the Jews call (rmwxw lq) , "from the lesser to the greater", and stands thus; that if mere frail mortal men, and some of them wicked men, being made rulers and judges in the earth are called gods, by God himself, to whom the word of God came in time, and constituted them gods, or governors, but for a time; and this is a fact stands recorded in Scripture, which cannot be denied or disproved, then surely it cannot be blasphemy in Christ, to assert himself to be the Son of God, who existed as a divine person from all eternity; and was so early set apart to the office of prophet, priest, and king; and in the fulness of time was sent into this world, to be the author of eternal salvation to the sons of men.
    John Gills Commentary on John 10:36


    https://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/10-36.htm
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Bengel's Gnomen
    John 10:36. Ὃν ὁ Πατὴρ ἡγίασε, whom the Father hath sanctified) This sanctification is mentioned in such a way as to be prior in time to His being sent into the world (see by all means John 17:18, “As Thou hast sent Me into the world, so,” etc.: comp. John 10:19; John 10:17, “For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also,” etc. [sanctify = set apart as holy, and for a holy end]; “Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth;” 1 Peter 1:20, “Who verily was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world”): and it implies, in conjunction with it, the inference of Christ’s Godhead, at an infinite interval before those to whom only the word of God came. Although as dignity is that on account of which they are called gods; so sanctity is that on account of which Christ is called the Son of God. Christ therefore is holy, as He is the Son of God;[290] He is sanctified, as ὁρισθείς, defined [declared and marked out] to be the Son of God, Romans 1:4; and σφραγισθείς, sealed, John 6:27, “Him hath God the Father sealed.” That is evident in this passage from the appellation, ὁ Πατήρ, which He applies to God, with the greatest force. He shows that there was no need that the word of God should at some particular time come to Him:[291] comp. John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” We must understand to the whom, the word I [Him, namely I, whom], with which the verb I said [below], in the first person, is in connection.—ἀπέστειλεν, hath sent) This sending presupposes the Godhead of the Son, and so confirms it. [The Haphtara, or appointed portion of Scripture, for the Feast of Dedication contains (John 10:22) these words, Jehovah Sabaoth, the Lord God of hosts hath sent me unto you: Zechariah 6:15.—Not. Crit].

    [290] Luke 1:35, “Therefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Gabriel to the Virg. Mary.—E. and T.

    [291] As to those alluded to in Psalm 82:6. For the Word of God was always with Him, as being the Word.—E. and T.

    So that is the longer version. Your interpretation is incorrect, and there is no reason we should accept it as the TRUE and REAL understanding, against all history regarding it.
    Basically, a thing can't mean what it has never meant. It is here clear what he meant, being seen by those directly in conversation with him (IE they sought to stone him for claiming to be God).
    This is the understanding of the early opponents to Christ (see 2nd century Jewish objection that Jesus is a liar claiming to be God, from previous post). It should be noted that there are many more examples of this objection by the Jews, and is apparently continued to this day. Finally, any commentary or bible scholar is going to say the exact same thing. That the Jews correctly perceived what he was saying. (IE that he was God).
    This makes your understanding of it to be without merit or a reflection of any scholarly work on the scripture in question.
    Of course you are free to hold whatever belief you like. but it isn't a belief based on any scholarly work on the subject, or even a correct understanding of the context, culture or history in general.


    And for good measure..
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr_64TBd-9U
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzKN90DhCCc

    The above is John MacAurthur. One of the greater respected and authoritative preachers doing an exegetical preaching on the gospel of John. First video about 5min in, he gets to John 10:30. An interesting point he brings up is what it means to be called "Son of" in that culture and at that time.
    Pretty much re-iterates what I have said.
    Last edited by MindTrap028; April 3rd, 2019 at 05:40 PM.
    To serve man.

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. Christianity: Salvation..
    By Shakti in forum Religion
    Replies: 140
    Last Post: April 20th, 2011, 05:16 PM
  2. Replies: 135
    Last Post: March 13th, 2010, 10:26 PM
  3. Salvation?
    By Purelyironic in forum Religion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: June 16th, 2009, 07:41 AM
  4. Salvation
    By offaithandfire in forum Religion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: May 1st, 2008, 06:27 PM
  5. Salvation without Christ?
    By Castle in forum Religion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: July 27th, 2006, 11:10 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •