Question for conservative Christians

[spirit5er]

That’s funny. You clearly haven’t read the Pope’s statement. It’s quite a bit milder and more measured than what you describe.

Yeah, maybe he was apologizing in a way that doesn’t really apologize.

The current Pope himself has said that the Inquisition acted reasonably given Galileo’s behavior and the level of knowledge available at the time.

They cannot blame Galileo for their belief that scripture contradicted Galileo. What then…did God allow his “holy” church to languish under false interpretations of cosmological statements in the bible until science forced them to hear God differently?

 

[Dauphin]

They cannot blame Galileo for their belief that scripture contradicted Galileo. What then…did God allow his “holy” church to languish under false interpretations of cosmological statements in the bible until science forced them to hear God differently?

Maybe for the same reason that he allowed such confusion in the early Church concerning how the gentiles are to be saved. Compared to the misconceptions some early Christians had on that subject, the interpretation of a few obscure psalms hardly seems an issue.

I don’t know the mind of God, so I can’t answer your question.

 

[Dauphin]

I realize that I missed a few of the points spirit5er made:

Jesus demanded that his followers obey the Mosaic Law. How exactly does this equate Jesus with the Law?

You have to understand that this was before Christ’s crucifixion. Adherence to the prescripts of the Law was still necessary.

In Galatians 2:21, St. Paul says:

“I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

We can see then, that Christ’s Crucifixion abrogated the prescripts of the Old Law, not His incarnation. The Crucifixion coincided with the tearing of the veil in the temple.

Not so, I fulfill the speed limit laws when I OBEY them. You must therefore demonstrate that Jesus meant something more than mere obedience when he said he came to “fulfill” the law.

I don’t think there’s any need. Even if I were to agree that to fulfill means only to obey, this would still not refute the point that Christ is the Law, so that the Law is obeyed by being integrated into His Body.

I’ve already shown that Jesus demanded full obedience to the Mosaic Law for his followers, so Acts 21:20 need not be a misunderstanding but a sign that James and his congregation were doing what Jesus told them to do.

During His earthly ministry, He certainly required it. The misunderstaning of James’ followers is to be expected given that Christ never explicitly rescinded this “standing order”.

It is Christ’s death which accomplishes the abrogation of the prescripts of the Old Law.

yeah, I knew I’d catch you in double-talk sooner or later. Paul himself said the law is DONE AWAY in Christ:

That refers to the lifting of the veil, not the substance of the Law.

Which is excessively unlikely given his full three year tenure with the earthly Jesus, whose early ministry offered salvation equally to Jew and Gentile from it’s earliest phase (John 3:16). Jesus must have saved many Gentiles in that three-year ministry with Peter at his side. And Peter never “genuinely understood” how the Mosaic Law applies to Gentile Christians? Absurd!

I don’t think it’s absurd at all. Christ’s teaching that gentiles can be saved can be interpreted in many ways, and it is easy to see how the legalists could have interpreted things the way they did, given Christ’s requirement of obedience to the Law.

the Acts author places this description of James’ converts in the mouth of James himself:

I don’t see this as a problem. James was clearly wrong.

Does that make him a heretic, as you suggest? Heresy is a technical term employed by the Catholic Church to describe the obstinate post-baptismal denail of some truth proposed by the Church for belief.

James is clearly not guilty of heresy, since he engages in no denial of something which the Magisterium has definitively proposed. He simply comes to an erroneous conclusion based on the information available to him at the time. He’s hardly culpable for it.

 

[Dauphin]

On the contrary, whether the faith of the church is a supernatural gift from god or otherwise, has nothing to do with answering my question. the author of 1st John obviously felt compelled to issue rebuttal statements against the gnostic view that Jesus wasn’t manifested in the flesh. Why? This gnostic viewpoint was an “obvious” heresy, wasn’t it? Would the author of first John have also taken time to refute anybody who said Virgin Mary was a man? how many other totally obvious things did this author feel compelled to “refute”? The whole point is that his desire to refute the “heresy” implies that the heresy caught on with enough people to make it a possible threat to the “standard” Christian faith. That leaves you with the question, how could something that is “obvious” heresy, become sufficiently dominate that it required being checked by an apostle? If the idea of Jesus never being manifested in the flesh was as ridiculous as you think, it would never have caught on, unless you agree with skeptics that first-century Christians were intensely gullible.

Actually, gnosticism denies nothing perceived by the senses, but says that the senses are deceived and Christ was not made flesh.

So, it’s hardly “obvious” that gnosticism is wrong. It’s certainly possible to view the life of Christ through that lense.

Call that gnostic view a deception from Satan if you wish. You still haven’t explained why something you view as “obvious” heresy, became so popular that 1st John’s author felt compelled to refute it.

Or… are you just blaming Satan for every stupid move made by ancient Christians so you don’t have to wrestle with the real life implications of their beliefs?

Again, I never said it was obvious. The gnostic interpretation is viable, but erroneous.

 

[spirit5er]

Maybe for the same reason that he allowed such confusion in the early Church concerning how the gentiles are to be saved. Compared to the misconceptions some early Christians had on that subject, the interpretation of a few obscure psalms hardly seems an issue.

I don’t know the mind of God, so I can’t answer your question.

What makes you so sure that what they wrote is inspired by God, now that you admit they endured confusion over stuff like Gentile salvation? If they were confused before authoring books, their confusion, as is the case with many theologians, can easily have infected their writings.

 

[spirit5er]

Originally Posted by spirit5er
Jesus demanded that his followers obey the Mosaic Law. How exactly does this equate Jesus with the Law?

Where did you get the idea that Jesus ever anticipated that his death on the cross would change the need for people to adhere to the law? Paul’s theology? That’s the fallacy of circular reasoning, since the harmony of Paul with Jesus is exactly what’s already in dispute.

In Galatians 2:21, St. Paul says:

“I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

We can see then, that Christ’s Crucifixion abrogated the prescripts of the Old Law, not His incarnation.

Wow, Paul’s statement against righteousness by law sure does conflict with Jesus’ insistence that everybody needs to follow the law closely to enter the Kingdom of God, eh?

The Crucifixion coincided with the tearing of the veil in the temple.

Do you seriously expect an ancient miracle report to convince a modern day atheist that Paul’s theology was correct?

Not so, I fulfill the speed limit laws when I OBEY them. You must therefore demonstrate that Jesus meant something more than mere obedience when he said he came to “fulfill” the law.

I don’t think there’s any need. Even if I were to agree that to fulfill means only to obey, this would still not refute the point that Christ is the Law, so that the Law is obeyed by being integrated into His Body.

First, if all “fulfill” meant was “obey”, then the idea that “fulfill” means “die on a cross for sin” is not available.

Second, your own proof that Christ was the Law, is Pauline theology, you quote nothing from Jesus on this. If Jesus agreed with Paul, you should be able to quote Jesus to sustain your interpretation. Now where did Jesus he “is” the Law?

I’ve already shown that Jesus demanded full obedience to the Mosaic Law for his followers, so Acts 21:20 need not be a misunderstanding but a sign that James and his congregation were doing what Jesus told them to do.

During His earthly ministry, He certainly required it.

And you offer no evidence that the way of salvation Jesus preached in his earthly ministry was changed in any way upon his death. Your use of Pauline theology, which is after the fact of the crucifixion, is the fallacy of begging the question, since WHETHER Paul SHOULD be viewed as accurate is precisely the dispute. You cannot just quote Paul to prove him right!

or can I quote myself to prove myself correct? Why do self-serving quotations only work for Christians and nobody else?

The misunderstaning of James’ followers is to be expected given that Christ never explicitly rescinded this “standing order”.

Excuse me, whatever in the world made you think James’ followers* misunderstood*?

If Christ never explicitly rescinded this “standing order”, it’s probably because he intended it to stay standing, amen?

or did Christ forget to do something before he left earth?

It is Christ’s death which accomplishes the abrogation of the prescripts of the Old Law.

Jesus never taught this at all, and logically, Jesus would be the ultimate authority on whether Paul’s version of Christianity was true, as there is no higher authority than Jesus himself. And Jesus was thoroughly legalistic his entire earthly ministry.

yeah, I knew I’d catch you in double-talk sooner or later. Paul himself said the law is DONE AWAY in Christ:

That refers to the lifting of the veil, not the substance of the Law.

The only reason given by paul in 2nd Corinthians 3 for the veil remaining over the heart is the reading of the Law itself. Your distinction between “veil” and “substance” is not supported by Paul’s context nor his more explicit denial that Christians are under the law in Galatians 3:24-25

Which is excessively unlikely given his full three year tenure with the earthly Jesus, whose early ministry offered salvation equally to Jew and Gentile from it’s earliest phase (John 3:16). Jesus must have saved many Gentiles in that three-year ministry with Peter at his side. And Peter never “genuinely understood” how the Mosaic Law applies to Gentile Christians? Absurd!

 

[spirit5er]

I don’t think it’s absurd at all. Christ’s teaching that gentiles can be saved can be interpreted in many ways,

Even when Jesus is physically standing next to you answering all your questions about that subject? Sorry, that’s most absurd. Peter was not ignorant, that is mere Pauline fiction to make an uncritical first-century audience start believing that the legalistic gospel Peter and James taught was wrong and that Paul’s law-free gospel was correct. The very idea that Paul would rebuke Peter is nonsense, and only serves Paul’s agenda to make himself look better by making Christ’s original disciples look worse.

Paul gave in to Jewish scruples and circumcised Timothy “because of the Jews in those parts” (Acts 16:3), and he explicitely admitted he would lie, and pretend to be under the law, while believing differently, merely to gain favor with a Jewish audience (“to the Jew I become as a Jew”, 1st Corinthians 9:20)

Why then does he rebuke Peter for giving in to the views of some Jews in Galatians 2:14, on the basis that Peter didn’t truly feel that this Jewish way was the correct way, when in fact Paul similarly didn’t truly agree with the Jews that Timothy needed to be circumcized, but only complied out of conscience?

It gets worse; in Galatians 2, Peter’s conduct which Paul criticizes, was his choice to stop eating with Gentiles. But Paul’s hypocrisy concerned circumcision, which was the basis of the dispute in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

If Peter is a hypocrite for giving into Jewish scruples concerning eating with Gentiles, which is not directly called a heresy, then Paul is a worse hypocrite for giving in to Jewish scruples on circumcision, which IS directly called a heresy in Acts 15, right?

and it is easy to see how the legalists could have interpreted things the way they did, given Christ’s requirement of obedience to the Law.

Why do you suppose Jesus never told anybody that Gentiles may forego circumcision after his crucifixion? Did he forget? Did the omniscient Jesus fail to realize this issue would come up?

Or could it be that Jesus never bothered mentioning such exception to the rules, because he never wanted Gentile Christians to be exceptions to the rules after his crucifixion?

If the crucifixion caused such a gargantuan change of theology, I have the perfect right to expect Jesus and not just Paul to have explained this, and to therefore be suspicious of the “gargantuan change” theory when I never find Jesus addressing the matter.

the Acts author places this description of James’ converts in the mouth of James himself:

I don’t see this as a problem. James was clearly wrong.

If you admit Paul and James disagreed, how did you figure out which one had the truth?

Does that make him a heretic, as you suggest? Heresy is a technical term employed by the Catholic Church to describe the obstinate post-baptismal denail of some truth proposed by the Church for belief.

How Catholics after the first-century used the “heretic” word is irrelevent, you just made an admission that shows James trusted in the same theology as the Judaizers.

By the way, Paul admitted in Galatians 2:12 that Peter gave in to this Judaizer viewpoint.

Now you are saying two people, the highest authorities of the gospel under Christ at the time, who gained their gospel knowledge by walking and talking with Jesus for at least three years, “got it wrong”, while Paul, who never knew the earthly Jesus, got it right.

If “mike” disagrees with you about what your best friend believes, and mike had never even met your best friend before her death, who is more likely to correctly represent your best friends beliefs?
You, who walked and talked with her and had many intimate conversations about her specific theological outlook?

Or Mike, who claims to know your friend only through post-mortem visions?

James is clearly not guilty of heresy, since he engages in no denial of something which the Magisterium has definitively proposed. He simply comes to an erroneous conclusion based on the information available to him at the time. He’s hardly culpable for it.

James walked and talked with the real historical earthly Jesus for at least three years.

Apostle Paul never knew the earthly Jesus, and his solitary claim to fame is visions.

Who is more likely to know what the true gospel is?

Your basic claim is that Jesus taught a legalistic salvation before the Cross, and no words of his anticipation that the Cross would change the criteria of salvation survive today. You have not explained how Jesus could leave such a gargantuan theolgian turnabout unmentioned.

Then you insist that the Cross must nevertheless have changed the criteria of salvation, because Paul said so, when in fact Jesus’ failure to predict such change argues that he never intended his cross to be viewed as changing the criteria of salvation.

What criteria do you use to evaluate the theological accuracy of Paul?

 

[spirit5er]

Actually, gnosticism denies nothing perceived by the senses, but says that the senses are deceived and Christ was not made flesh.

So, it’s hardly “obvious” that gnosticism is wrong. It’s certainly possible to view the life of Christ through that lense.

Again, I never said it was obvious. The gnostic interpretation is viable, but erroneous.

What makes you think it was viable? What ever would have given a contemporary of Jesus (as 1st John’s gnostics were) the idea that he wasn’t manifest in the flesh?

If I started preaching something that clearly contradicts common sense, such as Jesus being a raccoon, what are the chances I’d gain enough of a following to compell your church to make a formal pronouncement against it? The viability of the Gnostic idea, given their ability to know the earthly Jesus personally, is not possible. The only way such a “radical” view could have gained so much momentum that it needed checking by an authority of the Church, is if what they believed was easily reconcilable with the known facts. Nowhere do our canonical gospels state that Jesus taught that matter is just an illusion or evil, so what make you think this gnostic idea was “viable”?

Might it be that there were early gospels showing Jesus teaching gnosticism, but which were censored by the party that eventually won history’s popularity contest? How about that Gospel of Thomas? Thank God Constantine didn’t burn all copies of this curious oddball from the first-century, or we might never have any proof that Jesus taught gnostic ideas, eh?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Spirit5er,

I believe this discussion is founded on the notion that Christ preached salvation too all nations early in his ministry, with John 3:16 given as an example source:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.

I was brought up Christian, and the lessons I’ve always seen in that verse was:

• We are saved through faith in Christ, rather than by our own actions

Certainly, no Christian today is going to deny that this verse applies to jews and gentiles alike. But we’re looking at the verse in hindsight. Also John wrote his gospel much later, with the whole Judaising question resolved as hindsight.

You’ve learned a lot about Christianity. But it seems that you’ve learned about it mostly from its criticics, and possibly from poorly educated extremists within Christianity. To really understand it enough to debunk it, you’ll need to try to do some learning from the perspective of time-honoured Christian writers, like the doctors of the church, or major theologians. Then you’ll have a fuller understanding, and be more capable of discussing it with believers without talking past us. You can’t fully learn a subject from its critics.

 

[Dauphin]

What makes you so sure that what they wrote is inspired by God, now that you admit they endured confusion over stuff like Gentile salvation? If they were confused before authoring books, their confusion, as is the case with many theologians, can easily have infected their writings.

Human weakness does not preclude God from producing inerrant revelation through human agents.

 

[Dauphin]

Where did you get the idea that Jesus ever anticipated that his death on the cross would change the need for people to adhere to the law? Paul’s theology?

Again, the Law is adhered to by living in Christ.

Wow, Paul’s statement against righteousness by law sure does conflict with Jesus’ insistence that everybody needs to follow the law closely to enter the Kingdom of God, eh?

No, it doesn’t. As I’ve already explained, Christ is the Law.

Do you seriously expect an ancient miracle report to convince a modern day atheist that Paul’s theology was correct?

I think I’d first have to convince the atheist that there is such a thing as “correctness”.

First, if all “fulfill” meant was “obey”, then the idea that “fulfill” means “die on a cross for sin” is not available.

I don’t think anyone has proposed that definition…

To fulfill the Law is to universalize it, by expanding it beyond the context of the Jewish covenant, and making adherence to it possible for the gentiles by following Christ.

Second, your own proof that Christ was the Law, is Pauline theology, you quote nothing from Jesus on this. If Jesus agreed with Paul, you should be able to quote Jesus to sustain your interpretation. Now where did Jesus he “is” the Law?

I don’t accept your reasoning. This teaching is implicit in Christ’s words. Just as you won’t find Him saying “I am God”, you won’t find Him saying “I am the Law” or “I am the Word”. The closest you’ll get to that is the prologue to the Gospel according to John.

An example of the implicit presence of this teaching is in Christ’s defense of his disciples working on the Sabbath. He points out that David and his companions entered the House of God and ate the holy bread:

“which is was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests” (Matthew 12:4)

He continues:

"Or have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice’, you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is the lord of the sabbath." (Matthew 12:5-8)

The implication here is that the Law is obeyed even when its prescripts are broken, but only by the power of Christ, who is the Word incarnate.

And you offer no evidence that the way of salvation Jesus preached in his earthly ministry was changed in any way upon his death.

I would never claim such a thing. The way of salvation which Christ preached during His earthly ministry cannot possibly be changed.

Excuse me, whatever in the world made you think James’ followers* misunderstood*?

They failed to grasp that adherence to the precripts of the Law was not necessary for justification. Christ had taught that the Law must be obeyed, and they believed that this was only possible by adherence to its prescripts.

Jesus never taught this at all

He most certainly did!

and logically, Jesus would be the ultimate authority on whether Paul’s version of Christianity was true, as there is no higher authority than Jesus himself. And Jesus was thoroughly legalistic his entire earthly ministry.

Nothing but simple ignorance of scripture could lead to that conclusion.

Do you consider Christ and His disciples working on the sabbath a “legalistic” approach? This is an absurd claim.

Christ never practiced or preached legalism, but he made certain statements which could be erroneously interpreted that way.

The only reason given by paul in 2nd Corinthians 3 for the veil remaining over the heart is the reading of the Law itself. Your distinction between “veil” and “substance” is not supported by Paul’s context nor his more explicit denial that Christians are under the law in Galatians 3:24-25

By “the Law”, St. Paul means “the prescripts of the Law”. The substance of the Law is Christ himself.

 

[Dauphin]

Even when Jesus is physically standing next to you answering all your questions about that subject? Sorry, that’s most absurd.

Do you have any evidence that an exhaustive questioning about gentile adherence to the Law occurred?

Peter was not ignorant,…original disciples look worse.

There’s a whole bunch of opinion here, but I don’t see any argumentation.

Paul gave in to Jewish scruples and circumcised Timothy “because of the Jews in those parts” (Acts 16:3), …Why then does he rebuke Peter for giving in to the views of some Jews in Galatians 2:14, on the basis that Peter didn’t truly feel that this Jewish way was the correct way, when in fact Paul similarly didn’t truly agree with the Jews that Timothy needed to be circumcized, but only complied out of conscience?

These two circumstances are very different. St. Paul circumcized Timothy for utility. St. Peter’s actions imposed the requirement of the Old Law on the gentiles.

It gets worse;

It seems ok so far…

in Galatians 2, Peter’s conduct which Paul criticizes, was his choice to stop eating with Gentiles. But Paul’s hypocrisy concerned circumcision, which was the basis of the dispute in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

If Peter is a hypocrite for giving into Jewish scruples concerning eating with Gentiles, which is not directly called a heresy, then Paul is a worse hypocrite for giving in to Jewish scruples on circumcision, which IS directly called a heresy in Acts 15, right?

Again, the difference is that Paul’s action was done for utility and affected no one adversely, while Peter’s actions imposed Jewish customs on the gentiles.

Why do you suppose Jesus never told anybody that Gentiles may forego circumcision after his crucifixion? Did he forget? Did the omniscient Jesus fail to realize this issue would come up?

Of course not.

Or could it be that Jesus never bothered mentioning such exception to the rules, because he never wanted Gentile Christians to be exceptions to the rules after his crucifixion?

That’s not it either.

I have the perfect right to expect Jesus and not just Paul to have explained this, and to therefore be suspicious of the “gargantuan change” theory when I never find Jesus addressing the matter.

I’m not sure that there’s any “change in theology”. The idea that salvation is in Christ, and not adherence to the prescripts of the Law (which Christ himself treated as mutable), seems to be in accord with what Christ taught.

If you admit Paul and James disagreed, how did you figure out which one had the truth?

The one that’s in agreement with the positive judgment of scripture.

How Catholics after the first-century used the “heretic” word is irrelevent, you just made an admission that shows James trusted in the same theology as the Judaizers.

I actually think it’s quite relevant, since it’s the only reasonable definition.

James can’t be called a heretic since it’s clear He isn’t culpable for heresy. He had no clear, definitive judgment to adhere to.

Now you are saying two people, the highest authorities of the gospel under Christ at the time, who gained their gospel knowledge by walking and talking with Jesus for at least three years, “got it wrong”, while Paul, who never knew the earthly Jesus, got it right.

When it came to the requirements of the Law, this certainly seems to have been the case. I’m sure Peter and James would have been much more intimately familiar with the details of Christ’s life, however.

Your basic claim is that Jesus taught a legalistic salvation before the Cross,

Wow! I didn’t mean to give that impression.

All salvation is after the Cross.

and no words of his anticipation that the Cross would change the criteria of salvation survive today.

The criteria of salvation did not change, since salvation was impossible before Christ’s Crucifixion.

Do I really have to say that? This is such a central concept to Christianity. You’d think that even the most ignorant atheist would be able to say that Christians believe that Christ’s Crucifixion opened the way to heaven!

You have not explained how Jesus could leave such a gargantuan theolgian turnabout unmentioned.

No turnabout - only a realization.

Then you insist that the Cross must nevertheless have changed the criteria of salvation, because Paul said so, when in fact Jesus’ failure to predict such change argues that he never intended his cross to be viewed as changing the criteria of salvation.

That’s for sure. The criteria of salvation can’t change, and neither St. Paul or I would say such a thing.

Where did I claim that the criteria of salvation had changed?

What criteria do you use to evaluate the theological accuracy of Paul?

There’s no need for me to evaluate it. It forms part of Divine revelation.

 

[Dauphin]

What makes you think it was viable?

I mean only that it’s workable and coherent.

What ever would have given a contemporary of Jesus (as 1st John’s gnostics were) the idea that he wasn’t manifest in the flesh?

If someone comes up with a strange idea, I have to account for it?

If I started preaching something that clearly contradicts common sense, such as Jesus being a raccoon, what are the chances I’d gain enough of a following to compell your church to make a formal pronouncement against it?

Gnosticism doesn’t contradict common sense. It’s perfectly itelligible.

The viability of the Gnostic idea, given their ability to know the earthly Jesus personally, is not possible.

What? I don’t think you know what gnosticism is. It doesn’t propose that Christ didn’t appear as flesh.

The only way such a “radical” view could have gained so much momentum that it needed checking by an authority of the Church, is if what they believed was easily reconcilable with the known facts. Nowhere do our canonical gospels state that Jesus taught that matter is just an illusion or evil, so what make you think this gnostic idea was “viable”?

It doesn’t follow that because Christ never made such a teaching, the teaching is irreconcilable with the facts.

Might it be that there were early gospels showing Jesus teaching gnosticism, but which were censored by the party that eventually won history’s popularity contest?

Anything might be.

How about that Gospel of Thomas? Thank God Constantine didn’t burn all copies of this curious oddball from the first-century, or we might never have any proof that Jesus taught gnostic ideas, eh?

The Gospel of Thomas is “proof” that Jesus taught Gnostic ideas?

I’m glad, at the very least, that you can admit “oddballs” existed in the first century. Maybe that can help you account for some of the ideas floating around at the time.

 

[cazayoux]

They cannot blame Galileo for their belief that scripture contradicted Galileo. What then…did God allow his “holy” church to languish under false interpretations of cosmological statements in the bible until science forced them to hear God differently?

Remember … Galileo’s theory was not correct either.
He argued against an earth-centered universe (rightly so) in favor of a sun-centered universe (which is not correct).

Good thing the church did jump up and say Galileo was correct.

michel

 

[spirit5er]

You’re right.

In fact, He does the opposite in some places. Mt 12:1-14 is where He says the Sabbath is for men, revoking the strict law of doing no work on the Sabbath.

that contradicts his insistence in Matthew 5 that everybody follow the law more precisely than even the Pharisees. he shouldn’t have said that if he felt some of the law, which the Pharisees observed, didn’t apply anymore

Mt 15:10-20 is where He revokes the dietary law, among other teachings.

Sounds like Jesus will be least in the kingdom according to his own teaching (Matthew 5), since he derided anybody who annuled the slightest bit of the law.

As for the “Jews only” idea, that’s not true either, as is shown in Jesus’ own words and actions.

Which is what makes the failure of Peter and his fellow Jewish Christians to accept Gentile salvation in Acts 10 and 11 all the less believable.

In Mt 8:10-12, Lk 13:29-30, Lk 17:11-19, Jesus shows that He came for all, not just for the Jews.

You come along 2000 years after the fact and you think it’s perfectly clear. His own apostles must have had far more discussion with the pre-resurrected Jesus about these things than you’ll ever have, and they didn’t get it? Sorry, that’s just absurd.

He also says, to the Samaritan woman in Jn 4:22, “salvation is from the Jews.” (Literally, “out of.”) That certainly shows that it is for more than the Jews.

Which makes us wonder why Paul said the salvation of the Gentiles was a hidden mystery not revealed until he came along. Sounds like post-Pauline corruption of the gospels to bring them in line with Paul’s teaching.

The healings done because of the faith of certain Gentiles (the Centurion, and the Canaanite woman, for two) shows that He did not restrict Himself to Jews, but came for everyone who had faith in Him.

The healings do not show intent to provide salvation.

It was probably for the sake of the Apostles that He approached this gradually. They would have to overcome their belief that He was the King of only the Jews.

Is this where they just don’t “get it” again?

 

[spirit5er]

It was intended as a trap to get us to say that James the Just was a heretic, when absolutely no historical evidence even implies it.

Really? You don’t consider statements by Eusebius, Jerome, Hegesippus, Clement and Epiphanius on James being a Jewish High Priest, as “historical evidence”?

 

[spirit5er]

First let us undertand the the term “Gospel” as such didn’t even exist in the 1st century. Godpel means “Good News” and as such this is what was being preached. The Good News of Salvation, Baptism, and belief in the risen Lord Jesus Christ. I know of nowhere in the Early Church where this essential Truth was not Preached and adhered to by the Christian community.
Second let us understand that logistics in the 1st century were not the same as they are today. Thus, where different ideas/explanations/practices etc come into being it takes time for the Church to sort them all out.

Which testifies against their being inspired. They certainly didn’t need any time to figure things out in Acts 2 as they were filled with the Spirit. The idea that they just “didn’t get it”, but you, coming along 2000 years after the fact, restricted more than they to mere reading, without all those extra helpful late night theological discussions with the pre-resurrected Jesus which they had, is absurd. The better explanation is an honest disagreement on the gospel, not any failure to understand something that is point blank obvious to people 2000 years after the fact.

Personally I will grant you this one. By the same token you can get any several Bishops together today and find some points on which they diferentiate.

Which is to be expected upon the supposition that they don’t have god anymore than any several republicans and democrats.

To this I would allude to my earlier statement regarding logistics. It is not as though the gnostic hyposthesis was written and widey disseminated by printing press and overnite delivery, nor was the rebuttal sent out via e-mail.

Aren’t you disturbed by the idea that anybody could have preached a phantom Jesus and gained enough of a following with this nonsense to make the author of 1st John feel a rebuttal was warranted?

Jesus came and preached during a transatory time. In fact He Himself was the transistion. When speaking to the Jews before the resurection the Law of Moses remained in effect.

And there is no evidence that the Law of Moses stopped remaining in effect after he died, except for Pauline theology of course, but Paul’s correctness is exactly the question now disputed, so Paul’s theology cannot be cited to prove Paul’s correctness. Lord knows, Jesus never said the law of Moses would be fulfilled or “taken out of the way” upon his death.

First of all, you are not reading the entire “minutes” of the council so you cannot know what might have been brought up.

The failure of Luke to show that Jesus’ words were appealed to, speaks volumes, since in fact Jesus’ words would be the most natural and forceful answer to the question in dispute. Can you imagine a prosecutor that never cites the law he believes the suspect has violated?

Second, from the viewpoint of the Church, the council’s deliberations and decisions ARE the words of Jesus. For Jesus gave His Church the Authority to Bind and Loose. Therefore the decision of the Council IS the word of Jesus.

Then Jesus contradicted himself, since he advocated very close adherence to the entire Mosaic Law in Matthew 5, while preaching to a mixed crowd of Jews and Gentiles. What, did he change his mind about the circumcision stuff?

 

[spirit5er]

(Continued)

Your supposition presupposes facts not in evidence. you don’t KNOW whether Jesus discussed the Gentile question at length before his ascention.

How much “length” is required for Jesus to say “Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to be saved” ?

Furthermore you ignore the fact that jesus DID tell His apostles that there was much more they needed to know but could not bear at the time. That is the reason He was to send the Holy Spirit upon them.

That is a cryptic answer that doesn’t get anybody anywhere. How exactly would “Gentiles need not be circumcized” be something the apostles couldn’t bear? Other catholics here have argued that Jesus annuled dietary laws, so apparantly lifting Mosaic restrictions wasn’t something the apostles had to be babied into.

Also see Acts 10: 9-16 and 27-29
Here Jesus, who had already ascended, revealed to Peter that nothing and no one, made by God, is to be considered impure.

What, he never made this clear to Peter before? What about all those times Jesus caused a stir because he ate with “sinners” and gentiles?

But the fact that something is dangerous to a group of particular believer’s theology, doesn’t suddenly mean it must be wrong. Agreed?

But when something runs contrary to the Will and Glory of God, threatening to turn persons from the path of salvation to that of damnation, it need be opposed both for the salvation of the one making the argument and for those witnessing the debate.

Or maybe the problems demonstrate that the salvation promised by Christian theology doesn’t put anybody on any path of salvation in the first place.

 

[spirit5er]

Originally Posted by spirit5er
Where did you get the idea that Jesus ever anticipated that his death on the cross would change the need for people to adhere to the law? Paul’s theology?

And the example of living in Christ is provided by what Jesus said people must do to be saved, correct?

Wow, Paul’s statement against righteousness by law sure does conflict with Jesus’ insistence that everybody needs to follow the law closely to enter the Kingdom of God, eh?

No, it doesn’t. As I’ve already explained, Christ is the Law.

Your contention that Christ IS the Law, constitutes the fallacy of begging the question, it is nothing but Pauline theology, Jesus never taught that he himself was the law.

Do you seriously expect an ancient miracle report to convince a modern day atheist that Paul’s theology was correct?

I think I’d first have to convince the atheist that there is such a thing as “correctness”.

Why does our denial of theological correctness mean that we don’t believe in any form of correctness?

First, if all “fulfill” meant was “obey”, then the idea that “fulfill” means “die on a cross for sin” is not available.

I don’t think anyone has proposed that definition…

Jesus said he came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5. That has never been demonstrated to mean anything more than “I came to obey the Law.” The idea that he meant he’d do this for all people by dying on a cross takes his comment out of context. WHich means Jesus himself never said anything was supposed to change upon his death.

To fulfill the Law is to universalize it, by expanding it beyond the context of the Jewish covenant, and making adherence to it possible for the gentiles by following Christ.

How you get “fulfill the law” out of “annul the circumcision requirement for Gentiles” is a mystery.

Second, your own proof that Christ was the Law, is Pauline theology, you quote nothing from Jesus on this. If Jesus agreed with Paul, you should be able to quote Jesus to sustain your interpretation. Now where did Jesus he “is” the Law?

I don’t accept your reasoning. This teaching is implicit in Christ’s words. Just as you won’t find Him saying “I am God”, you won’t find Him saying “I am the Law” or “I am the Word”. The closest you’ll get to that is the prologue to the Gospel according to John

.

The teaching is very far from what he told the rich young ruler to do: obey the law to recieve eternal life. “Come follow me” doesn’t mean “I was just kidding about obeying the law.”

An example of the implicit presence of this teaching is in Christ’s defense of his disciples working on the Sabbath. He points out that David and his companions entered the House of God and ate the holy bread:

“which is was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests” (Matthew 12:4)

He continues:

“Or have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice’, you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is the lord of the sabbath.” (Matthew 12:5-8)

The implication here is that the Law is obeyed even when its prescripts are broken, but only by the power of Christ, who is the Word incarnate.

Jesus demanded full obedience to the entire law for anybody that wanted to enter the kingdom of God in Matthew 5. If you then find Jesus allowing some Mosaic prescripts to be broken, this constitutes an inconsistency. He should have have specified “neither jot nor tittle shall pass away from the law, 'til all be fulfilled”, if he already knew of “jots and tittles” that he would annul later.

And you offer no evidence that the way of salvation Jesus preached in his earthly ministry was changed in any way upon his death.

I would never claim such a thing. The way of salvation which Christ preached during His earthly ministry cannot possibly be changed.

SO then what Jesus told the rich young ruler on how to get eternal life “obey the commandments and follow me” remains the same after the cross? That doesn’t square up with Paul who fully denied the ability of the law to save in Galatians 3:24-25. Why is Jesus telling the rich young ruler to obey the law, if it is true that Christian faith causes one to get out from under the law, as Paul says?

 

[spirit5er]

Excuse me, whatever in the world made you think James’ followers misunderstood?

They failed to grasp that adherence to the precripts of the Law was not necessary for justification. Christ had taught that the Law must be obeyed, and they believed that this was only possible by adherence to its prescripts.

They were taught by James, who would have known better, so the greater liklihood is that their zeal for obeying the Law is correct obeidence to what Jesus said, and you, who come along 2000 years after the fact, having nothing close to the historical advantage of this group, are more likely to have misunderstood. What, James’s congregation was full of “converts” that ‘misunderstood’? That would mean James’ converts weren’t true Christians, since Jesus said eternal life is also based on knowing God and Jesus, John 17:3

and logically, Jesus would be the ultimate authority on whether Paul’s version of Christianity was true, as there is no higher authority than Jesus himself. And Jesus was thoroughly legalistic his entire earthly ministry.

Nothing but simple ignorance of scripture could lead to that conclusion.

Do you consider Christ and His disciples working on the sabbath a “legalistic” approach? This is an absurd claim.

No, I consider their working on the sabbath to be a direct violation of the full 100% conformity to Mosaic Laws that Jesus demanded earlier in Matthew 5. Jesus was very specific that NOTHING in the law would pass away or be inapplicable “til all be fulfilled.” Yet before the cross, Jesus is making exceptions to Mosaic mandates! Must “every jot and tittle” be obeyed, or are there exceptions?

The only reason given by paul in 2nd Corinthians 3 for the veil remaining over the heart is the reading of the Law itself. Your distinction between “veil” and “substance” is not supported by Paul’s context nor his more explicit denial that Christians are under the law in Galatians 3:24-25

By “the Law”, St. Paul means “the prescripts of the Law”. The substance of the Law is Christ himself.

First, I don’t find your distinction between the prescripts of the Law and the substance of the law to be anything more than theological double-speak. In any other context, the substance of a law EQUALS it’s precripts. So there is no reason to think the case is different here.

Second, you then acknowledge a contradiction either way between Jesus and Paul. In Matthew 5, Jesus wasn’t merely talking about following him, he was demanding that his hearers obey the PRESCRIPTS of the Mosaic Law.