What is meant by being 'saved'?

[guanophore]

Then Paul, formerly Saul, a Roman citizen and persecutor of the early followers of Jesus, began publicizing Jesus widely. Paul never met Jesus and knew about him only through the stories that were being circulated.

How can you reconcile this statement with Scripture?

Saul encountered Jesus personally, and was taught by Him!

I do agree that he also learned from other disciples, in addition to the revelation directly received from God.

Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem church, Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, were at odds over whether converts must first convert to Judaism before becoming followers of Jesus.

I don’t think so. I think the "odds’ came against Paul out in the provinces. The issue was brought to Jerusalem for settlement, but I don’t see any evidence that any of the leaders in Jerusalem promoted that. I think it is more accurate to say that they were not even trying to evangelize Gentiles.What happened at the house of Cornelius was a first experience for Peter.

Paul’s teachings about Jesus were very different from those of James, Peter, and the others in the Jerusalem group.

How do you figure that?

It is striking that Paul’s letters never quote Jesus, rarely refer to Jesus’ teachings, and never mention Jesus’ life.

Why would they? They were written specifically to address issues and problems in the early churches.

Paul taught his own version of Jesus’ teachings and created his own rules.

Yes, but it was consistent with what the other Apostles taught. He specifically went to the Gentiles, but there was no dichotomy.

The Christian Church throughout the 2,000 years since Jesus has been formed by Paul’s teachings, not the teachings of James, the brother of Jesus, and, some say, not the teachings of Jesus himself.

This is simply a false and unsupportable statement.

Anyone who has studied the non-Pauline bishoprics can see that such a conclusion is inaccruate.

I think this sort of myopic thinking is commone in the West, however, especially in post-Reformation Europe. Most Christians at the time were not even aware of the Easter part of the Church, including Assyrian, Oriental, and Coptic. These churches adhere to the same doctrines, though they were never influenced personally by Paul

The fact that Paul did not present Jesus’teachings in his epistles or his own preaching has been acknowledged for centuries. Only the Church, built around Paul, fails to admit that fact.

I have never heard such an assertion. What makes you think that the TEachings in the letters are not from Christ?

What is a “church built around Paul”?

**The Central Difference **

The central difference between Jesus’ teaching and Paul’s church was in justification by faith. Paul believed the statement in Ephesians 2:8: “You have been saved by God’s love and kindness because you believed. It was not because of anything you did, but it was a gift from God.”

And this is different from Jesus’ teaching how?

And as a baptized Christian in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, I along with other Christians who have been baptized in their name are a part of Christs Church.

Did someone infer that you were not?

There is only One Church, rev. All who are members of Christ are members of His One Body.

 

[rev_kevin]

How can you reconcile this statement with Scripture?

Saul encountered Jesus personally, and was taught by Him!

I do agree that he also learned from other disciples, in addition to the revelation directly received from God.

I don’t think so. I think the "odds’ came against Paul out in the provinces. The issue was brought to Jerusalem for settlement, but I don’t see any evidence that any of the leaders in Jerusalem promoted that. I think it is more accurate to say that they were not even trying to evangelize Gentiles.What happened at the house of Cornelius was a first experience for Peter.

How do you figure that?

Why would they? They were written specifically to address issues and problems in the early churches.

Yes, but it was consistent with what the other Apostles taught. He specifically went to the Gentiles, but there was no dichotomy.

This is simply a false and unsupportable statement.

Anyone who has studied the non-Pauline bishoprics can see that such a conclusion is inaccruate.

I think this sort of myopic thinking is commone in the West, however, especially in post-Reformation Europe. Most Christians at the time were not even aware of the Easter part of the Church, including Assyrian, Oriental, and Coptic. These churches adhere to the same doctrines, though they were never influenced personally by Paul

I have never heard such an assertion. What makes you think that the TEachings in the letters are not from Christ?

What is a “church built around Paul”?

And this is different from Jesus’ teaching how?

Did someone infer that you were not?

There is only One Church, rev. All who are members of Christ are members of His One Body.

Not discussing this on this thread.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

You asked Originally Posted by Roman_Catholic
Soooooooo you reject St. Paul’s epistles rev?

And I answered you with: Not saying I reject it. That is what I found.

This is the last I will respond to about this subject because the posts were meant for another thread not this one.

I know why you answered my post rev. I was asking why you posted this information in this or any other thread. What was your reasoning? Do you believe the information you posted?

God bless

 

[guanophore]

“In the first few centuries CE there really was no such thing as ‘the Church’, only competing factions, of which the Literalists were one.”
“The Jesus Mysteries” by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999)

I think it is important to such writers, for reasons I am not sure, to deny the historical evidence of the One Church founded by Christ.

It is true that there were hundreds of different beliefs of those “calling themselves Christian”. This is also the case today, where people call themselves Chrisitan but do not believe as the first Christians did. In fact, those who did not were called heretics back then.

Basically what you are saying is that you don’t believe that Jesus kept His promise to guide the Church into “all Truth”.

 

[adrift]

Not discussing this on this thread.

You stated that 72 73 74 were not meant for this thread however this was from post 70. Perhaps you should contact a forum adminstrator and ask that they be removed in order not to cause confusion.

 

[rev_kevin]

I know why you answered my post rev. I was asking why you posted this information in this or any other thread. What was your reasoning? Do you believe the information you posted?

God bless

Not discussing it on this thread!

 

[rev_kevin]

You stated that 72 73 74 were not meant for this thread however this was from post 70. Perhaps you should contact a forum adminstrator and ask that they be removed in order not to cause confusion.

Thanks I didn’t know you could do that.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Not discussing it on this thread!

Then rev point me to the thread where you will answer this question.

God bless

 

[guanophore]

Kev, if you really believe this stuff then I don’t know what to say.

I am with you, Cat. Either I have had a very skewed perception of rev kev as a Christian, or he has fallen from faith and embraced all these anti-Catholic writers.

If what these writers are saying is true, then Jesus lied. He went off and left His church orphaned, did not remain with them to the end of the age, like He said He would.

 

[rev_kevin]

I am with you, Cat. Either I have had a very skewed perception of rev kev as a Christian, or he has fallen from faith and embraced all these anti-Catholic writers.

If what these writers are saying is true, then Jesus lied. He went off and left His church orphaned, did not remain with them to the end of the age, like He said He would.

Have whatever view of me you want of me. My faith is strong in Christ.

 

[adrift]

Then rev point me to the thread where you will answer this question.

God bless

I am with you, Cat. Either I have had a very skewed perception of rev kev as a Christian, or he has fallen from faith and embraced all these anti-Catholic writers.

If what these writers are saying is true, then Jesus lied. He went off and left His church orphaned, did not remain with them to the end of the age, like He said He would.

rev kev made an error in posting here those post. I hope he points us in the right direction where we can discuss it. Perhaps starting a new thread. Until then ignore the post as he has requested us to do.

 

[Contarini]

Paul began preaching that Jesus was actually God, that Jesus’ death was linked to the Jewish system of sacrifice, that one could be saved by simply believing.
.

Why do you quote this phrase over and over? You haven’t said where it is from or why you find it authoritative. And the entire passage you pasted clearly was attacking Paul, saying that Paul contradicted Jesus’ teachings.

Do you agree with your source that Paul’s message of “simply believing” contradicts Jesus? If you think they are wrong on that, why do you accept their interpretation of what Paul said? Why not consider the possibility that they are wrong about Paul?

I sympathize with your sense that Catholics respond to you in an overly defensive and angry way, but cutting and pasting without analyzing or defending the sources you’re using is not the way to have a fruitful discussion.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

rev kev made an error in posting here those post. I hope he points us in the right direction where we can discuss it. Perhaps starting a new thread. Until then ignore the post as he has requested us to do.

It was in the thread about whether or not Christ started the Catholic Church. Rev spoke about it there and stated that he rejected what was written. Most everything there has been deleted. It’s too bad because it leaves people open to speculation.

God bless

 

[Zenas]

“Being saved” (or “getting saved”) is a term used by Baptists and other Evangelicals to mean the point in a person’s life that he renounces sin and puts his faith in Jesus as his savior, “for by grace you have been saved through faith.” At that point you become a child of God and your salvation is secure. Some believe a public profession of faith is necessary; some believe you can merely say the “sinners prayer”; others think it is a private matter of a change of heart. However, they all regard it as a crisis experience in one’s life.

The problem with the concept of “being saved” is that it attempts to place us into the world of the 1st Century when Christianity was new and no one was born into Christianity. Therefore, whenever someone in that era was saved it was invariably a crisis experience. Today, when a non Christian converts it is also a crisis experience. However, for most of us who are born into the faith, there is never a time when we lack faith and belief in Jesus. There is no single point in time when we can say we were saved. It is a lifelong experience, from birth to the grave. Yet many Evangelicals will gladly talk about what they refer to as their “salvation experience.” Or here is when I got saved.

Why do they do this? Probably for two reasons. (1) There is no infant baptism for initiation into the family of God, and certainly not for the removal of original sin, because they don’t believe in baptismal regeneration. (2) There is a general belief that young children are innocent (not necessarily free) of sin until they reach what is called the age of accountability. There is no specific age for this but it is thought to be the age at which an individual can discern right from wrong and realizes he is lost without a savior. This is not a concept taught in the Bible but is nevertheless a widely held belief among Evangelicals.

Therefore, if one reaches the age of accountability without “being saved” (see 1st paragraph of this post), he is* ipso facto *lost. If he is lost, then getting saved indeed a crisis experience, a time to which he can point and say, “Here is my salvation experience.”

 

[elvisman]

Paul began preaching that Jesus was actually God, that Jesus’ death was linked to the Jewish system of sacrifice, that one could be saved by simply believing.

**WRONG. Believing is the start - not the whole enchilada. I just gave you a laundry list of things that the Bible says about TRUE faith - and they all include our cooeration and DOing.
Jesus taught that we must endure to the end in faith and works - not just believe.

Can you supply verse and book please.

I already DID, Kevin:
(1 Cor. 12, Eph. 4:12, Eph. 1:22-23, 1 Tim. 3:15, Acts. 9:4-5.

 

[elvisman]

God can save who He wills. He is not bound by any rules. He wills however, that the ordinary way is His Church for as you say that is what the Bible says. The question than is how do you become members of His Church? Anyone who is baptized is a member. Baptizm by water, by blood, and by desire makes one a member of Christ Church even if they are unaware that it does.

Yes and no.
Whereas all those who are baptized in Christ are Christians - they are not all part of his Church if they reject his teachings.

As Benedicts said uin Dominus Iesus - they can be considered "ecclesial communities" but not Churches in the full sense of the Word.
**There is only ONE Church - ONE Body. **

As a Christian, you’re either a part of it or divorced from it.

 

[adrift]

Yes and no.
Whereas all those who are baptized in Christ are Christians - they are not all part of his Church if they reject his teachings.

As Benedicts said uin Dominus Iesus - they can be considered "ecclesial communities" but not Churches in the full sense of the Word.
There is only ONE Church - ONE Body.

As a Christian, you’re either a part of it or divorced from it.

The Catechism puts it best

Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."81 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."82

 

[elvisman]

The Catechism puts it best

Absolutely. We have a common bond in Christ, but those outside the Church are separated brothers and sisters in Christ.

**Much like a divorce doesn’t make a parent cease being a parent - it separates the parent from the child. This is not what God intended for marriage - and it certainly is not what Christ intended for his Church. **

I think Jesus put it best:
John 17:20-23
***"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, ****so that they may all be ONE, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. *
*And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be ONE, as we are ONE, *I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as ONE, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me."