Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,523 Year: 3,780/9,624 Month: 651/974 Week: 264/276 Day: 36/68 Hour: 5/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Paul of Tarsus - the first Christian?
iano
Member (Idle past 1963 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 196 of 219 (309367)
05-05-2006 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Legend
05-03-2006 6:22 PM


Psst! Wanna see a conversion?
Legend writes:
yes I agree, Jesus expanded the ten commandments.
Me too. Not adding, just expounding. He expanded them enough to demonstrate that all are sinners - lest there be doubt. Then he compressed them into two rules. Love God/love neighbour
Romans 7, the way I understand it, is all about how the law cannot bring life. Flesh is the cause of sin (Rom 7:5,6). Because of sin and the dominance of flesh, men find it impossible to follow the law. Paul himself moans about how he's held captive by his own flesh and awaits deliverance (Rom 7:24).
There is much which stands to reason. See what you think Legend.
1Do you not know, brothers”for I am speaking to men who know the law”that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
All law demands obedience. Both our own worldy law and the biblical law. Our law /commandments must be followed or punishment will ensure. "Do this, don't do that - or else". And at any point in life one is subject to it. But if one has committed a crime in everyday life, say a murder, and dies before the trial (Judgment), then the law is powerless. You have escaped its domain. Paul is talking common sense. But he is also talking about our spiritual condition. It is not just our bodies which are subject to Gods law, but also our spirits. Whilst our bodies can escape the temporal aspects of Gods law (pain, decay, disease and finally death) by dying, our eternal spirit, as it is, cannot. For the law is eternal also. The only way our spirit can escape the punishing intent of the spiritual police is if somehow or other it can be induced to die. And in doing so, flee the juristiction. But how can an already dead-to-God spirit die? By inverting Pauls analogy: bring the dead spirit to life. Change the juristiction in which it dwells ti whit: translate it out from its positon under the reign of the law of sin and death
Paul tells us in the very next sentence that this has in fact happened to a Christian. They have 'died', spiritually to the law. The law-as-punishment can no more claim juristiction over them spiritually than can temporal law claim juristiction over us when we physically die. It happens only through Christ ("nobody comes to the father except THROUGH me")
4So, my brothers, you also died (spiritually) to the (punishing)law (of sin and death) through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.(no spiritual dying > no spiritual fruit bearing) 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
If law means "do this, do that" and we are released from it by dying then we are no longer captive to the power of the law. And the only power the law of sin and death has is to punish us for not complying. The Law cannot make a person comply in and of itself. Indeed Paul appears to be blaming the Law for causing us to become absolute law breakers. A possible conclusion. But...
7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
Laws purpose explained. The purpose of the law is to let a man know he is a sinner. The example of offence Paul gives: covetting, existed before the law came. Adding the law let people know clearly that this was an offence.
The law started out with "Don't eat of the fruit" and expanded right out with Jesus' exposition on the mount. To wrap it all up, Jesus summed all possible sin that could ever be carried out in thought, word or deed by issuing 2 golden rules: love God (don't offend him in any way) love you neighbour (don't offend him in any way). 1000's of ways to sin every single day. Impossible to avoid doing. Unless dead to law, the law has you completely within its grasp
11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
The law holy though it is, was issued so that sin, doing only as evil can do, would use it to trap you in its clutches. Not a little bit sinful but completely and totally sinful. The more law the more sin you are guilty of committing. Steeped up to the neck in it. Jesus' 2 rules provides a law which can convict us of every thought. word and deed we could have - should we ever transgress.
14We know that the law is spiritual (like I said above); but I am unspiritual (born in Adam - with a dead-to-God spirit), sold (by the law) as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do”this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
This is not Paul speaking of himself in this incidently. He is not describing himself personally as if this applied to him at the time of writing. The grammatical tense used when he says "I am this that and the other's" has made a switch to a perpetual tense where he throws his voice as it were, and speaks the mind of "everyman". He is describing that which is going through a mans mind when the law (the schoolteacher) begins the final leg of its intended work of leading a person to Christ. Everyman has arrived at the point of conversion.
Point of conversion is what is being described all the way up to end of chapter. Everyman is coming to see that the law is in fact good. Whereas before, it was something that cramped his style and was to be circumvented (by following the temporal letter and not the spiritual spirit of it) he nows sees it as good. Adultery isn't a bit of fun whose guilt induced must be buried a.s.a.p., it actually is wrong: it destroys lives and makes people unhappy. Anger is wrong. Rather than point the finger and justify ones getting angry - everymans starts to see the hurt and pain it causes. Breaking the speed limit cos he is in a rush is wrong - he sees he is unjustified in putting precious lives and others health at risk.
"BUT I STILL DO IT!" Having this knowledge of the laws goodness is tormenting him. For knowing it and concurring with it - yea even WANTING to follow it does him no good. For he finds he still breaks it - even though he doesn't want to!
What is a behaviour that one hates increasingly, yet is one which one finds one cannot give up. Its called and addiction. Slavery. A addicted slave to sin. "I thought I was my own all along. I thought I was making my own choices according to my own free-will, I had my morality worked out and that according to that I was a fine fellow (even if I slipped occasionally but hey! who doesn't). I didn't realise the drug I choose to ingest. I didn't realise it would prove habit forming. I didn't see, like any other addict, that I would become completely dependant in it"
Paul continues describing the torment of the person being convicted (convinced) by the law....
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.
Prior to this, the law has been something which the man has twisted and contorted to suit his own book. Now it turns on him like a roaring lion. Aslan is not a tame lion. The Law of sin and death pins him in a corner and screams in his face
"YOU'RE AN ADDICTED, HELPLESS LAWBREAKER. AND YOU ALSO REALISE NOW WHAT THE WAGES OF THAT ARE"
24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?
The cry of sheer anguish of an addict. He resides in a body which is filled with sin. He is trapped. Its going down and he is going down with it. There are no excuses to hide behind anymore. His state of addiction and helplessness has been fully revealed. There is nowhere left to turn. Paul doesn't enter into the private moment that occurs when everyman turns to the only one who can help him now. There are billions of people and billions of ways in which the appeal might be couched. Perhaps it could be this thought which instigates the turning back to God. The thought that causes the Prodigal to lift his head from the pigstys trough.
"All who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved"
25Thanks be to God”through Jesus Christ our Lord!
Everymans post-conversion exclamation.
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
The split has occured. No longer a dying physical body umbilically attached to an already dead-in-Adam spirit. Instead a physically dying body being progressively shed from an alive-in-Christ spirit. That dead spirit has been re-born into life. It is freed from the law of sin and death. It is freed from the death-like grip of the Law.
A justified spirit, made righteous in Christ contained within a sinful flesh can only result in one thing. War! A war we are henceforth exhorted to fight. Until the day the dying flesh draws its last breath is finally reunited with a new body. A glorified body. A resurrection body. A body just like Jesus' body.
To enjoy Him forever.
This message has been edited by iano, 05-May-2006 04:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Legend, posted 05-03-2006 6:22 PM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5029 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 197 of 219 (309559)
05-06-2006 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by truthlover
05-04-2006 5:31 PM


Re: Paul, sin and righteousness
Legend writes:
Overall, according to Paul we're all slaves to our flesh and we fail to persevere in good works or truly to do God's law, so we cannot live up to "the righteousness of God which is through faith in Jesus Christ" (Rom. 3:21-26).
truthlover writes:
You're throwing me here. You said above that Paul says "only the Spirit can deliver us from sin." In Rom 3:21 he's saying the exact same thing. The righteousness of God which is through faith is exactly the same thing as the Spirit delivering us from sin
Yes and that's exactly my point, which I'm re-iterating above! Paul says that no deeds, by themselves, will gain you justification, righteousness comes only through faith in Jesus Christ. And what faith is that ? It's faith in the redemptive death of Jesus. This is made clear in Gal 2:21 and Rom 3:23-26, amongst others.
"Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; " Rom 3:25 (KJV)
Paul says that we can be made righteous ONLY if we believe that Jesus died for our sins. Through Faith in His Blood !
truthlover writes:
It will come by faith, not works. When it comes to you, it will come in the form of grace which "teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age" (Tit 2;11,12) It will make you a new creature "created in Christ Jesus to do good works" (Eph 2:10) It will make it so "sin will not have power over you" (Rom 6:14)
yes, but faith in what? Faith in what Jesus said and did ? Paul mentions nothing about that even when it would be in his interest to do so. When Paul talks about faith in Jesus it's about faith in Him as a redemptive sacrifice, as the Paschal lamb. Paul doesn't expect his audience to believe in loving your neighbour and turning the other cheek, he expects them to believe that Jesus is someone:
"...In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins (Col 1:14)
Is that part of Jesus's ministry?
The major teaching event in the ministry of Jesus was the Sermon on the Mount. According to the scriptures, this was the largest gathering that Jesus addressed during His ministry. Given this opportunity, He did not bring people out of the audience and cure their illnesses. He did not ask the people to worship Him. He did not say that He was going to die for their sins. What He did do, was to teach the following :
Be righteous, be meek, be pure of heart, be a peacemaker, be merciful (Matt 5:4-10). when given the chance to teach a large number of people, this is what Jesus felt to be important.
As Jesus told the rich man, noone is perfectly good, except God. But that's ok, because if you follow the commandments and love and help your neighbour you will have eternal life.
It's no coincidence that Jesus mentions a Samaritan in the context of gaining eternal life. The Samaritan wouldn't even know who Jesus was, let alone have faith in his redemptive death, yet Jesus implies that he would gain eternal life as someone who practices the 'love thy neighbour' command.
In a nutshell, let me recap my point (somehow crudely),
Paul's gospel: have faith in Jesus's sacrifice and the rest will follow.
Jesus's gospel : do good and you'll be fine.
I hope you can see the difference there and see why I'm saying that Pauls excludes works from salvation. To Paul, works are a by-product of faith in Jesus, an incidentary occurrence of the 'born in Spirit' experience. To Jesus, works/behaviour are everything. It's what will gain you eternal life.
I hope we both agree on this. Then the main question would be if Jesus's 'eternal life' and Paul's 'justification' mean the one and same thing.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by truthlover, posted 05-04-2006 5:31 PM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by jaywill, posted 05-06-2006 10:33 AM Legend has not replied
 Message 212 by jaywill, posted 05-09-2006 11:36 PM Legend has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5029 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 198 of 219 (309570)
05-06-2006 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by truthlover
05-03-2006 9:15 AM


Re: Paul, Jesus and the early churches
truthlover writes:
The Gospels came out of the churches that read and believed Paul (and had heard him speak). They did not come out of some other group believing something contradictory to Paul and rejecting Paul's writings, at the time.
didn't the original gospel, at least in oral form, come out of the Jerusalem church ? That would be some other group believing something contradictory to Paul and rejecting Paul's writings.
truthlover writes:
The historical claim that James and Peter themselves gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul would seem to be backed up by the fact that their churches remained together and in fellowship from as early as we can find record.
Allow me to quote from Hyam Maccoby's 'The Mythmaker', p. 139, Publisher: Barnes & Noble, 1986, ISBN: 0760707871,
"As we have seen, the purposes of the book of Acts is to minimize the conflict between Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, James and Peter. Peter and Paul, in later Christian tradition, became twin saints, brothers in faith, and the idea that they were historically bitter opponents standing for irreconcilable religious standpoints would have been repudiated with horror. The work of the author of Acts was well done; he rescued Christianity from the imputation of being the individual creation of Paul, and instead gave it a respectable pedigree, as a doctrine with the authority of the so-called Jerusalem Church, conceived as continuous in spirit with the Pauline Gentile Church of Rome. Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is not hard to recover, if we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell-tale inconsistencies and confusions, rather than with the determination to gloss over and harmonize all difficulties in the interests of an orthodox interpretation."

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by truthlover, posted 05-03-2006 9:15 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by truthlover, posted 05-06-2006 12:23 PM Legend has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1964 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 199 of 219 (309616)
05-06-2006 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Legend
05-06-2006 1:07 AM


Re: Paul, sin and righteousness
Legend,
Yes and that's exactly my point, which I'm re-iterating above! Paul says that no deeds, by themselves, will gain you justification, righteousness comes only through faith in Jesus Christ. And what faith is that ? It's faith in the redemptive death of Jesus. This is made clear in Gal 2:21 and Rom 3:23-26, amongst others.
Paul does not speak only of faith in the redemptive death of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. This is because God's eternal purpose cannot be accomplished only and solely by the forgiveness of people's past sins.
So though Paul does teach justification by faith as the entrance into the whole realm of God's kingdom he by no means stops there. Faith in a resurrected and indwelling Christ for moment by moment daily righteousness and building up of the church is repeatedly emphasized. This is why we have such additional concepts as transformation, sanctification, conformation, building up, growth, glorification. We do not have from Paul only justification, redemption, and reconciliation.
In fact "reconcilation" is also spoken of as a need to those for whom the problem of eternal redemption has been settled.
"Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; " Rom 3:25 (KJV)
Paul says that we can be made righteous ONLY if we believe that Jesus died for our sins. Through Faith in His Blood !
My statements above still hold. But Paul did say this also as you indicate also. Jesus Christ taught the very same thing. Before Paul taught it, Jesus taught it. Or I should say that Jesus continued to teach it after His ascension, through the apostles, including Paul.
The major teaching event in the ministry of Jesus was the Sermon on the Mount. According to the scriptures, this was the largest gathering that Jesus addressed during His ministry. Given this opportunity, He did not bring people out of the audience and cure their illnesses. He did not ask the people to worship Him. He did not say that He was going to die for their sins. What He did do, was to teach the following :
I'd like to know on what basis you decide that this was "the major teaching event in the ministry of Jesus." Does that mean this is the event you personally are most impressed with? Does this mean you favor this event above others? On what basis do you decide that the so-called Sermon on the Mount is the topmost and major teaching event in Christ's ministry?
In a nutshell, let me recap my point (somehow crudely),
Paul's gospel: have faith in Jesus's sacrifice and the rest will follow.
Jesus's gospel : do good and you'll be fine.
It would not be difficult to prove that your summary of Paul's teaching and your summary of Christ's teaching are really biased. You are really being selective and excluding quite a bit in both cases to portray a fuller summary of Christ's and His apostle's words.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 10:34 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 10:34 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 10:35 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Legend, posted 05-06-2006 1:07 AM Legend has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4082 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 200 of 219 (309658)
05-06-2006 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Legend
05-06-2006 1:59 AM


Re: Paul, Jesus and the early churches
Ok, I still feel like we're communicating better, though the result is that I'm more confident we're just going to end up disagreeing. I see 2 points we differ on. Maybe that can't be fixed, and we'll have to leave it at that.
Point 1:
As we have seen, the purposes of the book of Acts is to minimize the conflict between Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, James and Peter.
My point is not the Book of Acts, but that Paul was in conflict with James and Peter. Your Mythmaker quote suggests that Acts minimized a real conflict. I don't believe he has evidence that there was such a conflict, at least to the scale you and he are suggesting.
Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is not hard to recover, if we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell-tale inconsistencies and confusions
I call this guessing on his part. I don't see it that way. In fact, he says:
Peter and Paul, in later Christian tradition, became twin saints, brothers in faith, and the idea that they were historically bitter opponents standing for irreconcilable religious standpoints would have been repudiated with horror.
What if Peter would have seen this with as much horror as those who heard his teaching (the early churches)? What if Peter made the effort to be in reconciliation with Paul and really was okay with Paul's Gospel. There is no evidence to the contrary, and the fact that no churches remain now or remained even in the 2nd century holding to this opposing view that the Mythmaker says existed is evidence, I believe, that Paul and Peter did not have this claimed "irreconcilable" differences.
Point 2:
Paul says that we can be made righteous ONLY if we believe that Jesus died for our sins. Through Faith in His Blood !
What righteousness are we talking about? Are we talking about God declaring you righteous so you can go to heaven? I don't believe so, and I believe it's obviously not true. I think it's apparent that Paul is talking about being righteous right here on earth. Then, IF, as a result of faith, you live righteously as you have been given the ability to do, THEN you can inherit eternal life.
"[Jesus will] present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight, IF you continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and not moved away from the hope of the Gospel" (Col 1:22,23).
"But you have not so learned Christ, if you have heard him as the truth is in Jesus, which is that you put off the old man concerning your fomer behavior...and that you put on the new man, which is created like God in righteousness and true holiness" (Eph 4:20-24).
That last passage gives examples like not lying, not stealing, telling the truth, not being angry, speaking gracefully, and not grieving the Spirit of God.
Paul talks about righteous living at least half the time he's talking, agreeing with Jesus that the whole law is summed up in loving God with all your heart. Paul wanted the righteousness of the Law fulfilled, just like Jesus did, but he did emphasize that the power to do so would only come through grace.
This does not negate the fact that Paul believed, just like Jesus did, that eternal life comes by WORKS, and he said so almost every time he used the term "eternal life."
Then the main question would be if Jesus's 'eternal life' and Paul's 'justification' mean the one and same thing.
My answer is no. Paul's eternal life and Jesus' eternal life meant the same thing. Justification was to be made righteous; not righteous like a judge declares you, but righteous in reality, where your behavior changes, so that you can obey the things Jesus/Paul taught. (Paul saw those as the same things, saying "If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write to you are the commandments of Christ.")
For both of them obeying Christ's commands are what result in eternal life. For Paul, faith in Christ results in the ability to obey Christ's commands.
I would also add, that Paul did not only say "faith in the blood." He said faith in Christ, and that's a person. Yes, there's faith in his blood, too, but he said Christ died so that he would be Lord both of the living and the dead (in Romans again). Faith means obeying Christ, because the very purpose of faith is to receive the ability to obey.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Legend, posted 05-06-2006 1:59 AM Legend has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by truthlover, posted 05-06-2006 12:29 PM truthlover has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4082 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 201 of 219 (309659)
05-06-2006 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by truthlover
05-06-2006 12:23 PM


Re: Paul, Jesus and the early churches
Legend,
I need to clarify this after reading your post again.
I believe, and think it's pretty clear, that for Paul justification and eternal life are different things.
Paul's formula: Faith produces justification which produce good works, and good works produce eternal life.
Jesus' more simple formula: Good works produce eternal life.
On that more simple formula, Paul and Jesus agree absolutely. You say you can't find the first part of Paul's formula in Jesus' teaching. Ok, that I can agree is not easily found, and where I find it, my Scriptural proof is at best arguable.
On the last part, though, which is that good works produce eternal life, I think the fact that Paul and Jesus agree on this is very obvious, and no one who has not been influenced by Martin Luther and his American descendants, the Protestants and Fundamentalists, can miss it. It's clear and obvious.
If you want to see how clear it is, then DON'T look up justification, which is a different subject. Look up only eternal life in Paul's writings. Then look up judgment in Paul's writings. He's very consistent. It's all about works.
This message has been edited by truthlover, 05-06-2006 12:30 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by truthlover, posted 05-06-2006 12:23 PM truthlover has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1964 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 202 of 219 (309682)
05-06-2006 1:28 PM


Criteria for Judging the Major Event
Legend,
Upon re-reading your statements I noticed this time this:
The major teaching event in the ministry of Jesus was the Sermon on the Mount. According to the scriptures, this was the largest gathering that Jesus addressed during His ministry.
This is demonstrably a false statement. Read Matthew 5:1 again.
"And when He saw the crowds, He went up to the mountain. And after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. And opening His mouth, He taught them." (Matt. 5:1,2)
The message of the Sermon on the Mount was NOT given to a large crowd. At least it was not given to the larger crowd that was at the base of the mountain. When Jesus saw the large crowd He "went up to the mountain." Those who were His disciples followed Him. And this was most assuredly a minority of the "crowds" from which He departed to go up to the mountain. It is then to this smaller group who went up higher with Him (in more ways than one), that He delivered His "Sermon on the Mount."
What other criteria would you offer to prove that the Sermon on the Mount is the major message of all Christ's teachings?
This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 01:29 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 01:32 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by ringo, posted 05-06-2006 2:11 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 206 by Legend, posted 05-07-2006 6:28 PM jaywill has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 203 of 219 (309703)
05-06-2006 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by jaywill
05-06-2006 1:28 PM


Re: Criteria for Judging the Major Event
jaywill writes:
When Jesus saw the large crowd He "went up to the mountain."
Are you suggesting that Jesus "went up to the mountain" to escape from the crowd?
Look at the end of the sermon:
quote:
Mat 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine....
It says "the people", not "the disciples".
And then:
quote:
Mat 8:1 When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
The multitudes were still there after the sermon. Are you suggesting that they didn't hear it?
It seems pretty clear that Jesus stepped up to a higher part of the mountain so that the multitude could see and hear Him. It seems pretty clear that the sermon was to the multitude.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by jaywill, posted 05-06-2006 1:28 PM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by iano, posted 05-06-2006 2:22 PM ringo has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1963 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 204 of 219 (309707)
05-06-2006 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by ringo
05-06-2006 2:11 PM


Re: Criteria for Judging the Major Event
A technical interlude...
Next time you go to a pop concert Ringo, nip around to the maintenance area (from the "US government demolished the Twin Towers" conspiracy thread, I gather you know the ins and outs of those). Pull the circuit breaker marked "Mains Power" and see how far the protagonists voices travel thereafter.
The sermon on the mount was a long enough teaching. There is no record of Jesus being hoarse afterwards
Carry on..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by ringo, posted 05-06-2006 2:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by ringo, posted 05-06-2006 2:39 PM iano has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 434 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 205 of 219 (309716)
05-06-2006 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by iano
05-06-2006 2:22 PM


Re: Criteria for Judging the Major Event
iano writes:
Next time you go to a pop concert....
Next time you go to the Opera, take a look around for those giant speaker towers. Given the proper accoustics, the human voice can carry quite well, particularly if the audience is listening with bated breath and not screaming "We love you, Ringo!".
Why would Jesus deliberately withdraw from the crowd?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by iano, posted 05-06-2006 2:22 PM iano has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5029 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 206 of 219 (310072)
05-07-2006 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by jaywill
05-06-2006 1:28 PM


Re: Criteria for Judging the Major Event
jaywill writes:
The message of the Sermon on the Mount was NOT given to a large crowd. At least it was not given to the larger crowd that was at the base of the mountain. When Jesus saw the large crowd He "went up to the mountain." Those who were His disciples followed Him.
like Ringo states in Message 203 Matthew suggests that the crowds were there before, during and after the end of his speech and also that they heard him.
jaywill writes:
What other criteria would you offer to prove that the Sermon on the Mount is the major message of all Christ's teachings?
1) The size and diversity of the crowd.
"And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan." (Matt 4:25)
I think this is the greatest and most diverse crowd that Jesus ever addressed, therefore it makes sense to assume that he would emphasize the most important aspects of his doctrine.
2) Length and scope of the speech.
The sermon covers the 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters of Matthew. It's not about a single topic but covers the Lord's prayer, the beatitudes, Christian attitudes, warnings and new laws.
3) The effect of the sermon.
The message was clearly understood by and impressed the crowd.
"And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." (Matt 7:28-29)

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by jaywill, posted 05-06-2006 1:28 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by jaywill, posted 05-08-2006 9:14 PM Legend has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1964 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 207 of 219 (310414)
05-08-2006 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Legend
05-07-2006 6:28 PM


And Your Point Would Be ...?
Legend,
1) The size and diversity of the crowd.
"And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan." (Matt 4:25)
I think this is the greatest and most diverse crowd that Jesus ever addressed, therefore it makes sense to assume that he would emphasize the most important aspects of his doctrine.
2) Length and scope of the speech.
The sermon covers the 5th, 6th, and 7th chapters of Matthew. It's not about a single topic but covers the Lord's prayer, the beatitudes, Christian attitudes, warnings and new laws.
3) The effect of the sermon.
The message was clearly understood by and impressed the crowd.
"And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." (Matt 7:28-29)
For discussion's sake let's say I agree with you. Let's say that this was the most important section of teaching in Christ's whole ministry.
Okay, what then is your point, if it is?
Are you saying, Therefore other sections of His teaching should be disregarded? Are you saying that this section is the master key with which we must understand the other sections of His teaching?
This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-08-2006 09:15 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Legend, posted 05-07-2006 6:28 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Legend, posted 05-09-2006 7:53 AM jaywill has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5029 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 208 of 219 (310460)
05-09-2006 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by jaywill
05-08-2006 9:14 PM


Re: And Your Point Would Be ...?
jaywill writes:
Okay, what then is your point, if it is?
my point is that Jesus, in this major teaching event, sees fit to advocate behaviour and works instead of faith in his impending death and other such spiritual nonsense.
jaywill writes:
Are you saying, Therefore other sections of His teaching should be disregarded? Are you saying that this section is the master key with which we must understand the other sections of His teaching?
I can't help but get the impression that you haven't been following the debate so far. I'm saying that Jesus, throughout the synoptics, bases his roadmap to salvation on works / behaviour. Paul, in his letters, implies that faith in Jesus's atonement sacrifice is the primary pre-requisite for justification / salvation. My claim is that we should understand Paul's teachings in light of those of Jesus, not the other way round.

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by jaywill, posted 05-08-2006 9:14 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by jaywill, posted 05-09-2006 1:02 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 210 by jaywill, posted 05-09-2006 1:13 PM Legend has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1964 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 209 of 219 (310504)
05-09-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Legend
05-09-2006 7:53 AM


Re: And Your Point Would Be ...?
Legend,
my point is that Jesus, in this major teaching event, sees fit to advocate behaviour and works instead of faith in his impending death and other such spiritual nonsense.
I am taking a more open minded approach to your argument. For the moment I'm going to grant you that idea. If we count the Sermon on the Mount as the most important discourse of Jesus why dismiss other teachings as "spiritual nonsense?"
This does not suggest to me that you are really interested in prioritizing His words as much as wanting to discount the words you don't like. Can we meet somewhere in the middle? Can you convince me that the other speeches are more meaningful if understood that they are FOR this speech's major axioms?
I would be much more impressed by that. I'm suspicious of a concept of pointing out THESE words of Jesus so that we can count THOSE words as "spiritual nonsense."
I can't help but get the impression that you haven't been following the debate so far.
You're right in that I may not have read all of the posts from the beginning. At least I can't quite remember if I read all the posts.
I'm saying that Jesus, throughout the synoptics, bases his roadmap to salvation on works / behaviour.
"Salvation" has varying degrees of connotation in the New Testament. There is one level of salvation to be justified from sin forever. There is another level of salvation needed if having been forgiven you are still living by the fallen nature.
I have been "saved" eternally for many years. I still need a salvation from my temper, a salvation from anxiety about daily living, a salvation from loving the world, a salvation from expressing my fallen soul rather than the indwelling Christ who lives in me.
I think the first thing is that we realize that "salvation" in the New Testament carries somewhat different significances.
Paul, in his letters, implies that faith in Jesus's atonement sacrifice is the primary pre-requisite for justification / salvation.
I agree up to a point. I think the phrase "justification / salvation" means that "salvation" is only justification by faith. And such a concept would be totally shortsighted in a careful analysis of Paul's writings.
Take Romans for an example. "For if we, being enemies, were reonciled to God through the death of His Son, much more we will be saved in His life, having been reconciled" (Rom. 5:10)
Did you notice that?
Step #1 - Reconciled to God through the death of His Son. That's the result of Justification by Faith.
Step #2 - SAVED in His life. That is the salvation to come in the sphere and realm of His resurrection life.
From Romans 5:10 Paul devotes considerable words to the subjects of sanctification, transformation, conformation, daily holiness, building up in the practical church life, service, dedication, walking in the Spirit, etc.
So how can you adopt an attitude that "Jesus speaks about right behavior. But all that Paul guy talks about is getting saved through faith"? You see such an attitude seems biased to me. On one hand you want to artificially truncate many important words of Christ from the gospel and dismiss them as "spiritual nonsense." And at the same time you want to falsly charge His Apostle Paul of only paying attention to Justification through Faith for salvation.
My claim is that we should understand Paul's teachings in light of those of Jesus, not the other way round.
I could not agree with you more heartily. But you are misrepresenting both the entire sphere of the teachings of Jesus and the entire sphere of the teachings of Paul.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-09-2006 01:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Legend, posted 05-09-2006 7:53 AM Legend has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1964 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 210 of 219 (310510)
05-09-2006 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Legend
05-09-2006 7:53 AM


Re: And Your Point Would Be ...?
Legend,
My claim is that we should understand Paul's teachings in light of those of Jesus, not the other way round.
What teachings of Paul do you feel are misunderstood from a lack of understanding of the teaching of Jesus?
Let me see if I could pass your critique on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Legend, posted 05-09-2006 7:53 AM Legend has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by truthlover, posted 05-09-2006 4:25 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024