The Mathematics of God's plan (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

Things like this fall into the "debatable but not worth debating" category for me.

Fair enough. But does it bother you that the bible authors had different ideas on the year Jesus was born?

No.

What if you were to learn that Nazareth didn't even exist in the first century? Would that cause you any concern?

Yes.

 

[Jayrok]

And Paul's Jesus was certainly different than what the jewish christian leaders were teaching in Jerusalem. 

Rabbit trail time! Care to expound on this a little bit? ...but if you don't want to derail your own thread, that is fine, I understand

At the risk of another derailment, I'll reply to what I meant. Briefly, The Jewish church leaders, James, Peter et al, continued to teach mosaic law. They continued to observe dietary laws, circumcision, etc.. Even years after Jesus' death. Paul is the one with the new idea that those Jews under the law are not the true heirs to the promise. He used Hagar and Sarah as examples. His ideas were radical in a jewish world. He taught circumcision is of no value, but faith in Jesus' finished work on the cross. He argued with Peter (one that we know of) in Antioch. Who knows what other problems he had with the other apostles that he didn't report on. We do know in his second letter to the Corinthians, he claimed that he was in no way inferior to the "superApostles". He worked harder, longer, etc..

It wasn't until the council in Jerusalem that they agreed that Paul would go to the Gentiles with his message. But the gentiles still had restrictions, although they didn't have to be circumcised. Prior to that, the Jewish leaders still taught circumcision and no unclean foods. Which seems at odds with Jesus basically declaring all foods clean in Mark 7. But it's possible he never said any such thing.

Paul's message was music to the ears of the gentiles. They didn't want to have their weiners cut and stop eating pork. But Paul did have to reiterate the need to stay away from meats sacrificed to idols.

So Paul's Jesus was different. His Jesus superseded the law with his actions on the cross. Anyone still observing the law, in paul's eyes, is not part of the flock, because Jesus abolished them. The Jewish apostles didn't seem to follow this idea. Though they seemed to come to a compromise in Jerusalem.

"Paul's Jesus" is consistent with the Jesus we see in the Gospels. Just because some of the other apostles were still struggling with certain things doesn't make them at odds with Paul's teachings.

it's debatable.

Isn't just about everything?

sure. Some things should be matter of fact, if it is historical.. yet it is still debated.. things like the actual birth date of Jesus, for instance.

Things like the literally biblical account of creation is as mythological as any greek myth is also not debateable. The concept (although not all specifics) of evolution is not debateable.

Not all things are debateable, even if some try to create a debate over known realities/fact.

I agree that Genesis and some other stories in the bible's OT are based on earlier myths circulated around. The flood is a good example. But folks will debate just about anything.

 

[Jayrok]

Things like this fall into the "debatable but not worth debating" category for me.

Fair enough. But does it bother you that the bible authors had different ideas on the year Jesus was born?

No.

Interesting. You may not be an inerrantist though.

What if you were to learn that Nazareth didn't even exist in the first century?  Would that cause you any concern?

Yes.

This is a topic of debate going around.

 

[CrossEyed]

Things like this fall into the "debatable but not worth debating" category for me.

Fair enough. But does it bother you that the bible authors had different ideas on the year Jesus was born?

It doesn't bother me because it's really the people who want to discount Scvripture that have different ideas.

What if you were to learn that Nazareth didn't even exist in the first century? Would that cause you any concern?

Since this would be next to impossible to "prove", I really don't bother to concern myself with the possibility.

 

[CrossEyed]

Things like this fall into the "debatable but not worth debating" category for me.

Fair enough. But does it bother you that the bible authors had different ideas on the year Jesus was born?

No.

Interesting. You may not be an inerrantist though.

What if you were to learn that Nazareth didn't even exist in the first century? Would that cause you any concern?

Yes.

This is a topic of debate going around.

So was whether or not Jesus had a child with Mary Magdelene. Just because something is being debated doesn't make it a credible theory.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

You may not be an inerrantist though.

You're right. I'm not. You seem to do a pretty good job arguing against certain strains of fundamentalism, which I guess is natural given your background. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that your religious upbringing could fairly be described as fundamentalist, right?). Your back-and-forth with Crosseyed and others is interesting, but it mainly serves to remind me of why I'm not a fundamentalist as opposed to challenging my overall belief in Christianity.

 

[Jayrok]

It doesn't bother me because it's really the people who want to discount Scvripture that have different ideas.

Since this would be next to impossible to "prove", I really don't bother to concern myself with the possibility.

Matthew and Luke want to discount scripture?Evidence that it didn't exist.

 

[Jayrok]

Things like this fall into the "debatable but not worth debating" category for me.

Fair enough. But does it bother you that the bible authors had different ideas on the year Jesus was born?

No.

Interesting. You may not be an inerrantist though.

What if you were to learn that Nazareth didn't even exist in the first century?  Would that cause you any concern?

Yes.

This is a topic of debate going around.

So was whether or not Jesus had a child with Mary Magdelene. Just because something is being debated doesn't make it a credible theory.

apples and oranges. I don't think there is evidence to suggest that Jesus and Mary had children, or were ever married. But there is interesting discussion out there that suggests that Nazareth may not have been a city/town in the first century.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

What if you were to learn that Nazareth didn't even exist in the first century?  Would that cause you any concern?

Yes.

This is a topic of debate going around.

Link?(If this is what I think it is, I've seen it before and didn't find it very persuasive, but we may be thinking of different things).

 

[Jayrok]

Okay, I somehow ####ed up the nested quotes. Wrath will now pour down upon me.

I do that often too.

As for the link, I'll have to do some digging at the house. I've read a few arguments on the subject. I haven't made any conclusions either way, but find it interesting none the less. Much is based on textual evidence from first century writers such as Josephus. Nazareth is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures, biblical or not. Josephus did an exhaustive listing of towns and cities in israel/syria and the whole region and listed all the towns but didn't mention Nazareth as one of them. The way nazareth as described in the gospels, like where the town was going to go throw Jesus off a nearby cliff and he escaped them.. And how Jesus taught in the synagogue in Nazareth, etc.. If anything, archaeology has said Nazareth must have been a mere village or settlement at the proposed time of Jesus days. There was no synagogue and certainly there was no Cliffs adjacent to it where they could cast Jesus off of.

But this is off the top of my head.. I'd have to look up the sources I take this from.

I've read a debate on this recently, this was one of the issues.. the apologist used the defense that because Josephus didn't list it didn't mean it wasn't there.. Or in effect, Josephus only listed, say, 53 towns.. that didn't mean there weren't more towns in the region. But who knows.. it seems if Josephus went to the trouble of researching his land, he'd name them all. But see, there's always a loophole. Always. So you have to take what's presented and make your own conclusions.

 

[Jayrok]

You may not be an inerrantist though. 

You're right. I'm not. You seem to do a pretty good job arguing against certain strains of fundamentalism, which I guess is natural given your background. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that your religious upbringing could fairly be described as fundamentalist, right?). Your back-and-forth with Crosseyed and others is interesting, but it mainly serves to remind me of why I'm not a fundamentalist as opposed to challenging my overall belief in Christianity.

Yes, I was a fundy. But I find it hard to believe the bible in some parts and not others. I mean, if one story is just wrong or made up.. why would I believe other parts aren't the same? at least tampered with? If I can't believe that the flood occured as written, or that Genesis is historically true... then why would I be compelled to believe that the resurrection is historically true? I've heard the "baby with the bathwater" response often. And I understand this. But can you see my point? If Matthew made up something, then what value is that to me? How is this supposed to be "inspired"?

So I don't fully understand how someone could be a "liberal" christian and not take the bible for what it says. But power to you if you can.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Okay, I somehow ####ed up the nested quotes.  Wrath will now pour down upon me.

I do that often too.

As for the link, I'll have to do some digging at the house. I've read a few arguments on the subject. I haven't made any conclusions either way, but find it interesting none the less. Much is based on textual evidence from first century writers such as Josephus. Nazareth is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures, biblical or not. Josephus did an exhaustive listing of towns and cities in israel/syria and the whole region and listed all the towns but didn't mention Nazareth as one of them. The way nazareth as described in the gospels, like where the town was going to go throw Jesus off a nearby cliff and he escaped them.. And how Jesus taught in the synagogue in Nazareth, etc.. If anything, archaeology has said Nazareth must have been a mere village or settlement at the proposed time of Jesus days. There was no synagogue and certainly there was no Cliffs adjacent to it where they could cast Jesus off of.

But this is off the top of my head.. I'd have to look up the sources I take this from.

I've read a debate on this recently, this was one of the issues.. the apologist used the defense that because Josephus didn't list it didn't mean it wasn't there.. Or in effect, Josephus only listed, say, 53 towns.. that didn't mean there weren't more towns in the region. But who knows.. it seems if Josephus went to the trouble of researching his land, he'd name them all. But see, there's always a loophole. Always. So you have to take what's presented and make your own conclusions.

Okay, actually I completely misread what you wrote earlier. I thought you were asking if it would bother me if Jesus of Nazareth had never existed. I missed that you were just asking about the town of Nazareth. My bad.

 

[Jayrok]

Okay, I somehow ####ed up the nested quotes.  Wrath will now pour down upon me.

I do that often too.

As for the link, I'll have to do some digging at the house. I've read a few arguments on the subject. I haven't made any conclusions either way, but find it interesting none the less. Much is based on textual evidence from first century writers such as Josephus. Nazareth is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures, biblical or not. Josephus did an exhaustive listing of towns and cities in israel/syria and the whole region and listed all the towns but didn't mention Nazareth as one of them. The way nazareth as described in the gospels, like where the town was going to go throw Jesus off a nearby cliff and he escaped them.. And how Jesus taught in the synagogue in Nazareth, etc.. If anything, archaeology has said Nazareth must have been a mere village or settlement at the proposed time of Jesus days. There was no synagogue and certainly there was no Cliffs adjacent to it where they could cast Jesus off of.

But this is off the top of my head.. I'd have to look up the sources I take this from.

I've read a debate on this recently, this was one of the issues.. the apologist used the defense that because Josephus didn't list it didn't mean it wasn't there.. Or in effect, Josephus only listed, say, 53 towns.. that didn't mean there weren't more towns in the region. But who knows.. it seems if Josephus went to the trouble of researching his land, he'd name them all. But see, there's always a loophole. Always. So you have to take what's presented and make your own conclusions.

Okay, actually I completely misread what you wrote earlier. I thought you were asking if it would bother me if Jesus of Nazareth had never existed. I missed that you were just asking about the town of Nazareth. My bad.

The debate on an Historical Jesus vs Mythical Jesus is also being debated these days. Traditionally mainstream scholars reject the notion of a mythical Jesus. But recently, some are readdressing the issue in response to Earl Doherty's thesis/book on the subject. Some are beginning to take his work seriously. One scholar and historian has recently declared he is now a mythicist. But most still don't take the issue seriously. It's interesting to see it develop. Doherty's thesis is unlike the other traditional mythers like Anchara S, et al. No one really takes her seriously.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Okay, I somehow ####ed up the nested quotes.  Wrath will now pour down upon me.

I do that often too.

As for the link, I'll have to do some digging at the house. I've read a few arguments on the subject. I haven't made any conclusions either way, but find it interesting none the less. Much is based on textual evidence from first century writers such as Josephus. Nazareth is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures, biblical or not. Josephus did an exhaustive listing of towns and cities in israel/syria and the whole region and listed all the towns but didn't mention Nazareth as one of them. The way nazareth as described in the gospels, like where the town was going to go throw Jesus off a nearby cliff and he escaped them.. And how Jesus taught in the synagogue in Nazareth, etc.. If anything, archaeology has said Nazareth must have been a mere village or settlement at the proposed time of Jesus days. There was no synagogue and certainly there was no Cliffs adjacent to it where they could cast Jesus off of.

But this is off the top of my head.. I'd have to look up the sources I take this from.

I've read a debate on this recently, this was one of the issues.. the apologist used the defense that because Josephus didn't list it didn't mean it wasn't there.. Or in effect, Josephus only listed, say, 53 towns.. that didn't mean there weren't more towns in the region. But who knows.. it seems if Josephus went to the trouble of researching his land, he'd name them all. But see, there's always a loophole. Always. So you have to take what's presented and make your own conclusions.

Okay, actually I completely misread what you wrote earlier. I thought you were asking if it would bother me if Jesus of Nazareth had never existed. I missed that you were just asking about the town of Nazareth. My bad.

The debate on an Historical Jesus vs Mythical Jesus is also being debated these days. Traditionally mainstream scholars reject the notion of a mythical Jesus. But recently, some are readdressing the issue in response to Earl Doherty's thesis/book on the subject. Some are beginning to take his work seriously. One scholar and historian has recently declared he is now a mythicist. But most still don't take the issue seriously. It's interesting to see it develop. Doherty's thesis is unlike the other traditional mythers like Anchara S, et al. No one really takes her seriously.

Yeah, that's what I thought you were referring to. Again, my bad.

 

[On The Rocks]

Jesus Himself said that relatively few people would get into heaven, so it's not like this is some new concept.

Which begs the question further... when is his quota met? In order to reach the threshold of "relatively few", billions of other misfortunate slobs are in for a rude awakening.

my take on it is like this. in Matthew Jesus tells his followers to go and teach all nations. in Revelatoin it says that all nations, and people will be "represented" (my personal interpretation) around the throne in heaven. maybe he is waiting for the lazy fundamental evangelicals to get off their butt and get the word out to all nations and all people.

 

[HarryManback]

The Question for our resident Christians thread by NCC had a short side bar, as often happens in these threads, between a couple of posters. The post is here

The gist is that one poster thought it would be cool if the events in Israel were actually ushering in the end of times. Another poster thought it was selfish to wish this knowing others will go to hell while he was in heaven, etc.. A different poster then said "that's their choice".

This raises a question about the math behind God's plan. How many souls does God want or need before he decides to call an end to this whole human on earth experiment? This is assuming the Christian God is the one true God.

Is 40 million souls worshipping him for all eternity better than, say, 500?

Let's assume that 1 in 4 people throughout our world's history are "saved". This is obviously a very high estimate as it is probably more like 1 in 10 or so, given the multiple religions in the world different from Christianity. Maybe more than that, but let's assume 1 in 4. This means that there are 3 lost human souls that end up in hell for every 1 God gets. Since the ascension of Christ, God has extended his plan for almost 2000 years, and counting. During this time, billions of new people are born and have died. The longer the plan goes, the count destined for hell grows exponentially.

Note that according to Pauline, or orthodox, christianity... for one to go to hell one only has to be born into this sinful world. If they do nothing for their entire life, they miss out on heaven. Same if they pick the wrong faith, or never hear the gospel, etc..

Nevermind knowing the whole outcome in advance.. but if you could see that you were losing souls to eternal torment at a 3 to 1 rate (generous estimate), wouldn't you stop the carnage after, shoot, a few hundred years or so?

Why keep it going for thousands of years? What could God be gaining by doing this? Is there a special soul out there he's waiting on to make a decision?

Satan must be at this. I mean, surely he knows he's in for eternal punishment, but Moses on a pogo stick, he's dragging most of humanity down with him!

The coffee is getting low...

Jay,If I understand you correctly, you seem to be taking a very humanistic position that would seem to indicate man in-and-of himself has some intrinsic value, and questioning why the God who created us would choose to take some of us with him for eternal communion with Him, and yet cut off the rest of us from Himself at some (arbitrary?) time of His choosing. In other words why would a 'just, righteous, loving' god allow many of his creatures to perish.

This doesnt sit well with humanism. I think that Humanistic thinking is usually well-intentioned, but takes a backwards view of where man's value and worth comes from. Humanism fails to understand that my inherent/intrinsic value comes from God and my relationship to Him. God loving me says absolutely nothing about my worth and value, but rather speaks volumes about Him.

Do you think that if there is a creator that the creation (mankind) has any business whatsoever demanding 'full and complete understanding/disclosure' of what He is doing and why? Do you think that an 'infinite' creator (capable of creating entire universes filled with living beings) and his 'plan' could possibly be 'fully and completely' understood by his 'finite' creation?

I don't but perhaps we differ there...

I will be the first to admit that I don't understand why God has chosen to reveal Himself in the manner in which He has. Nor do I fully understand why he will allow some to be saved and others not. However, based on God's revelation to us I understand that He is holy, merciful, and just so I will trust that He also knows much better than what is best.

I also know that orthodox Christianity requires Christ to be the savior for all 'fallen' humans. However, I also understand that orthodox Christianity believes that God also weighs the 'heart' of a man, and that old testament 'saints' were saved because righteousness was 'credited' to them, even though Christ's redmptive work had not yet come.

Therefore, why do you say that a person that has never heard of Christ is automatically doomed? I agree that we are all dead b/c of sin and have no life without God. Without Him I'm D-E-A-D. I'll even go so far as to say that those of us who openly reject Christ, are foolishly choosing to walk away from our only hope. But I don't think that you can assume that some who choose to reject Christ are still 'innocent'. Nor do I think it is right to assume that those who haven't heard of Christ are without any hope.

Again I don't claim to fully understand the creator's methodology or the specifics, but I do understand that I have a God-given purpose within His overall plan, and that is enough for me. Man was ultimately created for Him and His purposes and this world will ultimately be made new at the time of God's choosing. I will always seek to better understand God, but it's a dangerous thing to think that we can judge Him or know better than the one who made us.

I'm scared for you man.

 

[Jayrok]

Jesus Himself said that relatively few people would get into heaven, so it's not like this is some new concept.

Which begs the question further... when is his quota met? In order to reach the threshold of "relatively few", billions of other misfortunate slobs are in for a rude awakening.

my take on it is like this. in Matthew Jesus tells his followers to go and teach all nations. in Revelatoin it says that all nations, and people will be "represented" (my personal interpretation) around the throne in heaven. maybe he is waiting for the lazy fundamental evangelicals to get off their butt and get the word out to all nations and all people.

Maybe there is still some countries that haven't had a chance to view TBN and Benny Hinn hasn't had a chance to have a crusade in all countries.

 

[babydemon90]

Good points!But, jayrock, our finite human minds cannot comprehend the reasons for why God does what he does.

I'm curious, if our finite minds cannot comprehend God, how does anyone claim to know with 100% certainty that they know the one and only way into heaven? Doesn't knowing that presuppose some insight and knowledge into God and his motives? Of course, if finite cannot comprehend infinite, then none of us, including Paul and the apostles, ever can fully comprehend the 100% truth.

 

[CrossEyed]

Good points!

But, jayrock, our finite human minds cannot comprehend the reasons for why God does what he does.

I'm curious, if our finite minds cannot comprehend God, how does anyone claim to know with 100% certainty that they know the one and only way into heaven? Doesn't knowing that presuppose some insight and knowledge into God and his motives? Of course, if finite cannot comprehend infinite, then none of us, including Paul and the apostles, ever can fully comprehend the 100% truth.

We can't understand 100% of God's truth but that doesn't mean there aren't things of which we can't be 100% certain.

 

[babydemon90]

Good points!

But, jayrock, our finite human minds cannot comprehend the reasons for why God does what he does. 

I'm curious, if our finite minds cannot comprehend God, how does anyone claim to know with 100% certainty that they know the one and only way into heaven? Doesn't knowing that presuppose some insight and knowledge into God and his motives? Of course, if finite cannot comprehend infinite, then none of us, including Paul and the apostles, ever can fully comprehend the 100% truth.

We can't understand 100% of God's truth but that doesn't mean there aren't things of which we can't be 100% certain.

Of course it does. If don't know the complete truth of God, you simply have no way of knowing what you don't know. So it is impossible for you to speak in certainties. EVen something like how to get eternal life has different interpretations in the Bible.

 

[CrossEyed]

Good points!

But, jayrock, our finite human minds cannot comprehend the reasons for why God does what he does.

I'm curious, if our finite minds cannot comprehend God, how does anyone claim to know with 100% certainty that they know the one and only way into heaven? Doesn't knowing that presuppose some insight and knowledge into God and his motives? Of course, if finite cannot comprehend infinite, then none of us, including Paul and the apostles, ever can fully comprehend the 100% truth.

We can't understand 100% of God's truth but that doesn't mean there aren't things of which we can't be 100% certain.

Of course it does. If don't know the complete truth of God, you simply have no way of knowing what you don't know. So it is impossible for you to speak in certainties. EVen something like how to get eternal life has different interpretations in the Bible.

No, it really doesn't. And it isn't impossible to be certain. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. The Bible couldn't be any clearer on this.

 

[rolyaTy]

Good points!

But, jayrock, our finite human minds cannot comprehend the reasons for why God does what he does.

I'm curious, if our finite minds cannot comprehend God, how does anyone claim to know with 100% certainty that they know the one and only way into heaven? Doesn't knowing that presuppose some insight and knowledge into God and his motives? Of course, if finite cannot comprehend infinite, then none of us, including Paul and the apostles, ever can fully comprehend the 100% truth.

But little demon, our finite minds can't even comprehend what our finite human minds can't comprehend. If something doesn't make sense, and seems to contradict scripture or common sense, we must assume that God has an answer, have faith that there is an answer, continue believing it, and not investigate the question or contradiction any further.

It's our obligation as believers to accept truth by faith, and reject discrepancies on faith as well. The more we're able to subjugate our reasoning, the greater our faith, and the less we subjugate our reasoning, the less our faith. Thus, the more finite our minds are, the greater our faith, and we all know God loves men of faith, right?

 

[Black Box]

Good points!

But, jayrock, our finite human minds cannot comprehend the reasons for why God does what he does.

I'm curious, if our finite minds cannot comprehend God, how does anyone claim to know with 100% certainty that they know the one and only way into heaven? Doesn't knowing that presuppose some insight and knowledge into God and his motives? Of course, if finite cannot comprehend infinite, then none of us, including Paul and the apostles, ever can fully comprehend the 100% truth.

That is, unless God condescended to man, and communicated to man how to get to heaven/what the truth is. And that is exactly what Christianity claimed happened in the person of Jesus Christ.

 

[babydemon90]

Good points!

But, jayrock, our finite human minds cannot comprehend the reasons for why God does what he does. 

I'm curious, if our finite minds cannot comprehend God, how does anyone claim to know with 100% certainty that they know the one and only way into heaven? Doesn't knowing that presuppose some insight and knowledge into God and his motives? Of course, if finite cannot comprehend infinite, then none of us, including Paul and the apostles, ever can fully comprehend the 100% truth.

We can't understand 100% of God's truth but that doesn't mean there aren't things of which we can't be 100% certain.

Of course it does. If don't know the complete truth of God, you simply have no way of knowing what you don't know. So it is impossible for you to speak in certainties. EVen something like how to get eternal life has different interpretations in the Bible.

No, it really doesn't. And it isn't impossible to be certain. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. The Bible couldn't be any clearer on this.

No, PAUL couldn't be clearer. Except that it also says if you want eternal life, keep the commandments. Maybe you also need to keep the Judaic Law? If people like Peter that spent years following Jesus around thought Christians needed to follow the Jewish law, it obviously isn't that cut and dried. And Paul also was human - so he, as well as us, had no way of fully comprehending the knowledge of God.

 

[rolyaTy]

Good points!

But, jayrock, our finite human minds cannot comprehend the reasons for why God does what he does.

I'm curious, if our finite minds cannot comprehend God, how does anyone claim to know with 100% certainty that they know the one and only way into heaven? Doesn't knowing that presuppose some insight and knowledge into God and his motives? Of course, if finite cannot comprehend infinite, then none of us, including Paul and the apostles, ever can fully comprehend the 100% truth.

That is, unless God condescended to man, and communicated to man how to get to heaven/what the truth is. And that is exactly what Christianity claimed happened in the person of Jesus Christ.

I hate it when God condescends to me. I mean, he's God, he knows everything. I'm just a human with a finite mind. No need to rub it in, God.

 

[Black Box]

Good points!

But, jayrock, our finite human minds cannot comprehend the reasons for why God does what he does.

I'm curious, if our finite minds cannot comprehend God, how does anyone claim to know with 100% certainty that they know the one and only way into heaven? Doesn't knowing that presuppose some insight and knowledge into God and his motives? Of course, if finite cannot comprehend infinite, then none of us, including Paul and the apostles, ever can fully comprehend the 100% truth.

That is, unless God condescended to man, and communicated to man how to get to heaven/what the truth is. And that is exactly what Christianity claimed happened in the person of Jesus Christ.

I hate it when God condescends to me. I mean, he's God, he knows everything. I'm just a human with a finite mind. No need to rub it in, God.

What mean you by this?

 

[Black Box]

No, PAUL couldn't be clearer. Except that it also says if you want eternal life, keep the commandments. Maybe you also need to keep the Judaic Law? If people like Peter that spent years following Jesus around thought Christians needed to follow the Jewish law, it obviously isn't that cut and dried. And Paul also was human - so he, as well as us, had no way of fully comprehending the knowledge of God.

Why the dichotomy between Paul and Peter?

 

[CrossEyed]

Good points!

But, jayrock, our finite human minds cannot comprehend the reasons for why God does what he does.

I'm curious, if our finite minds cannot comprehend God, how does anyone claim to know with 100% certainty that they know the one and only way into heaven? Doesn't knowing that presuppose some insight and knowledge into God and his motives? Of course, if finite cannot comprehend infinite, then none of us, including Paul and the apostles, ever can fully comprehend the 100% truth.

We can't understand 100% of God's truth but that doesn't mean there aren't things of which we can't be 100% certain.

Of course it does. If don't know the complete truth of God, you simply have no way of knowing what you don't know. So it is impossible for you to speak in certainties. EVen something like how to get eternal life has different interpretations in the Bible.

No, it really doesn't. And it isn't impossible to be certain. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. The Bible couldn't be any clearer on this.

No, PAUL couldn't be clearer. Except that it also says if you want eternal life, keep the commandments. Maybe you also need to keep the Judaic Law? If people like Peter that spent years following Jesus around thought Christians needed to follow the Jewish law, it obviously isn't that cut and dried. And Paul also was human - so he, as well as us, had no way of fully comprehending the knowledge of God.

Except that when Jesus told the rich young ruler that he could inherit eternal life by keeping the commandments He knew that it was impossible for any man to keep the commandments. He made that pretty clear in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was making the point that the only way to have eternal life is to put Him first. That's why when the man replied (incorrectly) that he had kept all of the commandments Jesus told him to sell everything and follow Him. The message is in the entire exchange, not just one verse.

 

[Black Box]

But little demon, our finite minds can't even comprehend what our finite human minds can't comprehend.

If something doesn't make sense, and seems to contradict scripture or common sense, we must assume that God has an answer, have faith that there is an answer, continue believing it, and not investigate the question or contradiction any further.

It's our obligation as believers to accept truth by faith, and reject discrepancies on faith as well. The more we're able to subjugate our reasoning, the greater our faith, and the less we subjugate our reasoning, the less our faith. Thus, the more finite our minds are, the greater our faith, and we all know God loves men of faith, right?

Interesting take on things, but a couple of points here:1) God's love for a person does not increase or decrease based on the amount of faith a person has. IOW, a man's faith does not influence God's love for that man. It is true that God desires faith, and in fact it is only faith that can save a person, but to say that faith influences God's love is incorrect.

2) You set up a scenario where reason is sacrificed at the alter of faith. And yet many, many Christians wrestle with "questions" or "contradictions" daily, absolve them within their worldview, and continue being Christians. Where do these people fall into your scenario? You make it sound like if you are intelligent, then you will certainly be an unbeliever, and Christians are as a whole complete devoid of intellect. If you believe that is true, I implore you to get out more

 

[rolyaTy]

Good points!

But, jayrock, our finite human minds cannot comprehend the reasons for why God does what he does.

I'm curious, if our finite minds cannot comprehend God, how does anyone claim to know with 100% certainty that they know the one and only way into heaven? Doesn't knowing that presuppose some insight and knowledge into God and his motives? Of course, if finite cannot comprehend infinite, then none of us, including Paul and the apostles, ever can fully comprehend the 100% truth.

That is, unless God condescended to man, and communicated to man how to get to heaven/what the truth is. And that is exactly what Christianity claimed happened in the person of Jesus Christ.

I hate it when God condescends to me. I mean, he's God, he knows everything. I'm just a human with a finite mind. No need to rub it in, God.

What mean you by this?

You know, when you make a mistake and God gets all hoity-toity with you. Like, I sin or something and God tells me how bad I am, and that I need His forgiveness, and then points out that his son never made any mistakes. Yeah, great God, your son was THE SON OF GOD. Sheesh, talk about unfair comparisons.

 

[Black Box]

I hate it when God condescends to me. I mean, he's God, he knows everything. I'm just a human with a finite mind. No need to rub it in, God.

What mean you by this?

You know, when you make a mistake and God gets all hoity-toity with you. Like, I sin or something and God tells me how bad I am, and that I need His forgiveness, and then points out that his son never made any mistakes. Yeah, great God, your son was THE SON OF GOD. Sheesh, talk about unfair comparisons.

Well, to be fair, God >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man And I think the point isn't rubbing it in, but how cool it is that God would do such a thing. Tough to fathom in our western egalitarian mindset though...

 

[babydemon90]

Good points!

But, jayrock, our finite human minds cannot comprehend the reasons for why God does what he does. 

I'm curious, if our finite minds cannot comprehend God, how does anyone claim to know with 100% certainty that they know the one and only way into heaven? Doesn't knowing that presuppose some insight and knowledge into God and his motives? Of course, if finite cannot comprehend infinite, then none of us, including Paul and the apostles, ever can fully comprehend the 100% truth.

We can't understand 100% of God's truth but that doesn't mean there aren't things of which we can't be 100% certain.

Of course it does. If don't know the complete truth of God, you simply have no way of knowing what you don't know. So it is impossible for you to speak in certainties. EVen something like how to get eternal life has different interpretations in the Bible.

No, it really doesn't. And it isn't impossible to be certain. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. The Bible couldn't be any clearer on this.

No, PAUL couldn't be clearer. Except that it also says if you want eternal life, keep the commandments. Maybe you also need to keep the Judaic Law? If people like Peter that spent years following Jesus around thought Christians needed to follow the Jewish law, it obviously isn't that cut and dried. And Paul also was human - so he, as well as us, had no way of fully comprehending the knowledge of God.

Except that when Jesus told the rich young ruler that he could inherit eternal life by keeping the commandments He knew that it was impossible for any man to keep the commandments. He made that pretty clear in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was making the point that the only way to have eternal life is to put Him first. That's why when the man replied (incorrectly) that he had kept all of the commandments Jesus told him to sell everything and follow Him. The message is in the entire exchange, not just one verse.

My point is that, in that exchange, it could be construed that through God, it IS possible to keep the commandments. Jesus may have put his own spin on the law, but he made it very clear that the law WAS to be followed. Point being, it is NOT perfectly clear, that fact that the apostles had numerous disagreements over it should tell us that.

 

[rolyaTy]

But little demon, our finite minds can't even comprehend what our finite human minds can't comprehend.

If something doesn't make sense, and seems to contradict scripture or common sense, we must assume that God has an answer, have faith that there is an answer, continue believing it, and not investigate the question or contradiction any further.

It's our obligation as believers to accept truth by faith, and reject discrepancies on faith as well. The more we're able to subjugate our reasoning, the greater our faith, and the less we subjugate our reasoning, the less our faith. Thus, the more finite our minds are, the greater our faith, and we all know God loves men of faith, right?

Interesting take on things, but a couple of points here:1) God's love for a person does not increase or decrease based on the amount of faith a person has. IOW, a man's faith does not influence God's love for that man. It is true that God desires faith, and in fact it is only faith that can save a person, but to say that faith influences God's love is incorrect.

2) You set up a scenario where reason is sacrificed at the alter of faith. And yet many, many Christians wrestle with "questions" or "contradictions" daily, absolve them within their worldview, and continue being Christians. Where do these people fall into your scenario? You make it sound like if you are intelligent, then you will certainly be an unbeliever, and Christians are as a whole complete devoid of intellect. If you believe that is true, I implore you to get out more

Nice response, no sarcasm here.1) I didn't imply that the more ones faith, the more God loves you. I just said that God loves men of faith, and the more you subject ones reasoning to faith, the more faithful you are. God loves men of faith, and it seems that if someone wants to become a great man of faith, the best thing to do is put all distractions, contradictions, complaints, behind him, and just totally, 100% believe it to be true no matter what. That would be the ultimate man of faith. Also, he'd have to practice what he believes, but that's not so much faith, as acting on faith.

2) There are many christians who are intelligent. There are many christians more intelligent than me (which is not that hard) even. But, within christianity, there is a rampant predisposition that when something comes up that disagress with a belief or teaching, the assumption is always that the teaching/belief is CORRECT, and that there has to be some explanation for the discrepancy. It's a fundamental assumption of 90+% of christians.

An equivalent would be both of us being in a room together, with something under a box that we can't see through. By faith, you assume you know what it is. I say I don't have enough information to know what it is, but I can tell you a lot of things it's not. For one, it can't be an elephant because the box isn't big enough. So it has to be something small, etc. I'm using my reasoning to come to a conclusion on what type of object is inside of the box.

You on the other hand, walked by a guy in the hallway, who you'd never seen before, never talked to, and don't know anything about other than he says "I have the truth." He proceeds to tell you that there are two zebras and a marmoset inside of the box, and gives you a piece of paper with their picture on it. That's good enough for you, so you enter the room and confidently tell me what's int he box.

I then proceed to say, "How can it be animals? Wouldn't they required air-holes? What about food...i don't see food being delivered, etc".

While you reply "Well, maybe these animals have oxygen tanks and don't require air for a long time, and maybe their dna has been rearranged such that they no longer need to eat food, but instead live off of energy waves floating through the air. I say that's silly, and you say that it's just a guess...you don't really know the answer, how could you, you've never seen inside the box, but you're CERTAIN there is a perfectly rational explanation for it.

All of your assumptions, all of your explanations are based upon a leap of faith, taking the word of a person you don't know, you don't know his credibility, you don't know for sure where he got the information, etc.

So I say, it doesn't make sense for it to be three animals. It doesn't make sense to me, what about their waste products? And you keep giving me hypothetical answers that are more reasonable than the ones I quoted above, but when pressed, you say you don't know, but once the box is lifted and the three animals are revealed, THEN you'll be able to answer my questions. But at that point, it won't matter anymore.

I'm challenging your beliefs through common sense, deduction, etc, and you're defending your beliefs that you hold based on faith, by giving hypothetical situations that may or may not be true, or you just totally say "I don't know, but i'm sure there's an answer" in the form of "my finite human mind can't grasp the complexity of God".

 

[rolyaTy]

I hate it when God condescends to me. I mean, he's God, he knows everything. I'm just a human with a finite mind. No need to rub it in, God.

What mean you by this?

You know, when you make a mistake and God gets all hoity-toity with you. Like, I sin or something and God tells me how bad I am, and that I need His forgiveness, and then points out that his son never made any mistakes. Yeah, great God, your son was THE SON OF GOD. Sheesh, talk about unfair comparisons.

Well, to be fair, God >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man And I think the point isn't rubbing it in, but how cool it is that God would do such a thing. Tough to fathom in our western egalitarian mindset though...

Is it still so cool when it turns out that God made us in such a way that we would require his salvation? God set up the game, he brought us into this world already in debt to Him, and then he paid off the debt he said we owed. How is this a cool thing? Sounds like a pretty raw deal to me.

 

[CrossEyed]

Good points!

But, jayrock, our finite human minds cannot comprehend the reasons for why God does what he does.

I'm curious, if our finite minds cannot comprehend God, how does anyone claim to know with 100% certainty that they know the one and only way into heaven? Doesn't knowing that presuppose some insight and knowledge into God and his motives? Of course, if finite cannot comprehend infinite, then none of us, including Paul and the apostles, ever can fully comprehend the 100% truth.

We can't understand 100% of God's truth but that doesn't mean there aren't things of which we can't be 100% certain.

Of course it does. If don't know the complete truth of God, you simply have no way of knowing what you don't know. So it is impossible for you to speak in certainties. EVen something like how to get eternal life has different interpretations in the Bible.

No, it really doesn't. And it isn't impossible to be certain. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. The Bible couldn't be any clearer on this.

No, PAUL couldn't be clearer. Except that it also says if you want eternal life, keep the commandments. Maybe you also need to keep the Judaic Law? If people like Peter that spent years following Jesus around thought Christians needed to follow the Jewish law, it obviously isn't that cut and dried. And Paul also was human - so he, as well as us, had no way of fully comprehending the knowledge of God.

Except that when Jesus told the rich young ruler that he could inherit eternal life by keeping the commandments He knew that it was impossible for any man to keep the commandments. He made that pretty clear in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was making the point that the only way to have eternal life is to put Him first. That's why when the man replied (incorrectly) that he had kept all of the commandments Jesus told him to sell everything and follow Him. The message is in the entire exchange, not just one verse.

My point is that, in that exchange, it could be construed that through God, it IS possible to keep the commandments. Jesus may have put his own spin on the law, but he made it very clear that the law WAS to be followed. Point being, it is NOT perfectly clear, that fact that the apostles had numerous disagreements over it should tell us that.

We disagree. When I read Jesus' teaching on the Law what I see is multiple attempts to show the people that the only way to earn salvation through the keeping of the Law is to keep it perfectly. Something that is impossible. Read this exchange and the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus' teaching that the Law cannot be kept is very clear.

 

[Verbal Kint]

All you need to know lies in the perfection of the banana.

 

[rolyaTy]

Hey guys, everyone who read any of my posts in this thread owes me a discussion fee. I generally charge about $1000 per argument, but because I like all of you people, I will release you from your debts to me. Aren't I a swell guy? Go ahead, tell all of your friends how great rolyaty is. He paid your debt, with his own money.

 

[Jayrok]

Good points!

But, jayrock, our finite human minds cannot comprehend the reasons for why God does what he does. 

I'm curious, if our finite minds cannot comprehend God, how does anyone claim to know with 100% certainty that they know the one and only way into heaven? Doesn't knowing that presuppose some insight and knowledge into God and his motives? Of course, if finite cannot comprehend infinite, then none of us, including Paul and the apostles, ever can fully comprehend the 100% truth.

Ah, but you see... Paul and the apostles were divinely inspired by God through the holy spirit.In other words, it wasn't Paul and the apostles speaking/writing to the churches and us. It was the HS. So, it wasn't Paul's idea that women should keep silent in church and keep their head covered as not to bring shame upon them... it was God saying this.

But Joyce Meyer and the like didn't agree.

 

[Black Box]

Interesting take on things, but a couple of points here:

1) God's love for a person does not increase or decrease based on the amount of faith a person has. IOW, a man's faith does not influence God's love for that man. It is true that God desires faith, and in fact it is only faith that can save a person, but to say that faith influences God's love is incorrect.

2) You set up a scenario where reason is sacrificed at the alter of faith. And yet many, many Christians wrestle with "questions" or "contradictions" daily, absolve them within their worldview, and continue being Christians. Where do these people fall into your scenario? You make it sound like if you are intelligent, then you will certainly be an unbeliever, and Christians are as a whole complete devoid of intellect. If you believe that is true, I implore you to get out more

Nice response, no sarcasm here.1) I didn't imply that the more ones faith, the more God loves you. I just said that God loves men of faith, and the more you subject ones reasoning to faith, the more faithful you are. God loves men of faith, and it seems that if someone wants to become a great man of faith, the best thing to do is put all distractions, contradictions, complaints, behind him, and just totally, 100% believe it to be true no matter what. That would be the ultimate man of faith. Also, he'd have to practice what he believes, but that's not so much faith, as acting on faith.

Ok, then, I misunderstood. And I will grant that it takes faith to believe in God and for salvation. I cannot prove that he exists. The best I can do is show that evidence points in that direction.

2) There are many christians who are intelligent. There are many christians more intelligent than me (which is not that hard) even. But, within christianity, there is a rampant predisposition that when something comes up that disagress with a belief or teaching, the assumption is always that the teaching/belief is CORRECT, and that there has to be some explanation for the discrepancy. It's a fundamental assumption of 90+% of christians.

Ok, that's fine. However, I do not have the burden of defending the state of Christianity today just as you do not have to defend the beliefs of other non-christians.

<snip>

I'm challenging your beliefs through common sense, deduction, etc, and you're defending your beliefs that you hold based on faith, by giving hypothetical situations that may or may not be true, or you just totally say "I don't know, but i'm sure there's an answer" in the form of "my finite human mind can't grasp the complexity of God".

I think you brought this up earlier in the thread, so I will refer back to my response to that post which I don't think anyone else responded to.... specifically the last couple of paragraphs.I will also add that I try to use hypothetical reasons in answering objections, that "fit" in the framework of the God that Christianity presents. Hence, I am attempting to "follow the evidence" that we have of God. If I am not doing that well enough, I apologize, and please point out where I am neglecting the fact that 3 animals can't fit under that box

 

[Black Box]

Is it still so cool when it turns out that God made us in such a way that we would require his salvation? God set up the game, he brought us into this world already in debt to Him, and then he paid off the debt he said we owed. How is this a cool thing? Sounds like a pretty raw deal to me.

This is kinda going into that other thread from a little while back. So I won't pick it up again here... but I guess the answers given in that thread were unsatisfactory to you. I'm sorry to hear that :(

 

[rolyaTy]

I will also add that I try to use hypothetical reasons in answering objections, that "fit" in the framework of the God that Christianity presents. Hence, I am attempting to "follow the evidence" that we have of God. If I am not doing that well enough, I apologize, and please point out where I am neglecting the fact that 3 animals can't fit under that box

Wow. I'm highly surprised that you went along with the analogy and made a very good point from within the framework. Not generally characteristic of people who disagree with my analogies. Just wanted to say that it's a pleasant surprise to stay on topic. Good stuff.And as for your previous post that you say no one replied to, i'm going to check it out right now.

 

[rolyaTy]

Thanks for the summary. I think the main problem with this logic stems from the underlying assumption that you want > 50% Christian. Then it would "tip the scales" and make it worth it, no?

You can run at a loss for a while, but continuing at 75% hellbound for thousands of years does seem a little uncaring. For a God who espouses eternal love, continuing a world in which 75% of the population meets with a horrible eternity is not the act, in my opinion, of a good God.

If we were talking of a loving God only, wouldn't he just send everyone to heaven no matter what? But the God of the Christian faith is also an infinitely just God. It seems, to me, that when one attribute or the other is focused on, problems arise. Perhaps in this case, God's love is shown to the 25% and his justice is shown to the 75%.

There's some truth to that, but realistically, it'd be hard to argue with a 3 heaven 1 hell ratio. The higher the ratio of heaven to hell, the harder it is to argue. I think, the fundamental problem with this concept is that there is a ratio at all. The predisposition towards hell for all mankind is the thing at issue here, the ratio that results is only a symptom.In otherwords, if we were all born into this world without sin, and there was a real possibility that we could live a sinless life if we wanted to, but some did, and some didn't, that would make more sense to me. If we were truly "Free" from birth, unfettered by burdens of our forefathers, or of our raging hormones, or societal tendencies, such that our resting state was neither totally good, or totally sinful, but rather somewhere smack in the middle, the concept of God saving the sinners would be much better. BUt the present premise, in which we ALL require salvation from the situation in which God put us is the problem. That problem results in the majority of humans going to hell. Jayrok's math is only the result of the fundamental tendency for all of mankind to go to hell. If that tendency weren't there, there would be less of an objection (for me, can't speak for him).

However, and I know there will be disagreement here based on previous discussions, because of the whole sin thing, mankind was headed for 0% heaven and 100% hell. God intervened, sent Christ, you know the drill. So perhaps in God's eyes, just getting 1 out of 4 is worth it because 25% > 0%.

What about man's eyes? God rigged the deck and made it such that we were 0% heaven bound and 100% hell bound. I didn't do it, you didn't do it. God created us into a situation where we REQUIRED his salvation, supposedly. Maybe in God's eyes, this seems fair, but to me, it seems like the God the bible describes created me into a world where I required him, and into a world where everyone did, and he knew that upwards of 75% wouldn't choose him, and he still takes those odds and waves at the 3/4 people as they go to hell.

What about man's eyes? We're not talking about that here. The question posed was totally from God's POV. So I answered it as such. So I'll take that bolded statement

Well, you mentioned for God, it might have been worth it. To me, it doesn't really matter what is worth it to a hypothetical God. If God exists, he should make sense. It doesn't make sense for a God to act in that way, to me - at least not the God I believe in. So therefore, from man's eyes, God's actions should seem fair and just, for why would we believe in an unjust and unfair God? Why would we want to worship him and be with him for eternity, if he throws away 3/4 people born due to his premise?Granted, if God exists, and he's the God you believe in, it doesn't really matter what we think of him. But the issue is that we're not sure he exists, but if he does exist, he should make sense to us and if we believe he's a "just" God, and our concepts of justice come from him, then at the least, his fundamental approach towards mankind should be Just as well.

Another option would be it has nothing to do with percentages and the goal is different. To run with the Iraq example, why would God continue in the fight if 3 out of 4 troops were brutally tortured? Maybe it is worth it for a loftier goal?

Another option would be that a single soul in heaven's goodness is weighted such that it outweights a soul in hell's badness (very utilitarian this one is). Then your equation would be 5 * a > 1 * b where a = souls in heaven and b = souls in hell, with appropriate weighting factors.

There are a lot of maybes. THere are an infinite number of maybes. But often times, the simplest answer is the most likely. To me, the simplest answer, taking all of the discussions we've had on the issue of christianity and God, is that the God of the bible doesn't make sense when examined analytically. So my conclusion is that christianity isn't 100% correct, and in fact, many of its premises are fundamentally flawed. My opinion only.

Of course there are million possible maybes. The contention was that "here's a problem... it doesn't make sense". I supplied some speculative answers to the dilemma, which, in my mind, make sense. These two possibilities listed here aren't at a "aliens-beamed-away-an-Eiffel-tower-from-my-basement" level of insanity.

You're right on the level of insanity. The answers you provided were quite reasonable, but they all start with the supposition, based on faith, that you are right. You then attempt to make explanations on why you're right, and any number of explanations could be reasonable and fit. But the process for safe conclusions isn't "Take an answer on faith, then come up with possible explanations." That's the problem I have with the concept of taking truth on faith, and then throwing out possible answers to satisfy it. Using that approach, there is no way anyone can disprove a belief, because there are always possible/plausible answers. And at worst, when you can't come up with a possible/plausible answer, christians resort to the "finite mind, infinite God" clause.

 

[rolyaTy]

You, nor I, nor anyone else can "prove" or "disprove" them, but that is the nature of what we are discussing, and I think you realize that. But I think it is false to say

The premise is biblical, so that seems to indicate that the bible doesn't make sense here.

when possible options do exist. I grant you that you believe the simplest answer is to wipe out ~2000 years of Christian belief on the basis of this discussion, because I cannot prove what the simplest answer is. But I disagree with that assessment, obviously, and that is my opinion

To you, 2000 years of belief seems to add credence to a belief, otherwise, why cite that number? But remember, for thousands more years, other erroneous theories were held by people, so keep that in mind before you assume that just because something is believed by a large number of people for a large number of years it has added credibility.I'm not attempting, or seeking to wipe out any number of years of belief. I'm attempting to credit or discredit fundamental beliefs. If they're true, they're true, regardless of who believes it and for how long, and if they're false, they're false, regardless of who believes it or for how long people have believed it. That's the underlying issue approached here.

 

[rolyaTy]

Is it still so cool when it turns out that God made us in such a way that we would require his salvation? God set up the game, he brought us into this world already in debt to Him, and then he paid off the debt he said we owed. How is this a cool thing? Sounds like a pretty raw deal to me.

This is kinda going into that other thread from a little while back. So I won't pick it up again here... but I guess the answers given in that thread were unsatisfactory to you. I'm sorry to hear that :(

The main answer I remember getting was that I'm approaching the concept backwards. Instead of focusing on his grace, i'm focusing on the burden he gave us. Instead of focusing on the good associated with christianity, i'm focusing on the negative.But to me, either way, christianity has a lot of good teachings. It's a great philosophy and way to live your lives, when done correctly. But I can apprecaite that, and disagree with one of the fundamental concepts of christianity at the same time.

 

[guru_007]

Does God have an infinite amount of souls to draw upon?

 

[Jayrok]

No, PAUL couldn't be clearer. Except that it also says if you want eternal life, keep the commandments. Maybe you also need to keep the Judaic Law? If people like Peter that spent years following Jesus around thought Christians needed to follow the Jewish law, it obviously isn't that cut and dried. And Paul also was human - so he, as well as us, had no way of fully comprehending the knowledge of God.

Except that when Jesus told the rich young ruler that he could inherit eternal life by keeping the commandments He knew that it was impossible for any man to keep the commandments. He made that pretty clear in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was making the point that the only way to have eternal life is to put Him first. That's why when the man replied (incorrectly) that he had kept all of the commandments Jesus told him to sell everything and follow Him. The message is in the entire exchange, not just one verse.

First, I believe BabyDemon is correct that the Epistles of Paul is fairly clear about salvation through grace. But the rest of the bible is not so clear. And I agree with you that the message is the entire exchange, not one verse. So what about the rest of the exchange?

Jesus told the Rich man to keep the commandments if he wanted eternal life. The man replied that he had kept them. At this point, Jesus does not tell him he is mistaken, nor elude to the fact that keeping the laws really have nothing to do with entering heaven. Instead, he tells the man if he wants to be perfect, then sell his things and give to the poor, then follow him. If he does this, he will have treasures in heaven.

In this exchange, it appears that to go to heaven, you need to keep the laws. But to receive rewards in heaven, you have to be perfect... sell your things, leave your family and follow Jesus.

Jesus does not correct the man and say the laws are useless in the grand scheme of things, as paul does. In the sermon on the mount, he encourages his followers to be "perfect". That is, give up yourself. For this, you will receive treasures in heaven.

But he does not clarify by saying to "Enter heaven" you must sell your things and follow him.

 

[CrossEyed]

No, PAUL couldn't be clearer. Except that it also says if you want eternal life, keep the commandments. Maybe you also need to keep the Judaic Law? If people like Peter that spent years following Jesus around thought Christians needed to follow the Jewish law, it obviously isn't that cut and dried. And Paul also was human - so he, as well as us, had no way of fully comprehending the knowledge of God.

Except that when Jesus told the rich young ruler that he could inherit eternal life by keeping the commandments He knew that it was impossible for any man to keep the commandments. He made that pretty clear in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was making the point that the only way to have eternal life is to put Him first. That's why when the man replied (incorrectly) that he had kept all of the commandments Jesus told him to sell everything and follow Him. The message is in the entire exchange, not just one verse.

First, I believe BabyDemon is correct that the Epistles of Paul is fairly clear about salvation through grace. But the rest of the bible is not so clear. And I agree with you that the message is the entire exchange, not one verse. So what about the rest of the exchange?

Jesus told the Rich man to keep the commandments if he wanted eternal life. The man replied that he had kept them. At this point, Jesus does not tell him he is mistaken, nor elude to the fact that keeping the laws really have nothing to do with entering heaven. Instead, he tells the man if he wants to be perfect, then sell his things and give to the poor, then follow him. If he does this, he will have treasures in heaven.

In this exchange, it appears that to go to heaven, you need to keep the laws. But to receive rewards in heaven, you have to be perfect... sell your things, leave your family and follow Jesus.

Jesus does not correct the man and say the laws are useless in the grand scheme of things, as paul does. In the sermon on the mount, he encourages his followers to be "perfect". That is, give up yourself. For this, you will receive treasures in heaven.

But he does not clarify by saying to "Enter heaven" you must sell your things and follow him.

So do you think that when Jesus told people to "be perfect, just as your Father in Heaven is perfect" He meant people to take that literally? Or was He using hyperbole to make a point that nobody could ever be good enough on their own by following the Law?

 

[Jayrok]

Another thing about the Rich man and Jesus' explanation, from the evangelical christian point of view...

It is written that faith in Jesus is the only way to heaven. And as CE said, Jesus said to get there, you go through him. But how does he explain this?

After his conversation with the rich man, Peter told Jesus that he and the other disciples had left their homes and followed him... what else is there for them?

Jesus replied: I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

If you take this exchange for what it says, in order to receive rewards and inherit eternal life, you must leave your house, family, father or mother, your land, etc .. for Jesus' sake.

This says nothing of simply having faith in Jesus as Lord. Contrast this with Mark 16 where Jesus says those who believe in him and are baptized will be saved. Well, if Mark 16's Jesus is correct, does that mean we don't really have to sell everything and leave our land for his sake? Then why does he preach this in Matthew 19?

As a side note, in fact, this sounds like a bit of "work", leaving things behind to follow Jesus.

I wonder how many christians have done this. In fact, if someone did do this, society, including christians, might think they are nuts... and for good reason.

This has cult written all over it. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Hale Bob dude, Jim Jones, reverend moon, and a list of others. But yet all of these are discounted as loons.

The pharisees and others may have thought of Jesus Christ the same way. Yet millions of christians believe the stories written (decades later even) about this "loon" cult leader, Jesus, are not only factual, but 100% accurate.

Then they argue about what the books say about the criteria to enter heaven.

But what if the real way to enter heaven is as Jesus describes here in Matthew? What if you have to sell everything.. or lose yourself to gain life?

Of course, modern man interprets and reinterprets Jesus' words as he sees fit and as culture and religion evolves.

But the question for christians is... are you doing everything you can, everthing Jesus said to do, to be "perfect"? if not, why?

 

[Jayrok]

No, PAUL couldn't be clearer.  Except that it also says if you want eternal life, keep the commandments.  Maybe you also need to keep the Judaic Law?  If people like Peter that spent years following Jesus around thought Christians needed to follow the Jewish law, it obviously isn't that cut and dried.  And Paul also was human - so he, as well as us, had no way of fully comprehending the knowledge of God.

Except that when Jesus told the rich young ruler that he could inherit eternal life by keeping the commandments He knew that it was impossible for any man to keep the commandments. He made that pretty clear in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was making the point that the only way to have eternal life is to put Him first. That's why when the man replied (incorrectly) that he had kept all of the commandments Jesus told him to sell everything and follow Him. The message is in the entire exchange, not just one verse.

First, I believe BabyDemon is correct that the Epistles of Paul is fairly clear about salvation through grace. But the rest of the bible is not so clear. And I agree with you that the message is the entire exchange, not one verse. So what about the rest of the exchange?

Jesus told the Rich man to keep the commandments if he wanted eternal life. The man replied that he had kept them. At this point, Jesus does not tell him he is mistaken, nor elude to the fact that keeping the laws really have nothing to do with entering heaven. Instead, he tells the man if he wants to be perfect, then sell his things and give to the poor, then follow him. If he does this, he will have treasures in heaven.

In this exchange, it appears that to go to heaven, you need to keep the laws. But to receive rewards in heaven, you have to be perfect... sell your things, leave your family and follow Jesus.

Jesus does not correct the man and say the laws are useless in the grand scheme of things, as paul does. In the sermon on the mount, he encourages his followers to be "perfect". That is, give up yourself. For this, you will receive treasures in heaven.

But he does not clarify by saying to "Enter heaven" you must sell your things and follow him.

So do you think that when Jesus told people to "be perfect, just as your Father in Heaven is perfect" He meant people to take that literally? Or was He using hyperbole to make a point that nobody could ever be good enough on their own by following the Law?

He told them what they could do to be perfect. They don't have to be like "God" as in all-powerful, etc.. The rich man said he followed the commandments. Jesus didn't correct him by saying no you really can't follow them. He told him to be perfect, since he follows God's laws, he can sell his things and give to the poor. Why would Jesus purposely trap them in a technical flaw and where does Jesus say the laws cannot be followed? In fact, the bible does say that the laws can be followed and they are not too hard for the Israelites to follow. There are examples of people in the bible who have kept them and were considered righteous. The NT is not the only set of books in the canon.

 

[CrossEyed]

No, PAUL couldn't be clearer. Except that it also says if you want eternal life, keep the commandments. Maybe you also need to keep the Judaic Law? If people like Peter that spent years following Jesus around thought Christians needed to follow the Jewish law, it obviously isn't that cut and dried. And Paul also was human - so he, as well as us, had no way of fully comprehending the knowledge of God.

Except that when Jesus told the rich young ruler that he could inherit eternal life by keeping the commandments He knew that it was impossible for any man to keep the commandments. He made that pretty clear in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus was making the point that the only way to have eternal life is to put Him first. That's why when the man replied (incorrectly) that he had kept all of the commandments Jesus told him to sell everything and follow Him. The message is in the entire exchange, not just one verse.

First, I believe BabyDemon is correct that the Epistles of Paul is fairly clear about salvation through grace. But the rest of the bible is not so clear. And I agree with you that the message is the entire exchange, not one verse. So what about the rest of the exchange?

Jesus told the Rich man to keep the commandments if he wanted eternal life. The man replied that he had kept them. At this point, Jesus does not tell him he is mistaken, nor elude to the fact that keeping the laws really have nothing to do with entering heaven. Instead, he tells the man if he wants to be perfect, then sell his things and give to the poor, then follow him. If he does this, he will have treasures in heaven.

In this exchange, it appears that to go to heaven, you need to keep the laws. But to receive rewards in heaven, you have to be perfect... sell your things, leave your family and follow Jesus.

Jesus does not correct the man and say the laws are useless in the grand scheme of things, as paul does. In the sermon on the mount, he encourages his followers to be "perfect". That is, give up yourself. For this, you will receive treasures in heaven.

But he does not clarify by saying to "Enter heaven" you must sell your things and follow him.

So do you think that when Jesus told people to "be perfect, just as your Father in Heaven is perfect" He meant people to take that literally? Or was He using hyperbole to make a point that nobody could ever be good enough on their own by following the Law?

He told them what they could do to be perfect. They don't have to be like "God" as in all-powerful, etc.. The rich man said he followed the commandments. Jesus didn't correct him by saying no you really can't follow them. He told him to be perfect, since he follows God's laws, he can sell his things and give to the poor. Why would Jesus purposely trap them in a technical flaw and where does Jesus say the laws cannot be followed? In fact, the bible does say that the laws can be followed and they are not too hard for the Israelites to follow. There are examples of people in the bible who have kept them and were considered righteous. The NT is not the only set of books in the canon.

As I read Scripture, I don't see that anyone was considered righteous because of their works or their ability to follow the Law. People were considered righteous because of their faith in God.