Question for Christians on Morality

[stiggy wiggy]

What's the point of it not passing away if there's no need to keep it?

The law foreshadowed the gospel. We don't follow instructions to slay lambs, but the efficacy of the slain Lamb of God is being fulfilled. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. The law will continue to point to Jesus' sacrifice.

I figured Jesus would supersede anything Peter had to say.

No, you can't weasel out of this one. You said that Peter said to follow the law. You screwed up.

 

[Furion]

Actually Jesus taught salvation through righteousness. The righteous do not commit sin.

You guys really need to brush up on your theology.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Actually Jesus taught salvation through righteousness. The righteous do not commit sin.

Matthew 5
20“For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
48“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Atheist here, but I will take a crack at it: he said this knowing that it was impossible.

If you ask me how you can stop your wife divorcing you and I say "just go back in time and don't cheat on her", I'm conveying the point Jesus was: you can't.

He said what he said to stress that he was the only way.

(He also said "Why do you call me good? There is none good, but God".)

The righteousness he refers to is only conferred righteousness, by virtue of having been saved.

 

[Algernon]

Atheist here, but I will take a crack at it: he said this knowing that it was impossible.

If you ask me how you can stop your wife divorcing you and I say "just go back in time and don't cheat on her", I'm conveying the point Jesus was: you can't.

The righteousness he refers to is only conferred righteousness, by virtue of having been saved.

This is a specious position that seems to be held by many Christians. The first concept is "The total depravity of man". This concept is completely alien to the gospel preached by Jesus. As is the second concept of "imputed righteousness". While preaching His gospel, Jesus spoke of neither. If you believe that He did, then cite the passages. The fact is that He repeatedly pointed in the opposite direction.

It also doesn't hold water if one takes a holistic view of the gospel preached by Jesus. For example:
John 8
"34Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."
" 31 ...If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
"36So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. "
" 35The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.
51Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.”

Once again, it is only the truly righteous - that is those who do not commit sin - who are His "true disciples". That will "remain in the house forever". That will "never see death". There's plenty more besides.

He said what he said to stress that he was the only way.

(He also said "Why do you call me good? There is none good, but God".)

More arguments held by many Christians that are dubious if not specious. Taken out of context or otherwise misunderstood. They read so much into so little. Did you get ahold of their playbook? "Perfect" doesn't mean perfect. "Righteous" doesn't mean righteous. ""Repentance" doesn't mean repentance. The list goes on and on. Their position is laughably weak. There's more than a little bit of "motivated reasoning" going on there.

If you're really interested in understanding this topic, I can lay it all out for you. However, my experience on CARM has been that the vast majority of posters aren't really interested. They just want to participate in a bit of superficial jousting.

 

[Eightcrackers]

This is a specious position that seems to be held by many Christians. The first concept is "The total depravity of man". This concept is completely alien to the gospel preached by Jesus. As is the second concept of "imputed righteousness". While preaching His gospel, Jesus spoke of neither. If you believe that He did, then cite the passages. The fact is that He repeatedly pointed in the opposite direction.

It also doesn't hold water if one takes a holistic view of the gospel preached by Jesus. For example:
John 8
"34Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."
" 31 ...If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
"36So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. "
" 35The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever.
51Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.”

Once again, it is only the truly righteous - that is those who do not commit sin - who are His "true disciples". That will "remain in the house forever". That will "never see death". There's plenty more besides.


More arguments held by many Christians that are dubious if not specious. Taken out of context or otherwise misunderstood. They read so much into so little. Did you get ahold of their playbook? "Perfect" doesn't mean perfect. "Righteous" doesn't mean righteous. ""Repentance" doesn't mean repentance. The list goes on and on. Their position is laughably weak. There's more than a little bit of "motivated reasoning" going on there.

If you're really interested in understanding this topic, I can lay it all out for you. However, my experience on CARM has been that the vast majority of posters aren't really interested. They just want to participate in a bit of superficial jousting.

John 14:6:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

[5wize]

John 14:6:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The book of John and Revelation were the late century result of not having the expected supernatural son of man on a cloud ending to the gospel narrative. They remind me of Steven King when he can't figure out how to end a story and the publisher is tapping his watch. The stuff that's put down on paper gets crazy.

 

[Furion]

Once again, it is only the truly righteous - that is those who do not commit sin

Your premise is faulty, so then are the conclusions. What exactly is "truly" supposed to signify here?

Just sayin, this is the atheist forum, and you are an atheist. I certainly would not put in the time with an atheist on this subject. Do you have a compelling reason?

 

[Algernon]

John 14:6:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

That's all you have in response to all the points I made in my post? Really?

Tell you what. Explain what you think Jesus is conveying in that verse. In other words, what are the underlying concepts? Then walk me step by step in how you get from that verse to Jesus was not teaching salvation through righteousness.

 

[Algernon]

Your premise is faulty, so then are the conclusions. What exactly is "truly" supposed to signify here?

Just sayin, this is the atheist forum, and you are an atheist. I certainly would not put in the time with an atheist on this subject. Do you have a compelling reason?

I wish you were kidding. Write something of substance and give me a compelling reason to open this discussion up to you.

 

[Algernon]

The book of John and Revelation were the late century result of not having the expected supernatural son of man on a cloud ending to the gospel narrative. They remind me of Steven King when he can't figure out how to end a story and the publisher is tapping his watch. The stuff that's put down on paper gets crazy.

Actually the book of John is conceptually deep in many ways. Of the four gospels, it by far gives the most insight into the depths of the gospel preached by Jesus.

 

[Eightcrackers]

That's all you have in response to all the points I made in my post? Really?

Tell you what. Explain what you think Jesus is conveying in that verse. In other words, what are the underlying concepts? Then walk me step by step in how you get from that verse to Jesus was not teaching salvation through righteousness.

You said that a man can just "not sin" and be sufficiently righteous, yes?
"Not sinning" does not entail going "by Jesus"; you just behave yourself.

In saying "... by me", Jesus is saying that he - the man, not his instructions - is integral to the process.

 

[Furion]

I wish you were kidding. Write something of substance and give me a compelling reason to open this discussion up to you.

lol. Adios

 

[Algernon]

You said that a man can just "not sin" and be sufficiently righteous, yes?
"Not sinning" does not entail going "by Jesus"; you just behave yourself.

Yes. Many Christians, especially fundamentalists, try to make out that the entirety of the Bible presents a single coherent message. This is not true. More specifically to this topic, that the "total depravity of man" is consistently presented throughout. The fact is that it is not. What's more, if you look at the OT verses often cited by Christians that "prove" that it is impossible for any human being to not commit sin, they are taken out of context and don't say what they purport them to say. The "total depravity of man" argument is a house of cards. As but one example of the righteous:

Luke 1
5In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

Jesus was aware of this when He said things such as:
Luke 5
31And Jesus answered and said to them, “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. 32“I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”
Luke 15
7“I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

The gospel preached by Jesus is not aimed at those who are already righteous, but toward sinners in need of repentance.

In saying "... by me", Jesus is saying that he - the man, not his instructions - is integral to the process.

Only by a very simple-minded literal interpretation of that verse. That's a lot to read into the words "by me". Especially knowing that Jesus often used figurative language. With everything that I've written in our discussion in mind, what might Jesus be conveying in that verse that is more logically consistent with the gospel preached by Jesus in its entirety?

 

[Algernon]

lol. Adios

You certainly are a prideful thing.

 

[5wize]

Actually the book of John is conceptually deep in many ways. Of the four gospels, it by far gives the most insight into the depths of the gospel preached by Jesus.

Well, obviously I don't believe that (other than the conceptually deep part - that I agree with). I'm of the vein of thought that after Mark there was a bit of a struggle to connect Jesus to both the message of Paul and the OT Prophets through some pretty strained narrative gymnastics such as the nativity in Matt. By the end of the century there were many competing ideas vying to make sense of it and put some universal gnostic spin on it all - but not all out Essene gnostic. That would be heresy. Nothing would explain the lack of the kingdom but revamping who and what Jesus was. No church of Jerusalem left to stop or approve any gospel or epistle message - even Paul's.

 

[Algernon]

Well, obviously I don't believe that (other than the conceptually deep part - that I agree with). I'm of the vein of thought that after Mark there was a bit of a struggle to connect Jesus to both the message of Paul and the OT Prophets through some pretty strained narrative gymnastics such as the nativity in Matt. By the end of the century there were many competing ideas vying to make sense of it and put some universal gnostic spin on it all - but not all out Essene gnostic. That would be heresy. Nothing would explain the lack of the kingdom but revamping who and what Jesus was. No church of Jerusalem left to stop or approve any gospel or epistle message - even Paul's.

For everything I wrote in my previous post, what I had in mind was the gospel preached by Jesus within the book of John. Should have worded it better. My apologies. The mythology that the authors of the four gospels wrapped around the words spoken by Jesus is largely there to serve the gospel taught by Paul and gets in the way of Jesus' message. The gospel taught by Paul is pretty much antithetical to the gospel preached by Jesus.

 

[docphin5]

Actually the book of John is conceptually deep in many ways. Of the four gospels, it by far gives the most insight into the depths of the gospel preached by Jesus.

I was just reading Baur’s “The Church History…” in which he basically said that the fourth gospel cannot be reconciled with the synoptic gospels. If it were to be reconciled with them then the synoptic gospels would have no historical basis. So most scholars compartmentalize it filing it under the gnostic category because its christ is supramundane without beginning or end. Whereas the synoptics start with a human who the holy spirit descends upon. Essentialy two different Christs.

 

[Algernon]

I was just reading Baur’s “The Church History…” in which he basically said that the fourth gospel cannot be reconciled with the synoptic gospels. If it were to be reconciled with them then the synoptic gospels would have no historical basis. So most scholars compartmentalize it filing it under the gnostic category because its christ is supramundane without beginning or end. Whereas the synoptics start with a human who the holy spirit descends upon. Essentialy two different Christs.

Please see my response to @5wize in post#136. The gospel preached by Jesus can be reasonably reconciled across the four gospels. But I'm guessing that that wasn't Baur's point.

 

[docphin5]

For everything I wrote in my previous post, what I had in mind was the gospel preached by Jesus within the book of John. Should have worded it better. My apologies. The mythology that the authors of the four gospels wrapped around the words spoken by Jesus is largely there to serve the gospel taught by Paul and gets in the way of Jesus' message. The gospel taught by Paul is pretty much antithetical to the gospel preached by Jesus.

Baur says that the Sermon on the Mount expresses the principle, original element of Christianity that is characterized by its single founder. He said that in 1852 before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

News flash! The sermon on the Mount sounds very similar to what the Teacher of Righteousness wrote around 100 B.C. For example,

”Blessed is the one who…with a pure heart and does not slander with his tongue. Blessed are those who hold fast to its statutes and do not hold fast to the ways of injustice. Blessed are those who rejoice in it, and do not exult in paths of folly. Blessed are those who seek it with pure hands, and do not search for it with a deceitful heart. Blessed is the man who attains wisdom, and walks in the law of the most high: establishes his heart in its ways, …And now my sons, listen to me and do not turn aside [from the words of my mouth]. (Dead sea scrolls, 4q525)

The church is approaching a day of reckoning with regards to its original founder. When it does I imagine an implosion of faith in its leaders.

 

[docphin5]

Please see my response to @5wize in post#136. The gospel preached by Jesus can be reasonably reconciled across the four gospels. But I'm guessing that that wasn't Baur's point.

I think he meant that the nature of Christ cannot be reconciled between GoJohn and the synoptics. It is either one or the other. And if one must choose then it necessarily must be GoJohn resulting in the synoptics being unreliable for any historical purposes.