Question for Christians on Morality

Algernon

Active member
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.
By "nature of Christ" is Baur referring to the mythology that the authors of the four gospels wrapped around the words spoken by Jesus or something else?
 

docphin5

Well-known member
By "nature of Christ" is Baur referring to the mythology that the authors of the four gospels wrapped around the words spoken by Jesus or something else?
Per Baur,

” If it be assumed that the four gospels agree with each other and are capable of being harmonized, then the absolute importance which the gospel of John assigns to the person of Jesus must determine our whole view of the gospel history. We must then regard Christianity as consisting in the fact of the incarnation of the eternal Logos: it is a miracle in the strictest sense, and absolutely. The human is lost in the divine, the natural in the supernatural. Whenever the first three gospels disagree with the fourth, the authority of the latter must be held to be decisive. This however, amounts to a complete abandonment of all historical treatment of the gospel history.”
(Baur, The Church History…, pg 25)

Earlier he writes,

”[we] recognize the divergences between the Johannine gospel and the three synoptics as amounting to a contradiction which renders a historical unity impossible.”
 

Algernon

Active member
Per Baur,

” If it be assumed that the four gospels agree with each other and are capable of being harmonized, then the absolute importance which the gospel of John assigns to the person of Jesus must determine our whole view of the gospel history. We must then regard Christianity as consisting in the fact of the incarnation of the eternal Logos: it is a miracle in the strictest sense, and absolutely. The human is lost in the divine, the natural in the supernatural. Whenever the first three gospels disagree with the fourth, the authority of the latter must be held to be decisive. This however, amounts to a complete abandonment of all historical treatment of the gospel history.”
(Baur, The Church History…, pg 25)

Earlier he writes,

”[we] recognize the divergences between the Johannine gospel and the three synoptics as amounting to a contradiction which renders a historical unity impossible.”
Interesting. Based on that, it would seem to be the mythology that Jesus was literally incarnated as the word of God. The words spoken by Jesus at times seem to imply a figurative incarnation as the word of God, but that's about as far as it goes.
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
Interesting. Based on that, it would seem to be the mythology that Jesus was literally incarnated as the word of God. The words spoken by Jesus at times seem to imply a figurative incarnation, but that's about as far as it goes.
I take the Gospel Jesus as a cypher for the Holy Spirit indwelling Paul (and the Teacher of Righteousness). The Holy Spirit is named by Paul as Jesus in his epistles. Moreover, the author of GoJohn was a Hellenist Jew or Gentile familiar with Greek Divine Logos (i.e.,Reason or Mind) which is equivalent to the Holy Spirit.

Put it together, Paul had the mind of Christ (1 cor 2:16). IOW, his consciousness was open to divine revelation. To wit, God was speaking to him and through him, God was speaking indirectly to us. The Gospels were composed in poetic language to glorify and canonize the message delivered by Paul ( and the TOR). It is why there is no historical unity between them, because they are first and foremost poetry.
 
Last edited:

5wize

Well-known member
I take the Gospel Jesus as a cypher for the Holy Spirit indwelling Paul (and the Teacher of Righteousness). The Holy Spirit is named by Paul as Jesus in his epistles. Moreover, the author of GoJohn was a Hellenist Jew or Gentile familiar with Greek Divine Logos (i.e.,Reason or Mind) which is equivalent to the Holy Spirit.

Put it together, Paul had the mind of Christ (1 cor 2:16). IOW, his consciousness was open to divine revelation. To wit, God was speaking to him and through him, God was speaking indirectly to us. The Gospels were composed in poetic language to glorify and canonize the message delivered by Paul ( and the TOR). It is why there is no historical unity between them, because they are first and foremost poetry.
Why did Paul need to mention Jesus at all then? Why didn't he just come out and say his consciousness was open to divine revelation and God was speaking to him and through him and therefor to us? Why did he defer his purpose to a failed and crucified Jewish messiah? To what end? If that is all true, see how badly that goofed stuff up? As a result, I know only one Gnostic in this world - you.
 
Last edited:

Algernon

Active member
I take the Gospel Jesus as a cypher for the Holy Spirit indwelling Paul (and the Teacher of Righteousness). The Holy Spirit is named by Paul as Jesus in his epistles. Moreover, the author of GoJohn was a Hellenist Jew or Gentile familiar with Greek Divine Logos (i.e.,Reason or Mind) which is equivalent to the Holy Spirit.

Put it together, Paul had the mind of Christ (1 cor 2:16). IOW, his consciousness was open to divine revelation. To wit, God was speaking to him and through him, God was speaking indirectly to us. The Gospels were composed in poetic language to glorify and canonize the message delivered by Paul ( and the TOR). It is why there is no historical unity between them, because they are first and foremost poetry.
Yes. I recall that you think highly of Paul.

If Paul had the "mind of Christ", then why is Paul's gospel at odds with the words spoken by Jesus while He preached His gospel? Shouldn't the underlying concepts be one and the same? They aren't.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Yes. I recall that you think highly of Paul.

If Paul had the "mind of Christ", then why is Paul's gospel at odds with the words spoken by Jesus while He preached His gospel? Shouldn't the underlying concepts be one and the same? They aren't.

At odds?

Quite false.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
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.
No, you can't weasel out of this one. You said that Peter said to follow the law. You screwed up.
Ok so Peter didn't say it. Yeah you got me.
The foreshadowing is garbage. Saying it points to Jesus death as payment for transgressions doesn't undo the need to follow the law.
It just means you don't have to make a blood sacrifice when you fail to do so.
 

BMS

Well-known member
So the laws about sex are not moral laws because they are laws about sex? Just because a law is in one classification does not mean that the law cannot be in a different classification as well.


If there is no explanation given, then how can you know what the marriage plan is? The marriage laws have certainly changed, which means that they are not unchanging moral laws.


I have. The laws are listed there, but they are not classified into groups. Later, Jesus says that He is not going to change any of those Mosaic laws, yet His followers have changed some of them. Jesus put all the laws into a single unchanging classification, while others have split them into the ones that still apply and the ones that no longer apply.

A pity that, the law against cotton-polyester shirts was a good one. :)
As far as sexual laws in Leviticus are concened, they just reflect the faithful union of man and woman which is a creation event.
You are seeing the dietry laws and the sexual laws as laws whereas the sexual design of God is for all time and not just within the Levitical laws
 

rossum

Well-known member
As far as sexual laws in Leviticus are concened, they just reflect the faithful union of man and woman which is a creation event.
You are seeing the dietry laws and the sexual laws as laws whereas the sexual design of God is for all time and not just within the Levitical laws
As I pointed out, the laws on marriage have changed; specifically, the number of wives a man can have simultaneously. Your reference to the initial couple obviously carries no weight with God, since He allowed men to have many wives after Adam and Eve.

I find it interesting that an allegedly unchanging God can change His mind on moral matters.
 

BMS

Well-known member
As I pointed out, the laws on marriage have changed; specifically, the number of wives a man can have simultaneously. Your reference to the initial couple obviously carries no weight with God, since He allowed men to have many wives after Adam and Eve.

I find it interesting that an allegedly unchanging God can change His mind on moral matters.
No. Jesus affirms the creation purpose for man and woman in union as the image of God as it was in the beginning. Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5 etc, referencing Gen 1-2.
For example He said God allowed divorce because their hearts were hard so God allowed stuff that went on. So God hasnt changed His purpose but did allow for hardness of heart.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Ok so Peter didn't say it. Yeah you got me.

No big deal. Just goes to show everyone how your ignorance means you are not to be trusted with your opinions on law versus grace.

The foreshadowing is garbage.

Your understanding of scripture is garbage. I suggest you read the epistle to the Hebrews. And no, Peter did not write that either. Meanwhile good luck finding where Jesus tells those who believe in Him to follow the Law, since He tells them to follow Him instead.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Your understanding of scripture is garbage. I suggest you read the epistle to the Hebrews. And no, Peter did not write that either. Meanwhile good luck finding where Jesus tells those who believe in Him to follow the Law, since He tells them to follow Him instead.

I've taken plenty of difficult classes on complex subjects.

This is clearly too complex for the average natural mind. I can tell by the confusing positions and claims they make. Do they know they are easily spotted? They just appear so ignorant.

If they did start following Christ they'd have a heck of a time picking and choosing which laws to follow. Starting every Friday night they would start to see how underwater they are and long for the simplicity in Christ.
 

rossum

Well-known member
No. Jesus affirms the creation purpose for man and woman in union as the image of God as it was in the beginning. Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5 etc, referencing Gen 1-2.
Then Jesus disagrees with His father on how many wives a man is allowed.

For example He said God allowed divorce because their hearts were hard so God allowed stuff that went on. So God hasnt changed His purpose but did allow for hardness of heart.
So, God changed the moral rules on divorce. Thank you for confirming that those rules changed.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Yes. I recall that you think highly of Paul.

If Paul had the "mind of Christ", then why is Paul's gospel at odds with the words spoken by Jesus while He preached His gospel? Shouldn't the underlying concepts be one and the same? They aren't.
Can you give an example?
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Why did Paul need to mention Jesus at all then?
Yeshua is the name for the Holy Spirit. It has to do with Essene eschatology. Yeshua follows Moses according to the type. I wont bore you with the details.

Why didn't he just come out and say his consciousness was open to divine revelation and God was speaking to him and through him and therefor to us?
Umm…,

”Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.”

“But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.”

“you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you, how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly.

Why did he defer his purpose to a failed and crucified Jewish messiah?
You are misinformed. The Holy Spirit has not failed. He is in fact alive in every pious, virtuous soul forming a moral conscious in them. He is also bringing life to the cosmos starting with us.

Just for clarification, I don’t take the Gospels as historical accounts. As Baur said, the first miracle of the virgin birth excludes any history at that point. The Gospels are poetry with a nucleus of truth. The truth is that they canonize Paul’s epistles.

To what end? If that is all true, see how badly that goofed stuff up?
Yes, it is a mess. It is sloppy. It is inefficient. But it is up to us to make things right by growing a moral conscious within ourselves. By learning from our mistakes. By leaving the world better than the way we found it. Unfortunately, human nature of many slips back into old ways and history keeps repeating itself. But as a whole we will get to where we need to be. Maybe not in our lifetime but eventually. God has an insight into things that we must defer to.

As a result, I know only one Gnostic in this world - you.
You should read GRS Mead, a brilliant Englishman from the last century. He was the editor for Helena Blavatsky’s newspaper. Have you heard of her? Anyways, I am discovering brilliant people sprinkled around. Nobody has heard of them because they are few in number.
 
Last edited:

Tiburon

Well-known member
No big deal. Just goes to show everyone how your ignorance means you are not to be trusted with your opinions on law versus grace.
No it just shows that I didn't read the original question correctly.

Your understanding of scripture is garbage. I suggest you read the epistle to the Hebrews. And no, Peter did not write that either. Meanwhile good luck finding where Jesus tells those who believe in Him to follow the Law, since He tells them to follow Him instead.
Hebrews is from Paul not Jesus. I love how Christians always fall back on Paul.
So no comment on Jesus only being a sacrifice for our transgression of the Law? The Law is supposed to convict us of our sins for which Jesus allegedly paid. No Law, no conviction, no need to pay.

Matthew 5;
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
 
Last edited:

Tiburon

Well-known member
I've taken plenty of difficult classes on complex subjects.

This is clearly too complex for the average natural mind. I can tell by the confusing positions and claims they make. Do they know they are easily spotted? They just appear so ignorant.

If they did start following Christ they'd have a heck of a time picking and choosing which laws to follow. Starting every Friday night they would start to see how underwater they are and long for the simplicity in Christ.
So Christians choose 'Grace' because it's simple and easy. Just as Paul intended. He didn't want to make it difficult for him to get converts.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
No it just shows that I didn't read the original question correctly.

Your words: "Peter and Jesus say follow the Law." You got it it wrong.

Hebrews is from Paul not Jesus.

Got any proof that Paul wrote Hebrews?

I love how Christians always fall back on Paul.

Me too. I love Paul's gospel.

So no comment on Jesus only being a sacrifice for our transgression of the Law?

ONLY? His sacrifice was for that, and for the slaying of the old fallen man within us. His Incarnation alone was a sacrifice in order that He may be our High Priest.

The Law is supposed to convict us of our sins for which Jesus allegedly paid.

Correct. It does and He did.

No Law, no conviction, no need to pay.

Incorrect. The payment was for the guilt of sin, which exists for all, whether Jews with the Law or Gentiles without. You're awfully ignorant on basic Christian theology. Maybe you'd better pick another target toward which to spew your disdain.

Matthew 5;
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

AMEN! See, you can't go wrong when you just quote scripture. It's when you attempt to interpret it that you screw up.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
Your words: "Peter and Jesus say follow the Law." You got it it wrong.
Not my words. I chimed in afterwards.

Got any proof that Paul wrote Hebrews?
No but I'm sure if I said he didn't you'd be asking for proof of that too.

Me too. I love Paul's gospel.
Of course you do. It makes up 90% of Christianity.

ONLY? His sacrifice was for that, and for the slaying of the old fallen man within us. His Incarnation alone was a sacrifice in order that He may be our High Priest.
Can you point to that in scripture?

Incorrect. The payment was for the guilt of sin, which exists for all, whether Jews with the Law or Gentiles without. You're awfully ignorant on basic Christian theology. Maybe you'd better pick another target toward which to spew your disdain.
Can you point to that in scripture?

AMEN! See, you can't go wrong when you just quote scripture. It's when you attempt to interpret it that you screw up.
I don't need to interpret it it's plain for all to see. Yet Christians interpret it away to claim that they not under under the Law and that Paul hasn't led them astray.
 
Top