Mary is the most important figure in Christianity

[Estro Felino]

The law could never save us, so teaching us the law was not the purpose of His incarnation. His death paid the penalty for what we deserved for all who believe. His resurrection assures believers of eternal union with Him. You cannot be deemed righteous in God's eyes by observing the law.

What if Pilate had spared him?
There would have been no crucifixion, and Jesus would have died of old age, in his bed.
I think that he was not meant to be crucified. He came to teach us Love.
and we are supposed to love mankind as much as he did.
that's the meaning of his coming

 

[Windwalker]

If you believe in Substitutionary Atonement, that's all fine-and-dandy. But a HUGE contingency of Xy doesn't buy that particular theological scheme. By adopting this stance, you've managed to completely circumvent the whole "I came to fulfill the Law" thing. If Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law, then I'd say that the Law certainly CAN save us.

I myself don't go for this whole Substitutionary Atonement thing either, as for one thing its totally external to people. "It was all done for you on the cross", is the typical teaching. I disagree with that. You have to do something. But I also disagree that merely following the Law, or whatever precepts of church doctrine that may be, will save someone either. Both sides of this are equally external, and neither address the true source of 'fulfillment of the Law". The interior. The inner person's work and subsequent transformation. Both sides, the 'it was all done for you' side, and the 'law will save you' side are equally looking outside themselves.

The fulfillment of the law is done naturally, without effort through Love. That is what Jesus taught, clearly. It not fulfilled by an effort to follow the law, but by becoming love itself, in yourself. It's love that saves you. And if someone wishes to say that Jesus "came" for some reason, it was to teach the path of love, and how love is the fulfillment of the law. Against this, both sides which argue it's all done for you, or that you have to do the work to get saved collapse. It is inner transformation that IS salvation. "Love works no ill". "Love is the fulfillment of the law." If you become Love, you write the law, you are the law.

 

[sojourner]

I myself don't go for this whole Substitutionary Atonement thing either, as for one thing its totally external to people. "It was all done for you on the cross", is the typical teaching. I disagree with that. You have to do something. But I also disagree that merely following the Law, or whatever precepts of church doctrine that may be, will save someone either. Both sides of this are equally external, and neither address the true source of 'fulfillment of the Law". The interior. The inner person's work and subsequent transformation. Both sides, the 'it was all done for you' side, and the 'law will save you' side are equally looking outside themselves.

The fulfillment of the law is done naturally, without effort through Love. That is what Jesus taught, clearly. It not fulfilled by an effort to follow the law, but by becoming love itself, in yourself. It's love that saves you. And if someone wishes to say that Jesus "came" for some reason, it was to teach the path of love, and how love is the fulfillment of the law. Against this, both sides which argue it's all done for you, or that you have to do the work to get saved collapse. It is inner transformation that IS salvation. "Love works no ill". "Love is the fulfillment of the law." If you become Love, you write the law, you are the law.

The purpose of Jesus' coming was not just to teach the path of love, but to be the path of love; that is, since Jesus is God Incarnate, the path of love -- or full reconciliation -- is opened for us (we don't open it ourselves; our "work" is response -- not initiation; God loves first) and we now have a new reality to live into; a reality in which humankind is reconciled to God.

 

[Muffled]

We Catholics are often accused of worshiping Mary as a divinity.
Mary was not a divinity: she was the daughter of two normal people. So she was human. But she is the protagonist of Christianity because it was her who erased sin from human nature, that is, in her heart.
She "challenged" God because she wanted to show him that a human being can be sinless and pure. And she was sinless and pure.

But not because God had made her sinless (impossible, there is the free will)
She, with her free will decided to be sinless. Because she conceived sin as incompatible with human nature. That's how she was able to incarnate God. (Immaculate conception)

Because God and her became one only thing.

This woman saw Mary when she was seven and she told her all these things
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoAqP4sNbwE

I believe a person who believes this isn't really a Christian except in name only. I believe It does however reflect the false teaching of the Roman catholic Church that salvation is by works.

 

[Estro Felino]

I believe a person who believes this isn't really a Christian except in name only. I believe It does however reflect the false teaching of the Roman catholic Church that salvation is by works.

and I am proud to believe that salvation is by works alone

 

[Muffled]

The purpose of Jesus' coming was not just to teach the path of love, but to be the path of love; that is, since Jesus is God Incarnate, the path of love -- or full reconciliation -- is opened for us (we don't open it ourselves; our "work" is response -- not initiation; God loves first) and we now have a new reality to live into; a reality in which humankind is reconciled to God.

I beleive tHe love of God ws always there but it wasn't believed so He had to prove it. Jeus came for the Good News (Gospel) of the Kingdom but it is love that makes that Kingdom possible.

 

[Estro Felino]

The purpose of Jesus' coming was not just to teach the path of love, but to be the path of love; that is, since Jesus is God Incarnate, the path of love -- or full reconciliation -- is opened for us (we don't open it ourselves; our "work" is response -- not initiation; God loves first) and we now have a new reality to live into; a reality in which humankind is reconciled to God.

dear friend. You keep avoiding answering my questions:
--what if he hadn't been crucified?
---what if he had died of old age?
---Was his sacrifice necessary for our salvation?

 

[Muffled]

and I am proud to believe that salvation is by works alone

Then I believe such a person is no more saved than a Jew, Muslim or Hindu. Actually I believe Islam would be one better if it were actually practiced but like the Roman Catholic church it lapsed back into works.

 

[Muffled]

I myself don't go for this whole Substitutionary Atonement thing either, as for one thing its totally external to people. "It was all done for you on the cross", is the typical teaching. I disagree with that. You have to do something. But I also disagree that merely following the Law, or whatever precepts of church doctrine that may be, will save someone either. Both sides of this are equally external, and neither address the true source of 'fulfillment of the Law". The interior. The inner person's work and subsequent transformation. Both sides, the 'it was all done for you' side, and the 'law will save you' side are equally looking outside themselves.

The fulfillment of the law is done naturally, without effort through Love. That is what Jesus taught, clearly. It not fulfilled by an effort to follow the law, but by becoming love itself, in yourself. It's love that saves you. And if someone wishes to say that Jesus "came" for some reason, it was to teach the path of love, and how love is the fulfillment of the law. Against this, both sides which argue it's all done for you, or that you have to do the work to get saved collapse. It is inner transformation that IS salvation. "Love works no ill". "Love is the fulfillment of the law." If you become Love, you write the law, you are the law.

I believe Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law. Love is only one aspect of God; there is jsutice and mercy and goodness to mention a few others.

 

[sojourner]

dear friend. You keep avoiding answering my questions:
--what if he hadn't been crucified?
---what if he had died of old age?
---Was his sacrifice necessary for our salvation?

You've not asked me these questions. How, then, could I "avoid" them?

No matter.
1) If he hadn't been crucified, it would be because he either a) recanted his teaching, which would have represented both a shirking of his responsibility and a turning from truth, or b) because he ran away and went into hiding, which would also represent a shirking of his responsibility and a turning from truth.

2) If he had died of old age, he would have died of old age, and he still would have fulfilled his total humanity.

3) No. Sacrifice is not necessary for salvation, but it was certainly convenient, in that, by doing so, he made a theological point by becoming the salvific sacrifice for sin, as practiced in temple Judaism. (Such sacrifice is unnecessary, in my belief, but it certainly was a point of theological familiarity for those whom Jesus was reaching.

 

[sojourner]

I believe Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law. Love is only one aspect of God; there is jsutice and mercy and goodness to mention a few others.

The others are products of that love.

 

[Estro Felino]

You've not asked me these questions. How, then, could I "avoid" them?

No matter.
1) If he hadn't been crucified, it would be because he either a) recanted his teaching, which would have represented both a shirking of his responsibility and a turning from truth, or b) because he ran away and went into hiding, which would also represent a shirking of his responsibility and a turning from truth.

2) If he had died of old age, he would have died of old age, and he still would have fulfilled his total humanity.

3) No. Sacrifice is not necessary for salvation, but it was certainly convenient, in that, by doing so, he made a theological point by becoming the salvific sacrifice for sin, as practiced in temple Judaism. (Such sacrifice is unnecessary, in my belief, but it certainly was a point of theological familiarity for those whom Jesus was reaching.

Thank you. So...are you saying that believing in his sacrifice, doesn't save us?
Given that Atheists don't believe in his sacrifice...

By the way, I don't understand how sufferance and pain can have a salvific value. I really can't.
I am absolutely sure that Jesus had a normal life...I mean...before he turned 33. And I am absolutely sure that he had a healthy regular sexual life....and surely more intense and satisfying than mine.
So I don't understand why people think of martyrdom when they talk about Jesus...
He was crucified, all right. But he did not want to be crucified. Who would?

 

[sojourner]

Thank you. So...are you saying that believing in his sacrifice, doesn't save us?
Given that Atheists don't believe in his sacrifice...

Belief in the sacrifice doesn't save us. Whatever "belief in his sacrifice" means...

 

[Estro Felino]

Belief in the sacrifice doesn't save us. Whatever "belief in his sacrifice" means...

Thank you for clarifying things

 

[outhouse]

No matter.
1) If he hadn't been crucified, .

I "think" no crucifixion equals no martyrdom. No martyrdom, and you have no popularity, no following in Hellenistic communities.

He very well could have been a small blip in history.

 

[sojourner]

I "think" no crucifixion equals no martyrdom. No martyrdom, and you have no popularity, no following in Hellenistic communities.

He very well could have been a small blip in history.

True, but the theological landscape wouldn't have changed much.

 

[Estro Felino]

I "think" no crucifixion equals no martyrdom. No martyrdom, and you have no popularity, no following in Hellenistic communities.

He very well could have been a small blip in history.

I absolutely agree with you, when you claim that Christianity was a Greek invention. Even if it took place in a Jewish environment: let's not forget that Mary was born some years after Cleopatra died. Cleopatra was considered the heroine of the Oriental world, because she had fought against Romans' greed to get the independence of the Hellenistic nations. Mary surely became a huge fan of hers, so she decided to be the creator of a religion based upon freedom, tolerance, love and respect. A religion against Romans' greed.

 

[outhouse]

. Mary became a huge fan of hers,

provide sources.

 

[outhouse]

True, but the theological landscape wouldn't have changed much.

I know I am out on my own limb so to speak. But we would not have christianity.

It would have evolved into another form of Hellenistic Judaism, and monotheism. IMHO

 

[Estro Felino]

provide sources.

It was just a hypothesis. Let's not forget that if Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra had won, the Oriental part of the Empire would have been free, including the kingdom of Judea----even if under the supervision of Cleopatra

There is a big correlation between Cleopatra's ideas and the birth of Christianity