Osiris

[DavidSMoore]

In his bestselling book “What’s So Great About Christianity,” Dinesh D’Souza says the following:

Christianity holds that man, no matter how hard he tries, cannot reach God. Man cannot ascend to God’s level because God’s level is too high. Therefore there is only one remedy: God must come down to man’s level. Scandalous though it may seem, God must, quite literally, become man and assume the burden of man’s sins. Christians believe that this was the great sacrifice performed by Christ. If we accept Christ’s sacrifice on the basis of faith, we will inherit God’s gift of salvation. That’s it. That is the essence of Christianity.
(What’s So Great About Christianity, Dinesh D’Souza, pg. 286)

And what do you have to do to earn salvation? Mr. D’Souza says:

...once we have confronted our pride we realize that we don’t have to do anything to earn our heavenly reward. In fact, there is nothing that we can do to earn it. What is denied to us by effort is supplied to us through grace.
(What’s So Great About Christianity, pg. 291)

All you have to, according to Mr. D’Souza, is have faith in Jesus and you will earn salvation.

Is it really that simple?

The Catholic Catechism says that baptism is required for salvation:

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.”
(Catholic Catechism, Part Two, Chapter One, Article 1, VI)

Did Jesus actually say that baptism is required for salvation, as the above passage implies? Here’s what Jesus says in the book of Mark:

And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved...”
(Mark 16:15-16, NRSVue*)

So according to Jesus, baptism is required for salvation, and Mr. D’Souza’s assertion that faith is all that is required is an oversimplification.

Is there anything else that one must do to earn salvation?

In Matthew 6:14-15, Jesus says that the only way to earn the forgiveness of God is by forgiving the trespasses (= sins) of other people. There is no mention in that passage or in its surrounding context of a requirement to have faith, whether in Jesus or God, and no mention of baptism.

In Matthew 25:31-43, Jesus describes what will happen when the Son of Man comes in his glory. He says, in essence, that those who were charitable to their fellow human beings during life will inherit the kingdom. Again, there’s no mention of a requirement to have faith, or to be baptized.

The Lord’s Prayer, which can be found in Matthew 6:9-13, mentions nothing about having faith, but it does say the following:

And forgive us our debts
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
(Matthew 6:12, NRSVue)

The focus of the prayer is on forgiving the sins of others, not faith. But the focus of Christianity has long been on faith, not on forgiveness, charity, or other works. Here’s what the Augsburg Confession of 1530 has to say:

First of all, that our deeds cannot reconcile us to God or earn forgiveness of sins, grace, and justification. We can only receive these by faith when we believe that we are received into favor for Christ’s sake. He alone has been proclaimed as mediator and propitiation (1 Timothy 2:5), so that we can be reconciled to the Father only through him. Whoever, therefore, who believes that he deserves grace because of his deeds, despises the merit and grace of Christ and is seeking a way to God without Christ by human strength, even though Christ has said about himself, “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6).
(Augsburg Confession of 1530)

Mr. D’Souza’s pronouncement, cited above, is certainly popular, and it aligns with what most Christian sects have long taught. But as I see things, it doesn’t agree with everything that Jesus actually said. Mr. D’Souza is effectively asking us to ignore certain sayings of Jesus that don’t fit in with his concept of salvation-- specifically these passages at a minimum:

• The Lord’s Prayer, in Matthew 6:9-13
• Matthew 6:14-15
• Matthew 25:31-43

In light of these examples Mr. D’Souza’s sweeping pronouncement that faith alone is required for salvation is not just oversimplified-- it’s downright dishonest. But it’s not just Mr. D’Souza-- it’s literally every major Christian sect. The Catholic Church has even gone so far as to claim that forgiveness is not a Christian virtue. (Catholic Catechism, Part 3, Section 1, Chapter 1, Article 7.) I just don’t see how it can not be a Christian virtue, given the examples from the mouth of Jesus himself that I have cited above which emphasize the importance of forgiveness-- and the many occasions on which Jesus forgave the sins of a petitioner. Just try looking up the word “forgiveness” in the subject index in the back of the Catholic Catechism: there’s not a single entry! The Catholic Church doesn’t even want to talk about forgiving the sins of other people!

I’ve highlighted a few major differences between the simplistic notions advanced by Mr. D’Souza and what Jesus actually taught-- but there is much more nuance in the full scope of the teachings of Jesus that my remarks above do not address. A full and fair study of the real teachings of Jesus as related in the New Testament is well beyond the scope of this posting. But as I read the New Testament I see a jumble of conflicting ideas and beliefs about salvation-- and definitely not one single simple message that is abundantly self-evident. In my experience, that kind of nuance is something you will never hear about in any Christian sermon.

Let’s have another look at the passage from Mark cited above:

And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned.”
(Mark 16:15-16, NRSVue, emphasis mine)

In this context “condemned” means that on the day of judgment, the soul of the non-believer will be cast down into hell to burn for all eternity.

Seriously?

Is the merciful and just God of the Bible really going to cast people down into the fires of hell for all eternity just because they failed to believe in Jesus? There have been more than 100 billion people who have lived and died on this planet, and the vast majority never heard of Jesus, or the Ten Commandments, or the Beatitudes, or the Crucifixion. How would it be possible for people to put their faith in something they know nothing about? To me, it just doesn’t make any sense.

From my point of view, Christians cannot claim to believe what Jesus actually taught. As I see it, they really believe in a carefully curated subset of his actual teachings. There’s nothing wrong with that, so long as you acknowledge it publicly. But that is something that I have never heard any Christian do. In my experience, Christians are more likely to quote copiously from the passages they like while loudly proclaiming that the Bible’s message is fully and fairly represented by just those few specific passages-- just as Mr. D’Souza did in the passage from his book cited above. Here’s how the Pope described the Catholic Catechism:

A catechism should faithfully and systematically present the teaching of Sacred Scripture, the living Tradition in the Church and the authentic Magisterium, as well as the spiritual heritage of the Fathers, Doctors, and saints of the Church, to allow for a better knowledge of the Christian mystery and for enlivening the faith of the People of God.
(Catholic Catechism, On the Publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, pg. 4)

To me, it’s very dishonest to say that your analysis of the Bible is faithful and systematic when you have carefully danced around passages in the Bible that you don’t like.

Four thousand years ago the Osiris cult began to spread throughout ancient Egypt. That faith held that after death your soul would be resurrected and would be put on trial by Osiris and his council of 42 other gods and goddesses. First you would be asked to assert that you had never committed any of 42 specific sins. If you passed that part of the test, your heart would be weighed against the feather of Ma’at, the goddess of truth and justice. If your heart were lighter than her feather, then you would be granted eternal life.

Of course, the Egyptians also believed that your body had to be mummified, and that various rites had to be properly performed or your soul would never be able to reanimate your physical body. But the core belief of that religion was that your worthiness for eternal life is based on your actions in life, not on faith alone. That is literally the opposite of what present day Christians believe.

I think that Christians have something important to learn from the cult of Osiris. To me, the primary focus of any religion should be to inspire its followers to do good works in life. The Osiris cult’s weighing of the heart is a beautiful and simple way to communicate the idea that your soul and your life should be unencumbered by the wages of sin. I would welcome a version of Christianity that replaces the notion of faith as the sole guarantor of eternal life with something resembling the feather of Ma’at.

* NRSVue = New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition, published in 2019 by the National Council of Churches of the United States of America

 

[Left Coast]

In his bestselling book “What’s So Great About Christianity,” Dinesh D’Souza says the following:



And what do you have to do to earn salvation? Mr. D’Souza says:



All you have to, according to Mr. D’Souza, is have faith in Jesus and you will earn salvation.

Is it really that simple?

The Catholic Catechism says that baptism is required for salvation:



Did Jesus actually say that baptism is required for salvation, as the above passage implies? Here’s what Jesus says in the book of Mark:



So according to Jesus, baptism is required for salvation, and Mr. D’Souza’s assertion that faith is all that is required is an oversimplification.

Is there anything else that one must do to earn salvation?

In Matthew 6:14-15, Jesus says that the only way to earn the forgiveness of God is by forgiving the trespasses (= sins) of other people. There is no mention in that passage or in its surrounding context of a requirement to have faith, whether in Jesus or God, and no mention of baptism.

In Matthew 25:31-43, Jesus describes what will happen when the Son of Man comes in his glory. He says, in essence, that those who were charitable to their fellow human beings during life will inherit the kingdom. Again, there’s no mention of a requirement to have faith, or to be baptized.

The Lord’s Prayer, which can be found in Matthew 6:9-13, mentions nothing about having faith, but it does say the following:



The focus of the prayer is on forgiving the sins of others, not faith. But the focus of Christianity has long been on faith, not on forgiveness, charity, or other works. Here’s what the Augsburg Confession of 1530 has to say:



Mr. D’Souza’s pronouncement, cited above, is certainly popular, and it aligns with what most Christian sects have long taught. But as I see things, it doesn’t agree with everything that Jesus actually said. Mr. D’Souza is effectively asking us to ignore certain sayings of Jesus that don’t fit in with his concept of salvation-- specifically these passages at a minimum:

• The Lord’s Prayer, in Matthew 6:9-13
• Matthew 6:14-15
• Matthew 25:31-43

In light of these examples Mr. D’Souza’s sweeping pronouncement that faith alone is required for salvation is not just oversimplified-- it’s downright dishonest. But it’s not just Mr. D’Souza-- it’s literally every major Christian sect. The Catholic Church has even gone so far as to claim that forgiveness is not a Christian virtue. (Catholic Catechism, Part 3, Section 1, Chapter 1, Article 7.) I just don’t see how it can not be a Christian virtue, given the examples from the mouth of Jesus himself that I have cited above which emphasize the importance of forgiveness-- and the many occasions on which Jesus forgave the sins of a petitioner. Just try looking up the word “forgiveness” in the subject index in the back of the Catholic Catechism: there’s not a single entry! The Catholic Church doesn’t even want to talk about forgiving the sins of other people!

I’ve highlighted a few major differences between the simplistic notions advanced by Mr. D’Souza and what Jesus actually taught-- but there is much more nuance in the full scope of the teachings of Jesus that my remarks above do not address. A full and fair study of the real teachings of Jesus as related in the New Testament is well beyond the scope of this posting. But as I read the New Testament I see a jumble of conflicting ideas and beliefs about salvation-- and definitely not one single simple message that is abundantly self-evident. In my experience, that kind of nuance is something you will never hear about in any Christian sermon.

Let’s have another look at the passage from Mark cited above:



In this context “condemned” means that on the day of judgment, the soul of the non-believer will be cast down into hell to burn for all eternity.

Seriously?

Is the merciful and just God of the Bible really going to cast people down into the fires of hell for all eternity just because they failed to believe in Jesus? There have been more than 100 billion people who have lived and died on this planet, and the vast majority never heard of Jesus, or the Ten Commandments, or the Beatitudes, or the Crucifixion. How would it be possible for people to put their faith in something they know nothing about? To me, it just doesn’t make any sense.

From my point of view, Christians cannot claim to believe what Jesus actually taught. As I see it, they really believe in a carefully curated subset of his actual teachings. There’s nothing wrong with that, so long as you acknowledge it publicly. But that is something that I have never heard any Christian do. In my experience, Christians are more likely to quote copiously from the passages they like while loudly proclaiming that the Bible’s message is fully and fairly represented by just those few specific passages-- just as Mr. D’Souza did in the passage from his book cited above. Here’s how the Pope described the Catholic Catechism:



To me, it’s very dishonest to say that your analysis of the Bible is faithful and systematic when you have carefully danced around passages in the Bible that you don’t like.

Four thousand years ago the Osiris cult began to spread throughout ancient Egypt. That faith held that after death your soul would be resurrected and would be put on trial by Osiris and his council of 42 other gods and goddesses. First you would be asked to assert that you had never committed any of 42 specific sins. If you passed that part of the test, your heart would be weighed against the feather of Ma’at, the goddess of truth and justice. If your heart were lighter than her feather, then you would be granted eternal life.

Of course, the Egyptians also believed that your body had to be mummified, and that various rites had to be properly performed or your soul would never be able to reanimate your physical body. But the core belief of that religion was that your worthiness for eternal life is based on your actions in life, not on faith alone. That is literally the opposite of what present day Christians believe.

I think that Christians have something important to learn from the cult of Osiris. To me, the primary focus of any religion should be to inspire its followers to do good works in life. The Osiris cult’s weighing of the heart is a beautiful and simple way to communicate the idea that your soul and your life should be unencumbered by the wages of sin. I would welcome a version of Christianity that replaces the notion of faith as the sole guarantor of eternal life with something resembling the feather of Ma’at.

* NRSVue = New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition, published in 2019 by the National Council of Churches of the United States of America

This is a bit all over the place. What was it you wanted to debate, specifically?

 

[DavidSMoore]

This is a bit all over the place. What was it you wanted to debate, specifically?

Sorry if it wasn't clear. My intent was to discuss the conditions for salvation. What must one do to be saved?

 

[Left Coast]

Sorry if it wasn't clear. My intent was to discuss the conditions for salvation. What must one do to be saved?

Ah okay. So nothing to actually do with Osiris.

I do agree that the case for Sola Fide, Biblically speaking, is weak. However, one thing I will say broadly is that it's a mistake, in my view, to expect every Bible verse that references salvation to provide an exhaustive summary of its requirements. I notice this from atheists and fundamentalist Christians alike. Just because one verse mentions one thing in regards to salvation, and doesn't immediately mention another, doesn't mean that's all that the author thinks would ever be involved. That kind of hyper-literal reading of these texts is not generally helpful.

 

[DavidSMoore]

However, one thing I will say broadly is that it's a mistake, in my view, to expect every Bible verse that references salvation to provide an exhaustive summary of its requirements. I notice this from atheists and fundamentalist Christians alike. Just because one verse mentions one thing in regards to salvation, and doesn't immediately mention another, doesn't mean that's all that the author thinks would ever be involved. That kind of hyper-literal reading of these texts is not generally helpful.

Sure, I can accept that as a broad principle. But I would just highlight the following fine points:

Mark 16:15-16 explicitly says that those who get baptized and have faith will be saved, and that those who do not will be condemned. So there's no room for additional criteria in that passage.

Matthew 25:31-43 says that those who were charitable toward their fellow humans will inherit the kingdom, and those were not will depart into the eternal fire. So again, there's no room in that passage for any additional conditions.

As I see it, those two passages are at odds with each other. That poses a problem, to me at least, since salvation seems to be of paramount importance to the Christian faith.

You:

So nothing to actually do with Osiris.

No, I'm not expecting anyone to believe in Osiris. I was merely drawing a contrast with one previous religion.

 

[Left Coast]

Sure, I can accept that as a broad principle. But I would just highlight the following fine points:

Mark 16:15-16 explicitly says that those who get baptized and have faith will be saved, and that those who do not will be condemned. So there's no room for additional criteria in that passage.

I disagree. One can also interpret the passage as describing a broad principle or norm, not an absolute.

As a side note, that's also part of the "extended" part of Mark that is widely known not to be original to the text. But the point about interpretation stands regardless.

Matthew 25:31-43 says that those who were charitable toward their fellow humans will inherit the kingdom, and those were not will depart into the eternal fire. So again, there's no room in that passage for any additional conditions.

See above. Again, you're interpreting these passages in isolation from one another in a very hyper-literal way. Given the number of times in Matthew that Jesus emphasizes the importance of faith, it's highly implausible to imagine from the Matthew 25 passage that the same Jesus would say faith is irrelevant. It just doesn't make sense exegetically.

It's also relevant here to note that in the Bible, "faith" is not a reference to just intellectual assent to a set of propositions. It's a practice that is meant to be lived.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others." Matthew 23:23

"Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. Truly I tell you, he will put that one in charge of all his possessions." Matthew 24:45-47

As I see it, those two passages are at odds with each other. That poses a problem, to me at least, since salvation seems to be of paramount importance to the Christian faith.

Again, it's only a problem if you assume these things are meant to be read in isolation and describe absolutes. If you take a more nuanced view, it gets clearer.

No, I'm not expecting anyone to believe in Osiris. I was merely drawing a contrast with one previous religion.

I didn't think you were. I just thought it was an odd thread title if what you actually wanted to discuss was what's required for salvation in a Christian context.

 

[DavidSMoore]

I disagree. One can also interpret the passage as describing a broad principle or norm, not an absolute.

A broad principle or norm doesn't seem particularly helpful if the fate of one's immortal soul is at stake. The whole point of the notion of salvation is that if you do the correct thing you will be saved and if you don't you will be damned. So you'd better be able to determine what the exactly correct actions are that will lead to salvation or your soul will burn for all eternity.

You:

As a side note, that's also part of the "extended" part of Mark that is widely known not to be original to the text. But the point about interpretation stands regardless.

Okay, but it is the passage that was explicitly cited in the Catholic Catechism as proof that baptism is required for salvation.

You:

Again, you're interpreting these passages in isolation from one another in a very hyper-literal way. Given the number of times in Matthew that Jesus emphasizes the importance of faith, it's highly implausible to imagine from the Matthew 25 passage that the same Jesus would say faith is irrelevant. It just doesn't make sense exegetically.

That's a fair point. But I think you would have a very difficult time framing a coherent description of exactly what the real conditions for salvation actually are-- even if we restrict our attention to just the book of Matthew. Here's another passage from Matthew:

"Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see 'the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."
Matthew 24:30-31

And who are the elect? They are those who were pre-selected by God to be saved. That's not as blatant a description of predestination as one finds in Romans 8 and 9, but it's essentially the same idea.

So just from Matthew we have the following conditions for salvation:

You must be baptized.
You must have faith (presumably in Jesus).
You must forgive the sins of others.
You must be charitable to others.
God has pre-selected those who will be saved, independent of any actions on your part.

From my perspective, that's a complete muddle.

Besides, the New Testament authors contradicted themselves all the time. Here's an example from the writings of Paul:

For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the brother.
1 Corinthians 7:14

Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and lawlessness have in common?
2 Corinthians 6:14

My personal perspective is that you're expecting too much from these texts. As I see it, the story of Jesus was passed down orally over the course of many decades before it was written down. There was never any requirement or expectation that the resulting separate works would be self-consistent, or that they would make sense in a modern context.

There are many wonderful sayings and parables in the teachings of Jesus. There is much in the New Testament that is noble and uplifting. But as I see it, there are also some elements of confusion, especially as concerns the conditions for salvation.

 

[Left Coast]

A broad principle or norm doesn't seem particularly helpful if the fate of one's immortal soul is at stake.

You're assuming that these texts were written for the average person to sit down and read them from beginning to end to "figure out" salvation all by themselves just from what the text says. That's not even what the text themselves say a person ought to do. Nor is it the intent of the texts. Nor was it the norm of Biblical interpretation for the vast majority of Christian history, during which time most Christians have been illiterate.

The whole point of the notion of salvation is that if you do the correct thing you will be saved and if you don't you will be damned. So you'd better be able to determine what the exactly correct actions are that will lead to salvation or your soul will burn for all eternity.

That part is right. Assuming you're gonna get there by cherry picking one verse and trying to pit it against another is silly. You're starting with a conclusion and building a case backwards, looking for nits to pick.

You:

Okay, but it is the passage that was explicitly cited in the Catholic Catechism as proof that baptism is required for salvation.

Neat. I don't think that really changes anything I've said.

You:

That's a fair point. But I think you would have a very difficult time framing a coherent description of exactly what the real conditions for salvation actually are-- even if we restrict our attention to just the book of Matthew. Here's another passage from Matthew:



And who are the elect? They are those who were pre-selected by God to be saved. That's not as blatant a description of predestination as one finds in Romans 8 and 9, but it's essentially the same idea.

So just from Matthew we have the following conditions for salvation:

You must be baptized.
You must have faith (presumably in Jesus).
You must forgive the sins of others.
You must be charitable to others.

How are those 4 things contradictory?

God has pre-selected those who will be saved, independent of any actions on your part.

From my perspective, that's a complete muddle.

You added "independent of any actions on your part," something the text doesn't actually say. None of the preceding requirements per se contradict predestination (only some versions of it).

Besides, the New Testament authors contradicted themselves all the time. Here's an example from the writings of Paul:

For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the brother.
1 Corinthians 7:14

Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and lawlessness have in common?
2 Corinthians 6:14

Paul was writing at a time when Christianity was brand new, when people were converting to Christianity as adults for the most part. Surely you can imagine a situation where someone converts but their spouse doesn't?

My personal perspective is that you're expecting too much from these texts. As I see it, the story of Jesus was passed down orally over the course of many decades before it was written down. There was never any requirement or expectation that the resulting separate works would be self-consistent, or that they would make sense in a modern context.

Edit: As I reread what you wrote here...no, I don't grant most of that. It's true that stories of Jesus started orally and were compiled later. "Many decades" is kind of a misleading gloss. Mark, the earliest Gospel, was written around 70. Galatians, the earliest Pauline epistle, was written in the early 50s.

In terms of coherence, I think it is certainly more plausible to imagine that the authors and editors of individual texts would have certainly aimed to present a self-consistent message about Jesus. To imagine they didn't would mean you'd have to imagine someone writing about Jesus or salvation and having in mind no goal of any coherent message...which just doesn't make much sense. You can make a stronger case that different authors of different texts may not have intended to portray a consistent message with each other.

 

[crossfire]

Sure, I can accept that as a broad principle. But I would just highlight the following fine points:

Mark 16:15-16 explicitly says that those who get baptized and have faith will be saved, and that those who do not will be condemned. So there's no room for additional criteria in that passage.

James 2:

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can his faith save him?


15 If a brother or sister is without clothes and lacks daily food 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you don’t give them what the body needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way faith, if it doesn’t have works, is dead by itself.


18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without works, and I will show you faith from my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. The demons also believe—and they shudder.


20 Foolish man! Are you willing to learn that faith without works is useless? 21 Wasn’t Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active together with his works, and by works, faith was perfected. 23 So the Scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness, and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way, wasn’t Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by a different route? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.​

Pretty clear when you are talking about everlasting life--or death. You can live your life by faith, as long as the faith isn't dead.

Matthew 25:31-43 says that those who were charitable toward their fellow humans will inherit the kingdom, and those were not will depart into the eternal fire. So again, there's no room in that passage for any additional conditions.

As I see it, those two passages are at odds with each other. That poses a problem, to me at least, since salvation seems to be of paramount importance to the Christian faith.

You:



No, I'm not expecting anyone to believe in Osiris. I was merely drawing a contrast with one previous religion.

Jesus said in Luke 10:25-37

25 Just then an expert in the law stood up to test Him, saying, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”


26 “What is written in the law?” He asked him. “How do you read it?”


27 He answered:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.

28 “You’ve answered correctly,” He told him. “Do this and you will live.”


29 But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”


30 Jesus took up the question and said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him, beat him up, and fled, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down that road. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 In the same way, a Levite, when he arrived at the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan on his journey came up to him, and when he saw the man, he had compassion. 34 He went over to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on olive oil and wine. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him. When I come back I’ll reimburse you for whatever extra you spend.’


36 “Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?”


37 “The one who showed mercy to him,” he said.

Then Jesus told him, “Go and do the same.”​

James seems to follow what Jesus stated here, as does Matthew. Mark's passage does not mention a living faith. Mark 1:8, however, does mention John the Baptist's words of:
Mark 1:8

I have baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”​

The Holy Spirit isn't dead. Then it would come down to testing the spirits--through their actions.

 

[DavidSMoore]

You're assuming that these texts were written for the average person to sit down and read them from beginning to end to "figure out" salvation all by themselves just from what the text says. That's not even what the text themselves say a person ought to do. Nor is it the intent of the texts. Nor was it the norm of Biblical interpretation for the vast majority of Christian history, during which time most Christians have been illiterate.

It almost sounds like you're saying that it's pointless to read the gospels. I get the idea of assuming that the New Testament writings all hang together somehow and that we should grant them allowances for passages that don't seem to align. Question: Is that how we are to read the Koran was well? Or does that method only apply to the New Testament writings? I ask because my immortal soul is at stake and I need to know the truth about salvation.
Unless, of course, there is no real truth to the notion of salvation-- it's just a gimmick used by religious authors to scare people into listening to what they have to say.

You added "independent of any actions on your part," something the text doesn't actually say. None of the preceding requirements per se contradict predestination (only some versions of it).

Romans 9:13-18 is explicit that God decides to whom he will show mercy. It even says that God will harden the heart of those whom he decides to punish. I was thinking of the phrase "the elect" in those terms, and I'm not aware of any other context for that phrase. My assumption was that the notion of predestination was a widely circulated idea at the time the gospels were written and that the phrase "the elect" was likely included in Matthew's gospel as a way to acknowledge the popularity of that idea. But I'm willing to consider other contexts for the elect, if you can describe them.

Paul was writing at a time when Christianity was brand new, when people were converting to Christianity as adults for the most part. Surely you can imagine a situation where someone converts but their spouse doesn't?

Yes, I get that. But the passage from 1 Corinthians said that a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever makes the unbeliever holy, while the passage from 2 Corinthians says that believers and unbelievers cannot intermingle. That seems like a direct contradiction, at least to me.

In terms of coherence, I think it is certainly more plausible to imagine that the authors and editors of individual texts would have certainly aimed to present a self-consistent message about Jesus. To imagine they didn't would mean you'd have to imagine someone writing about Jesus or salvation and having in mind no goal of any coherent message...which just doesn't make much sense. You can make a stronger case that different authors of different texts may not have intended to portray a consistent message with each other.

Well, I think the two passages I cited from 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians show a clear contradiction-- and they were both written by the same author. As I explained above in my description of the elect, I think the concept that phrase evokes contradicts the other conditions for salvation I enumerated-- and with the exception of baptism, all of them came directly from the mouth of Jesus as related in the book of Matthew.

I'm not suggesting that the authors of the New Testament books had no goal and no coherent message. My suggestion is that the gospels in particular reflect a number of separate narratives about the life of Jesus that were repeated orally for some decades before being written down, and that the final works are composites of multiple narratives and beliefs. The examples of Matthew 16:15-16 and Matthew 25:31-43 seem to me very much like separate strains of thought that were merged together, without much consideration as to whether they actually cohere when taken together. They make sense separately, but not together. The gospels, as I see them, are collages, not pieces of a giant jigsaw puzzle.

 

[DavidSMoore]

James 2:
Jesus said in Luke 10:25-37

James seems to follow what Jesus stated here, as does Matthew. Mark's passage does not mention a living faith. Mark 1:8, however, does mention John the Baptist's words of:
Mark 1:8

I have baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”​

The Holy Spirit isn't dead. Then it would come down to testing the spirits--through their actions.

Yes, the passages you've cited add further color to the question of what one must do to be saved.

 

[Left Coast]

It almost sounds like you're saying that it's pointless to read the gospels.

Not at all. The issue is the hyper-literal method you're taking of reading one verse and assuming that's supposed to tell you everything you need to know.

I get the idea of assuming that the New Testament writings all hang together somehow and that we should grant them allowances for passages that don't seem to align. Question: Is that how we are to read the Koran was well? Or does that method only apply to the New Testament writings? I ask because my immortal soul is at stake and I need to know the truth about salvation.

I think we can drop the faux-concern about the fate of your soul.

The Qur'an is a whole other kettle of fish. Completely different context, language, and author.

Unless, of course, there is no real truth to the notion of salvation-- it's just a gimmick used by religious authors to scare people into listening to what they have to say.

Or unless, of course, you're straining to find some way to critique the text, even when your critique doesn't make sense of the text at all.

Romans 9:13-18 is explicit that God decides to whom he will show mercy. It even says that God will harden the heart of those whom he decides to punish. I was thinking of the phrase "the elect" in those terms, and I'm not aware of any other context for that phrase. My assumption was that the notion of predestination was a widely circulated idea at the time the gospels were written and that the phrase "the elect" was likely included in Matthew's gospel as a way to acknowledge the popularity of that idea. But I'm willing to consider other contexts for the elect, if you can describe them.

We were talking about Matthew I thought, not Romans. Oh well.

Two things for your edification:

1) There is a debate among Christian theologians regarding the basis upon which God chooses to predestine people. See Molinism vs. Thomism for the Catholic angle, since you seem interested in that. None of that changes the discussion of what an individual ought to do if she wants to be saved, though.

2) The context of Romans 9 is about God's election of Israel as a nation. It's not about you, as an individual, knowing if you're personally predestined for salvation or not. That's a modern read.

Yes, I get that. But the passage from 1 Corinthians said that a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever makes the unbeliever holy, while the passage from 2 Corinthians says that believers and unbelievers cannot intermingle. That seems like a direct contradiction, at least to me.

Another case of absolute vs. principle. Broadly, Paul is saying Christians shouldn't marry non-Christians. Yet if there's a situation where one spouse converts, they shouldn't divorce and the Christian spouse can be spiritually helpful to the non-Christian.

Seems fairly straightforward, if we're reading the texts charitably at all.

You don't have to read the text like a fundamentalist.

Well, I think the two passages I cited from 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians show a clear contradiction-- and they were both written by the same author. As I explained above in my description of the elect, I think the concept that phrase evokes contradicts the other conditions for salvation I enumerated-- and with the exception of baptism, all of them came directly from the mouth of Jesus as related in the book of Matthew.

Only if you have one particular, modern version of election in your head as you read.

I'm not suggesting that the authors of the New Testament books had no goal and no coherent message. My suggestion is that the gospels in particular reflect a number of separate narratives about the life of Jesus that were repeated orally for some decades before being written down, and that the final works are composites of multiple narratives and beliefs. The examples of Matthew 16:15-16 and Matthew 25:31-43 seem to me very much like separate strains of thought that were merged together, without much consideration as to whether they actually cohere when taken together. They make sense separately, but not together. The gospels, as I see them, are collages, not pieces of a giant jigsaw puzzle.

I'm still trying to figure out what you think is contradictory in the Matthew passages. The point is to do all the things mentioned. And all the things mentioned are what the Church has been preaching for people to do for 2,000 years. What's confusing you?

 

[DavidSMoore]

The Qur'an is a whole other kettle of fish. Completely different context, language, and author.

If I were concerned about knowing the truth about salvation, shouldn't I approach all religious texts that promise eternal life with the same allowances as you are asking me to apply to the New Testament?

2) The context of Romans 9 is about God's election of Israel as a nation. It's not about you, as an individual, knowing if you're personally predestined for salvation or not. That's a modern read.

Not buying it:

You will say to me then, "When then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who indeed are you, a human, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use?
(Romans 9:19-21)

That sounds like the author is talking directly to an individual, not a nation. Then, further on:

As he also says in Hosea,
"Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,'
and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"
(Romans 9:25)

So he's talking about not just Jews, but gentiles as well. And by opening it up to gentiles, he's talking about all people. All individual people.

I'm still trying to figure out what you think is contradictory in the Matthew passages.

Matthew 25:31-43, read literally, says that those who were charitable toward their fellow humans will inherit the kingdom, and those were not will depart into the eternal fire. There's no room in that passage for any additional conditions. You're asking me to read passages like this one as broadly and as possible, to ignore their exclusive wording, and to just take the union of all of the requirements listed in the New Testament. To me that just seems to subvert the whole point of such passages.

The point is to do all the things mentioned. And all the things mentioned are what the Church has been preaching for people to do for 2,000 years. What's confusing you?

The fact that most every Christian sect has placed the emphasis on faith, not works. The fact that doctrinal statements by Church leaders have said that one's works cannot possibly result in salvation:

Whoever, therefore, who believes that he deserves grace because of his deeds, despises the merit and grace of Christ and is seeking a way to God without Christ by human strength, even though Christ has said about himself, “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6).
(Augsburg Confession of 1530)

The fact that many passages in the New Testament emphasize faith over works, as in these:

John 3:16
Romans 3:27-28
Galatians 2:16
2 Timothy 1:8-10
Titus 3:4-5

The fact that the Catholic Church in particular doesn't even think that forgiveness of the sins of others is a virtue.
I don't think I can accept your characterization of the last 2,000 years of Christian teachings. At a minimum it seems to me to be more diverse than you imply.

 

[Left Coast]

If I were concerned about knowing the truth about salvation, shouldn't I approach all religious texts that promise eternal life with the same allowances as you are asking me to apply to the New Testament?

If you were truly concerned about the fate of your soul, I would imagine you wouldn't just restrict yourself to the words of a book, considered outside any broader context and with zero nuance. You're approaching the Bible like the most hardline Sola Scriptura Protestant Christian, imagining that nothing should be believed beyond the literal written words in the Bible. You've even gone so far that you want us to interpret passages to the exclusion of other passages from the very same text and author. That's not what anyone would do who genuinely wants to understand what a text is actually attempting to convey, whether we're talking about the Bible or the Qur'an or the writings of Plato or the U.S. Constitution.

Not buying it:

You will say to me then, "When then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who indeed are you, a human, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use?
(Romans 9:19-21)

That sounds like the author is talking directly to an individual, not a nation.

I can understand that. Let's look at how the passage starts:

"For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race. They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 9:3-4

The whole passage, including the next two chapters, are about how Israel, collectively, has rejected Christ and thus God made it possible for the Gentiles to become spiritual "children of Abraham." And about how, collectively, God has not abandoned Israel or his promises to Israel despite their rejection of Jesus.

Paul's use of the potter and clay metaphor also has Biblical precedent that highlights this:

"Then the word of the Lord came to me: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? says the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it." Jeremiah 18:5-8

So we see that the reference here is to the house of Israel as the clay.

Jacob and Esau, whom Paul mentions individually, are elected by God to be the ancestors of different spiritual lineages. Back to Romans 9, verses 6-13:

"But it is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants; but “Through Isaac shall your descendants be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants. For this is what the promise said, “About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call, she was told, “The elder will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Election here, as I read it, isn't a reference to the individual fate of Jacob and Esau's souls. It's a reference to their different roles in bringing the Gentiles into covenant with God. Paul uses them as spiritual representatives of their spiritual descendants.

That reading is consistent with Paul's interpretation of characters in the Torah elsewhere in his writings. In Galatians 4, for example, Paul interprets the story of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar as spiritual allegory.

So as you can see, Paul's theology is...complicated. It doesn't help to hack at it like an intellectual serial killer with an axe. It's layered and complex and he doesn't resolve all the paradoxes for you.

Then, further on:

As he also says in Hosea,
"Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,'
and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"
(Romans 9:25)

So he's talking about not just Jews, but gentiles as well.

Yes, notice that he's talking about them collectively, as groups ('my people'). read verse 27:

"And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved; for the Lord will execute his sentence upon the earth with rigor and dispatch.”

And by opening it up to gentiles, he's talking about all people. All individual people.

Paul would certainly have said that salvation is open to all individual people. But the epistle to the Romans is Paul's opus describing the entire arc of salvation history and God's relationship, collectively, with Israel and now the Gentiles. His argument is that individual salvation gets applied to us by becoming spiritual "descendants of Isaac," God's chosen people.

Matthew 25:31-43, read literally, says that those who were charitable toward their fellow humans will inherit the kingdom, and those were not will depart into the eternal fire. There's no room in that passage for any additional conditions.

That just isn't the case. You're assuming there can be no other conditions. But the passage doesn't say that. So even on your myopic reading, where we're supposed to read every sentence in isolation and pretend no others exist, it doesn't follow.

You're asking me to read passages like this one as broadly and as possible, to ignore their exclusive wording, and to just take the union of all of the requirements listed in the New Testament. To me that just seems to subvert the whole point of such passages.

How? If you've read the Gospel of Matthew, you ought to know that Jesus' standard for his disciples is literally perfection:

"For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven...You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5:20, 43-48

So if anything, my broader reading of the text makes more sense of the entire narrative of Jesus' message in Matthew. He expects his disciples to have faith, and to be baptized, and to love others, and to forgive others, and to do good for the poor and hungry and so on. None of those things are contradictory. They're a package deal.

The fact that most every Christian sect has placed the emphasis on faith, not works.

Only those that have emerged since the Reformation (as your example illustrates). For the first 1500 years of Christian history, that dichotomy was not really emphasized.

The fact that many passages in the New Testament emphasize faith over works, as in these:

John 3:16

This verse mentions faith. That doesn't mean it places faith over works. We've been through this. Faith, in the Christian tradition, is not just intellectual assent to ideas. It's a practice. In John, faith itself is even called a work:

"Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”" John 6:28-29

If you want to make more sense of these texts, getting out of this Protestant paradigm you're reading them in would help.

Romans 3:27-28
Galatians 2:16

These passages say we are saved by faith rather than works of the Law, which are Paul's references to the requirements of the Torah such as circumcision. Do some reading on the "New Perspective on Paul" (which is ironically not new) if you want to dig deeper there.

2 Timothy 1:8-10
Titus 3:4-5

Yes, on Paul's view we are still ultimately saved by grace, not by our own independent merits. Both our faith and our righteous works, Paul would say, are made possible by grace (and so would all mainstream Christian Churches and denominations, even now).

The fact that the Catholic Church in particular doesn't even think that forgiveness of the sins of others is a virtue.

This is perhaps the silliest criticism of the thread. The fact that the Catholic Church doesn't include forgiveness on their list of virtues doesn't mean they don't care about forgiveness. Forgiveness, I would argue, is an expression of the virtue of love.

On forgiveness:

"Christian prayer extends to the forgiveness of enemies, transfiguring the disciple by configuring him to his Master. Forgiveness is a high-point of Christian prayer; only hearts attuned to God's compassion can receive the gift of prayer. Forgiveness also bears witness that, in our world, love is stronger than sin. The martyrs of yesterday and today bear this witness to Jesus. Forgiveness is the fundamental condition of the reconciliation of the children of God with their Father and of men with one another." CCC, Paragraph 2844

That doesn't strike me as words of a religion that doesn't value forgiveness. Forgiveness is one of the most central spiritual themes of Christianity. You really don't know this?

The Catholic Church has an entire sacrament specifically dedicated to forgiveness. The fact that the Church doesn't categorize forgiveness as a cardinal virtue is a very odd nit to pick.

 

[DavidSMoore]

If you were truly concerned about the fate of your soul, I would imagine you wouldn't just restrict yourself to the words of a book, considered outside any broader context and with zero nuance. You're approaching the Bible like the most hardline Sola Scriptura Protestant Christian, imagining that nothing should be believed beyond the literal written words in the Bible. You've even gone so far that you want us to interpret passages to the exclusion of other passages from the very same text and author. That's not what anyone would do who genuinely wants to understand what a text is actually attempting to convey, whether we're talking about the Bible or the Qur'an or the writings of Plato or the U.S. Constitution.

It also doesn't help that a great many Christians seem to enjoy nothing more than yelling at non-Christians to tell them that they're going to hell.

So as you can see, Paul's theology is...complicated. It doesn't help to hack at it like an intellectual serial killer with an axe. It's layered and complex and he doesn't resolve all the paradoxes for you.

I can agree with that, though I would prefer not to be called a serial killer.

Paul would certainly have said that salvation is open to all individual people. But the epistle to the Romans is Paul's opus describing the entire arc of salvation history and God's relationship, collectively, with Israel and now the Gentiles. His argument is that individual salvation gets applied to us by becoming spiritual "descendants of Isaac," God's chosen people.

I can accept that interpretation.

That just isn't the case. You're assuming there can be no other conditions. But the passage doesn't say that. So even on your myopic reading, where we're supposed to read every sentence in isolation and pretend no others exist, it doesn't follow.

The reference is to John 3:16. Here's John 3:18:

Those who believe in him are not condemned, but those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
(John 3:18)

As I read it, that's an explicitly exclusive statement. So is Mark 16:15-16, in my view.

Only those that have emerged since the Reformation (as your example illustrates). For the first 1500 years of Christian history, that dichotomy was not really emphasized.

I can grant you that.

Yes, on Paul's view we are still ultimately saved by grace, not by our own independent merits. Both our faith and our righteous works, Paul would say, are made possible by grace (and so would all mainstream Christian Churches and denominations, even now).

Agree.

This is perhaps the silliest criticism of the thread. The fact that the Catholic Church doesn't include forgiveness on their list of virtues doesn't mean they don't care about forgiveness. Forgiveness, I would argue, is an expression of the virtue of love.

On forgiveness:

"Christian prayer extends to the forgiveness of enemies, transfiguring the disciple by configuring him to his Master. Forgiveness is a high-point of Christian prayer; only hearts attuned to God's compassion can receive the gift of prayer. Forgiveness also bears witness that, in our world, love is stronger than sin. The martyrs of yesterday and today bear this witness to Jesus. Forgiveness is the fundamental condition of the reconciliation of the children of God with their Father and of men with one another." CCC, Paragraph 2844

I regret that I overlooked that paragraph.

I still think there's considerable confusion in both the New Testament texts themselves and in Christian beliefs about them as to whether faith alone is the key to salvation. I think there's direct evidence in some of the texts for that view, and that explains its popularity in some Christian circles. Besides, if one's actions in life were sufficient to guarantee a position in paradise, why would one need to become a Christian? This, I think, is the real reason that Paul emphasized the concept of grace.

Reading the New Testament as generously as possible has the risk that it can be read to mean almost anything. I spent many years as a software engineer-- which taught me to strive for precision and clarity. I realize that's something of a handicap in the realm of religion, but I don't think it would hurt to specify when passages are to be read generously and when they are to be read literally. Personally, I don't see how John 3:18 and Mark 16:15-16 can be read generously. We may have to agree to disagree on that.

I'm glad you've been willing to participate in this conversation.

 

[Left Coast]

It also doesn't help that a great many Christians seem to enjoy nothing more than yelling at non-Christians to tell them that they're going to hell.

I can appreciate that. I recently came across a group of sidewalk fire-and-brimstone street preachers in my own city and thought...who do these dudes think they're convincing? This just makes them look bad.

But if we want to be serious about trying to understand a text as it's intended to be read, I think it helps to look past the most obnoxious people advocating for it.

I can agree with that, though I would prefer not to be called a serial killer.

Only a metaphor! I'm quite sure you're harmless and meant no offense.

The reference is to John 3:16. Here's John 3:18:


As I read it, that's an explicitly exclusive statement. So is Mark 16:15-16, in my view.

But we've been through this, David. "Believing" encompasses works in the New Testament. Right in the same chapter in John, Jesus is reported to say:

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him." (3:36)

So in the minds of these authors, it's clear that they didn't have the same faith/works dichotomy in their heads that us post-Reformation moderns often do.

I still think there's considerable confusion in both the New Testament texts themselves and in Christian beliefs about them as to whether faith alone is the key to salvation. I think there's direct evidence in some of the texts for that view, and that explains its popularity in some Christian circles. Besides, if one's actions in life were sufficient to guarantee a position in paradise, why would one need to become a Christian? This, I think, is the real reason that Paul emphasized the concept of grace.

You're certainly right that faith is a central theme emphasized in the New Testament as necessary for salvation. No question there. But faith alone is repeatedly repudiated by passages we've already discussed (e.g. Matthew 25) and others we haven't (e.g. James, which explicitly says we're not justified by faith alone). One of the problems is that, in our culture that has historically been dominated by Protestantism, we have been primed to automatically read certain passages through that theological lens. And that creates exegetical problems that you've been highlighting.

Reading the New Testament as generously as possible has the risk that it can be read to mean almost anything. I spent many years as a software engineer-- which taught me to strive for precision and clarity. I realize that's something of a handicap in the realm of religion, but I don't think it would hurt to specify when passages are to be read generously and when they are to be read literally. Personally, I don't see how John 3:18 and Mark 16:15-16 can be read generously. We may have to agree to disagree on that.

I'm glad you've been willing to participate in this conversation.

No problem! It's been a while since I've had a good old fashioned Bible exegesis discussion so it's fun to exercise those muscles. And I do understand your hesitation about giving too much exegetical leeway, to the point where a passage can be made to say anything. There's a balance, IMHO, between hyper-literalism and hyper...spiritualism? Whatever we're calling the other end of that spectrum.

Anyway, happy to engage with you again any time (time permitting on my end).

 

[Brickjectivity]

From my point of view, Christians cannot claim to believe what Jesus actually taught. As I see it, they really believe in a carefully curated subset of his actual teachings. There’s nothing wrong with that, so long as you acknowledge it publicly. But that is something that I have never heard any Christian do. In my experience, Christians are more likely to quote copiously from the passages they like while loudly proclaiming that the Bible’s message is fully and fairly represented by just those few specific passages-- just as Mr. D’Souza did in the passage from his book cited above. Here’s how the Pope described the Catholic Catechism:

To me, it’s very dishonest to say that your analysis of the Bible is faithful and systematic when you have carefully danced around passages in the Bible that you don’t like.

In a way our interpretation are judgments of us, showing what our flaws are -- revealed by how we interpret. Words go through people like light goes through objects casting shadows. The thief might interpret in a way which excuses thefts and so forth. We are exposed by our interpretation. We are catalogued, labeled, put on a chart, shown on the map. Historians can classify us by how we interpret.

When two different people read scripture it creates two different scriptures. This is something visited in the NT. Its something worth emphasizing, and scriptures about this are worth looking into. I understand the frustration -- the problem -- of people claiming to the scripture says this or says that and microfocusing upon a curated set and cycle of interdefinitions in scriptures they revisit. They often claim that scripture interprets itself; but I think it doesn't.

Scripture tells us multiple ways that we have to interpret scripture, that different people have different interpretations and flawed descriptions of scripture, that we have to learn from God directly, that scripture isn't the 'Word of God' but is inspired of God, whereas the 'Word of God' is living and active.

Here are several canonical Christian references that can be used to extract the above if one so desires:

• [Heb 4:12 KJV] 12 For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
• [Jas 1:17-18 KJV] 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. 18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
• [Jas 3:6-8 KJV] 6 And the tongue [is] a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. 7 For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: 8 But the tongue can no man tame; [it is] an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
• [1Co 14:26 KJV] 26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
• [1Co 1:25-29 KJV] 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

I think its also implied that a person must bring to the table moral dedication, conviction, intention, and even though words fail us, reason is required. Here is a comment in Isaiah:

• [Isa 1:18 KJV] 18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Reason, then, is required. There is no getting around reason, even though discussion is tainted. Discussion is tainted, however reasoning can help.

• [1Pe 1:9, 13, 17 KJV] 9 Receiving the end of your faith, [even] the salvation of [your] souls. ... 13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; ... 17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning [here] in fear:

The above seems to state that Jesus Christ is not revealed in scripture but is revealed in death. In the finality, when Jesus Christ has been finally, fully revealed we do not yet know exactly how people then will understand Jesus Christ. Possible it is death or possibly it is in a future age when Jesus Christ will be fully revealed.

 

[DavidSMoore]

In a way our interpretation are judgments of us, showing what our flaws are -- revealed by how we interpret. Words go through people like light goes through objects casting shadows. The thief might interpret in a way which excuses thefts and so forth. We are exposed by our interpretation. We are catalogued, labeled, put on a chart, shown on the map. Historians can classify us by how we interpret.

Previously I argued that the New Testament is not without error. See this posting, if you haven’t already: Is it possible that Christianity is true, yet the Bible contains errors?

In this posting I argued that the Old Testament authors didn’t believe much of anything that the New Testament authors believed: The Messiah

So when the New Testament authors claimed that their narratives were a “fulfillment” of the predictions of the Old Testament authors, they were spin doctoring the Old Testament writings.

The question that @Left Coast and I have been discussing is how much latitude we should grant to the New Testament authors for statements they have made which, when read literally, don’t align. I’m less willing to read the New Testament authors generously than is @Left Coast because I think we have evidence that the New Testament writings contain errors and spin-- and because I think it’s far too easy to spin the New Testament writings, or those of any religious text, to mean almost anything. I think that if I had the inclination I could spin Mein Kampf to make it sound like the most heartwarming expression of indubitable truth one could ever hope to read. Indeed, there are many admirers of its depraved author who have done precisely that.

I maintain that the following passages, when read literally, define exclusive sets:

Set A: Mark 16:15-16, the set of all persons who are baptized and who believe in Jesus​

Set B: Matthew 6:14-15, the set of all persons who forgive the sins of other people​

Set C: Matthew 25:31-43, the set of all persons who are charitable to other people​

They’re exclusive because each of those passages defines a set-- and then goes on to say that those who are NOT in that set (i.e. the members of the sets ~A, ~B, and ~C) will NOT be granted entrance into paradise on the day of judgment. So if you’re in Set A, and not in Sets B and C, then you’ve still secured a place in paradise-- because the passage specifically says that of all the members of Set A. @Left Coast believes that the sets A, B, and C are actually all the same set, namely:

the set of all persons who are baptized and believe in Jesus, and who forgive the sins of others, and who are charitable to other people​

He argues that because he thinks it wouldn’t make sense for the New Testament authors to have intentionally defined each of these sets as being mutually exclusive.

That’s a fair point-- but it all boils down to a matter of interpretation. For example, what if the New Testament authors intended that conjunctive shouldn’t be “and,” but should rather be “or”:

the set of all persons who (are baptized and believe in Jesus), OR (who forgive the sins of others), OR (who have been charitable to other people)​

I don’t see anything in the actual text that would prevent such an interpretation. It might seem like the use of “or” doesn’t align with one’s expectations of what an author writing in the first century CE might believe, but since we don’t actually have the opportunity to question any of the New Testament authors as to exactly what they meant, we can only make assumptions and draw what we consider to be reasoned inferences.

Actually @Left Coast said it well when he said this about Paul’s theology:

So as you can see, Paul's theology is...complicated. … It's layered and complex and he doesn't resolve all the paradoxes for you.

The result is that we are stuck with trying to make sense of writings that, when read literally, are fraught with internal inconsistencies. @Left Coast believes that we must resolve these inconsistencies by assuming that the authors weren’t trying to confuse us with irreconcilable set theoretic puzzles, but were rather operating from a general belief that Christians should be perfect, as Jesus himself said in Matthew 5:48. So don’t sweat the details about disjoint sets-- nobody in the first century CE thought in terms of Venn diagrams anyway. Just put everything in a blender and hit “puree.”

I can accept that principle-- to a point. But at some point words matter. The question we’ve been debating is “Where exactly is that point?” I’ve been thinking a lot about this since yesterday and I don’t think there could ever be a hard and fast rule. I almost think it’s better to start with the actual literal wording, agree on what that means, and then state explicitly how generously you think it should be read to bring it into alignment with other passages.

I think the examples of sets A, B, and C above-- when read strictly literally-- indicate that the stories and parables and aphorisms in the book of Matthew likely arrived there via different paths. That is, the book of Matthew is an amalgam of various elements taken selectively from the orally transmitted narratives that were passed down from the time of Jesus. From my viewpoint, that’s the only explanation that accounts for the discrepancies in wording. That adds color to the overall structure of the book, and it complements the arguments I made in my two earlier postings cited above.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Previously I argued that the New Testament is not without error. See this posting, if you haven’t already: Is it possible that Christianity is true, yet the Bible contains errors?

In this posting I argued that the Old Testament authors didn’t believe much of anything that the New Testament authors believed: The Messiah

So when the New Testament authors claimed that their narratives were a “fulfillment” of the predictions of the Old Testament authors, they were spin doctoring the Old Testament writings.

The question that @Left Coast and I have been discussing is how much latitude we should grant to the New Testament authors for statements they have made which, when read literally, don’t align. I’m less willing to read the New Testament authors generously than is @Left Coast because I think we have evidence that the New Testament writings contain errors and spin-- and because I think it’s far too easy to spin the New Testament writings, or those of any religious text, to mean almost anything. I think that if I had the inclination I could spin Mein Kampf to make it sound like the most heartwarming expression of indubitable truth one could ever hope to read. Indeed, there are many admirers of its depraved author who have done precisely that.

Spin is what we put on it today, but back then it was not such difficult reading. I don't think that the gospel of Matthew was written to be read by everyone in a literal way, however I don't think its malicious spin either. I think that to the Jewish people reading it that it would obviously be considered midrash, beginning with its weird geneology of 42 generations and spooky talk about the number fourteen. Nothing wrong with midrash. As for the word 'Fulfil' its a dead giveaway that this is midrash. I checked, and each and every use of this term 'fulfil' by Matthew is used in the sense of 'Imitate', despite the dictionary definition of the word. That's not spin. That is literary art. A Jewish reader in that day and age would have instantly picked up on this. A Jewish reader in that day and age would also know that midrash was Ok, and what mattered was the commentary about how to live and to interpret the law. We should pay attention to what Jesus says about the law, about converts, about Romans, about various issues of concern to those people in that time. Matthew is probably a commentary on the law and how best to live in the present difficult moment, not a literal account despite what its introduction says. Calling it 'Spin' attributes a malice that is unecessary. It is about Jesus, but obviously it is about Israel, the resurrection of it. I think anybody can see that if they are familiar and look up all the references Matthew uses, but most people don't do like I do or think like me. Most are looking for assurances of some kind. If you take away the assurances then they don't see the point, lose interest or get annoyed. Perhaps they aren't ready for the material. When the student is ready the teacher will appear.

I maintain that the following passages, when read literally, define exclusive sets:

Set A: Mark 16:15-16, the set of all persons who are baptized and who believe in JesusSet B: Matthew 6:14-15, the set of all persons who forgive the sins of other peopleSet C: Matthew 25:31-43, the set of all persons who are charitable to other people
They’re exclusive because each of those passages defines a set-- and then goes on to say that those who are NOT in that set (i.e. the members of the sets ~A, ~B, and ~C) will NOT be granted entrance into paradise on the day of judgment. So if you’re in Set A, and not in Sets B and C, then you’ve still secured a place in paradise-- because the passage specifically says that of all the members of Set A. @Left Coast believes that the sets A, B, and C are actually all the same set, namely:

the set of all persons who are baptized and believe in Jesus, and who forgive the sins of others, and who are charitable to other people
He argues that because he thinks it wouldn’t make sense for the New Testament authors to have intentionally defined each of these sets as being mutually exclusive.

That’s a fair point-- but it all boils down to a matter of interpretation. For example, what if the New Testament authors intended that conjunctive shouldn’t be “and,” but should rather be “or”:

the set of all persons who (are baptized and believe in Jesus), OR (who forgive the sins of others), OR (who have been charitable to other people)
I don’t see anything in the actual text that would prevent such an interpretation. It might seem like the use of “or” doesn’t align with one’s expectations of what an author writing in the first century CE might believe, but since we don’t actually have the opportunity to question any of the New Testament authors as to exactly what they meant, we can only make assumptions and draw what we consider to be reasoned inferences.

I understand what you are saying, however the Jewish concept of paradise is much different than the modern Christian sentiment. Even in Matthew repentence equals resurrection. It is the resurrection. This is not going to break any Jewish minds. Since it is midrash they can take it or leave it. Christians having incorporated a solid belief in an afterlife do run into the problems that you point out in your sets.

I don't think we need to know the NT authors personally to know that they are not writing literally, and I think we can also presume they are writing in a Jewish context about problems happening around Jerusalem in a tumultuous time when the Romans are stomping about with swords and harrassing the populace. Personally I think the gospel material is likely a result of the temple's destruction rather than predicting it. Its a bird in the hand. I can't think of anything which would impact the Jews more than the destruction of their temple and crucifixion of 30,000 men. Certainly they must have had many conversations and written many midrash as a result. What Matthew puts forward is a peaceful response to this trouble.

Actually @Left Coast said it well when he said this about Paul’s theology:


The result is that we are stuck with trying to make sense of writings that, when read literally, are fraught with internal inconsistencies. @Left Coast believes that we must resolve these inconsistencies by assuming that the authors weren’t trying to confuse us with irreconcilable set theoretic puzzles, but were rather operating from a general belief that Christians should be perfect, as Jesus himself said in Matthew 5:48. So don’t sweat the details about disjoint sets-- nobody in the first century CE thought in terms of Venn diagrams anyway. Just put everything in a blender and hit “puree.”

There is a focus upon perfection, yes. The writers are working with the visions of Ezekiel and other prophets. They are dealing with an unbelievable event. If the temple has been destroyed *again* it must mean an even greater refining of Israel has come. Perfection is what the prophets say all of the suffering is for. Israel must be refined until it is like silver. It must also have a new kind of holiness that is contagious. Therefore perfection is expected and more perfection than ever. Whether this is literal or midrash I'd say they try very hard to take that literally. They want an end to the cycle of suffering for Israel and to help the rest of the world, too. Obviously they'd like Rome to become peaceful; and that is what Matthew is aiming for.

I can accept that principle-- to a point. But at some point words matter. The question we’ve been debating is “Where exactly is that point?” I’ve been thinking a lot about this since yesterday and I don’t think there could ever be a hard and fast rule. I almost think it’s better to start with the actual literal wording, agree on what that means, and then state explicitly how generously you think it should be read to bring it into alignment with other passages.

I think the examples of sets A, B, and C above-- when read strictly literally-- indicate that the stories and parables and aphorisms in the book of Matthew likely arrived there via different paths. That is, the book of Matthew is an amalgam of various elements taken selectively from the orally transmitted narratives that were passed down from the time of Jesus. From my viewpoint, that’s the only explanation that accounts for the discrepancies in wording. That adds color to the overall structure of the book, and it complements the arguments I made in my two earlier postings cited above.

Orally transmitted, but then the temple is destroyed and the streets lined with tortured dying men. Then the gospels are written down afterwards -- after the most disruptive event, most traumatic since the Assyrian invasion.

So I think that your exclusion sets are probably correct, however I don't think that they are discrepancies so much as literary art that has been taken too literally with understandable plot holes that result.

 

[Left Coast]

The question that @Left Coast and I have been discussing is how much latitude we should grant to the New Testament authors for statements they have made which, when read literally, don’t align. I’m less willing to read the New Testament authors generously than is @Left Coast because I think we have evidence that the New Testament writings contain errors and spin-- and because I think it’s far too easy to spin the New Testament writings, or those of any religious text, to mean almost anything. I think that if I had the inclination I could spin Mein Kampf to make it sound like the most heartwarming expression of indubitable truth one could ever hope to read. Indeed, there are many admirers of its depraved author who have done precisely that.

I maintain that the following passages, when read literally, define exclusive sets:

Set A: Mark 16:15-16, the set of all persons who are baptized and who believe in Jesus​

Set B: Matthew 6:14-15, the set of all persons who forgive the sins of other people​

Set C: Matthew 25:31-43, the set of all persons who are charitable to other people​

They’re exclusive because each of those passages defines a set-- and then goes on to say that those who are NOT in that set (i.e. the members of the sets ~A, ~B, and ~C) will NOT be granted entrance into paradise on the day of judgment. So if you’re in Set A, and not in Sets B and C, then you’ve still secured a place in paradise-- because the passage specifically says that of all the members of Set A. @Left Coast believes that the sets A, B, and C are actually all the same set, namely:

the set of all persons who are baptized and believe in Jesus, and who forgive the sins of others, and who are charitable to other people​

He argues that because he thinks it wouldn’t make sense for the New Testament authors to have intentionally defined each of these sets as being mutually exclusive.

That’s a fair point-- but it all boils down to a matter of interpretation.

Of course. And your interpretation, frankly, is at odds with pretty much all the surrounding evidence: the internal evidence from the text itself, as I've repeatedly shown, and the external evidence of what early Christians actually believed.

For example, what if the New Testament authors intended that conjunctive shouldn’t be “and,” but should rather be “or”:

the set of all persons who (are baptized and believe in Jesus), OR (who forgive the sins of others), OR (who have been charitable to other people)​

I don’t see anything in the actual text that would prevent such an interpretation. It might seem like the use of “or” doesn’t align with one’s expectations of what an author writing in the first century CE might believe, but since we don’t actually have the opportunity to question any of the New Testament authors as to exactly what they meant, we can only make assumptions and draw what we consider to be reasoned inferences.

This is more rather silly reasoning, Dave. Let me ask you this: Do you actually believe, actually genuinely honestly believe, that there were Christians running around in the 1st century who thought that faith was irrelevant and it didn't matter for people's salvation? That's a very simple yes or no question. Do you actually think that happened?

Because if you do, I have oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you. If you don't, then it becomes rather obvious that your hyper-literal reading of a few passages, to the exclusion of all others, is off.

I mean my goodness, even right in Matthew 25 we see yet more evidence that supports my conclusion. Immediately before the Last Judgement scene, Jesus tells a famous parable called the Parable of the Talents, also about how we will be judged. A master gives some servants money, and each servant either makes quite a bit of profit from it, or some, or none at all. And at the end, the master praises the servants who made some, and sends the one who did nothing with his talent to "outer darkness." And what does the master say to the two servants who were profitable?

"Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master." Matthew 25:21

So what is a person of faith, in this parable? Someone who does something. Not mere belief.

This parable occurs literally right before the Last Judgment scene you're fixating on. So not only do we have evidence from Matthew, we have evidence from literally the same chapter in Matthew that you're missing something here. This is not a case of different oral traditions contradicting. This is a case of you not understanding the text, friend.

Actually @Left Coast said it well when he said this about Paul’s theology:

The result is that we are stuck with trying to make sense of writings that, when read literally, are fraught with internal inconsistencies.

They're only "fraught with internal inconsistencies" here if you read them in the most absurd way possible: imagining some unheard-of oral tradition of Jesus and the earliest Christians who somehow didn't care about whether people have faith or that it is irrelevant to salvation. It just doesn't make sense, Dave. There's no evidence for it, and all kinds of evidence against it.

@Left Coast believes that we must resolve these inconsistencies by assuming that the authors weren’t trying to confuse us with irreconcilable set theoretic puzzles, but were rather operating from a general belief that Christians should be perfect, as Jesus himself said in Matthew 5:48. So don’t sweat the details about disjoint sets-- nobody in the first century CE thought in terms of Venn diagrams anyway. Just put everything in a blender and hit “puree.”

I can accept that principle-- to a point. But at some point words matter. The question we’ve been debating is “Where exactly is that point?” I’ve been thinking a lot about this since yesterday and I don’t think there could ever be a hard and fast rule. I almost think it’s better to start with the actual literal wording, agree on what that means, and then state explicitly how generously you think it should be read to bring it into alignment with other passages.

I don't think literal word meanings are a bad place to start when reading any text. But when your hyper-literal reading makes the text incoherent, it's time to realize you've missed something.

There's more to say about salvation in general, but that'll do for now.