the right religion

[waitasec]

Yeah I wonder how many going around killing Jews among others thought they were doing God's will. Probably a lot. Seems surprisingly easy to convince oneself of having the authority of God.

go figure...

 

[sojourner]

If you would post something in support of your claims from these people, providing links, your story might be believable.

This is part of what scholarship is about. What it is not about is empty claims.

The claims are quite legitimate. Unfortunately for you, my research is done via graduate courses, reading textbooks, and researching scholarly commentaries (such as the Anchor Bible Commentary, the TDNT, and peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles. The internet doesn't figure in to any of that. Links are of no help here. I provided you with several names of well-known biblical scholars. Go find some of their books and articles.

 

[1robin]

Well, I'd have to say that his "criterion," according to Matthew, is that there is no difference between sheep and goats, or wheat and tares. They are to be treated the same. The 28th chapter sums it up, when the disciples are told to go make laos out of the ethne. For Matthew, gatekeeping is verboten.

Just so I make sure that I have you correct. You are saying there is no difference in the end for an unsaved person and a born again believer. Why are they devided into groups if there is no differnce betwen the two. The bible warns over and over about the miserable fate of one group and the eternal happiness of the other group. I must have missunderstood something about what you said.

 

[sojourner]

Just so I make sure that I have you correct. You are saying there is no difference in the end for an unsaved person and a born again believer. Why are they devided into groups if there is no differnce betwen the two. The bible warns over and over about the miserable fate of one group and the eternal happiness of the other group. I must have missunderstood something about what you said.

I'm saying that Matthew urges us to reconcile what he sees as a false duality. God takes care of the rest. According to Mathew.

 

[1robin]

To an extent. The problem you have now is either God's commands in the OT are still objectively moral and we should follow them today or they weren't objectively moral undermining objective morality.

No the definition of objective value has no time requirement. Regardless his standards were only for the Jews of the time. You can call that subjective if you want but I do not agree. They were objective in effect for the Jews. They were not subject to anyones opinion and that is the main requirement. Basically the standard has to have sovereignty over it's subjects and it did.

So you're saying that God couldn't have made us more perfect in the first place? Also God's justice is completely messed up as he knows everything about us. Why we believed and why we didn't. So he knows if people found no good evidence to believe in him yet he'll punish them anyway. How is that just and loving of him? and yes I can consider the slight possibility of it being true but that doesn't make it reasonable to believe. It's possible that unicorns exist but unreasonable to believe they actually exist (for example). As for your "billions of people" I'm just going to ignore that as it adds nothing to the discussion

You are making all kinds of assumptions that are incorrect to support an incorrect premise. God made us perfect for his purpose. That purpose includes the choice to not chose him. It isn't that they couldn't find evidence, there is far more than enough evidence available. It was that they chose to ignore or find invalid fault. They had suffecient power to chose what they wanted. The same is true today. It is hard to claim insuffeciency of evidence when 2 billion plus for it suffecient. Doesn't make it true just suffecient. IMO the claim there is not enough evidence is a cop out used to justify unbelief. If he made us so that we could not chose to refuse him I would consider that unjust, pointless, and a violation of love and freewill. The use of numbers are valid if not used as proof but only a suffeciency of evidence on which to chose.

 

[Oryonder]

The claims are quite legitimate. Unfortunately for you, my research is done via graduate courses, reading textbooks, and researching scholarly commentaries (such as the Anchor Bible Commentary, the TDNT, and peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles. The internet doesn't figure in to any of that. Links are of no help here. I provided you with several names of well-known biblical scholars. Go find some of their books and articles.

There is all kinds of scholarly material on the web .. although I do appreciate what you are saying. There is a difference between sitting in library and pouring through Journal articles and books and trying to find descent stuff on the Web. Much of the really good stuff cost money but sometimes you can find good material for free.

Im not interested in substantiating your claims for you.

I will however provide you with some subtantiation for my claims.

This is from the Haydock Catholic Bible commentary.

Matthew 25:31-46: Douay-Rheims Bible parallel Haydock Commentary - veritasbible.com

We may take notice, that the wicked at the day of judgment, are said to be condemned for having omitted to perform good works. Wi. — S. Austin, in his 33d sermon, brings a beautiful reason why the kingdom of heaven is bestowed solely upon the works of mercy, and eternal damnation for the neglect of them; viz. because, however just a man may be, still he has many failings to atone for, on account of which the kingdom of heaven might be justly denied him: but because he has shewn mercy to his neighbours, he deserves in like manner to have mercy shewn him.

"Jesus Christ chargeth them not here with a want of faith, but with a want of good works. They certainly believed, but they attended not to good works; as if a dead faith"

Clearly someone out there in the religious community thought that Jesus was talking about works in Matt 25.

Here is another commentary from an Assistant Prof of NT at the Wesley Theological Seminary WorkingPreacher.org

The righteous ones performed these deeds with no idea that they were ministering to Christ. Jesus says that whenever they gave food to the hungry, welcomed a stranger, clothed the naked, or visited the sick or imprisoned, they acted in kindness toward Jesus himself

Again it is the works that are emphasised. I like her idea the righteous were ones that did not even know they were acting on the basis of "faith"/ ministering to Christ. This seems to make total sense in the context of the passage.

Also this is totally in keeping with the message of James (Faith without works is dead)

Notice that both sources I gave you should be considered biased towards traditional dogma.

Material that is truly "authentic scholarship" should consider both sides .. ones that are biased towards traditional dogma but also those that are not.

Since you have not even considered sources that are (on your side) so to speak .. I highly doubt that you have considered neutral sources (not necessarily on your side) and on this basis I reject your claim to "authentic scholarship".

 

[Oryonder]

I find it touching and amusing that you seem to think you know more than the esteemed scholars who write the commentaries. Do you know why they separate the words of Jesus from the texts? Because they all know that there's not a lot of verifiably authentic quotations in the canonical gospels. Matthew borrows from both Mark and Q, and substantially twists the messages to an urban POV. We have to separate Matthew's spin from Jesus "might have actually said" in order to get at the truth.

I missed commenting on this one. Who do you think has "the least spin" .. John, Paul, Ringo, Matt, Luke, Mark, James.

 

[waitasec]

I missed commenting on this one. Who do you think has "the least spin" .. John, Paul, Ringo, Matt, Luke, Mark, James.

you forgot george.

 

[sojourner]

Clearly someone out there in the religious community thought that Jesus was talking about works in Matt 25.

Well, of course he's talking about works (and I appreciate the citations), but I think we have to be careful not to make Matthew all about works. If you'll notice your second source, it mentions that those doing the works aren't doing them "for Jesus." I think that's spot on. We don't do works "in order to be saved" or "to win God's favor." We do good works, because that's what people do who love each other and who love God. And that, I think, is the whole thrust of Matthew.

Matthew is most likely writing to a group of Jewish Xtians living in a Greek city. These are people who have always "kept the Law." But, most likely, they had kept the Law in order to be righteous. But Matthew wants to get rid of the whole righteous/unrighteous, in/out duality. His suggestion that the law be kept with the proper attitude is what separates the old Israel from the true Israel.

Material that is truly "authentic scholarship" should consider both sides .. ones that are biased towards traditional dogma but also those that are not.

You're right, of course.

Since you have not even considered sources that are (on your side) so to speak .. I highly doubt that you have considered neutral sources (not necessarily on your side) and on this basis I reject your claim to "authentic scholarship".

Actually, I have considered them. But, every good scholar also has to make a decision as to which camp he's going to play in, and which side of the fence he's going to come down on. My NT prof currently has an ongoing argument going with another NT scholar who's arguing for "early John." Both present compelling evidence, and one simply has to decide which evidence one is going to work with as a basis.

 

[sojourner]

I missed commenting on this one. Who do you think has "the least spin" .. John, Paul, Ringo, Matt, Luke, Mark, James.

I don't think any of them have "the least spin." Well, maybe Ringo, 'cause it's awfully difficult to play the drums correctly when one isn't sitting still.

I think each writer has his own perspective, and his own message. Each is equally important, which is why it is important that we don't dismiss any of them out-of-hand. I think we need all of them to gain a broader picture of Jesus. Keep in mind that there are no "originals." Even Q represents a certain spin that is incomplete without other POVs.

 

[sojourner]

you forgot george.

he sang, "My Sweet Lord..."

 

[waitasec]

he sang, "My Sweet Lord..."

then he must be an apostle...

 

[sojourner]

then he must be an apostle...

Either that, or John and Paul were Beatles...

:band:

 

[1robin]

Why does this passage trouble you so much that you can not give a straight answer ?

I don't have any trouble with it. I simply said that someone with a rapid bias could have made the interpretation you did from it and so I clarified it to be more specific.

Why do you continue to deny the obvious ?

I don't thats why accept salvation by faith.

The basis on which Jesus gives the keys to the kingdom in Matt 25 is



"Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me"

The criteria for eternal life and entrance into the kingdom given by Jesus in this passage is clear. Why do you continue to deny this.

I do not deny that faith is excluded as a criteria on the basis of Matt 25. Just because faith is absent from Matt 25 does not mean that it is not a criteria as well. It just is not mentioned.

Talking about all over the place. Here once again is the most respected and accepted commentary of this chapter. He says: We are not to suppose that acts of bounty will entitle to eternal happiness. Good works done for God's sake, through Jesus Christ, are here noticed as marking the character of believers made holy by the Spirit of Christ, and as the effects of grace bestowed on those who do them.
Matthew 25 - Matthew Henry’s Commentary - Bible Commentary

However lets just do what you are trying to do. Find a group of verses that on the surface speak about works and assert that is the sum total of the salvation message. Ignore the dozens of verses that say point blank not by works but by faith. Let's assume as you have this is all we have. And lets assume that Mathew Henry, Wesley and the other commentators are wrong. And lets assume these verses are in fact saying works bring salvation. What are we left with.
1. I must give Christ and Christians drinks of water. How many is enough? What if I miss one?
2. I must feed all Christians? How many? What if I starve my family in order to feed all I come across?
3. I must invite in my home and put my family at risk for anyone claiming to be Christian.
4. I must find all sick Christians and care for them.
5. I must find all naked Christians and give them my clothes.
6. I must find all Christians in prison and visit them.
What a rediculous system for salvation. What if I am home bound and sick myself? What if I have none of the things to give. What if I think the guy who asks for shelter is a murderer who is only faking his faith. I am supposed to risk a tragedy so I can be saved. If I fail once am I doomed, what about twice or ten times? How do I know I am saved and can represent God? Why did Jesus die for? What do I do with the other 80% of the new testament? Works are a completely irrational and impossible system. If we go by strict adherence to this system not one human being who ever lived will be saved. It is stupid.

What is given as a clear criteria is "works".

Good luck with that idea.

Why do you accuse me of hating Paul and John ? There is no need to demonize someone just because they hold different beliefs than yours.

For crying out loud it is a figure of speech. You wish to dismiss what God approved you must hate something.

When you find yourself on the precipice such that you feel your whole foundation will crumble if you grant a simple truth .. I suggest you heed the words of Jesus and build your foundation on something other than sand.

This flowery garbage is meaningless. Your premise is faulty.

It is the truth that sets one free. If you can not handle this truth then I suggest you probe into the reason why.

Now it's truth I thought it was works. I reject your system because it is impossible. Because it is unbiblical. Bescause it destroys any attempt at biblical harmony. It requires us to reject what God accepted. I makes the focus, my performance not Christs sacrifice, and it is wrong. It justifies boasting and nullifies grace. ETC......

 

[1robin]

Those numbers are way low but it matters not. Most people did not make it to trial.

It is really frustrating when people change facts to suit theories. I have looked up the numbers of the inquisition. They are very accurately known.
Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can find all the info you want at that site and it will be exactly what I said. You are also wrong about the trial aspect of the inquisition. It had strict requirements for elaborate trial procedures. The inquisition trial records are far more detailed and comprehensive that the secular courts of the time. Another thing is the inquisition as a rule did not execute any one. They were forbidden by a tradition that stops them from shedding blood and by a secular law that fobid them from condemning people to death. If that was the finding they were turned over to secular courts for prosecution. Of course there are always a few exceptions however no ones knows much about those because there are no records.

There were millions of people killed "in the name of God" during more than 1000 years of atrocities committed by the Church after Constantine.

Your millions only exists in your head. That site has very detailed records of how many were killed. In fact all the trials put together for evey offense including the ones that were declared innocent adds up to less than a million and the executions less than 5000.

The most recent was in WWII, Coation Genocide committed against Orthadox and Jewish Serbs. Hundreds of thousands were killed. WWII, Ustashi butchery of the Serbs

What does this have to do with the inquisition.

Catholic Bishops were found guilty of war crimes after the fact (despite massive political opposition). The Pope helped the Croatian leader Pavelic escape after the war.

What Christians do if completely against what the religion claims has no bearing on the religion. What is the point? That is assuming you are even correct in your claims. I can claim I am a circus clown and blow up a school. Does that have any meaning for circus clowndom. You judge a system by it's adherents not it's rebels.

The Church had spent 1600 years persecuting Jews (and anyone else that did not conform) .. WWII was no different.

Funny I thought Hitler killed the Jews. He said in his own words that his race superiority ideas justified by evolutionary principles led him to do what he did. The Catholic Church virtually as a whole wanted nothing to do with him that is why he completely turned against the faith in approx 1943. I am speaking as a Christian who doesn't even like the Catholic church and abhores it's history. My position is based on accurate history not biased histerics.

You should study up on the history a bit before making these claims.
Apologising for the absolutely nasty history is siding with evil.

My claims are far more consistent with history than your distorted claims and I have never "sided" with the inquisition or the crusades etc.... and in fact have condemed them repeatedly. Please employ a basic sence of Honor and quit asserting incorrectly what I believe and get your facts straight.

 

[waitasec]

Either that, or John and Paul were Beatles...

:band:

blasphemy....

 

[sojourner]

blasphemy....

well, John did say that they were more popular than Jesus...

 

[waitasec]

well, John did say that they were more popular than Jesus...

he might have been on to something....but we will never know.

 

[sojourner]

he might have been on to something....but we will never know.

well, all I know is that if Jesus had had long hair and a beard, and sang about love and kindness...

Oh, wait! He did that!

But he didn't hang out with Ravi Shankar and drop acid...
And he wasn't in the Lonely Hearts Club Band.

::edit::
But, according to Mark, he was the "fool on the hill..."

 

[1robin]

well, John did say that they were more popular than Jesus...

Things didn't go so well after that.