"What Jesus REALLY meant was ...."

[Jayhawker Soule]

But you will of course meet the looney fringe who even deny Moses wrote the first 5 book s of the Bible.

Let me at 'em! Let me at 'em!!​

(Talk about adolescent confirmation bias run amok. Clearly any talk about 'Debate' here is a simply a joke.)

 

[Windwalker]

If Christian says that Jesus did not die on a cross ,is not the Son of God , is not divine , did not resurect , is only an Angel/ Spirit creature, is only a Prophet and such then i.d seriously have doubts that this person is a saved Christian. Or that he lost his mind .

You're saying that a person's theological perspective determines their salvation? Where does Love and Grace fit in, if one is saved by their beliefs? Is salvation dependent upon answering the doctrinal questions correctly on an entrance exam quiz for heaven?

Can a Christian believe the resurrection was symbolic, and not literally physical, and still be a Christian according to you? Can a Christian not believe in the Trinity doctrine, and still be a Christian? Can a Christian believe in the meaning of the stories of the Bible, without believing they literally happened historically, such as Noah's Ark?

 

[John1.12]

Prove it.

13 epistles written by Paul . The focus after Acts is Paul not Peter .

 

[John1.12]

You're saying that a person's theological perspective determines their salvation? Where does Love and Grace fit in, if one is saved by their beliefs?

1 cor 1.21 .

 

[Windwalker]

1 cor 1.21 .

Where is there theological beliefs stipulated in that quote? I don't see that at all. How do you?

But, we can see in Romans 14, the same book, that Paul points out that we are not saved by how we believe. Are you familiar with that chapter of the Bible?

 

[John1.12]

While you're at it, prove this as well.

Thats not how it works . Catholics need to show in the bible where it says these things about Mary . It Doesnt .

 

[John1.12]

Where is there theological beliefs stipulated in that quote? I don't see that at all. How do you?

But, we can see in Romans 14, the same book, that Paul points out that we are not saved by how we believe. Are you familiar with that chapter of the Bible?

21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. ' SAVE THEM THAT BELIEVE " The context is believe the Gospel ( 1 cor 1.15 , Just a few verses before)

 

[John1.12]

You're saying that a person's theological perspective determines their salvation? Where does Love and Grace fit in, if one is saved by their beliefs? Is salvation dependent upon answering the doctrinal questions correctly on an entrance exam quiz for heaven?

Can a Christian believe the resurrection was symbolic, and not literally physical, and still be a Christian according to you? Can a Christian not believe in the Trinity doctrine, and still be a Christian? Can a Christian believe in the meaning of the stories of the Bible, without believing they literally happened historically, such as Noah's Ark?

God gave the prerequisite , as the scriptures say in 1cor 1.21 .
Then we read Romans 10.9
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

 

[Windwalker]

21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. ' SAVE THEM THAT BELIEVE " The context is believe the Gospel ( 1 cor 1.15 , Just a few verses before)

Belief in the Gospel, can take many forms. Are you absolutely certain your ideas today, 100% match the exact same thought patterns as early Christians? Are you absolutely certain they match anyone else's views today, even match what your own were from previous years, or may become in future years? Are you saying beliefs need to be rigid, fixed, and static, and that is what gets you saved? Yes or no?

If yes, how do you reconcile that with Romans 14?

 

[John1.12]

Where is there theological beliefs stipulated in that quote? I don't see that at all. How do you?

But, we can see in Romans 14, the same book, that Paul points out that we are not saved by how we believe. Are you familiar with that chapter of the Bible?

Which verse in 14 ? its a big chapter?

 

[pearl]

This is Eastern mysticism mixed with Roman Catholicism IMO .Mary was not ' Immaculate 'in the sense in which Catholicism teaches

Look up what Martin Luther and the Lutheran Church hold to be true of Mary.

The 'Primacy ' of Peter is another Catholic, false assertion

While the NT knows nothing of a Petrine Papal primacy, however, Peter is not only the first Apostle named, but becomes in Acts the spokesman for the others. Even when he is paired with John, the latter is always the silent partner (1:15; 2:14, 38; 3:1, 3-4, 6, 11-12; 4:8, 13, 19; 5:3, 8-9, 15, 29;8:14, 20). Peter is the sole actor in 9:32-43; 10:5-46; 11:2-13 and delivers an important address at the Jerusalem “Council” (15:7).

 

[John1.12]

Belief in the Gospel, can take many forms. Are you absolutely certain your ideas today, 100% match the exact same thought patterns as early Christians? Are you absolutely certain they match anyone else's views today, even match what your own were from previous years, or future years? Are you saying beliefs need to be rigid, fixed, and static, and that is what gets you saved? Yes or no?

What do those verses say ? There very clear . Its God who decides the prerequisite.

 

[Windwalker]

What do those verses say ? There very clear . Its God who decides the prerequisite.

It's clear to me that they do not mean you are required to believe exactly the same way as everyone else in order to be saved. That violates everything Paul teaches in Romans 14. Have you read that chapter recently?

 

[John1.12]

Look up what Martin Luther and the Lutheran Church hold to be true of Mary.



While the NT knows nothing of a Petrine Papal primacy, however, Peter is not only the first Apostle named, but becomes in Acts the spokesman for the others. Even when he is paired with John, the latter is always the silent partner (1:15; 2:14, 38; 3:1, 3-4, 6, 11-12; 4:8, 13, 19; 5:3, 8-9, 15, 29;8:14, 20). Peter is the sole actor in 9:32-43; 10:5-46; 11:2-13 and delivers an important address at the Jerusalem “Council” (15:7).

Its Paul that is given the gospel of grace and the mysteries. Its Paul who is the apostle to the gentiles . Peter is scarcely the focus after Acts . Peter is not even in Rome . There's no visit by Peter mentioned in the book of Romans. No Peter at the church in Rome? The irony .

 

[Trailblazer]

Jesus did not teach anything Christian. He did not himself teach that his death would save you through the crucifixion, nor that he would return in an apocalypse to judge the believers and the non-believers.

Those are the teachings of early Christians who wrote up the Christian gospel story in various forms.

No, Jesus did not teach either of those things and it would be good of Christians at least 'realized' that their beliefs are not according to what Jesus actually taught, but rather their beliefs are according to Paul and what the Christians decided at the Council of Nicaea.

How Paul changed the course of Christianity

PAUL vs. JESUS: A List of Contradictory and Incompatible Statements

 

[Trailblazer]

This is Eastern mysticism mixed with Roman Catholicism IMO .Mary was not ' Immaculate 'in the sense in which Catholicism teaches .The 'Primacy ' of Peter is another Catholic, false assertion .

Catholicism has more claims to Christianity than Protestantism since Jesus gave the 'keys of the kingdom' to Peter, not to Paul. Paul Changed the course of Christianity and created a new religion which was far from what Jesus taught. Christians should at least be aware of what they are believing and living by. It is the religion of the Church and Paul, not the religion of Jesus.

“That the figure of the Nazarene, as delivered to us in Mark’s Gospel, is decisively different from the pre-existent risen Christ proclaimed by Paul, is something long recognized by thinkers like Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Herder and Goethe, to mention only a few. The distinction between ‘the religion of Christ’ and ‘the Christian religion’ goes back to Lessing. Critical theological research has now disputed the idea of an uninterrupted chain of historical succession: Luther’s belief that at all times a small handful of true Christians preserved the true apostolic faith. Walter Bauer (226) and Martin Werner (227) have brought evidence that there was conflict from the outset about the central questions of dogma. It has become clear that the beliefs of those who had seen and heard Jesus in the flesh --- the disciples and the original community--- were at odds to an extraordinary degree with the teaching of Paul, who claimed to have been not only called by a vision but instructed by the heavenly Christ. The conflict at Antioch between the apostles Peter and Paul, far more embittered as research has shown (228) than the Bible allows us to see, was the most fateful split in Christianity, which in the Acts of the Apostles was ‘theologically camouflaged’. (229)

Paul, who had never seen Jesus, showed great reserve towards the Palestinian traditions regarding Jesus’ life. (230) The historical Jesus and his earthly life are without significance for Paul. In all his epistles the name ‘Jesus’ occurs only 15 times, the title ‘Christ’ 378 times. In Jesus’s actual teaching he shows extraordinarily little interest. It is disputed whether in all his epistles he makes two, three or four references to sayings by Jesus. (231) It is not Jesus’ teaching, which he cannot himself have heard at all (short of hearing it in a vision), that is central to his own mission, but the person of the Redeemer and His death on the Cross.

Jesus, who never claimed religious worship for himself was not worshipped in the original community, is for Paul the pre-existent risen Christ….

This was the ‘Fall’ of Christianity: that Paul with his ‘Gospel’, which became the core of Christian dogma formation, conquered the world, (237) while the historic basis of Christianity was declared a heresy….

Pauline heresy served as the basis for Christian orthodoxy, and the legitimate Church was outlawed as heretical’. (240) The ‘small handful of true Christians’ was Nazarene Christianity, which was already extinct in the fourth century……

The centerpiece then, of Christian creedal doctrine, that of Redemption, is something of which—in the judgment of the theologian E. Grimm (244) --- Jesus himself knew nothing; and it goes back to Paul. “

(Udo Schaefer, Light Shineth in Darkness, Studies in revelation after Christ )

How Paul changed the course of Christianity

 

[SigurdReginson]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion right?

Well... That's kind of the point I was driving at previously. Sometimes the bible says two completely different things on the same exact subject, like who Jesus's patrial lineage included between Mathew and Luke.

When you have things like that all over the bible, you are going to have difference of opinion on what things mean exactly. That's one reason literalism within Christianity doesn't work, imo. Not even authors like C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien were literalists precisely for this reason alone.

I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, though. You seem like a really good person, but I think what people take away from the bible says more about them than what it says about the bible.

Haha, @SigurdReginson in respect ; Still believe that what happened to Judas was that. When Judas realized what he done by selling out an innocent man; namely Jesus Christ. Looking upon the Lord Jesus after 3 years of spending time together with him and the disciples. He internally became and felt guilty and was very conscience of what was done, which sent him into his own demise; which led to killing himself.

This is what I get from the entire picture.

That's fair enough.

Do you believe this can happen to someone today? @SigurdReginson selling out someone that leads them to guilt; and they sold the person out for their own gain. Later realizing what they had done was wrong?

Oh definitely. Regret is a powerful emotion for people to deal with... Those who don't seek counceling with heavy things like that are definitely more at risk of taking their own lives.

Though regret is a terrible burden to bear, it can also be a tool used to keep one's mind focused on never making the same mistake again. It's a painful, but useful reminder.

My insight really doesn't have much to do with the topic on hand, though, so I'll probably just leave it at that.

 

[Katzpur]

Mormonsim ,teaches Jesus is the brother of Satan . That we were all literal spirit babies created by 'heavenly father ' Then sent to earth ( of course we don't remember this ) for exaltation, proving one to be worthy by following gods law s and the many things that are required by the modern day Prophets at the big ole temples . God literally had sex with Mary to create Jesus. This is just a few weird things that Mormons believe that's so far from Christianity its amazing . The only thing that's Christian about it is the name . Which some are duped into thinking this means it must be Christian.

Barry, you are so misguided when it comes to Mormonism it's not even funny. The sad truth of the matter is that there are some people (you are apparently one of them) who simply would rather believe the caricatures, the half-truths and the lies than take the time to find out what it is Mormons really believe. I've been a Mormon for all of my 72 years on earth and I can guarantee that my understanding of Mormonism exceeds yours by light years. After over 15 years on this forum, though, I have finally learned that it is a complete waste of my time to try to educate the willfully ignorant. This is why, after years of being one of the forum's most prolific posters, I seldom have anything to say anymore. Why talk if people like you are simply going to let everything I say go in one ear and out the other?

 

[metis]

13 epistles written by Paul . The focus after Acts is Paul not Peter .

That is not proof of anything other than Paul wrote more epistles that's in the canon we use than anyone else.

When one states something as a fact, then the burden of proof falls on them, and the above simply skirted the issue. A far better way of dealing with this is to say "I believe ,,,", which then at least may open up a serious discussion.

 

[metis]

Thats not how it works . Catholics need to show in the bible where it says these things about Mary . It Doesnt .

See above.

You are the one who made the assertion as if it's a fact, not I. OTOH, if you want to actually have a serious discussion on this, why not just ask instead of strutting around like a know-it-all?