"What Jesus REALLY meant was ...."

[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).

I do not follow Martin Luther . I'm not a Lutheran.

 

[John1.12]

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?

Which verse ?

 

[John1.12]

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

Peter affirms Paul so none of this holds water .

 

[John1.12]

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?

So which bit did I say that was false?

 

[Trailblazer]

Peter affirms Paul so none of this holds water .

Peter might have affirmed Paul but what I posted still holds water. What Paul did after Peter affirmed Paul was go off on a tangent of his own, change what Jesus taught, and create a new religion.

If you look at all the references you can see that it is based upon research. What research have you done?

 

[Colt]

what we see in other religions and philosphies is a claim on Jesus . As a Christian we of course have our differences on certain verses and doctrines . But this is within christianity. We see the issue is down to our free will and different opinions and such . But imagine to our horror ,when we see other religions who make a claim on Jesus and what he taught and they have not the same world view . Its hard enough within the same worldview , But what we see is all these claims from ' outside ' and how radical theses claims are .
Here are a few
Mormonsim teaches Jesus went to America to preach to the natives .

Jehovah's_Witnesses teach that Jesus is micheal the Arch Angel .

Hinduism and Buddhism see Jesus as a spiritual guide of sorts . An enlightened one.

Islam. He's a prophet. Not the Son of God and that he certainly didn't die on a cross or resurrect.

We could name countless religions who have a claim on Jesus . Its always a different Jesus than the Jesus of the bible . Of course this shows he impacted the world and not Just in Jerusalem, but the whole world . But we have radically different claims on him .

Thoughts?

The New Testament and subsequent Christianity is largely about Paul's opinion of the Jesus of his purported Damascus road encounter.

The Michael of the Book of Revelation isnt called "Michael the archangel". Its Just "Michael and his angels fought the dragon." There are other Michaels in the Bible like "Sethur son of Michael."

 

[John1.12]

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.

If the majority of teaching, instruction , direction , revelation is given 13 whole epistles ,to the Church for the church and its focused mainly on one person who is writing to the Church ,this should be self evident.

 

[John1.12]

Peter might have affirmed Paul but what I posted still holds water. What Paul did after Peter affirmed Paul was go off on a tangent of his own, change what Jesus taught, and create a new religion.

If you look at all the references you can see that it is based upon research. What research have you done?

Peter affirms Paul's writing.

 

[Katzpur]

So which bit did I say that was false?

Before I answer your question, let me ask you one. I'm not sure how much you know about Catholicism. Do you know that Catholics believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation? This means that they believe that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist are literally transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. They eat the bread and drink the wine, actually believing this to be the case, and they can provide you with biblical support for this doctrine. My question to you is... Do you believe that Catholics are cannibals? Why or why not?

 

[John1.12]

The New Testament and subsequent Christianity is largely about Paul's opinion of the Jesus of his purported Damascus road encounter.

The Michael of the Book of Revelation isnt called "Michael the archangel". Its Just "Michael and his angels fought the dragon." There are other Michaels in the Bible like "Sethur son of Michael."

Jude 1:9 - Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

 

[John1.12]

Before I answer your question, let me ask you one. I'm not sure how much you know about Catholicism. Do you know that Catholics believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation? This means that they believe that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist are literally transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. They eat the bread and drink the wine, actually believing this to be the case, and they can provide you with biblical support for this doctrine. My question to you is... Do you believe that Catholics are cannibals? Why or why not?

I believe transubstantiation is not said / described / laid out / directed, in any book of the bible, so therefore its completely unbiblical and a roman Catholic invention ( from tradition)

 

[John1.12]

The New Testament and subsequent Christianity is largely about Paul's opinion of the Jesus of his purported Damascus road encounter.

The Michael of the Book of Revelation isnt called "Michael the archangel". Its Just "Michael and his angels fought the dragon." There are other Michaels in the Bible like "Sethur son of Michael."

The New Testament and subsequent Christianity is largely about Jesus ,his life his death ,burial and resurrection. Paul affirms all of this .

 

[John1.12]

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?

I'm trying to respond to each message which isn't easy ,but I'm trying to answer respectfully.

 

[Windwalker]

Which verse ?

The entire chapter, as I said. If correct beliefs is what saves us, which I believe you embrace as true, then for one instance in that chapter, Paul says that one person esteems one day, and the other does not. But that each one should be convinced in their own minds. In other words, it has nothing to do with getting the right answers on the test to get into heaven, which you appear to espouse. How do you explain that whole chapter then, if you think all Christians need to believe the same way? Please explain that to me.

 

[John1.12]

Before I answer your question, let me ask you one. I'm not sure how much you know about Catholicism. Do you know that Catholics believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation? This means that they believe that the bread and wine used in the Eucharist are literally transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. They eat the bread and drink the wine, actually believing this to be the case, and they can provide you with biblical support for this doctrine. My question to you is... Do you believe that Catholics are cannibals? Why or why not?

The entire chapter, as I said. If correct beliefs is what saves us, which I believe you embrace as true, then for one instance in that chapter, Paul says that one person esteems one day, and the other does not. But that each one should be convinced in their own minds. In other words, it has nothing to do with getting the right answers on the test to get into heaven, which you appear to espouse. How do you explain that whole chapter then, if you think all Christians need to believe the same way? Please explain that to me.

That Chapter is written to already saved Christians . Its to the Church at Rome ?

 

[Windwalker]

That Chapter is written to already saved Christians . Its to the Church at Rome ?

And, you are saying that only those who are saved Christians all have to believe the same ways about God? Yes? If so, and Paul is writing this to saved Christians who clearly do not all believe the same ways, to stop judging other Christians by how they believe, are you willing to recognize your are making the same mistake they were which Paul corrects them over?

 

[Marcion]

The New Testament and subsequent Christianity is largely about Jesus ,his life his death ,burial and resurrection. Paul affirms all of this .

Yes, because that is how early Christians shaped the story about Jesus.
But it did not start out that way.
That is why the first and the second half of gMark are so very different in character. They seem to have been written in two different stages. The kerygma came as a secondary (Hellenistic) development.
The only connecting parts are the bits where "Jesus predicts his sacrifice on the cross" but they seem to have been written especially to join the two quite different halves together.

 

[John1.12]

And, you are saying that only those who are saved Christians all have to believe the same ways about God? Yes? If so, and Paul is writing this to saved Christians who clearly do not all believe the same ways, to stop judging other Christians by how they believe, are you willing to recognize your are making the same mistake they were which Paul corrects them over?

No , already saved Christians have to be fully convinced in their own minds on the things mentioned in those verses ..let's see .
1¶Him that is WEAK ! IN THE FAITH receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

2For one believeth that he may EAT all things: another, who is weak, EATETH herbs.

3Let not him that EATETH despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that EATETH : for God hath received him.

4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

5¶One man esteemeth one DAY above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6He that regardeth the DAY , regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the DAY , to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that EATETH not, to the Lord he EATETH not, and giveth God thanks.
Its about dietary things and days . its not saying " one man believes Jesus is an Angel , the other Santa claus it all doesn't matter. He believes Jesus didn't rise from the dead ,another.... No its about non essentials.

 

[Katzpur]

I believe transubstantiation is not said / described / laid out / directed, in any book of the bible, so therefore its completely unbiblical and a roman Catholic invention ( from tradition)

I would agree with that. Neither of us believes in transubstantiation. But you didn't answer my question. Based on what "transubstantiation" means and given that Catholics believe it to be a true doctrine, do you believe Catholics are cannibals? Or do you just believe they are Christians who believe certain doctrines that are not accurate?

 

[John1.12]

Yes, because that is how early Christians shaped the story about Jesus.
But it did not start out that way.
That is why the first and the second half of gMark are so very different in character. They seem to have been written in two different stages. The kerygma came as a secondary (Hellenistic) development.
The only connecting parts are the bits where "Jesus predicts his sacrifice on the cross" but they seem to have been written especially to join the two quite different halves together.

I've read Mark a hundreds of times ,there is no such difference . No Christian who believes and reads Mark ever says this ? Or has ever said this .