who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?

[godnotgod]

That's the point for some Christians -- not the "whole" point. Many Christians don't believe in substitutionary atonement, or that it was the crucifixion that saves.

Right. 'Most' Christians.....

Those who do not believe in this doctrine must not take Jesus's alleged words seriously:

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

But even dismissing the doctrine, they would have to make some kind of commitment to Jesus as their Lord and Savior. The central doctrine says that salvation comes via Jesus's blood sacrifice on the cross. So even without transubstantiation, the key here seems to be salvation through Jesus's sacrificial shedding of his blood.

 

[sojourner]

Right. 'Most' Christians.....

Those who do not believe in this doctrine must not take Jesus's alleged words seriously:

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

But even dismissing the doctrine, they would have to make some kind of commitment to Jesus as their Lord and Savior. The central doctrine says that salvation comes via Jesus's blood sacrifice on the cross. So even without transubstantiation, the key here seems to be salvation through Jesus's sacrificial shedding of his blood.

There's a difference between viewing the crucifixion as an opportunity to be vulnerable, as a a loving self-sacrifice, and some pre-prescribed act of atonement. For many, the sharing of the Eucharist is a sharing in self-giving -- not of sacrificial atonement.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If you pull Paul's words out of the New Testament, you'd be awfully stretching to call what was left a book....

 

[godnotgod]

My point was: It doesn't say anything one way or the other about Christians.

Well first of all, you are not a Christian before confessing. The central Christian doctrine says that salvation comes via the shedding of Jesus (Christ's) blood. So the implication of the passage is that one is saved via the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ, even though it does not state that specifically, and because salvation if via Jesus (Ghrist), one is now a Christian.

I'm not arguing about whether you believe it. I'm asking whether you can give me any reason, aside from your saying it, to believe it myself.

To clarify: do you mean belief in the doctrine itself, or belief that anyone who accepts the doctrine is a Christian? I'm not trying to convince you of the veracity of the doctrine, but am saying that if one accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior via his blood sacrifice, is a Christian.

Why are you saying that, if not to suggest that I, too, ought to believe it?

See above.

If anyone tells me, "I'm a Flat-Earther," I will take their word for it whether or not they have joined any society.

OK, but their statement is true based on the belief that the Earth is flat. A Christian's statement that he is a Christian is based on doctrine, and the central doctrine is salvation via blood sacrifice.

They are as important, or as unimportant, as your beliefs.

I'm not professing my beliefs; I'm stating Christian beliefs.

You are telling me who, in your opinion, has a right to call themselves a Christian.

It's not my opinion; it's Biblical doctrine.

Then why try to prove your point by quoting the Bible?

Because, in general, for Christians, the Bible is the source for that authority.

I agree that the definition of Christianity doesn't depend on whether any Christian belief is true. I am disputing your authority to decide which beliefs count as Christian beliefs.

It's not my authority; it's what's considered to be the authority of Christian doctrine.

 

[godnotgod]

There's a difference between viewing the crucifixion as an opportunity to be vulnerable, as a a loving self-sacrifice, and some pre-prescribed act of atonement. For many, the sharing of the Eucharist is a sharing in self-giving -- not of sacrificial atonement.

The words spoken at the Last Supper are clear:

For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

[sojourner]

The words spoken at the Last Supper are clear:

For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

That doesn't necessarily mean, though, that the act of sacrifice is what is efficacious. Context is needed. The crucifixion was part of a whole life-event.

 

[sojourner]

If you pull Paul's words out of the New Testament, you'd be awfully stretching to call what was left a book....

What do you mean? Only 7 letters are irrefutably attributed to Paul. That leaves 20 of 27 books.

 

[godnotgod]

That doesn't necessarily mean, though, that the act of sacrifice is what is efficacious. Context is needed. The crucifixion was part of a whole life-event.

What was/is efficacious is the blood, which was shed via the Crucifixion:

"...this is my blood... which is shed...."

I am not aware of any other life event in which Jesus shed his blood. Are you?

It's as clear as day: Jesus is saying that, via his blood sacrifice, mankind's sins are redeemed. IOW, it is the blood, HIS blood, that has the power to wash sin away. This is core doctrine for the modern Christian.

 

[Doug Shaver]

It's not my opinion; it's Biblical doctrine.

You say so. Millions of other people, no less committed than you are to believing that the Bible is the word of God, are convinced by their biblical doctrine that anyone who accepts your biblical doctrine is going to burn in hell.

 

[godnotgod]

There's a difference between viewing the crucifixion as an opportunity to be vulnerable, as a a loving self-sacrifice, and some pre-prescribed act of atonement. For many, the sharing of the Eucharist is a sharing in self-giving -- not of sacrificial atonement.

There are two parts to the central Christian doctrine, as pointed to in Romans 10:9 -

That if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.

Romans 10:9

The first part involves submission to Jesus as one's personal Lord. The second part is acceptance of the Resurrection as proof that Jesus was who he said he was. Paul tells us the following about the Resurrection:

" For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).

So, while Paul is emphasizing the Resurrection, it is actually the Crucifixion that is even more central, because without the Crucifixion, the blood sacrifice, there is no Resurrection and there is no remission of sins. The issue here is this: the Crucifixion alone is not 'proof' that Jesus was God whose blood had the power of sin redemption. Many had previously said they were God and were crucified. But that some say they witnessed the Resurrection and even the Ascension, this clinches it for the Christian. It is the Resurrection that is the show piece, even though it is the Crucifixion where all the magic takes place.

 

[godnotgod]

You say so. Millions of other people, no less committed than you are to believing that the Bible is the word of God, are convinced by their biblical doctrine that anyone who accepts your biblical doctrine is going to burn in hell.

Are you deaf, or what? I have made clear to you several times that I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD!, and yet you persist in trying to point out my belief in the Bible. I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN, OK? I am just trying to tell you what the central doctrine is that makes a Christian a Christian, and that core doctrine is, as the Biblical text itself tells us, is the shedding of divine blood as a means of sin redemption, period end. It is not that particular doctrine what points to hellfire, however. It is this:

Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.

John 14:6

And if you don't go to the Father, you go to the not-Father, which can only be hell. However, most Christians believe that only Christians will go to heaven, while some say it is up to God to determine that.

But indirectly, yes, if one does not accept the core doctrine of blood sacrifice as sin redemption, then how can they be saved from hell?

Again, these are not MY views, but Christian views.

 

[sojourner]

What was/is efficacious is the blood, which was shed via the Crucifixion:

"...this is my blood... which is shed...."

I am not aware of any other life event in which Jesus shed his blood. Are you?

It's as clear as day: Jesus is saying that, via his blood sacrifice, mankind's sins are redeemed. IOW, it is the blood, HIS blood, that has the power to wash sin away. This is core doctrine for the modern Christian.

That's one way of looking at it. But if you read that moment in the context of the broader event of Jesus' whole life, it can legitimately take on a different meaning. By shedding his blood through crucifixion, Jesus (as God Incarnate) was able to enter fully into the vulnerability of being human. It is the act of becoming vulernable that saves.

 

[sojourner]

I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN, OK?

Then you've got no authority to say what is or is not the "central doctrine" of Christianity. That's for Christians to decide.

 

[Doug Shaver]

Are you deaf, or what? I have made clear to you several times that I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD!,

Well, excuse me, but you keep talking just like certain people who do believe it. They interpret it the same way you interpret it, and they say that anyone who interprets it differently is not a real Christian.

You're wearing a duck suit, and this is duck season. Expect to get shot at.

 

[sojourner]

Again, these are not MY views, but Christian views.

...Christian views through the limited perspective of a non-Christian. IOW, you don't really know what the Christian view is. You only know what your view of the Christian view is. Therefore, 0 authority to speak with any credibility.

 

[sojourner]

There are two parts to the central Christian doctrine, as pointed to in Romans 10:9 -

That if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.

Romans 10:9

The first part involves submission to Jesus as one's personal Lord. The second part is acceptance of the Resurrection as proof that Jesus was who he said he was. Paul tells us the following about the Resurrection:

" For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).

So, while Paul is emphasizing the Resurrection, it is actually the Crucifixion that is even more central, because without the Crucifixion, the blood sacrifice, there is no Resurrection and there is no remission of sins. The issue here is this: the Crucifixion alone is not 'proof' that Jesus was God whose blood had the power of sin redemption. Many had previously said they were God and were crucified. But that some say they witnessed the Resurrection and even the Ascension, this clinches it for the Christian. It is the Resurrection that is the show piece, even though it is the Crucifixion where all the magic takes place.

Yeah, that's not how Paul works.

 

[truthofscripture]

I agree. I believe that Jesus was divine, but I do not give much merit to transubstantiation or the importance of being "saved" for that matter. It just doesn't make sense that Jesus/God would be that cruel to create a barrier between himself and people who do not have a valid opportunity to know God. Does a boy growing up in an extremist muslim household, where he is taught every day that Christianity is a manipulation of the truth and that Islam is the only path to God, deserve to be thrown into hell? I cannot see God doing this to anyone.

God is not cruel, ever, nor has He ever been cruel. His rules are His rules. He said that anyone who is killed during the final battle is dead forever. Those who did not die as a judgement will be resurrected for a one thousand year judgement "day", after which, only the righteous will inhabit the Earth. He has given mankind a little over two thousand years to come to Him. Every corner of the Earth has had that warning repeatedly right through today. No one knows but God Himself who will and who will not be resurrected. He said the righteous (the 144,000 annointed sons of God) and the unrighteous, the rest of humanity who don't engage in war, religion, ruination of Earth, politics, and many other things He listed. He will protect a "great crowd" during the final battle, and they're the ones who associated with the annointed. They will never die. This is all a result of what Satan did to Adam and to Eve. It's sort of a jury trial, and the jury is out until the final battle.

 

[sojourner]

God is not cruel, ever, nor has He ever been cruel. His rules are His rules. He said that anyone who is killed during the final battle is dead forever. Those who did not die as a judgement will be resurrected for a one thousand year judgement "day", after which, only the righteous will inhabit the Earth. He has given mankind a little over two thousand years to come to Him. Every corner of the Earth has had that warning repeatedly right through today. No one knows but God Himself who will and who will not be resurrected. He said the righteous (the 144,000 annointed sons of God) and the unrighteous, the rest of humanity who don't engage in war, religion, ruination of Earth, politics, and many other things He listed. He will protect a "great crowd" during the final battle, and they're the ones who associated with the annointed. They will never die. This is all a result of what Satan did to Adam and to Eve. It's sort of a jury trial, and the jury is out until the final battle.

Except that Satan never makes an appearance in the Garden of Eden. And to say that he did is to misrepresent the scripture of that story. The serpent makes an appearance -- but the serpent is the personification of wisdom, in accordance with the Sumerian myth from which the Genesis creation account is lifted.

 

[godnotgod]

That's one way of looking at it. But if you read that moment in the context of the broader event of Jesus' whole life, it can legitimately take on a different meaning. By shedding his blood through crucifixion, Jesus (as God Incarnate) was able to enter fully into the vulnerability of being human. It is the act of becoming vulernable that saves.

Well, no. It's the other way around: his human vulnerability allowed his crucifixion. IOW, he was human first; the crucifixion then followed as a consequence of his humanity.

There are no two ways of looking at it, as you imply. Jesus's words are clear: the shedding of his (divine) blood is the power that washes mankind's sin away. So here, it is not his vulnerability as a human being that has the power, but his divinity, which is the core Christian doctrine, which, when believed to be true, is the Christian's way of dealing with sin. As for context, his entire life was leading up to this point, which IS the point of his life, because in the larger context, God the Father sent 'his only begotten son' to Earth as sacrifice which in turn reopened the Gates of Paradise which the sin of Adam & Eve had closed for all men.

Jacob Maccoby, Talmudic scholar, tells us that this scenario is composed of two elements: that of the descending Gnosis as teacher to man, taken from the Gnostics, and that of a dying and resurrecing god-man, taken from the mystery religions, to which Paul had been exposed as a child in his native Tarsus. The third element is Jewish history as backdrop to the story to lend credibility to the myth.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, excuse me, but you keep talking just like certain people who do believe it. They interpret it the same way you interpret it, and they say that anyone who interprets it differently is not a real Christian.

You're wearing a duck suit, and this is duck season. Expect to get shot at.

If you actually read what I've written, you might stop being so trigger happy.