To All The Unbelievers

remyc88 · July 6, 2006, 7:51am

Thank you for taking the time to explain this. Most other’s I think would have given me the “It’s not our place…” line by now.

[quote] steveo5801 wrote:
If you read chapter 1 of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, you will see that Paul warned the believers in Galatia to reject anything added to Christ’s sacrifce.[/quote]

But like I mentioned, in John 6:53, Jesus said “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

[/b]These are the words of Jesus himself.[/b] He said that “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (Communion)

Are you saying that Paul’s speech is more accurate than the actual words of Jesus himself?

I have read the Bible over the years at Sunday school, but I haven’t really studied it.

So you probably know more about the Scriptures than I do, and thus I don’t have the knowledge to question your claims.

However, surely the Pope knows more about the Bible than you. And surely the collective knowledge of thousands of clergyman over hundreds of years knows more than you. And they all say that the Catholic sacraments are a requirement to salvation.

I understand that your interpretation is that accepting Jesus is enough. But when the Catholics–who have devoted centuries of studying the Bible say otherwise–well, I’m not so sure then.

(And let’s not forget that the Catholics have studied the Bible in its original language.)

steveo5801 · July 6, 2006, 11:55am

[quote]futuredave wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
futuredave wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
futuredave wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:

The Mosaic Law, which the Bible clearly teaches, only applies to Israel in a Theocracy.

Nuh huh, saith the Lord.

Matthew 5: 17-19
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: [u]but whosoever shall do and teach them,[/u] the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Your misapplication and misrepresentation of Scripture is truly amazing. Consider the entire cousel of God:

?“Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;?And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby?c: ?And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. ?For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.?Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; ?And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;?In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: ?In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” Ephesians 2:15-22

?“And not as Moses,which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished” 2 Corinthians 3:13

“?For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. ?But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away?” 1 Corinthians 13:9-10

“Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first [the Law], that he may establish the second [Grace]. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Hebrews 10:9-10

Now, the Scriptures that YOU referenced also makes the same point. Jesus said that He came to fulfill the Law, not confirm it as a rule of life! Where, my misguided friend, do you see in the N.T. letters which are for the Church a command to keep the Law? It is not there!

Jesus Christ came to do what the Law could not do – completely once and for all pay the penalty for sin – so that Israel would be free from the Law and Gentiles might be partakers with the Jews in having access to God.

StevO…

I’m quoting your Lord, who seems pretty explicit. I’m not sure why you are quoting a man was not one of his disciples and never even met him.

Jesus did meet with Paul on the Damascus road (Acts chapter 9). The entire Bible is the Word of God, not just those verses that Jesus actually uttered. He actually wrote it all.

Finally, if the Church needs to keep the Law (since your theory is that it is not just for the Jewish people) then can you please show me where the church, historically or otherwise, has kept Kosher? If you must keep the Law, you must keep it ALL (James 2:10).

The early church, as led by Peter and Jesus’ own brother, James, kept the law, including circumcision, keeping kosher, not eating the meat of the pagan sacrifices, etc.

This was at the heart of the dispute in Paul v. James & Peter (whom Jesus annointed with his own hands.)

Not true. The fact that James decided that they not eat blood, things strangled, etc. was so not to insult and put a stumbling block in the way of Jewish believers in Christ. [b] Notice, however, what HE DID NOT SAY. He did not say the non-Jewish believers needed to be circumcized. That is integral in following the Law of Moses. He didn’t say this, because we are not under the Law. Messiah came!

Matthew 16:17-18
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[ and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Yet in Galatians 2:11, Paul calls out Jesus’ hand-picked man. “When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.”

Wrong about what? The Law, which Paul felt was unnecessary. Paul never met Jesus (though he claimed to be swept up into heaven and given information that Jesus failed to mention to his own disciples). Yet, he felt he had authority to challenge Peter and James, who were as close to Jesus as any human being could have been.

I think you should really read the context of the verses that you are quoting. Again, the Bible is clear that Paul did in fact meet Jesus (Acts 9) so you are completely wrong here. Also, Paul was challening Peter because He was refusing to eat with the Gentile believers when Jewish believers were around. Paul said that this behavior was wrong, because the Church of the Lord Jesus is made up of Jews and Gentiles worshipping and eating together. This is the way it is today, at least in my church.

Clearly, the earliest “Christians,” before Paul, were observant Jews.

Yes they were – so what? They were not under the Law but under grace.

They were sort of like the Lubavitch Hasidim in NY who are awaiting the return of Rabbi Schneerson, who they believe is the messiah.

Not at all. Schneerson was never in Israel, no less being born there which is a basic requirement of whomever you think Messiah will be. Also, Schneerson is still in his grave – Jesus rose again and was seen by many witnesses. The original Jewish believers knew that Jesus was raised and believed in Him and that He will return again.

I’m surprised that you are not aware that the earliest of Jews, post-Jesus and pre-Paul were observant Jews.

They were Jews, but they were not strictly observant. What they did observe was more cultural rather than depending upon the Law for salvation. Otherwise, the entire N.T. would have to be dismissed. So your theory is severly flawed. Simply put, you are wrong as it comes to what the N.T. teaches. You are entiltled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to misconstrue the Bible.

All good points and we’ll have to agree to disagree. Or disagree on agreeing. Something.

Anyway, I do not agree that Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul claims to have had a vision of Jesus, he would also later claim to have been taken up into heaven and revealed more info by Jesus/God himself.

To me, these sound like the ravings of a schizophrenic. I don’t know why you would believe Paul, but not Mohammed or David Koresh or Joseph Smith.

And for the record, I pretty much am in favor of dismissing the entire new testament. [/quote]

Well this is our point of disagreement. I believe the N.T. is inspired Scripture as is the Tenach (Hebrew or O.T. Scriptures). Therefore, we can never agree here…[quote]

The Jews were already practicing what God taught them and the non-jews were covered under Noahyde Law. So the New Testament is no more relevant to me than the Koran or the Book of Mormon.
[/quote]

Well, then let me suggest something for you to ponder from the Tenach. If you are correct and the Jewish people need no more than the Law of Moses to gain salvation, then why does the prophet Jeremiah in Jeremiah 31:31 and following, predict a day in which a “New Covenant” or “Testament” will be necessary for the Jewish people to be saved because they have broken the Mosaic Covenant? This New Covenant, which, according to Jeremiah is for the “House of Judah, and the House of Israel,” clearly the Jewish people. This New Covenant will be in the hearts of God’s people and not external law. Hmmm, sounds familiar. Please read this in Jeremiah and then perhaps we can discuss this.

pitbull314 · July 7, 2006, 12:00am

Look, I don’t have anything against christians or people of other faiths per say, but it is impossible to reason with you regarding religion. I suggest you all read the end of faith by sam harris - it is an excellent book about the many problems with faith based religion. Its is by no means anti-religous in fact the author says we should try to understand god and the world more, but we should do this through reason not blind faith.

And to the person who started this thread - don’t you have anything better to do than telling evry “rational” person that their going to hell? I mean if you want o start a legitimate disccusion about christianity or relgion thats one thing, but insulting everyone who disagrees with your beliefs, on the internet no less, just makes you look like a zealous idiot.

steveo5801 · July 7, 2006, 4:08am

[quote]pitbull314 wrote:
Look, I don’t have anything against christians or people of other faiths per say, but it is impossible to reason with you regarding religion. I suggest you all read the end of faith by sam harris - it is an excellent book about the many problems with faith based religion. Its is by no means anti-religous in fact the author says we should try to understand god and the world more, but we should do this through reason not blind faith. [/quote]

I think a more reasoned approach would be for people to honestly begin to read the Bible and thus go to the source. Set aside “religion” and any and all pre-concieved notions. Just read it for yourself and let God work in your heart.[quote]

And to the person who started this thread - don’t you have anything better to do than telling evry “rational” person that their going to hell? I mean if you want o start a legitimate disccusion about christianity or relgion thats one thing, but insulting everyone who disagrees with your beliefs, on the internet no less, just makes you look like a zealous idiot. [/quote]

Actually, I have a lot of “better things” I could be doing. I lead a very full and active life and I am on the go for about 16 - 18 hours per day alomst 7 days per week. However, let me ask you something.

If you were walking past a burning apartment building with people inside, would you just pass on by and do nothing or would you go into the building, ring or bang on every door and tell the people to get out before the fire gets them? Would it matter to you if there were people who didn’t believe that there was a fire? Would it matter to you if people thought, while you were running around and yelling “get out before the fire gets you,” that you were a “zealous idiot?” What kind of a miserable excuse for a human being would I be if I see, through the Word of God, judgment to come and do nothing.

So yes, sir, I have plenty of other things to do. I could be doing many things that would bring praise to me and that others would think I am very wonderful and “normal.” But I would be a miserable wretch if I did nothing.

tveddy · July 7, 2006, 4:30am

Just to be a smart ass and see what you say about this steveo, I’ll post it.

My way that I plan on paying for my sins is in the book of the Apocalypse of Peter that was found in the Dead sea scrolls where Jesus tells peter that all the suffering that he saw in his glimpses of hell aren’t for eternity and that God will eventually forgive the sinners after they have payed for their sins.

remyc88 · July 7, 2006, 6:09am

steveo5801:

Just like you told philph:

[quote] …If the Bible is correct about sin and that the “wages of sin is death,” and there is a day of reckoning to come for all – then you are in peril with respect to your eternal destiny.

…

Both of us cannot be correct – one is and one is not. If I am wrong, then I live a fairly good life, and then “poof” I am gone and nothing else is there. However, if I am correct that the Bible is correct (AND IT IS!) then, I spend eternity with the Lord and you spend eternity cast out into the darkness of fire, burning for eternity.

…Are you sure you want to take this risk?[/quote]

I tell you the same thing

[i]If an organization that has dedicated thousands of people over hundreds of years to research the Bible say that Faith PLUS Works is required for salvation, and you deny that, then you are in peril with respect to your eternal destiny.

While you have every right to believe what you wish it seems to me that you are a tad arrogant in thinking you know more than those people who have spent a lifetime studying the Bible.

Both of us cannot be correct – one is and one is not. If I am wrong, then I live a fairly good life, and then “poof” I am gone and nothing else is there. However, if I am correct that the Bible requires Faith PLUS Works (AND IT DOES!) then, I spend eternity with the Lord and you spend eternity cast out into the darkness of fire, burning for eternity.

…Are you sure you want to take this risk?[/i]

Jesus said in John 6:53 “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

These are the ACTUAL WORDS of Jesus. He said you MUST have communion. There is no other way to interpret it!

So how should we live our lives to ensure salvation?

We must accept that faith PLUS works is required. The Catholic church has studied the Bible for centuries and they say the sacraments must be followed!
To be on the safe side, we should also follow the dietary and bodily restrictions set forth by the Jews, Muslims, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It never hurts to be too cautious.
And what if Joseph Smith really was called by God to translate the Book of Mormon? In fact, how could Joseph Smith have translated the brass plates if God did not allow him to? So we should study the Book of Mormon as well and practice atonement and repentance.

[b]Faith alone is not enough. Millions of people, over hundreds of years, who have spent a lifetime studying the Bible say that Faith PLUS Works is required.

So what are you going to do about the WORKS required for salvation?[/b]

pitbull314 · July 7, 2006, 7:17am

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
pitbull314 wrote:
Look, I don’t have anything against christians or people of other faiths per say, but it is impossible to reason with you regarding religion. I suggest you all read the end of faith by sam harris - it is an excellent book about the many problems with faith based religion. Its is by no means anti-religous in fact the author says we should try to understand god and the world more, but we should do this through reason not blind faith.

I think a more reasoned approach would be for people to honestly begin to read the Bible and thus go to the source. Set aside “religion” and any and all pre-concieved notions. Just read it for yourself and let God work in your heart.

I agree in order to make an educated decision you should explore both sides.

And to the person who started this thread - don’t you have anything better to do than telling evry “rational” person that their going to hell? I mean if you want o start a legitimate disccusion about christianity or relgion thats one thing, but insulting everyone who disagrees with your beliefs, on the internet no less, just makes you look like a zealous idiot.

Actually, I have a lot of “better things” I could be doing. I lead a very full and active life and I am on the go for about 16 - 18 hours per day alomst 7 days per week. However, let me ask you something.

If you were walking past a burning apartment building with people inside, would you just pass on by and do nothing or would you go into the building, ring or bang on every door and tell the people to get out before the fire gets them? Would it matter to you if there were people who didn’t believe that there was a fire? Would it matter to you if people thought, while you were running around and yelling “get out before the fire gets you,” that you were a “zealous idiot?” What kind of a miserable excuse for a human being would I be if I see, through the Word of God, judgment to come and do nothing.

If i am walking by a burning building I can see the smoke and flames, I can smell the smoke, I can feel the heat and thus I KNOW the building is on fire and that i need to get everyone out. Your confusing the term Knowledge with assumption.

So yes, sir, I have plenty of other things to do. I could be doing many things that would bring praise to me and that others would think I am very wonderful and “normal.” But I would be a miserable wretch if I did nothing. [/quote]

I appreciate that you care about me and my salvation. I was raised a catholic and I have read most of the old and new testaments. If I were to take the bible literally as you suggest I would be obligated to kill every non-believer as well as kill every believer who does not take part in killing the non believers (deutoronomy 13:6). I would also be happy to smash the heads of Edomite infants with rocks. (psalm 137:9)I would also not let any bastards enter the church (deutoronomy 23:2). Iwould also make sure my slaves obeyed me and did a good job (ephesians 6:5, Colassians 3:22, titus 2:9, 1peter 2:18) I would also follow the orders of jesus when he gave his sermon at the mound, to take those who do not believe in my father and slay them before me. Granted the average christian of today does not take these passages literally anymore, due to secular knowledge but the fundamentalist christians that led the inquisition, the crusades, the massacre of the cathars, the executions of jews, slavery, etc. did.

There would also be no problem with being a fundamentalist christian if it weren’t for the fundamentals of christianity. Iam not trying to be a "jesus hater’ nor an atheist; I am simply choosing to search for spirituality through reason.

remyc88 · July 7, 2006, 5:50pm

[quote]pitbull314 wrote:
If I were to take the bible literally as you suggest I would be obligated to kill every non-believer as well as kill every believer who does not take part in killing the non believers (deutoronomy 13:6). I would also be happy to smash the heads of Edomite infants with rocks. (psalm 137:9)I would also not let any bastards enter the church (deutoronomy 23:2). Iwould also make sure my slaves obeyed me and did a good job (ephesians 6:5, Colassians 3:22, titus 2:9, 1peter 2:18) I would also follow the orders of jesus when he gave his sermon at the mound, to take those who do not believe in my father and slay them before me. Granted the average christian of today does not take these passages literally anymore, due to secular knowledge but the fundamentalist christians that led the inquisition, the crusades, the massacre of the cathars, the executions of jews, slavery, etc. did.[/quote]

That’s a great point pitbull314.

But the Bible can only be taken literally, or else everything is up in the air.

I mean, if you don’t take those parts literally, what’s to stop someone from taking the Resurrection literally?

That’s the problem. There are a lot of people saying how the “spirit or essence” of the Bible is enough, but who determines that?

What do we know compared to people who have sent lifetimes studying the Bible? Like the Catholic church?

If the Bible is the literal Word of God, then you must be a fundamentalist.

And if the Bible is up for interpretation, then ANYTHING can be up for interpretation, including the Resurrection and the messages thereafter!

pitbull314 · July 7, 2006, 6:16pm

[quote]remyc88 wrote:
pitbull314 wrote:
If I were to take the bible literally as you suggest I would be obligated to kill every non-believer as well as kill every believer who does not take part in killing the non believers (deutoronomy 13:6). I would also be happy to smash the heads of Edomite infants with rocks. (psalm 137:9)I would also not let any bastards enter the church (deutoronomy 23:2). Iwould also make sure my slaves obeyed me and did a good job (ephesians 6:5, Colassians 3:22, titus 2:9, 1peter 2:18) I would also follow the orders of jesus when he gave his sermon at the mound, to take those who do not believe in my father and slay them before me. Granted the average christian of today does not take these passages literally anymore, due to secular knowledge but the fundamentalist christians that led the inquisition, the crusades, the massacre of the cathars, the executions of jews, slavery, etc. did.

That’s a great point pitbull314.

But the Bible can only be taken literally, or else everything is up in the air.

I mean, if you don’t take those parts literally, what’s to stop someone from taking the Resurrection literally?

That’s the problem. There are a lot of people saying how the “spirit or essence” of the Bible is enough, but who determines that?

What do we know compared to people who have sent lifetimes studying the Bible? Like the Catholic church?

If the Bible is the literal Word of God, then you must be a fundamentalist.

And if the Bible is up for interpretation, then ANYTHING can be up for interpretation, including the Resurrection and the messages thereafter!
[/quote]

I agree entirely, one cannot pick and choose what parts of the bible he/she wants to take literally - you must believe it all or not believe in it at all.

orion · July 7, 2006, 6:42pm

[quote]pitbull314 wrote:

I agree entirely, one cannot pick and choose what parts of the bible he/she wants to take literally - you must believe it all or not believe in it at all.
[/quote]

Really? How many people have you led to the gates of your village to stone them?

Saddam_Hussein · July 7, 2006, 6:56pm

[quote]orion wrote:
Really? How many people have you led to the gates of your village to stone them?[/quote]

Oh, the stonings from my village, those are some stonings! You really want to see something, try a good beheading! The goat-feast afterwards is to die for…but you don’t want to lose your head over it. Get it?

Allah Akbar!

remyc88 · July 7, 2006, 10:00pm

[quote]orion wrote:
pitbull314 wrote:
I agree entirely, one cannot pick and choose what parts of the bible he/she wants to take literally - you must believe it all or not believe in it at all.

Really? How many people have you led to the gates of your village to stone them?[/quote]

Ah… and there’s the rub… can you be a good Christian if you don’t stone unbelievers?

steveo5801 · July 8, 2006, 5:17am

[quote]remyc88 wrote:
steveo5801:

Just like you told philph:

…If the Bible is correct about sin and that the “wages of sin is death,” and there is a day of reckoning to come for all – then you are in peril with respect to your eternal destiny.

…

Both of us cannot be correct – one is and one is not. If I am wrong, then I live a fairly good life, and then “poof” I am gone and nothing else is there. However, if I am correct that the Bible is correct (AND IT IS!) then, I spend eternity with the Lord and you spend eternity cast out into the darkness of fire, burning for eternity.

…Are you sure you want to take this risk?

I tell you the same thing

[i]If an organization that has dedicated thousands of people over hundreds of years to research the Bible say that Faith PLUS Works is required for salvation, and you deny that, then you are in peril with respect to your eternal destiny.

While you have every right to believe what you wish it seems to me that you are a tad arrogant in thinking you know more than those people who have spent a lifetime studying the Bible.

Both of us cannot be correct – one is and one is not. If I am wrong, then I live a fairly good life, and then “poof” I am gone and nothing else is there. However, if I am correct that the Bible requires Faith PLUS Works (AND IT DOES!) then, I spend eternity with the Lord and you spend eternity cast out into the darkness of fire, burning for eternity.

…Are you sure you want to take this risk?[/i]

Jesus said in John 6:53 “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

These are the ACTUAL WORDS of Jesus. He said you MUST have communion. There is no other way to interpret it!

So how should we live our lives to ensure salvation?

We must accept that faith PLUS works is required. The Catholic church has studied the Bible for centuries and they say the sacraments must be followed!
To be on the safe side, we should also follow the dietary and bodily restrictions set forth by the Jews, Muslims, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It never hurts to be too cautious.
And what if Joseph Smith really was called by God to translate the Book of Mormon? In fact, how could Joseph Smith have translated the brass plates if God did not allow him to? So we should study the Book of Mormon as well and practice atonement and repentance.

[b]Faith alone is not enough. Millions of people, over hundreds of years, who have spent a lifetime studying the Bible say that Faith PLUS Works is required.

So what are you going to do about the WORKS required for salvation?[/b]

[/quote]

There are not works required for salvation. There is not one verse in the Bible that links works to salvation. In fact, there are verses that say with pure clarity that faith alone is the requirement for salvation:

[b]

“Not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us.” Titus 3:5

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 1:8-9

“Sirs what must I do to be saved?” [/b]

This was a question asked of Paul and Silas while they were in prision for their fatih in a town called Philippi. There jailer asked them this question, and what did Paul tell him? Did Paul say, “sir, believe in Jesus and do good works and you will be saved?” Did Paul tell him, “look, you must have faith, but then you must do these good works to be saved?” No, he did no such thing. Why? Because what Paul did tell him is the only requirement for salvation because if it were not, Paul would have lied to him.

This is what Paul told him: [b]

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved and thy house.” Acts 16:31 [/b]

The Bible is clear. Salvation is grace through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone.

The Bible does say that good works follows true salvation just the way fruit follows the planting, watering, and the growing of crops. The friut is not a requirement for the plant to be alive, but it proves that it has life. In the same manner, the fruit (good works) of a believer must follow salvation to “prove” that salvation. This is what James in his letter is talking about when he says “faith without works is dead.”

When the Bible is studied, the entire teachings of God must be taken into consideration and “harmonized” lest we come up with doctrines which are contrary to the Word of God.

You have every right to defend Catholic teaching if you wish. However, you cannot stand upon God’s Word and do this, because the Bible clearly proves that the teachings are false.

steveo5801 · July 8, 2006, 5:24am

[quote]pitbull314 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
pitbull314 wrote:
Look, I don’t have anything against christians or people of other faiths per say, but it is impossible to reason with you regarding religion. I suggest you all read the end of faith by sam harris - it is an excellent book about the many problems with faith based religion. Its is by no means anti-religous in fact the author says we should try to understand god and the world more, but we should do this through reason not blind faith.