Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Gary]

I believe good works, or a good disposition to be more exact, are a sign of genuine faith and repentance. Whether not someone's good works are genuine expressions of their faith, or simply them trying to fool others and themselves is between them and God.

Here is where I am going with this: Christianity tells us that the perfect, all-knowing God of Creation sent Jesus to earth to give us a message of salvation; salvation from eternal punishment due to our sins and the sins of our first ancestors. That is a pretty important message, isn't it? Wouldn't a perfect, all-knowing God want that message to be crystal clear and understandable to even the most "simple" of human beings??

Yet, two thousand years later, Christians cannot agree on that message of salvation. Is faith and repentance enough or are works part of salvation? Can infants and young children be saved? Can one lose his salvation once he has been gifted it by God? Do the infants and young children of non-believers who die go to Hell? Does Baptism play any role in salvation?

Does this look like a message from a loving, compassionate, perfect, all-knowing God, or, a message invented by human beings?

[tabibito]

Here is where I am going with this: Christianity tells us that the perfect, all-knowing God of Creation sent Jesus to earth to give us a message of salvation; salvation from eternal punishment due to our sins and the sins of our first ancestors. That is a pretty important message, isn't it? Wouldn't a perfect, all-knowing God want that message to be crystal clear and understandable to even the most "simple" of human beings??

Certainly.

Yet, two thousand years later, Christians cannot agree on that message of salvation. Is faith and repentance enough or are works part of salvation?

There are two Koine Greek words that translate to English as "repentance".

1/ regret or remorse
2/ turning aside from one's former course.

The second meaning applies when it comes to the repentance that plays a part in salvation.

Can infants and young children be saved?

The Bible is entirely silent regarding the outcomes for infants and children - speculation wouldn't serve any purpose here.

Can one lose his salvation once he has been gifted it by God?

Yes - for a time. There is a point of no return, but that is not an immediate outcome.

Does Baptism play any role in salvation?

Baptism is critical to salvation - even Calvin recognised the fact.

Does this look like a message from a loving, compassionate, perfect, all-knowing God, or, a message invented by human beings?

The message is clear and straightforward - until you get people deciding that the scriptures don't really mean what they say.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Translation of Gary's last message:

God should do all the work and spell everything out for me because I'm incapable of doing the research!

[tabibito]

Translation of Gary's last message:

God should do all the work and spell everything out for me because I'm incapable of doing the research!

tch. "incapable" doesn't seem to be the correct word .... "self important" might be a reasonable fit.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Or perhaps too lazy.

[Christianbookworm]

Because we are all helpless infants that need someone else to take care of our every need!

[One Bad Pig]

Here is where I am going with this: Christianity tells us that the perfect, all-knowing God of Creation sent Jesus to earth to give us a message of salvation; salvation from eternal punishment due to our sins and the sins of our first ancestors. That is a pretty important message, isn't it? Wouldn't a perfect, all-knowing God want that message to be crystal clear and understandable to even the most "simple" of human beings??

Yet, two thousand years later, Christians cannot agree on that message of salvation.

Mostly because people tend to over-think it. A five-year-old can often grasp the basic need for repentance.

[Gary]

Certainly.

There are two Koine Greek words that translate to English as "repentance".

1/ regret or remorse
2/ turning aside from one's former course.

The second meaning applies when it comes to the repentance that plays a part in salvation.

The Bible is entirely silent regarding the outcomes for infants and children - speculation wouldn't serve any purpose here.

Yes - for a time. There is a point of no return, but that is not an immediate outcome.

Baptism is critical to salvation - even Calvin recognised the fact.

The message is clear and straightforward - until you get people deciding that the scriptures don't really mean what they say.

How can you say that the message is clear and straightforward when Christians don't agree on the message??

1. Baptists teach that salvation occurs when someone who is old enough to know right from wrong (has reached or is past the Age of Accountability) repents of his sins and asks Jesus to be his Lord and Savior. Once this act occurs, there is no possible way for this person to lose his salvation even if he commits murder. Baptists teach that all children who die before reaching the Age of Accountability will go to heaven. This is absolute, it is not an open question. No babies or small children will be in Hell. Many Baptists teach that anyone who believes that he was saved in his Baptism as an infant is not a Christian and will go to Hell just as quickly when he dies as will the atheist and Muslim.

2. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans believe that God can save infants in Holy Baptism. What happens to infants and young children who die without being baptized: unknown. It is an open question.

3. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe that God saves infants and adults in Holy Baptism and that good works are necessary to assist in one's salvation. Both believe that salvation can be lost through mortal sins/ongoing willful sin.

4. Lutherans believe that God saves infants and adults in Holy Baptism and that subsequent good works are simply expressions of a genuine faith, they do not assist in one's salvation in any way, shape, or form. Lutherans believe that one can lose his salvation by outright rejection of Jesus as savior or ongoing, willful sin.

So who is right?

[Christianbookworm]

Hey, Gary, why don't you whine about something we haven't heard fundy atheists whine about? Like what do you think do you think about this passage?

But God came to Abimelek in a dream one night and said to him, "You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman."
Genesis 20:3

[tabibito]

How can you say that the message is clear and straightforward when Christians don't agree on the message??

1. Baptists teach that salvation occurs when someone who is old enough to know right from wrong (has reached or is past the Age of Accountability) repents of his sins and asks Jesus to be his Lord and Savior.

Still - the matter of obedience to Christ as Lord - which includes the command to baptise (and be baptised) is required.

Once this act occurs, there is no possible way for this person to lose his salvation even if he commits murder.

Utter nonsense - while the opportunity for repentance commonly remains available, the one who doesn't repent is not saved. And repentance doesn't finish at the point of not sinning.

Baptists teach that all children who die before reaching the Age of Accountability will go to heaven. This is absolute, it is not an open question. No babies or small children will be in Hell.

No sin being imputed where there is no understanding of sin being committed, this seems a logical conclusion. My immediate thought that it is the most likely concept ... I'll make a note to investigate.

Many Baptists teach that anyone who believes that he was saved in his Baptism as an infant is not a Christian and will go to Hell just as quickly when he dies as will the atheist and Muslim.

If he rests on baptism as the point of salvation, the Baptists would be right.

2. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans believe that God can save infants in Holy Baptism. What happens to infants and young children who die without being baptized: unknown. It is an open question.

I really think the baptists have this one nailed.

3. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe that God saves infants and adults in Holy Baptism and that good works are necessary to assist in one's salvation. Both believe that salvation can be lost through mortal sins/ongoing willful sin.

Seems that infant baptism would not be particularly effective in securing salvation ... the whole "repent and confess Jesus as Lord" sort of works against the concept. As to the rest ... imagine that - they agree with the Biblical declarations.

4. Lutherans believe that subsequent good works are simply expressions of a genuine faith, they do not assist in one's salvation in any way, shape, or form.

As opposed to a whole swathe of scriptural passages that are summed up by James in the statement, ορατε τοινυν οτι εξ εργων δικαιουται ανθρωπος και ουκ εκ πιστεως μονον -You see then that a man is made righteous by works and not by faith alone.

Lutherans believe that one can lose his salvation by outright rejection of Jesus as savior or ongoing, willful sin.

In this, they are correct.

So who is right?

Everyone is right some of the time (varying between perhaps 1% and 90%) - even the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses. Some are mistaken on points that are critical to salvation - even the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

[Gary]

Still - the matter of obedience to Christ as Lord - which includes the command to baptise (and be baptised) is required.

Utter nonsense - while the opportunity for repentance commonly remains available, the one who doesn't repent is not saved. And repentance doesn't finish at the point of not sinning.

No sin being imputed where there is no understanding of sin being committed, this seems a logical conclusion. My immediate thought that it is the most likely concept ... I'll make a note to investigate.

If he rests on baptism as the point of salvation, the Baptists would be right.

I really think the baptists have this one nailed.

Seems that infant baptism would not be particularly effective in securing salvation ... the whole "repent and confess Jesus as Lord" sort of works against the concept. As to the rest ... imagine that - they agree with the Biblical declarations.

As opposed to a whole swathe of scriptural passages that are summed up by James in the statement, ορατε τοινυν οτι εξ εργων δικαιουται ανθρωπος και ουκ εκ πιστεως μονον -You see then that a man is made righteous by works and not by faith alone.

In this, they are correct.

Everyone is right some of the time (varying between perhaps 1% and 90%) - even the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses. Some are mistaken on points that are critical to salvation - even the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

You don't find it odd that a perfect, all-knowing God did not make sure that his message of salvation was so clear and so simple that the massive confusion that exists today on this issue could have been avoided? You seem very confident in your position on God's message of salvation, but the Baptist, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran are all confident of their positions too, and are also very confident that you are wrong. Five hundred years ago, some of these groups of "fellow" Christians would have burned you at the stake for believing your "heretical" position on this all important divine message.

Again, I ask: Which is more likely, that a perfect, all-knowing God sent this message, or, a bunch of fallible men invented this message, not due to lying, but due to being very sincerely, very devoutly...mistaken.

See, this was what eventually caused me to abandon my Christian faith: It isn't just the weak evidence for the Resurrection, which we have been discussing for the last several weeks. It is multiple, multiple problems with the Bible and the Christian message. If you condense down the Christian story to the basic facts, you see just how ridiculous it really is. Here is the condensed story of orthodox/traditional Christianity that believes in original sin:

A perfect, eternal God, who had existed without a beginning, one day decided to create a universe and little creatures that looked like him. We can only guess why a perfect God who lacked nothing felt a desire to create. However, if Christians are correct, he did. So a perfect God, who can do no wrong and is incapable of making mistakes, made a universe and human beings, who chose, by their own free will, to not be perfect and to eat from God's forbidden fruit tree. How does something that is perfect choose to be imperfect??? Anyway, God was furious with the free will decision of his originally perfect little mini-hims, so he punished them by cursing them with hard work, disease, war, rape, violence, murder, and death...and eternal punishment in the afterlife for those who do not repent.

Then this God felt sorry for the little creatures which he had made, which he had made KNOWING that they would choose to be imperfect, KNOWING that he would punish them with rape, child abuse, murder, and eternal damnation, so he sent himself, disguised as a man, to earth to undergo a human sacrifice, to appease the righteous anger...of himself.

So God goes to earth with the message of redemption/salvation from the horrific punishment that he has imposed on mankind for their ancestors' forbidden-fruit-eating, but instead of going to Rome, or Athens, or Alexandria where he could share this message with the most people, he chooses to go to the backwaters of the Roman Empire, to the backwaters of a backwater nation of that empire: Galilee in Palestine. He spends approximately 30 of those years working in a furniture store, NOT spreading the message of salvation, but only starts his ministry in his 30's, and then only spends approximately three years preaching his message of salvation, in one small geographic area...preaching in riddles so that even his own closest followers have no idea what he is talking about.

Finally, he enters the capital Jerusalem riding on two donkeys, upsets the Jewish authorities and the Romans, and gets himself crucified, again, all to appease the righteous anger of...himself.

Three days later, he resurrects himself from a tomb, but instead of allowing a large crowd to witness the reanimation of his bloated, decomposing corpse, he performs this fantastic miracle in complete secret, and appears to 500 or so of his own followers...and one Pharisee. He never appears to a group of Romans or non-believing Jews. God does this because he doesn't want to be too obvious. He only wants those who really, really seek him to find him...kind of like the children's game, Hide and Seek. I guess it isn't any fun for God if he were to make his message of salvation so plain, simple, and obvious to all that everyone could believe.

Then, one day, eight days, or forty days later, God decides its time to go back to heaven, but he performs one last fantastic miracle. A miracle that if witnessed in Jerusalem, or Rome, or Alexandria, would be absolute proof of his divinity: he levitates into outer space. But once again, God doesn't want to be too obvious. He only does this magic act in front of his closest followers out on a mountain top.

And for the last 2,000 years, God has been sitting on his throne, on the edge of the universe, watching every day as young children, women, and men are brutally tortured and murdered; starved to death, or die of terrible, painful diseases, and he justifies this suffering because our ancestors ate his fruit.

This is nonsense folks. Open your eyes.

[One Bad Pig]

This is nonsense folks. Open your eyes.

Yes, most of what you write is nonsense. Maybe you could make an effort at the accurate portrayal of others' beliefs, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Gary]

Yes, most of what you write is nonsense. Maybe you could make an effort at the accurate portrayal of others' beliefs, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Show me where I am wrong in depicting (western) orthodox/traditional (original sin believing) Christianity.

I dare you. I think you are blowing smoke, Pig.

[tabibito]

You don't find it odd that a perfect, all-knowing God did not make sure that his message of salvation was so clear and so simple that the massive confusion that exists today on this issue could have been avoided? You seem very confident in your position on God's message of salvation, but the Baptist, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran are all confident of their positions too, and are also very confident that you are wrong. Five hundred years ago, some of these groups of "fellow" Christians would have burned you at the stake for believing you "heretical" position on this all important divine message.

There is reason to believe that was a common fate for Christians. Mahatma Ghandi is said to have commented that "the church is a wondrous thing - first it kills its saints, then it erects monuments to their memory." (may or may not be true, I don't know)

Again, I ask: Which is more likely, that a perfect, all-knowing God sent this message, or, a bunch of fallible men invented this message, not due to lying, but due to being very sincerely, very devoutly...mistaken.

I used to ask the same question. Over time, it has become ever more apparent that no such message could be delivered. All too often, I listen while people read a perfectly simple and clear passage of scripture and rework it to make it fit with what they want to believe. Then there are apologists like the popular Lutheran one who don't like the meaning of a particular word (hupakuo for example), so they dream up all kinds of excuses for why it means listen and not obey. It's the only one either, and it's not only Lutherans: another famous re-working is repentance to make it mean regret ... despite the clear statements of scripture showing two different words in play. The books of the Bible get well and truly cooked.

See, this was what eventually caused me to abandon my Christian faith:

While I accept that it may have played a part - I don't think the claim is wholly honest.

It isn't just the weak evidence for the Resurrection, which we have been discussing for the last several weeks. It is multiple, multiple problems with the Bible and the Christian message.

Not a huge number of problems with the Bible in general terms, though there are quite a few fine detail problems. The Christian message is one thing, the variety of Church messages is another.

If you condense down the Christian story to the basic facts, you see just how ridiculous it really is. Here is the condensed story of orthodox/traditional Christianity that believes in original sin:

Which is nonsense: even the Old Testament records God cutting crook about that idea.

A perfect, eternal God, who had existed without a beginning, one day decided to create a universe and little creatures that looked like him. We can only guess why a perfect God who lacked nothing felt a desire to create. However, if Christians are correct, he did.

OPINION: God is love - love has this thing about it that provides the impulse to create.

So a perfect God, who can do no wrong and is incapable of making mistakes, made a universe and human beings, who chose, by their own free will, to not be perfect and to eat from God's forbidden fruit tree. How does something that is perfect choose to be imperfect???

I recall passages saying that the creation was considered by God to be good. I don't recall mention of it being perfect.

Anyway, God was furious with the free will decision of his originally perfect little mini-hims, so he punished them by cursing them with hard work, disease, war, rape, violence, murder, and death...and eternal punishment in the afterlife for those who do not repent.

Sah - he abandons them to their choices. The ultimate penalty that the Churches are authorised (by God) to impose is excommunication - otherwise known as handing a person over to Satan. [OPINION] When that is done, the person is locked out of the opportunity to repent for a time - maybe in some cases permanently. [/OPINION]

Then this God felt sorry for the little creatures which he had made, which he had made KNOWING that they would choose to be imperfect, KNOWING that he would punish them with rape, child abuse, murder, and eternal damnation, so he sent himself, disguised as a man, to earth to undergo a human sacrifice, to appease the righteous anger...of himself.

Ah now - God knowing everything is far more complex than common belief would have it: a matter of merely knowing the future. And certainly - knowing everything about every last detail of the future at the time of creation certainly doesn't play. (Unless the Bible doesn't mean what it says.) The complexity of God's foreknowledge goes way beyond that.

So God goes to earth with the message of redemption/salvation from the horrific punishment that he has imposed on mankind for their ancestors' forbidden-fruit-eating, but instead of going to Rome, or Athens, or Alexandria where he could share this message with the most people, he chooses to go to the backwaters of the Roman Empire, to the backwaters of that backwater nation: Galilee in Palestine.

Correct - he wasn't sent to the nations, but to his own people - those whom he had chosen. They for the most part rejected him, but to those few who did accept him, he granted the authority to also become sons of God. There was no intent for the Christ to personally go to the nations, but to appoint commissioners (or in American terms: Secretaries of State, the Interior etal.)

He spends approximately 30 of those years working in a furniture store, NOT spreading the message of salvation, but only starts his ministry in his 30's, and then only spends approximately three years preaching his message of salvation, in one small geographic area...preaching in riddles so that even his own closest followers have no idea what he is talking about.

We don't know. Certainly, he was trained in carpentry - but the duration of his actual ministry is a matter of conjecture. There are cues in the gospels leading to the impression that he was conducting his ministry for considerably more than three years.

Finally, he enters the capital Jerusalem riding on two donkeys at the same time,

Reading comprehension fail.

upsets the Jewish authorities and the Romans, and gets himself crucified, again, to appease the righteous anger of...himself.

The intent was to institute a new contract with mankind, not based as the Old Testament had been (in part) on negotiation, but on his own terms.

Three days later, he resurrects himself from a tomb, but instead of allowing a large crowd to witness the reanimation of his bloated, decomposing corpse,

The assumption that the corpse would have begun to decay is unwarranted conjecture.

he performs this fantastic miracle in complete secret, and only appears to 500 or so of his followers...and one Pharisee.

That is entirely expected. This was an undertaking of God without a human representative mediating.

He never appears to a group of Romans or non-believing Jews. God does this because he doesn't want to be too obvious.

No - Christ's mission was to the Jews, and to those whom he had called. Commissioners and others were appointed to conduct the message to all nations.

He only wants those who really, really seek him to find him...kind of like the children's game, Hide and Seek.

No. He sent commissioners and others to make the necessary introductions. And he sent them with the authority to use the power to perform miracles as evidence of the fact that he had appointed them. Moreover, he made that power available, with restrictions in most cases, to anyone who chose to become a disciple.

I guess it isn't any fun for God if he were to make his message of salvation so plain, simple, and obvious to all that everyone could believe.

Without over-riding free will, it can't be done. God isn't in the habit of forcing himself on people.

Then, one day, eight days,

The meeting with the disciples, and with Thomas - at which meeting (if memory serves), they were granted the Holy Spirit.

or forty days later, God decides its time to go back to heaven, but he performs one last fantastic miracle. A miracle that is witnessed in Jerusalem, or Rome, or Alexandria, would be absolute proof of his divinity: he levitates into outer space.

No - he entered heaven: different place altogether.

But once again, God doesn't want to be too obvious. He only does this magic act in front of his closest followers out on a mountain top.

Again - independent action, only to be expected.

And for the last 2,000 years, God has been sitting on his throne, on the edge of the universe, watching every day as young children, women, and men are brutally tortured and murdered; starved to death, or die of terrible, painful diseases, and he justifies this suffering because our ancestors ate his fruit.

This is nonsense folks. Open your eyes.

Well, I wouldn't call your interpretation nonsense exactly, but it does come close.

[Gary]

There is reason to believe that was a common fate for Christians. Mahatma Ghandi is said to have commented that "the church is a wondrous thing - first it kills its saints, then it erects monuments to their memory." (may or may not be true, I don't know)

I used to ask the same question. Over time, it has become ever more apparent that no such message could be delivered. All too often, I listen while people read a perfectly simple and clear passage of scripture and rework it to make it fit with what they want to believe. Then there are apologists like the popular Lutheran one who don't like the meaning of a particular word (hupakuo for example), so they dream up all kinds of excuses for why it means listen and not obey. It's the only one either, and it's not only Lutherans: another famous re-working is repentance to make it mean regret ... despite the clear statements of scripture showing two different words in play. The books of the Bible get well and truly cooked.

While I accept that it may have played a part - I don't think the claim is wholly honest.

Not a huge number of problems with the Bible in general terms, though there are quite a few fine detail problems. The Christian message is one thing, the variety of Church messages is another.

Which is nonsense: even the Old Testament records God cutting crook about that idea.

OPINION: God is love - love has this thing about it that provides the impulse to create.

I recall passages saying that the creation was considered by God to be good. I don't recall mention of it being perfect.

Sah - he abandons them to their choices. The ultimate penalty that the Churches are authorised (by God) to impose is excommunication - otherwise known as handing a person over to Satan. [OPINION] When that is done, the person is locked out of the opportunity to repent for a time - maybe in some cases permanently. [/OPINION]

Ah now - God knowing everything is far more complex than common belief would have it: a matter than merely knowing the future. And certainly - knowing everything about every last detail of the future at the time of creation certainly doesn't play. (Unless the Bible doesn't mean what it says.)

Correct - he wasn't sent to the nations, but to his own people - those whom he had chosen. They for the most part rejected him, but to those few who did accept him, he granted the authority to also become sons of God. There was no intent for the Christ to personally go to the nations, but to appoint commissioners (or in American terms: Secretaries of State, the Interior etal.)

We don't know. Certainly, he was trained in carpentry - but the duration of his actual ministry is a matter of conjecture. There are cues in the gospels leading to the impression that he was conducting his ministry for considerably more than three years.

Reading comprehension fail.
The intent was to institute a new contract with mankind, not based as the Old Testament had been (in part) on negotiation, but on his own terms.

The assumption that the corpse would have begun to decay is unwarranted conjecture.

That is entirely expected. This was an undertaking of God without a human representative mediating.

No - Christ's mission was to the Jews, and to those whom he had called. Commissioners and others were appointed to conduct the message to all nations.

No. He sent commissioners and others to make the necessary introductions. And he sent them with the authority to use the power to perform miracles as evidence of the fact that he had appointed them. Moreover, he made that power available to anyone who chose to become a disciple.

Without over-riding free will, it can't be done. God isn't in the habit of forcing himself on people.

The meeting with the disciples, and with Thomas - at which meeting (if memory serves), they were granted the Holy Spirit.

No - he entered heaven: different place altogether.

Again - independent action, only to be expected.

And for the last 2,000 years, God has been sitting on his throne, on the edge of the universe, watching every day as young children, women, and men are brutally tortured and murdered; starved to death, or die of terrible, painful diseases, and he justifies this suffering because our ancestors ate his fruit.

Well, I wouldn't call your interpretation nonsense exactly, but it does come close.

You are so blinded, Tabby, it is heart-breaking. You are looking at a square but calling it a circle just because you have been told by an authority figure that a square can be a circle. Sorry, Tabby, but you have been lied to. Squares can never be circles. Never.

Hell, Sinner in the Lake of Fire.jpg

This man will writhe in horrific agony forever just because his ancient ancestors ate some of God's fruit...if western orthodox Christianity is true. You can try to white wash the doctrine of Hell, but all one has to do is read the writings of the early church fathers and you will see that no one at that time believed that Hell was simply an eternity of feeling "ashamed".

Either the earliest Christians got Jesus' message about the afterlife wrong or you are simply deceiving yourself in reading the Bible as you would LIKE it to read and not how the authors' intended it.

"[The martyrs] despised all the torments of this world, redeeming themselves from eternal punishment by the suffering of a single hour.... For they kept before their view escape from that fire which is eternal and will never be quenched." (Martyrdom of Polycarp, c. 135)

"We believe...that every man will suffer punishment in eternal fire according to the merits of his deed. ... Sensation remains to all who have ever lived, and eternal punishment is laid up." (Justin Martyr, c. 160)

"To the unbelieving and despisers...there will be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish. At the end, everlasting fire will possess such men." (Theophilus, c. 180) "Eternal fire is prepared for sinners. The Lord has plainly declared this and the rest of the Scriptures demonstrate it." (Irenaeus, c. 180)