Did Christianity lose its way?

[Sparko]

Nice quote for the justification of 'receiving the truth' unfortunately many diverse and conflicting groups of believers start their own church claiming they have 'received the truth' and Christianity has lost it's way. Of course, some claim they are not really a church, but the true 'Way.'

How the heck did you misread that quote so badly? It was not about "receiving the truth" but about continuing to deliberately sin after being saved.

[shunyadragon]

You claim to have read Hebrews, so how did you miss this:

Scripture Verse: Hebrews 10

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

© Copyright Original Source

Nice quote for the justification of 'receiving the truth' unfortunately many diverse and conflicting groups of believers start their own church claiming they have 'received the truth' and Christianity has lost it's way. Of course, some claim they are not really a church, but the true 'Way.'

[Sparko]

I seem to think? You know what a pagan is thinking?
Now where did all those congregations write to, I wonder?
If converts were communicating questions for answers, don't you think that they asked about what Jesus said, what Jesus did?



So Paul wrote to congregations about problems and never once described anything said or done by Jesus which could give guidance?

He talked about what Jesus did all the time. How he created the world, how he sacrificed himself for our sins, how he died and was resurrected, how he visited him on the road to Damascus, etc. You just keep ignoring that and repeating your nonsense. Your biggest problem is that you have never bothered to READ Paul's letters and seem to be relying on some third party source for your "facts".

Billions of us....all blind.
Only Christians of some churches would have sight...is that right?

Only those who are willing to open their mind and be saved. You have repeatedly shown that you have a closed mind and will reject any evidence that doesn't fit what you already believe.
dilbert-hallucination.jpg

Jesus and the Baptist, their campaigns (or missions) were part of the center of their messages........ and Paul (and you?) consider/ed that 'All you need to "know" is that you are a sinner and that Jesus came your Lord and Savior and died for your sins.' ........??

Again, the message of the cross is foolishness for those who are perishing, as you continue to prove.

[rogue06]

I seem to think?

The jury is still out on that one.

[rogue06]

Again! You didn't answer my question which was:-

Please tell me what the specific purposes of Paul's letters were.

Maybe if I type really, really slow you'll be able to keep up.

Again, they have the purpose that has been explained to you by several posters multiple times. Generally speaking, Paul was dealing with specific situations in specific churches. They tend to be written to specific groups of people facing unique challenges in their community.

For instance, I Corinthians largely concerns itself with moral issues, particularly sexual immorality, that was dividing the church there. OTOH, Romans was an introduction (he had never been there and wasn't responsible for founding the church there) and pretty much a unifying message for both Jewish and Gentile Christians. And Galatians essentially served to counter attempts by others who appeared after he left and an argument that we cannot be saved by our works but by having faith in God.

As I, and others, have said, he was dealing with specific issues that arose in specific places.

Your analogies (as usual) just amount to waffle, rogue.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

What a devastating rebuttal. I mean you really nailed it there where you showed exactly how it wasn't a good analogy. No really.

Actually, the comparison is valid. In both cases you have a leader communicating with a specific community (church in a city or regional office) that was facing a distinct situation or problem.

In neither instance, would it be expected or appropriate to include a history lesson.

Paul wasn't CEO of those congregations, and his 'brief histories' never once mentioned anything that his God's son said or did apart from a last meal and coming back to life, all that he needed really...... yes?

He was the founder and leader of all those churches save the one in Rome, so the comparison to a company president or CEO is valid.

So pick two congregations and tell me what specific purposes his letters had for those.

Actually, I already picked three. The synopses provided are brief and therefore not complete but they accurately cover the general purpose for the letters.

[tabibito]

I seem to think? You know what a pagan is thinking?
Now where did all those congregations write to, I wonder?
If converts were communicating questions for answers, don't you think that they asked about what Jesus said, what Jesus did?



So Paul wrote to congregations about problems and never once described anything said or done by Jesus which could give guidance?



Billions of us....all blind.
Only Christians of some churches would have sight...is that right?



Jesus and the Baptist, their campaigns (or missions) were part of the center of their messages........ and Paul (and you?) consider/ed that 'All you need to "know" is that you are a sinner and that Jesus came your Lord and Savior and died for your sins.' ........??

From the above, this begins to looks as if Paul gave little value to what Jesus said or did. Now I'm getting closer to some truth about Paul.

The role of an apostle is to promote the gospel and establish churches. Ideally, once a congregation has been established, the apostle hands over leadership to the prophets and teachers, with some input from the apostle upon request. Paul was working from the disadvantage of not being a founding apostle, and from the position of an apostle who had not been trained by a founding apostle. His letters address issues that arose in churches after they had been established. Those issues were often due to people who tried to bring his credibility and credentials as an apostle into question: much along the lines of what you are trying to do here. Other matters included congregational discipline. The gospel had already been presented: it was not something that should have been beyond the ability of congregational leadership to maintain or introduce to new members.

[eider]

He was writing to new churches too and from what he wrote they probably asked him to explain certain things so that they could better explain to new converts or to evangelize. And to answer questions people were asking them. Just like we discuss things here on Tweb. Also you seem to think that the letters we have are all of the words Paul ever wrote or said. Who knows what he said while preaching at the various churches or what other letters he wrote that we don't have?

I seem to think? You know what a pagan is thinking?
Now where did all those congregations write to, I wonder?
If converts were communicating questions for answers, don't you think that they asked about what Jesus said, what Jesus did?

He wasn't a witness to them and as I said they had the other apostles for that. Not to mention many witnesses were still around.

So Paul wrote to congregations about problems and never once described anything said or done by Jesus which could give guidance?

I am just pointing out your blindness. It's up to you to do something about it or ignore my advise. I think we both know you will ignore it. But that's on your head not mine.

Billions of us....all blind.
Only Christians of some churches would have sight...is that right?

They didn't have google or libraries laying around. Becoming "Christian" doesn't mean you know everything about it, or how Jesus had fulfilled the law. All you need to "know" is that you are a sinner and that Jesus came your Lord and Savior and died for your sins. You wouldn't necessarily know how it related to the old testament sacrifices and priesthood. And not everyone who became Christian were Jewish.

Jesus and the Baptist, their campaigns (or missions) were part of the center of their messages........ and Paul (and you?) consider/ed that 'All you need to "know" is that you are a sinner and that Jesus came your Lord and Savior and died for your sins.' ........??

From the above, this begins to looks as if Paul gave little value to what Jesus said or did. Now I'm getting closer to some truth about Paul.

[eider]

The same purpose that you've been told countless times. He was dealing with specific situations in specific churches.

Again! You didn't answer my question which was:-

Please tell me what the specific purposes of Paul's letters were.

Think of it this way. Say the president or CEO of some company hears about problems in some regional office so he sends them a message regarding that. What you seem to think is that message should also contain a brief history of the company as well.

Your analogies (as usual) just amount to waffle, rogue.
Paul wasn't CEO of those congregations, and his 'brief histories' never once mentioned anything that his God's son said or did apart from a last meal and coming back to life, all that he needed really...... yes?

So pick two congregations and tell me what specific purposes his letters had for those.

[Sparko]

Didn't the congregations already know about salvation?

He was writing to new churches too and from what he wrote they probably asked him to explain certain things so that they could better explain to new converts or to evangelize. And to answer questions people were asking them. Just like we discuss things here on Tweb. Also you seem to think that the letters we have are all of the words Paul ever wrote or said. Who knows what he said while preaching at the various churches or what other letters he wrote that we don't have?

Because he believed that Jesus was a God? Wouldn't that be good reason to write about his words and actions in life?

He wasn't a witness to them and as I said they had the other apostles for that. Not to mention many witnesses were still around.

As soon as folks use terms such as 'special pleading' and 'logical fallacy' I know they have actually got nothing to offer as an answer.
You mentioned 'biased views'....... are any of your own views biased, possibly?

I am just pointing out your blindness. It's up to you to do something about it or ignore my advise. I think we both know you will ignore it. But that's on your head not mine.

At your mention of Hebrews I read through it. I didn't read anything that the Jewish congregations wouldn't already have known. They were already Christians.

They didn't have google or libraries laying around. Becoming "Christian" doesn't mean you know everything about it, or how Jesus had fulfilled the law. All you need to "know" is that you are a sinner and that Jesus came your Lord and Savior and died for your sins. You wouldn't necessarily know how it related to the old testament sacrifices and priesthood. And not everyone who became Christian were Jewish.

[rogue06]

OK...... !
Please tell me what the specific purposes of Paul's letters were.

The same purpose that you've been told countless times. He was dealing with specific situations in specific churches.

Think of it this way. Say the president or CEO of some company hears about problems in some regional office so he sends them a message regarding that. What you seem to think is that message should also contain a brief history of the company as well.

[eider]

As is your habit you snipped off the part that makes your response nonsense.

These letters had very specific purposes. Something multiple posters have informed you of.

OK...... !
Please tell me what the specific purposes of Paul's letters were.

[rogue06]

Because it is reasonable to wonder why a devoted follower of a God that created the heavens, the universe, all the galaxies and stars and planets, and who had lived on this planet as a man....... wouldn't think it worth mentioning anything that Jesus actually said or did while here.

Making mention of a death, a coming back to life and a last meal (needed for a regular ceremony) doesn't actually tell the followers about their God at all, but all those Christians in those congregations already knew that Jesus was one of their Gods!
But you're trying to spin it that they were clueless about what Christianity was as described by Paul?

As is your habit you snipped off the part that makes your response nonsense.

These letters had very specific purposes. Something multiple posters have informed you of.

[tabibito]

Jesus had no experience as 'Jesus as Christ'...he didn't even know the word.

Whether or not he knew the term "christ," he most certainly saw himself as "messiah." Just different words in different languages for the same thing.

Yes, the author/s of G-John, Luke and Mastthew did not know the man, but I think that the author of G-Mark had been a partial witness and he was probably writing the memoirs of Cephas, so you've got witnesses there.

The other three gospels are no further removed from Jesus than you believe Mark to be.

Oh for sure! Your dictionary just does twists and turns as it pleases.......when you fancy, and then you transform in to some kind of comprehension star when it suits you.
I've got that alright.

It doesn't seem that you've "got" much of anything. If your failure to comprehend matters with due regard to context offends you, fix the problem. Just as a BTW, the English language definition of gospel does not mean "good news" - that is mere etymology.

Same as you, then?

What do you suppose I have forgotten?

If you are trying to spin some nonsense about why Paul did not think it necessary to recount any of the day-by-day activities of his God, then please don't bother.
The reason why Paul didn't mention anything that his God did is because he only needed a death, coming back to life and a communion in his new religion. imp.

Quite the opposite. Paul was primarily concerned with the day to day activities of God, with some attention to past activities where relevant - usually referenced to illustrate a point.

Hebrews {2:9} But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Hebrews . {2:17} Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Jesus wasn't a high priest nor wished to become one........... he just wanted to end a very corrupted system which was keeping the Low classes impoverished

He is the high priest of and under the terms of the new covenant.

If you paid more attention to what Jesus actually did you might discover the real social values of his mission..

Jesus was and is a person reformer, not a social reformer. If I didn't pay attention to his life, teachings, and actions I might conclude otherwise.

[eider]

Make up your mind. One day you're prattling on about how Paul "ever [sic] mentioned the words and actions of Jesus" and the next you admit that was a load of codswallop but whine there should have been more.

Why?

Because it is reasonable to wonder why a devoted follower of a God that created the heavens, the universe, all the galaxies and stars and planets, and who had lived on this planet as a man....... wouldn't think it worth mentioning anything that Jesus actually said or did while here.

Making mention of a death, a coming back to life and a last meal (needed for a regular ceremony) doesn't actually tell the followers about their God at all, but all those Christians in those congregations already knew that Jesus was one of their Gods!
But you're trying to spin it that they were clueless about what Christianity was as described by Paul?

[eider]

As you have pointed out, Paul had no personal experience of Jesus as Christ - nor did most of his audience. His experiences with Jesus start after the ascension. The gospels record the memoirs of those who did know the man.

Jesus had no experience as 'Jesus as Christ'...he didn't even know the word.
Yes, the author/s of G-John, Luke and Mastthew did not know the man, but I think that the author of G-Mark had been a partial witness and he was probably writing the memoirs of Cephas, so you've got witnesses there.

The building is maybe a white house or the White House. Number 10 is maybe a street number, or 10 Downing St. When the topic refers to matters Christian, "Gospel" has a contextual application. Paul's letters do not present his gospel, but they are essentially meaningless without the gospel as a foundation.

Oh for sure! Your dictionary just does twists and turns as it pleases.......when you fancy, and then you transform in to some kind of comprehension star when it suits you.
I've got that alright.

They had a habit of forgetting the important stuff it seems.

Same as you, then?

For day to day living, history is not overly important, and while Paul had experience with the ascended Jesus restored to godhood, he did not share in the experiences of the founding apostles. Paul's gospel is grounded in his own experience, and his letters do not present his gospel. Paul's letters focused on the relevance of "the kingdom to come" to the day to day lives of believers. The gospels of the other apostles and evangelists ground their records in the experiences of the authors - so the component of personal perspective comes into play.

If you are trying to spin some nonsense about why Paul did not think it necessary to recount any of the day-by-day activities of his God, then please don't bother.
The reason why Paul didn't mention anything that his God did is because he only needed a death, coming back to life and a communion in his new religion. imp.

Less time spent scoffing at "sojourned," more time spent paying attention to the content of Hebrews, would have eliminated your difficulty. Hebrews 2:9, Hebrews 2:17 for starters.

Hebrews {2:9} But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Hebrews . {2:17} Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Jesus wasn't a high priest nor wished to become one........... he just wanted to end a very corrupted system which was keeping the Low classes impoverished
If you paid more attention to what Jesus actually did you might discover the real social values of his mission..