Discussing the Messiah from an Historical Perspective

Your colossal stretch of all true science and logic to make your flood myth real is pathetic. You have given not one iota of real science, just theological gibberish. You even dodged the initial question of the logistics of two Koalas making a 7300 mole trek unscathed.

 

I agree that both James and Jesus are saying that faith without works is useless and that Faith alone will not save you.

The Apostles in fact do disagree with Paul's doctrine. Paul has very little association with the Apostles and spends most of his time outside of Jerusalem preaching to the Gentiles.

In Acts 21 Paul is summoned to Church of Jerusalem to appear before James on charges of violating the Torah.

James does not agree with Paul ?? James put Paul in his place and tells him to go do some purification ritual (purifying of his previous sin in an attempt to show to the people that he is reformed to constrain their anger at Paul)


Here is what James says:

James is clear... he says to Paul - look at the thousands of Jews who have converted and all are zealous for the law. He then says that "word on the street" has it that you have been telling folks to turn away from Moses and not live according to our customs (the law).

He says "What shall we do" ? He then tells Paul to go with some other folks and do purification rites to show the people that he is living in obedience to the Law.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+21&version=NIV

There is no "James agreeing with Paul on the Law"

Paul does what James says but even so the people do not believe Paul's charade. The Jews, Christian Jews included, go after Paul and drag him to the temple to kill him.

Paul is saved from death by the Roman soldiers, taken to a different city (Caesarea) and thrown in Prison. The Jews (Christian Jews included) continue to try and kill Paul while he is in prison and want him transferred to Jerusalem.

After spending a couple of years in prison Paul gets shipped off to Italy (Rome) to appeal to the Emperor. Paul manages to convince the Emperor not to kill him and that is the end of the story.

We are not told of any further contact between Paul and the Church of Jerusalem after that. James never agrees with Paul.

According to the disciples there is no "new Covenant" whereby they no longer have to follow the Law.

Many years after the death of Jesus, the disciples, the Church of Jerusalem, and the Jewish Christians that made up this Church are living according to Mosaic Law.

This was the nature of the original Church of Christianity founded by those that were the original followers of Jesus.

James does not "agree with Paul" and James says specifically that "Faith alone" is useless with respect to salvation.

Only someone in complete denial can not understand what James is saying.

 

BUAHAHAHAHA!!!

You have me confused with someone else you argued with.
Remember. My name is Qchan.

 

Why have you been debating against the position that the early Church did not believe that Jesus was "God-The Father"

 

Oh I have no pretentions about being a scholar, but I have seen the ancient world including Palestine, Byblos and Baalbek and I have been reading ancient history and archeology since 1970. How about YOU?

 

What profound ignorance. James told that to Paul to save his life. Not to reprimand him. If you keep reading, you'll see that he was eventually arrested for going against Jewish traditions.
Also, you are saved by faith alone. James was saying that, with faith comes good works. It's automatic. He wasn't saying that one required the other. He was saying one brings about the other.

You're hopelessly confused.

Just because you've been places, it certainly doesn't make you more knowledgeable than those who haven't been to those places. You ought to be old enough to know that.

 

Better go back to post #14 for review

 

At the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), the issue was whether Gentiles should be circumcised. Paul argued that circumcision was not required for Gentiles, Barnabas did not agree. The issue was taken to Jerusalem for review by the Apostles, the Apostles sided with Paul.

Acts 15 quotes Peter as spokesman for the Apostles agreeing with Paul:

7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”​

Two points:

Paul was clearly accepted into the innermost circle of Christianity, he was obviously not a blasphemer promoting teachings contrary to Jesus. There were disagreements at times (as with Paul & Barnabas, and another with Paul & James), but these were resolved amicably.

Note Acts 15:11 - Peter himself says we are saved by grace. If it were not true then Gentiles would have to be circumcised.

 

Did you even read post #14?

Like I said. You have me confused.

 

Well you probably know about the symbiotic relationship between the Bedouin and the people who live in towns or in oasis... The Bedouin grazed the livestock of the townies on shares and they were often relatives.. The bedu brought meat and leather.. the townies provided pottery, grain and other essentials.

All the Bedouin tribes carried their gods with them in arks on litters and "worshipped in high places"... and generally their gods were meteorites. The Canaanite tribes that were called Apiru or Habiru were unaffiliated.. have nots.. and were considered lawless.. They had no such symbiotic relationships.

 

What does this have to do with anything? If you're trying to show your age, then congratulations! You're old. :/

I almost missed this... Allow me to reply to it...

It doesn't make sense for the early church to believe Jesus was God the Father when Jesus said himself that he was the Son multiple times. Didn't I give you multiple verses proving this? I even gave you sources, and yet you still don't believe? You need to change your opinion - especially in the face of overwhelming evidence. If you don't, then that's no longer ignorance. It's denial.

 

Yes.. I am old.. but I have been reading your argument about Monotheism..

 

I quoted directly from the Bible ? You did not. You can make up your own fantasy version of the Bible all you like but that does not make it true.

According to James you are not saved by faith alone.

James is addressing the question directly !

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?

Well? Can it. Not according to James.

20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless

Folks that believe that faith alone can save them are foolish according to James.

In response to the question that James himself poses ( Can faith without deeds save someone). He says that faith without deeds is DEAD and those that believe otherwise are foolish.

Anyone can have faith, even demons.

What part of "Not by faith alone" is unclear to you ?

Jesus says the same thing.

Jesus has spent 3 chapters in his most famous sermon speaking of the will of the Father and it is all works. Jesus says not one word about faith.

Only . Do you understand what the word "only" means ? "Only the one who does the will of the Father" get into heaven.

Jesus has just spent a whole sermon talking about the works (The Will of the Father).

You can go by Paul all you wish but the claim that Jesus and James did not preach a works based salvation formulation is abject nonsense.

 

Amazing. Totally amazing...

In my humble opinion, you're hopelessly lost. I and one other explained this all to you. Your overwhelming ignorance on a book (created for the Jews, by the way), totally overrides all of the New Testament. You don't even understand who Jesus was preaching to. You don't even know why Jesus died on the cross. You have no idea what the new covenant is, nor do you care to learn. You don't even know why the bible is split into two testaments, The old and the new. You honestly believe the bible is contradicting itself, and you're more than willing to rip scriptures out of the bible to support your narrow views.

Your mind is poisoned. I don't know if I can help you. Hopefully someone can.

 

Post #14 was between Qchan and me. If you are not Qchan, who are you? Other than a delusional blatherer, that is.

 

When did Jesus preach to the Gentiles?

 

Lets address the silliness you're talking about.

You said:

1) On post #14, I said, "No, Noah's Ark is not logical if you imagine that his conditions were the same as Earth's conditions today. Of course, Noah only brought 2 of every family of animal, not 2 of every species. How many animals could that have been? I honestly have no idea. If I were to imagine 1,000, that still wouldn't be realistic."

2) On post #14, I said, "Well... certain animals are capable of resurrection. A good example would be the North American Wood Frog (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fjr3A_kfspM) and the WooolyBear Caterpillar. Scientists have confirmed that the frozen North American Wood Frog does not breathe, their blood does not circulate and there's no heart beat. There's no bodily activity at all. Same thing happens to the WoolyBear Caterpillar. Of course, when it comes to humans, this has never been observed, and is, therefore, supernatural. However, New Testament historians say there's empirical evidence that Jesus was indeed alive after his death. Take that how you will."

3) I had no idea what you were talking about with this one, and honestly, I still don't. Someone did address this particular question, but I don't feel like going in to find it.

Now, the reason I call this silly and the reason why I said that you must be talking to someone else, is because:

1) I said it didn't make scientific sense. So I agreed with you. For you to say I tried to make the flood "real" is simply untrue. I also said that the super natural cannot be explained scientifically.
2) I did provide scientific sources to what I was saying - at least to what made sense. You're saying I didn't. This is obviously not true. The times I didn't provide scientific evidence was for the super natural incidences I explained. I've already told you that the super natural cannot be explained scientifically.

Seems to me like you had an agenda, and that the original questions weren't asked out of curiosity, but to further that agenda.

 

Peter was a bit of a bumbling fool according to Jesus but what ever.

You are cherry picking one phrase and giving it meaning out of context.

First off ... that Paul was allowed to come before the council does not make him "part of the inner circle".

The question was in relation to circumcision alone and not the whole law. James makes a ruling on that one single item. He is not making a ruling on the entire law.

Circumcision is a bit of a grey area to begin with as it was a sign of the covenant between Jews specifically and God. A covenant between God and his people. As per the law. Peter says that even we Jews do not follow the whole law anymore.

Peter says that the Law is a Yoke that not even we nor our ancestors have been able to bear. In other words if everyone was judged solely by the strict letter of the law then no one would be saved.

The Grace of Jesus that Peter is referring is forgiveness but this also relates to severity of sin. Peter saying saved through the Grace of Jesus does not mean salvation by Faith alone. It means exactly what Peter said. That it will be Jesus that is judge and jury and Jesus is willing to forgive some things.

This is stated numerous times by Jesus. Severity of sin: Matt 7

Please tell me how you get from this passage that you can go around doing what ever you wish, disobeying all the commands of God, and at the end of the day be saved because you call out the name of the Lord ?

What you are claiming "Faith alone" is not what Jesus nor Peter nor James is saying.

After Peter speaks James then makes his decision. He does not say " Oh just have faith and not worry about the law". He names specific items of the law that needed to be observed (there were likely questions in relation to these certain things). Obviously the people were also to abide by the 10 commands and so on.

The only thing the Gentiles are relieved of in this instance is circumcision. And this makes sense as it was a grey area of the Law for non Jews.

James says clearly that other aspects of the law are to be followed and there is no doubt that Paul is being charged not just with the circumcision thing but for teachings about following the Law in general as shown you previously in Acts 21.

James rules that circumcision does not have to be followed but that is it.

To James and the rest of the disciples the claim that all you needed to do was "just have faith" and you would be saved would not just get you laughed out of the room. It would likely get you killed.

How can Jesus be judge. If a human has the ability to avoid judgement by calling out the name of the lord at the end of days.

That is not in keeping with anything Jesus preached in any realistic sense.

I will leave you with Matt 25; Parable of the sheep and goats.

Jesus is cast as the Judge. Jesus has grace but he is not judging on the basis of faith.

Jesus is judging on the basis of works.

 

There certainly have been some arrogant posters on here but you are probably the worst I have come across. You are rude to Margot who is certainly more knowledgeable about the Middle East than you, and you keep calling other people ignorant.

Acts 21. Nothing would have stopped Paul from visiting the Temple at Pentecost. (Acts 19:21). He had a purpose to fulfil. He knew the danger he faced (Acts 20:22. Acts 21:11-12). It doesn't even say that James warned him (21:20) It gives us no name at all.
Paul went through a period of purification to complete a vow (Nazarite) he had taken. He had already had his hair cut at Cenchrea, now to be purified. The others with him in the 7 day ritual probably had done the same.

 

What about those Koala bears you failed to address, Qchan-not-Qchan?

 

I am always willng to learn more
But find discussions of religion to be difficult because adherents seem to very flexible about the distnction and role of faith vs logic evidence and proof

 

For instancs i consider the 6000 year old earth as a matter of faith
While sime adherents swem to present it as proven fact

 

I feel equally express my possibly uninformed opinion about cults of antiquity and the present

 

only two people who witnesses Jesus, wrote about him.

that's not great evidence that he existed.

 

You can stand on a mound of denial and cry out "your hopelessly lost, your hopelessly lost" until the sun goes down.

You claim "ignorance" but then do not even address a single word in my post ? Then you make some ridiculous accusation "you don't even know why Jesus died on the cross" that has nothing to do with my post.

I know what new covenant theology is. There is a reason why the vast majority of Christianity does not accept it.

The Bible is rife with contradiction and when I point out a contradiction your brain shuts down and you go into demonization and fallacy mode (Ad Hom in this case); attacking the messenger instead of addressing the message.

I gave you scripture and quoted it directly. You can not handle what scripture says and so you completely ignored the scripture I posted because you have no material to refute what I have said.

You completely ignored the scripture I posted and started name calling (demonization) and then made a bunch of accusations having nothing to do with the scripture I posted.

It is not my fault that you can not handle what the Bible says. Stick to the message and quit attacking the messenger.