literal belief and christianity

[sojourner]

His sacrifice saves me because His blood washes away my sins, and therefore allows me to get into heaven.

The paramount part of salavtion is faith, and trusting in Him to save you, and to believe that He will do what He says.

How does blood wash away sins?

 

[Luke_17:2]

How does blood wash away sins?

Not just "blood"; Jesus' blood. He was sinless, and God manifest in the flesh, so He could save all mankind, and each person individually. His blood acts the sacrifice as an unblemished lamb.

Blood, in the Old Testament, was the only thing that could atone for sin. But as each person had sin, only animal blood could atone, but even then only for each type of sin, and you had to sacrifice to keep up with ebb of sin, and a person could only sacrifice for Himself. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice: two natures, God and man, and each of those natures took part in redemption. His earthly nature provided the blood; His Godly nature provided the holiness. Also, He acts as the High Priest: He performed the sacrifice.

How does blood wash away sin? It washes it way the same way water washes away dirt: that is why every man must die. But only the blood of the Creator manifest in the flesh can atone for all sins.

But in the end, it's grace through faith (faith that the blood of Jesus on the cross is enough for salvation) is what saves you.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

Hi!

Hopefully, this may contribute to the topic. Two nights ago I woke up with a question of why did Jesus tell Mary not to touch him as he had not yet ascended to the Father. I think it has to do with the blood, as he is our high priest, just as the high priest would make the sacrifice and immediately go in and sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat, so Jesus had to ascend to the mercy seat in Heaven and apply his blood. Mary could not touch him as it would make the blood 'impure'.

Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. and every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Cheers!

 

[sojourner]

So...you've determined that God demands a blood sacrifice. Wonderful. You've succeeded in setting Christianity back centuries and transforming a very human tragedy into God's impetus. Great. Plus, most people that God created out of love are going to spend eternity in anguish.

And we wonder why our "evengelism" falls on deaf ears...

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Why would that be the case?

Because there are a lot of teachings that people follow that are not from Jesus.
and have little in common with his nature of love and forgiveness.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

So...you've determined that God demands a blood sacrifice. Wonderful. You've succeeded in setting Christianity back centuries and transforming a very human tragedy into God's impetus. Great. Plus, most people that God created out of love are going to spend eternity in anguish.

And we wonder why our "evengelism" falls on deaf ears...

Hi!

It is quite strange to me that you use the title Christian, Christ being the emphasis, yet you do not believe his words or the words of his apostles. A very shaky foundation, indeed!

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

and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Cheers!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So...you've determined that God demands a blood sacrifice. Wonderful. You've succeeded in setting Christianity back centuries and transforming a very human tragedy into God's impetus. Great. Plus, most people that God created out of love are going to spend eternity in anguish.

And we wonder why our "evengelism" falls on deaf ears...

Perhaps you're giving Luke too much credit. It's more likely that he's simply repeating what he's learned from other people rather than purposefully ignoring a history of Christian theology which he knows.

 

[sojourner]

Hi!

It is quite strange to me that you use the title Christian, Christ being the emphasis, yet you do not believe his words or the words of his apostles. A very shaky foundation, indeed!

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

and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Cheers!

I don't believe that many of the words attributed to him are verbatim quotations. We call that approach "good scholarship," not "bad theology."

Good theology arises out of good scholarship. In the end, I'm doing the best I can with what I have to work with, same as everyone else.

It is quite strange to me that you would place belief about certain things ahead of doing your best to follow.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Good theology arises out of good scholarship.

Not sure I agree with that...

 

[Mr. Peanut]

I don't believe that many of the words attributed to him are verbatim quotations. We call that approach "good scholarship," not "bad theology."

Good theology arises out of good scholarship. In the end, I'm doing the best I can with what I have to work with, same as everyone else.

It is quite strange to me that you would place belief about certain things ahead of doing your best to follow.

HI!

In the same sense, bad scholarship produces bad theology, eh? When Jesus, and other apostles and prophets are recorded as saying Moses wrote the Law, when the Law itself says Moses wrote all God told him, we must conclude, using good scholarship, that Moses wrote it. How many witnesses are needed, right? I understand you feel you do the best with what you have, but at some point I feel one must learn to take God at his word and trust him. As for the belief and follow statement, neither belief nor following produces salvation, but trusting in God who sent his Son produces salvation and the desire to follow as well. The Bible is the one book people seem so afraid of taking for just what it says. We need to understand and interpret it properly, as well as we can as you say, but then we need to trust what it actually says.

Cheers!

 

[sojourner]

HI!

In the same sense, bad scholarship produces bad theology, eh? When Jesus, and other apostles and prophets are recorded as saying Moses wrote the Law, when the Law itself says Moses wrote all God told him, we must conclude, using good scholarship, that Moses wrote it. How many witnesses are needed, right? I understand you feel you do the best with what you have, but at some point I feel one must learn to take God at his word and trust him. As for the belief and follow statement, neither belief nor following produces salvation, but trusting in God who sent his Son produces salvation and the desire to follow as well. The Bible is the one book people seem so afraid of taking for just what it says. We need to understand and interpret it properly, as well as we can as you say, but then we need to trust what it actually says.

Cheers!

Unfortunately, that's not good scholarship. Assumption and taking things at face value is never good scholarship. it may produce conclusions that are in error.

In order to "take God at God's word," we first have to determine what that word is. Otherwise, we may be ascribing something to God that isn't particularly God's word.

I think we have to trust whatever it is that we've been given, but we should always thirst for more, so that understanding may increase.

Salvation isn't the goal of Christianity. Following Jesus is the goal of Christianity.

The Bible is one book that I am very afraid of "taking for just what it says." It's an ancient document, written over a long period of time, translated from more than one language. A surface reading can never tell us "what it says." One has to dig deeper in order to understand nuances of time and place, and how they differ from colloquialisms of our own time and place. For me, that's the only way we can really interpret and understand what it says. The only way we can trust what it actually says is to find out what it actually says.

 

[lunamoth]

Salvation isn't the goal of Christianity. Following Jesus is the goal of Christianity.

Salvation is the goal of Christianity, but salvation does not equate with 'getting into heaven after you die.'

 

[Mr. Peanut]

Hi!

Ok, then. We've beat this to death. I believe God revealed his word to us and it is not so hard to understand, to me. God is powerful enough to do that and more.

Cheers!

 

[blueman]

The Bible is the authoratative Word of God that reveals Himself to us. There are a vast amount of literal events, people and prophetic references in Scripture, Old and New Testament. There is also symbolism and hyperbole used to emphasize the meaning of the content. People can categorized themselves as Christians in words, but since a relationship with God through Jesus is a heart condition (believing through faith, not just rendering words) you cannot separate the two. You cannot have a true relationship with God and also deny Christ, His Only Begotten Son.

 

[sojourner]

The Bible is the authoratative Word of God that reveals Himself to us. There are a vast amount of literal events, people and prophetic references in Scripture, Old and New Testament. There is also symbolism and hyperbole used to emphasize the meaning of the content. People can categorized themselves as Christians in words, but since a relationship with God through Jesus is a heart condition (believing through faith, not just rendering words) you cannot separate the two. You cannot have a true relationship with God and also deny Christ, His Only Begotten Son.

Denying Christ isn't the issue. Believing in Christ as metaphor is the issue. If that's how a person needs to understand christology, if that person is sincere, if that person does christlike work, I'm not going to deny their Christianity.

 

[madhatter85]

I have questions regarding the nature of Christianity, I'm trying to get my head around it and would appreciate some feedback.


1
Can one view the Bible, particularly the new testament as inspired literature from which meaning can be created and be a Christian?

2
Does one have to accept the literal existence of Jesus to be Christian or can one say he exists in the bible and that's enough?

From an LDS perspective -

1) the bible is literal in some forms and allegorical in others, we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

2) In order to be truely christian, you would have to accept that Jesus did in fact exist as mentioned in the Bible (and Book of Mormon) because if he did not physically exits on thsi earth and do al l the things mentioned then the whole plan of salvation put forth in the bible (and Book of Mormon) would not be in effect. In order for the plan to work he must have lived, ministered, died, and been ressurrected.

 

[madhatter85]

Hi!

Ok, then. We've beat this to death. I believe God revealed his word to us and it is not so hard to understand, to me. God is powerful enough to do that and more.

Cheers!

Exactly, he is powerful enough to do alot more that have only one book written regarding the plan of salvation.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

Exactly, he is powerful enough to do alot more that have only one book written regarding the plan of salvation.

Hi!

I see your pov. On the other hand, he is powerful enough to need only one book to get his message out.

Cheers!

 

[madhatter85]

Hi!

I see your pov. On the other hand, he is powerful enough to need only one book to get his message out.

Cheers!

On the other hand, people shouldn't rely wholly on just one book, but that is for another thread.

The point i was makign was from an LDS perspective as to literal belief in Jesus Chrsit.

and yes, he would need to have existed in the literal sense, or else the bible would be a false book, because of the fundamental nature of the plan of salvation set forth in scripture.

 

[Luke_17:2]

Perhaps you're giving Luke too much credit. It's more likely that he's simply repeating what he's learned from other people rather than purposefully ignoring a history of Christian theology which he knows.

This is all news to me. What Christian theology am I ignoring?

Is the reason I'm blind to it, and you not, because you're an apostle?

So...you've determined that God demands a blood sacrifice. Wonderful. You've succeeded in setting Christianity back centuries and transforming a very human tragedy into God's impetus. Great. Plus, most people that God created out of love are going to spend eternity in anguish.

Christianity doesn't change. Biblical Christianity, Christianity based soley on what the Bible says, is the same as it was at the beginning, and will be the same at the end. Even if no one practices it, it will be there. So, Apostle angelous is correct. You give me to much credit. You're putting me in God's stead. I did not write what the Bible says.

And we wonder why our "evengelism" falls on deaf ears...

I've merely presented what the Bible says. You don't like it, then tough.

Evangelism falls on deaf ears for several reasons:

1) The devil
2) Human arrogance
3) Hatred of God
4) The devil