Isaiah 43:11

[FerventGodSeeker]

These quotes i don't see supporting the belief that Jesus's death was a sacrifice for our sins.
The first one says to me that people have been brought to Christ through the drama of his death, and now is the time to hear his teachings.

How are reconciled through His death? And then, subsequently, how are we saved by His life in rising from the grave?

The second quote says that he has overcome sin, he has dies to sin and now lives fully in God i.e. sin no longer holds any sway over him.

Did you read those verses in context? Only two verses before it says, "knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin." Romans 6:6 Clearly Christ's death paves the way for the removal of our sin.

The third is saying that Jesus both died because of our sins, and so that he could exist in a sinless form, rise from death and teach us the path to God.

First of all, note that Paul calls this the Gospel, "the good news". Why is it good news that Christ died and rose again? Because it is the truth "by which also you are saved." Again, how is Christ's death and resurrection the way that we are saved?

Again, its all interpretation.

Indeed it is. But again, WHOSE interpretation? Yours? Mine? What makes your interpretation authoritative and truthful? Simply because it "makes sense to you"? No, it is the CHURCH who is the interpreter of Scripture, as "the pillar and ground of the truth." Only the Church can claim the divine authority to definitely interpret Scripture for all Christians. So what it means individually to you or me is only secondary to the authoritative interpretation of the Church.

What, you mean you pick and chose which scriptures to follow depending on whether you believe them or not? Sounds familiar.

Me? Was I there at the Council of Carthage? Hate to break it to you, I'm not that old . No, the canon was chosen through the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit by the coming together of the Church leadership. Whether you choose to accept or reject the authoritative decisions and declarations of the Church is another issue.

Erm, he's talking to the apostles.

Isn't that what I just said? He was talking to the Apostles, the Church leadership, the foundation of the Church, through whom authority has been successively passed down for 2,000 years. This is how the Church is divinely guided and preserved, as I've been saying all along.

They even ask him questions if you care to re-read the text. John 14-16 to save you looking.

So what?

The reason Hades can never prevail against the church (strange he uses Hades here, thats not a Jewish concept, its pagan, but thats another debate) is because the true church is in mankind. A church as an organisation and a building is by its very nature only temporal and will one day fall.

Except that's the whole point. The Church as an organization is the exception to the rule, thus the amazing truth of His promise. While many things come and go, are born and pass away, the Church is guided and preserved by Christ. The idea that the Church is all mankind is simply your opinion, and you have as of yet given no Scriptural or historical evidence for it, so I can't regard it as much more than conjecture. It is clear that some men in our world are adamant enemies of the Church, and want nothing more than to see it fall into ruins. They are certainly not a part of the Church, nor do they want any part of it.

He doesn't say that, its just kind of obvious.

Obvious to you .

If God is a God of love, and if Christ came for all men, and if we are all children of God, and if people have lived and died without ever hearing of Jesus Christ but have still lived good moral lives, and if churches have split off from the Catholic one, and if other religions still exist in spite of the existance of a supposed one true apostolic church - then it stands to reason that God's real Church is in all men and that it expresses itself in a multitude of glorious ways.

No, it simply doesn't. The fact that God is a God of love and came to die for all people is wonderful, but that doesn't mean that all people accept Him or His sacrifice. I do not refer here to people who have never even heard of the Christian God or Jesus Christ--that is an entirely different issue. I refer to those who willingly reject Christ. Christ said, "He who does not honor the Son, does not honor the Father who sent Him." John 5:23 You cannot maintain the eternal blessings of God if you reject God or Christ. If you completely reject Christ, you are not part of God's Church. God is our heavenly Father, but a father may disown or disinherit his children who are defiant, disobedient, etc. This is not out of spite or hate, but out of love, for He allows us the free will to accept Him or reject Him, and wants us to come to Him, but He will not force Himself onto us.
The fact that Christian denominations that are apart from the Catholic Church and other religions exist only proves that some men are blind are cannot or will not see the truth. The fact that other paths exist doesn't mean that all paths are valid, obviously. Scripture speaks of a narrow road leading to life, and a wide road that many take leading to destruction. As hard of a truth as this may be for you, God's truth is not seen in all religions, and all religions cannot be true. There is only One Church and one path, Christ's Church.

As for scripture, i've just selected a few about Christ being with all, and all being in Christ.
1 Cor 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself?

Paul was writing to the Corinthian Christian church, not all people.

Romans 12:4-5 Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.

"we who are many" does not necesarily mean all people. Again, Paul was writing to the Roman Christian church.

1 Cor 3:11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ

Excellent verse. If Christ is the only foundation that can be laid, then how can you accept the spiritual validity of a religion that completely rejects Christ?

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

I'll say it again...Paul was writing to the Galatian Christian church, this doesn't mean all people in the world.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

not personally. any way you look at it, they are not at all convincing generally.

Says who? Again, you. It's your personal opinion of the evidence and/or arguments that you have been presented with.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I think it is not right to force someone to believe in something if they don't want too.

Of course. If they don't want to be part of the Christian Church, they don't have to be.

If someone believes in all aspects of the Catholic faith, except say the Trinity, then i think it is rather nasty to brand them as a heretic and excommunicate them.

The Trinity is one the basic cardinal doctrines of the Catholic Church. To reject that is to reject the Catholic God, and thus to reject God's Church as well.

I believe all thesistic scholars are biased, even Gnostic ones. Thats why i prefer unbiased historians who are after the historical truth, whatever it may be.

So no theistic scholars are after the historical truth? They can never, EVER be objective or truthful?

Theistic historians are after evidence which proves their beliefs right, they will not accept any evidence that does not validate their beliefs.

And obviously atheists and agnostics are out for evidence which proves their beliefs right. Once again, it swings both ways.

Indeed, but in case you weren't aware, Irenaous was the one who chose the four canonical gospels from a selection of a speculated 30 that were in circulation at his time. He chose those which best agreed with his beliefs and those of his sect.

Sure, but this wasn't an authoritative Church delcaration at the time. Yes, he chose the ones that were later adopted by the Church as a whole, good for him. However, his whole list was not accepted.

Like i said way back, there is nothing wrong with that, but it does show that the orthodox canon was selected and was not the original gospel truth. It was one of several versions of the truth.

Wait, so because certain books were selected out of many, that means that those books couldn't possibly be the original gospel truth? How do you come to that conclusion? If some of the "versions of the truth" were false, forgeries, etc., obviously it would only be wise to reject those from an inspired authoritative canon.

This is a complicated subject that i'm not sure i could ever explain to you, due to our differences in belief. I reject that belief in Christs' death as a blood sacrifice is necessary. I do believe that death is the completion of his becoming fully Christ, but i believe we would have benefited far more from him staying as human for a few more years and imparting more wisdom.

Then again, why such Scriptural emphasis on being saved through His death and resurrection?

Sure, but at Paul's time the cross was not the symbol of the faith, the fish was. I think the idea of the cross as the burden of truth a better explaination of what he meant.

Because of course a faith can only have one symbol .

Christianity was burdensome in that time, they were being persecuted. There was also the burden of trying to spread the truth without corrupting the message. Which, obviously, i believe they were unsuccessful at

So again, the message of the cross to you is, "Wow, this sucks." How is that even remotely the Gospel, the "good news"?

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Booko]

Well actually what you refer to is the dual nature of Christ, which is not the entire doctrine of the Trinity. Orthodox Christians believe Christ has a two natures, human and divine. Thus, as He speaks and acts in one or the other nature, in some places He clearly is speaking as a man, and in other places He is clearly speaking as God. However, the Trinity does not relate only to Jesus, but also to the divinity of the Father, as well as the Holy Spirit. But thanks for your thoughts, maybe this is what Hal was referring to.

fwiw, Baha'is believe in that dual nature as well.

Oh, I know it's not the entire doctrine of the Trinity, but that dual nature is enough to make one have to deal with the paradox in some way, and the Trinity is one way to solve that "problem."

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

fwiw, Baha'is believe in that dual nature as well.

Oh, I know it's not the entire doctrine of the Trinity, but that dual nature is enough to make one have to deal with the paradox in some way, and the Trinity is one way to solve that "problem."

Well like I told Hal, any doctrine, when looked at in that way, is the "solution to a problem", since doctrines or religious teachings attempt to make sense out of the happenings of the universe in some way or another. But thanks for your thoughts.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Halcyon]

I don't know about you FerventGodSeeker, but i think this thread is nearing the end of its life, soon we're going to be just repeating oursleves.

So, i'm just gonna give some closing comments from my side of the debate.

The Trinity - obviously i don't believe in the Trinity, and even after your explaination i can't not see polytheism, but i'll just have to accept that you see something that i don't.
As far as the OP goes, i think its been answered several times and while i don't agree with it, i accept you're interpretation is a valid one as it is internally consistant with your beliefs.

The Church - i don't believe in the authority of the Church, i see it as one version of Christianity, one among many. Nothing you can say will convince me that it has any authority over Christ, his teachings or their interpretation.
However, although it may not have seemed like it during the course of the thread, i respect your right to believe in the Church and admire your faith. If anything, i hope this debate has at least caused you to research the origins of your Church and of Christianity in general, if not its a shame but it is your choice. I know i've learnt a few things because of you.

Other Religions - if there is one thing i am disappointed about, it is your rejection of the validity of other religions, but i do understand that it is a result of your belief in the Church as the one true path to God.
I hope though, that if you ever feel inclined to research Buddhism in any great depth, you might change your mind on this a little.
Personally, i am glad of the diversity of religious thought in the world as it has broadened my understanding of man and of God.

Gnostic Christianity - you may reject Gnosticism as heresy, and you are within your rights to do so. But i believe you are not seeing the similarities when they are present.
You condemn and mock Gnostics for picking and choosing which texts we read, and how we interpret scripture. Yet you seem not to understand that your Church did the same, we both chose the texts which supported our beliefs.
I guess where we differ is in your belief that the Church was somehow guided by God to choose certain texts, and my belief that spiritual knowledge can be found in most religious thought and writings. I believe that the orthodox canon was partially written with orthodox bias, and partially edited with the same bias. You believe that Gnostic writings were inspired by the Devil to lead people away from the Church. This is a difference in opinion we cannot reconcile.

God - We obviously have differing views of God and these shape our approach to understanding scripture, again this is something that we cannot reconcile as neither of us are going to back down.

The Message of Christ - yours is the belief that Christ came as the ultimate sacrifice to appease God and so remove the sins of humanity. Mine is that he came to teach us how to overcome sin/ignorance and unite ourselves with God by following his example.
We could argue about this until the cows come home, but because you will not accept any Gnostic literature, and because i will not accept the authority of the Church, we will never find common ground.

Overall i've found the thread interesting and hope that you have too. And hopefully there are no hard feelings, it did get a bit intense.

Do you have any closing comments that you would like to make?

Also, if there are any subjects that we have raised that you want to take further, i would be happy to debate or discuss them with you in another thread.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I don't know about you FerventGodSeeker, but i think this thread is nearing the end of its life, soon we're going to be just repeating oursleves.

I think you're right, this debate is getting a bit long-winded. However, just know that I appreicate hearing your views, even though I disagree with them. You're clearly an intelligent person and I enjoy dialoguing with you. I look forward to more discussions like this in the future...or even better if we could agree on something and debate on the same side!

The Trinity - obviously i don't believe in the Trinity, and even after your explaination i can't not see polytheism, but i'll just have to accept that you see something that i don't.

Unfortunately, there are some things about God that we will just never understand. Suffice it to say that the Trinity is a monotheistic doctrine, which adamantly declares that there is only one God. I probably didn't do the greatest at explaining it thoroughly to you, but hey, we live and learn. Maybe I'll get another chance in another thread.

The Church - i don't believe in the authority of the Church, i see it as one version of Christianity, one among many. Nothing you can say will convince me that it has any authority over Christ, his teachings or their interpretation.

I see the Church as the one true version of Christianity, the only one that is completely authoritative and divinely guided. All other "versions" of Christianity are offshoots of the original Church that Christ established with the Apostles. He did not establish many Churches, but One Church. I obviously disagree with your view that the Church exists "in the hearts of all men", and I wish I could have heard more from you on how and why you come to this conclusion. The Bible makes it clear that there are some sheep and some goats, some will inherit eternal life and others will not. The enemies of Christ are certainly not a part of His Church, and He will not violate their free will although it saddens Him to see them reject His sacrifice.

However, although it may not have seemed like it during the course of the thread, i respect your right to believe in the Church and admire your faith. If anything, i hope this debate has at least caused you to research the origins of your Church and of Christianity in general, if not its a shame but it is your choice. I know i've learnt a few things because of you.

Well thanks. I can also say that I've learned plenty from you. I have never met a Gnostic face to face, and I've never chatted with one in depth about their beliefs, so you have definitely allowed me to get a feel for your religion. I am always seeking to grow and learn new things, so this information is very valuable, and thanks again for chatting with me.

Other Religions - if there is one thing i am disappointed about, it is your rejection of the validity of other religions, but i do understand that it is a result of your belief in the Church as the one true path to God.

I am equally saddened by your apparent acceptance of all religions as equally spiritually valid. To me, it seems that you are...how does that country song go?
"looking for love in all the wrong places.
Looking for love in too many faces.
Searching their eyes, looking for traces
of what I'm dreaming of."
I believe that "what you're dreaming of" is Christ and the pleasure of His healing sacrifice, and I pray that one day you will find it. You may think that you have already found Christ in Gnosticism, but Christ set up one narrow path, not many. I pray that you will find that path if you are not already on it.

I hope though, that if you ever feel inclined to research Buddhism in any great depth, you might change your mind on this a little.

I have looked into Buddhism, and I do stand by what i have said.

Personally, i am glad of the diversity of religious thought in the world as it has broadened my understanding of man and of God.

That is your choice, but I prefer the original source that Christ Himself founded...the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

Gnostic Christianity - you may reject Gnosticism as heresy, and you are within your rights to do so. But i believe you are not seeing the similarities when they are present.
You condemn and mock Gnostics for picking and choosing which texts we read, and how we interpret scripture. Yet you seem not to understand that your Church did the same, we both chose the texts which supported our beliefs.

Except the difference is that the orthodox were united in their canonical decision once it was made under the authoritative declaration of the Magisterium; the Gnostics never were. Even today, Gnostics cannot agree on what texts are sacred or inspired and which are not, and thus it seems to me to be enitrely subjective to each person's personal opinion and interpretation, which does not resemble the authority of the Church which Christ established.

I guess where we differ is in your belief that the Church was somehow guided by God to choose certain texts, and my belief that spiritual knowledge can be found in most religious thought and writings. I believe that the orthodox canon was partially written with orthodox bias, and partially edited with the same bias. You believe that Gnostic writings were inspired by the Devil to lead people away from the Church. This is a difference in opinion we cannot reconcile.

Clearly. You have your views, and I have mine--yet I still do respect you for the beliefs you stand by.

God - We obviously have differing views of God and these shape our approach to understanding scripture, again this is something that we cannot reconcile as neither of us are going to back down.

The Message of Christ - yours is the belief that Christ came as the ultimate sacrifice to appease God and so remove the sins of humanity. Mine is that he came to teach us how to overcome sin/ignorance and unite ourselves with God by following his example.
We could argue about this until the cows come home, but because you will not accept any Gnostic literature, and because i will not accept the authority of the Church, we will never find common ground.

Indeed these issues are deadlocked between us. I will not accept Gnostic literature as inspired because the Church does not, and hasn't even considered for centuries, as the canon has been set definitively since the 4th century. Although you at one moment appear to accept Scripture and even use it to promote your own views, as soon as a verse or passage is presented to you which contraidcts your views or which you cannot explain with a personalized interpretation, you immediately claim was added later, has too much orthodox bias by the author, etc. Then, after claiming the author has orthodox bias, you turn around and claim he is considered by some to have been Gnostic. All this seems terribly wishy-washy from my perspective, and I hope you can see why.

Overall i've found the thread interesting and hope that you have too. And hopefully there are no hard feelings, it did get a bit intense.

I hold nothing against you at all, it's been great. God bless.

Also, if there are any subjects that we have raised that you want to take further, i would be happy to debate or discuss them with you in another thread

Nothing comes immediately to mind. If you want to further discuss something, PM me.

FerventGodSeeker