Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Couldn't say for sure. But my point was, I think it's out of bounds. It's not a doctrinal issue, and further, Catholics aren't the be-all end-all of the other side of the debate.
I never saw a pic, so it was probably already broken.
Obedience to the commandments, as it says in the OT.
Proverbs 14:34 for example clarifies that Sin is the opposite of righteousness, and according to 1 John 3:4, sin is "Lawlessness", thus Righteousness is Lawfulness.
Proverbs 14:34 Hebrew Texts and Analysis
Protestant Work Ethic is more noted and I've given my examplesAnd there's a Catholic work ethic too. As this article says, the wealthiest part of Germany is Catholic Bavaria.
David Lindsay: The Catholic Work Ethic
I'm glad you can tell me what Jesus will think better then all of Christendom, however if God's kicking people out for keeping days and dietary laws, that's one thing, but if it's based on attempts to serve him, even by works, and these wicked Protestants come and tell God of all the times they helped their neighbor, will you still be deemed more righteous? does Micah 6:8 not show us what God wants of us, if we take Micah 6:8 are you still more worthy then I? or our both our good works filthy rags (Isa 64:6) ?I have said my definition of righteousness, why don't you say what yours is. Protestants will be deemed unworthy by Christ himself when they say "Lord, lord" to him. But I also believe Catholics and Orthodox will be deemed unworthy as well. All who are lawless will be deemed unworthy. That's why he said very few will make it to heaven. Very few.
It's part of the New Covenant ( Ez 11:16, Ez 36:26)Where is this process of regeneration remotely scriptural?
Above I've given my scriptureI'd be careful making comments about the Holy Spirit lest you blaspheme it by saying something false and unscriptural about it.
Where is your righteousness? Is it in keeping days and dietary laws? because you might have that on Calvinists, but what works do you have outside that that can not be matched by Sola FideistsI follow the commandments, that's what. If you have a different definition of righteousness, let's see it.
Micah 6:8For the sake of debate, I'd be lying if I said I didn't consider myself to be, but this is what I was trying to avoid, I am merely talking technical definitions of what it means to be "righteous'. If you have a different idea of what it means to be righteous, let's hear it.
I was merely saying those two were how we should measure righteousness, as it makes more sense then keeping days which are mere shadowsIf only I had a dollar for every time I see this ridiculous misinterpretation of what Christ taught. You think Christ only taught these 2 things? Seriously? He said all the commandments HANG on those two. That means everything is based on those two commandments. Not stealing for example, is loving your neighbor. Not defrauding, is loving your neighbor. Not adulterizing is loving your neighbor. Obeying the Sabbath is loving G-d. Not worshiping Idols is loving G-d. Not coveting is loving both G-d and neighbor. Not moving one's boundary stone is loving thy neighbor. Not eating human flesh is loving G-d and neighbor. I am amazed at how badly this concept is warped by so-called "Christians" to act as if Jesus only commanded us those 2 things rather than what he meant by such.
This is all really great stuff, but has nothing to do with the Reformation in the least, which is what we were talking about, not the current secular states, seeing as Europe has one of the largest percent population of atheistsThis is not always the case. Like I said, the richest part of Germany is the Catholic Bavarian region. Spain is now quite a secular country, and their decline after the 16th century is more or less due to corruption of their Aristocracy.
.
How about comparing to Poland and Hungary too, which are rising rapidly in the economic sphere? Italy has a great economy, it's just been ruined by its leftist socialist policies, England is experiencing the same thing. How about comparing to France, which has a great economy. Spain's economy is not even that bad. Germany's economy was greatly bolstered mainly by its unification efforts. England's economy was great due to its empire. This concept is taking many historical factors out of the equation. Many Catholic-African nations are rising economic powers as well.
Please post a link that says Literacy was low in Spain.
Germany's industriousness came from it's Protestant heritage that steept into all aspects of societyAnd again, Catholic Bavaria is Germany's economic jewel. The USA was heavily Catholic and still is. Even Mexico's economy is fairly strong, it's the corruption that keeps it down. I ain't defending the Catholic church, but I don't think there's a real difference in the people themselves when it comes to work ethic except due to non-religious cultural issues.
Germany's industriousness came from it's Protestant heritage that steept into all aspects of society
Most German philosophy was predonominantly Atheist or not exactly Christian Theistic. Their industry and military might and music and science were the product of an historical pre-Catholic German work ethic. The Teutons were historically a militaristic race. Attributing this to Protestanism is a joke. And again, Catholic Bavaria is their richest region.
No, I was phrasing it nicely before disectingAre you basically brushing it off?
It's hyperbole because Christ was emphasize their sinfulness and how NO ONE can earn the kingdom for the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23)No he wasn't. You could say that Christ was speaking in Hyperbole on everything else by this logic. Why is it so clear? What was he meaning to say then? It's easy to dismiss something as hyperbole, but I see that you don't want to say what he meant.
I don't consider the Law bondage at all. Perhaps one who likes partying on Friday night and checking out his neighbor's wife and cheating people in business may consider it a burden. And you are misinterpreting Matt 11:28.
The burden is not the Law they are bearing. It is those who are weighed down by the result of their sin. The rest he offers is through obedience to his teachings.
So his liberation is to put them under the same conditions? The fact of the matter is the dietary laws, the days, the scarifical laws and the ceremonial laws are all lifted, moral law not so much, we are free from the bondage of the law, and blessed with the Holy Spirt, Justification and Regeneration.
Vegan not my problem,I have discussed on numerous threads that the Council of Jerusalem is considered by numerous scholars to have never happened and is an interpolation. Going by the decree of the Jerusalem Council, Christians are not prohibited from theft and murdering and defrauding and witchcraft. But they still usually eat bloody steaks without a problem.
However the reason that those laws may not have been included is because the Jewish apostles may have been adding to the 7 laws of Noah which cover the basics of Humanity
It's nice that you think that is interpolation, but some people think that Jesus wasn't a historical figure, so were do we draw the line? What seems reasonable to us? That's moral relativism.
That what is binding on Earth is not set and can be shifted, according to scripture,And what do you think that means exactly?
It appears you don't understand what the concept of the Pharisees were..."believe in" is to put your faith in, and with faith the size of a mustard seed we can move mountains, with that faith Christ will change our lives, this is plainly what John's gospel teaches,Did you not say Christ wanted us to be like them?
See what I said about what it means to "believe in".
I have no idea what this means, and I doubt anyone else would.
Do you understand what the Sacrifices in the Temple were about? Do you understand the Messianic prophecies of what Jesus was supposed to be were to begin with, such as Isaiah 53:10?
See my latest comment about what it means to "believe in".
If you completely ignore 99% of what Jesus teaches and go by a false definition of "believe in".
I don't know how you can draw salvation by works out of John's gospel, it means ignoring the plain readings of it, as someone who holds Free Will and is against Once Saved Always saved, I am challenged by verses in John, yet you take an extreme position and believe that this is what Christ and John taught, seems a bit silly
Again it is impossible to have Biblical debates with you if you override Paul with your personal bias, and discredit the accounts of say the Council of Jerusalem or anything inconsistent with your theology, I can't have a discuss with you once you've sealed off all further reinterpretations
Are you not reading what I said? Keeping the commandments is righteousness. Thus, by keeping the commandments, one is more righteous than one who doesn't. Simple. I asked you to give your own definition of righteousness if you disagree.How are you more righteous then them?
Yes, that's part of it. If you disagree, you're disagreeing with the OT definition of righteousness.Keeping days and following dietary laws?
Giving to charity is part of it, but not all or most. It's the entirety of the commandments which it seems most Christians dread to follow.Or do you think you give more to Charity?
I don't know where I ever said giving more to charity means more righteousness. The Book of Sirach says to not give Charity to the wicked. So anyone who gives charity to the "wicked" is not doing righteousness to begin with. It seems by your straw man and avoidance of my question to define righteousness in your own terms you are hoping to dodge from the issue.Between Catholic who believe in Faith and Work Salvation and Protestants who believe in Sola Fide, I doubt you can see more charity from Catholics, and doubt in that respect you can claim to be more righteous, however if I'm wrong show me some stats or whatever, because I've see charity is not dependent on religious doctrines.
More noted by protestants perhaps. I know you gave your examples and I put them into historical context.Protestant Work Ethic is more noted and I've given my examples
I'm glad you think "All Christendom" somehow knows better than Messianic Jews just because they are the majority. Why don't you pray and ask if I am right or wrong. Tell me if you get an answer.I'm glad you can tell me what Jesus will think better then all of Christendom,
The filthy rags thing I see very commonly, it is taken very out of context, why don't you quote the whole passage, not just the verse, of the filthy rags thing and I'll show you what it means. As for Micah 6:8, "Act justly" means obedience to the commandments. What do you think "Act justly" actually means?however if God's kicking people out for keeping days and dietary laws, that's one thing, but if it's based on attempts to serve him, even by works, and these wicked Protestants come and tell God of all the times they helped their neighbor, will you still be deemed more righteous? does Micah 6:8 not show us what God wants of us, if we take Micah 6:8 are you still more worthy then I? or our both our good works filthy rags (Isa 64:6) ?
Are you aware of what Jeremiah says about the New Covenant about how the "Law will be written on their hearts"?It's part of the New Covenant ( Ez 11:16, Ez 36:26)
Fine.Above I've given my scripture
You keep using those two examples as if that's all there is to it. How about the REST of the commandments? Yes, my righteousness is in keeping the REST of the commandments too. It's about doing what G-d has commanded. That's the Scriptural definition. If you don't like it, tell me what YOU think righteousness actually means. And "Act justly" while you're at it.Where is your righteousness? Is it in keeping days and dietary laws?
Why don't you tell me what you consider "works" to be in the first place. Like I said, often it comes down to an argument about what exactly "works" are. So tell me your view on what "works" are exactly.because you might have that on Calvinists, but what works do you have outside that that can not be matched by Sola Fideists
To act Justly = To obey the commandments. If you disagree, tell me what you think acting justly means.Micah 6:8
He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly[a] with your God.
So you're saying what G-d commanded is just 'mere shadows".I was merely saying those two were how we should measure righteousness, as it makes more sense then keeping days which are mere shadows
Huh? So you're saying historical context does not matter? Interesting.This is all really great stuff, but has nothing to do with the Reformation in the least, which is what we were talking about, not the current secular states,
NOW it does.seeing as Europe has one of the largest percent population of atheists
The German states were very rich and industrious long before the Protestant reformation. And Catholic Bavaria was its richest. You have no point here. Not only that, Italy's economy is very strong, it's just managed by fools.Germany's industriousness came from it's Protestant heritage that steept into all aspects of society
But you didn't really dissect it.No, I was phrasing it nicely before disecting
So you're saying that Christ was speaking Hyperbole because of something PAUL says. That's not how it works. And what is their "Sinfulness" to begin with? Why was he calling them Sinful to begin with? Why did Jesus say one must Strive to enter the Kingdom? Do you know what "strive" means? According to your opinion on the matter, Jesus shouldn't have wasted his breath on even teaching anything, especially to "strive for the kingdom".It's hyperbole because Christ was emphasize their sinfulness and how NO ONE can earn the kingdom for the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23)
I don't think you understand what the liberation is. It's liberation from the punishment that comes from their sin, if they repent and stop sinning. If they willfully sin afterwards, there is no more sacrifice.So his liberation is to put them under the same conditions?
That's not a fact, that's a misguided post-Paulinian view, and your thing about me rejecting Paul doesn't fly, if you haven't noticed, there have been MANY debates on this board alone about whether Paul was a true apostle, the general answer is "no, he wasn't". For example, you used Paul's epistles to trump what Jesus says and to call it "Hyperbole". You are not blessed with the Holy Spirit, and I will take the risk of blaspheming it to say that, neither is any "Christian" who does not accept the Law of Moses. If you disagree, pray first and ask before responding.The fact of the matter is the dietary laws, the days, the scarifical laws and the ceremonial laws are all lifted, moral law not so much, we are free from the bondage of the law, and blessed with the Holy Spirt, Justification and Regeneration.
You're vegan? Why? You completely missed the point of my objection. Do you see murder and theft on that list?Vegan not my problem,
The 7 Laws of Noah is a Talmudic Pharisaic concept. Why do you suddenly accept it as doctrinal?However the reason that those laws may not have been included is because the Jewish apostles may have been adding to the 7 laws of Noah which cover the basics of Humanity
It's not just me who thinks its interpolation, it's scholars as well. And what's reasonable is to not just blindly believe the Roman canon as its presented but to look into the issue and study the manuscripts and the scholarly debates on the issue.It's nice that you think that is interpolation, but some people think that Jesus wasn't a historical figure, so were do we draw the line? What seems reasonable to us? That's moral relativism.
That's not what it means at all. If that's the case, the apostles can make murder and rape not a problem anymore by your logic.That what is binding on Earth is not set and can be shifted, according to scripture,
So move a mountain, take a picture, and then prove that your belief is well placed by this logic. John's gospel teaches a lot more than just having "faith" in what JEsus is, it's about faith in what JEsus teaches."believe in" is to put your faith in, and with faith the size of a mustard seed we can move mountains, with that faith Christ will change our lives, this is plainly what John's gospel teaches,
By this logic, you'd have to ignore the "plain readings" of Matthew. Are you prepared to admit that your "plain readings" of John clash entirely with Matthew and Mark? I'm sorry if you find what I say silly, I find what YOU say silly too, but my view is a bit more consistent.I don't know how you can draw salvation by works out of John's gospel, it means ignoring the plain readings of it, as someone who holds Free Will and is against Once Saved Always saved, I am challenged by verses in John, yet you take an extreme position and believe that this is what Christ and John taught, seems a bit silly
This is not just about "Biblical" debates. Would you argue with the Apocrypha and the books of the Ethiopian Bible? No? Then I could say the same for you. The issue of canon and whether Paul was a true Apostle is ripe for discussion, if you don't like it, I can suggest you look at the many threads on the issue of whether Paul was a legitimate Apostle. If you don't like the fact that scholars are divided on whether certain passages are interpolations by gentile sects, feel free to demonstrate this. But if you want objective debate on what Jesus originally taught, you're gonna have to accept that there are numerous Messianic Jews who reject Paul. Paul was rejected by the original Nazarenes and Ebionites. Even then, Paul says things like "As the Law says" regarding women being silent in church.Again it is impossible to have Biblical debates with you if you override Paul with your personal bias, and discredit the accounts of say the Council of Jerusalem or anything inconsistent with your theology, I can't have a discuss with you once you've sealed off all further reinterpretations
This is not just about "Biblical" debates. Would you argue with the Apocrypha and the books of the Ethiopian Bible? No? Then I could say the same for you. The issue of canon and whether Paul was a true Apostle is ripe for discussion, if you don't like it, I can suggest you look at the many threads on the issue of whether Paul was a legitimate Apostle. If you don't like the fact that scholars are divided on whether certain passages are interpolations by gentile sects, feel free to demonstrate this. But if you want objective debate on what Jesus originally taught, you're gonna have to accept that there are numerous Messianic Jews who reject Paul. Paul was rejected by the original Nazarenes and Ebionites. Even then, Paul says things like "As the Law says" regarding women being silent in church.
He says that in a letter after speaking of women praying and prophesying in church, He then stress the relationship between wives and husbands in the next verse, leading a plain reader to assume he is speaking of husbands and wives interrupting the service
I accept the Canon as accept in the Protestant Bible, with out the additions found in the Roman or Greek Cannons, this is the base of Christianity and where we should draw our doctirnes, the same canon Jesus taught ( Luke 24:7, Luke 11:50-51)
Alright I've noticed a lot of people are highly critical of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide, calling Protestants all kind of nasty things because we don't believe in salvation by works (ya know like Jesus says in John 1: 13 and John 3:16, but whatever floats you boat)
So what then? Those of you who believe in salvation by works are you more righteous then we are? It seems to me people who believe Sola Fide don't tend to be lacking in works, but merely view it as an expression of faith, and historically speaking Protestants have been known to be hard working, so if Sola Fide brought about the Protestant work ethic, why do you claim we're so lazy and need to work harder for our salvation?
The thing is one can't do much to change their nature. You are who you are. You desire what you desire. No one is any more "righteous" because of their works. If one works to obey God they are acting according to the law, not their nature.
That's not to say their actions have no value. Good actions are good actions. They are trying to live up to what they believe God expects of them. However obedience to the law is not righteousness. If they were righteous in their nature, for them there would be no need of any laws. They would act in love, compassion, fairness, forgiveness because to do otherwise would be against their nature.
One can't change who they are. However I think you are ask to trust that the Holy Spirit can. And, if it is the Holy Spirit that changes one's nature, what credit can we take for that change? We can do good works be we can't change our desires.
One desire is to be obedient to God's law. Nothing wrong with that desire. However the righteous wouldn't need such a desire. Because their nature alone would cause them to act according to God's will regardless whether the law existed or not.
You will know them by their works not because of their obedience but because of their nature. Their nature is not in their own hands but it is in the hands of the Holy Spirit.
I agree to a point because it really would just be up to whether god feels like forgiving you or consider you righteous. Same for your quote where the Lord would judge which is supposed to be of works. Though with Abraham, for example, he was righteous even before he worked for god. Even after God was satisfied with his faith, God would not have hesitated to call him on something he did wrong. So there is a grace that needs to be obtained but there will still be a judgement. OSAS have to believe that they are exempt from judgement.Who is "more righteous" depends on the works, in my book.
That said, sometimes it just comes down to who is "less" unrighteous.
About "Faith alone" :
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."-KJB
Actions are more important than words to JC.
But if part of your nature is righteous, then you are righteous. That doesn´t mean you are 100% righteous.
Is like, if someone asks me if I am a sinner. I don´t sin ALL THE TIME. Byut I have a bad thought and undesired effect of action form time to time and this makes me a sinner.
SO I am both righteous adn a sinner. This is the duality of human nature. If there was nothing righteous in us, we couldn´t even want to follow what we see as "good" or "holy", because that would deem at least some degree of righteousness.
About we not being "righteous" because righteousness would´ve come from the holy spirit, then there is no yummy pancake in the world.
Why? Because the yuminess wasn´t created by the pancake. It was the one who cooked it that made it yummy. Yet the pancake is yummy. And the one who cooked it is most likely both a sinner and a righteous person.
I agree to a point because it really would just be up to whether god feels like forgiving you or consider you righteous. Same for your quote where the Lord would judge which is supposed to be of works. Though with Abraham, for example, he was righteous even before he worked for god. Even after God was satisfied with his faith, God would not have hesitated to call him on something he did wrong. So there is a grace that needs to be obtained but there will still be a judgement. OSAS have to believe that they are exempt from judgement.
"He who is without sin cast the first stone."
Although in line with many stories in the Gospels and probably primitive (Didascalia Apostolorum refers to it, possibly Papias also), most scholars[2][3] argue that it was "certainly not part of the original text of St John's Gospel."[4] On the other hand, the Council of Trent declared that the Latin Vulgate was authentic and authoritative.[5] The Latin Vulgate includes the adultery episode in John 7:53-8:11.
I think Christians of all kinds tend to be critical of other Christians who happen to disagree with them over points of doctrine. This works both ways. I don't actually know of a single, solitary Christian who believes himself to be saved by his own works.Alright I've noticed a lot of people are highly critical of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide, calling Protestants all kind of nasty things because we don't believe in salvation by works (ya know like Jesus says in John 1: 13 and John 3:16, but whatever floats you boat)
So what then? Those of you who believe in salvation by works are you more righteous then we are? It seems to me people who believe Sola Fide don't tend to be lacking in works, but merely view it as an expression of faith, and historically speaking Protestants have been known to be hard working, so if Sola Fide brought about the Protestant work ethic, why do you claim we're so lazy and need to work harder for our salvation?
He says that in a letter after speaking of women praying and prophesying in church, He then stress the relationship between wives and husbands in the next verse, leading a plain reader to assume he is speaking of husbands and wives interrupting the service
I accept the Canon as accept in the Protestant Bible, with out the additions found in the Roman or Greek Cannons, this is the base of Christianity and where we should draw our doctirnes, the same canon Jesus taught ( Luke 24:7, Luke 11:50-51)
Where do you possibly get any canonical reference in that verse?New International Version (©1984)
The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.'"
This does not give an indication of Canon whatsoever. Those who say it does are extremely desparate to try to twist this verse to promote what their idea of the canon is, but it doesn't say anything such. Does this mean that Zeceriah, son of Berechiah was the last prophet or Zeceriah the son of Jehoida? Two Zehariahs there. Or perhaps its the one mentioned in the Apocryphal NT literature. Is there a book of Abel? No. Or is the Zechariah in question not the same Zechariah the prophet who wrote the book of Zechariah, but a more recent Zechariah who is mentioned in some of the Apocryphal NT literature who is also murdered in the temple, like the Gospel of Mary? This would make more sense, the Zechariah who is mentioned in Luke, since Jesus is referring from the beginning of time up until his time. Were there no prophets after Zeceriah? (And which one, Son of Jehoida or Berechiah)? Apparently not.50Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.
The Pericope Adulterae is an interpolation that doesn't exist in any known early manuscript.
Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alright I've noticed a lot of people are highly critical of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide, calling Protestants all kind of nasty things because we don't believe in salvation by works (ya know like Jesus says in John 1: 13 and John 3:16, but whatever floats you boat)
So what then? Those of you who believe in salvation by works are you more righteous then we are? It seems to me people who believe Sola Fide don't tend to be lacking in works, but merely view it as an expression of faith, and historically speaking Protestants have been known to be hard working, so if Sola Fide brought about the Protestant work ethic, why do you claim we're so lazy and need to work harder for our salvation?