sin/sins is not the issue today!

Shasta

Well-known member
I agree with Jerry in this. Because Jesus was who He was He could direct men to believe in Him. Because His word is the Father's He can guarantee eternal life to all on that condition alone. I do not see him promising ANYone that they could inherit eternal life by doing good deeds. He does not say believe in me then go and do good works and afterward you shall have eternal life. Paul said "by the works of the law shall NO ONE be justified" That includes Jews and Gentiles. Very often what he did was use the requirements of the law to show men the impossibility of being "good enough" Once they began to see that He would tell them to believe and surrender themselves to Him. Jesus Himself was the ONLY way TO the Father, THE Truth ABOUT the Father and the Life OF the father. Doing the works of the Law never brought people past the veil to God, nor did it show men the father, nor did keeping the commandments give life. That is why the Son came.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Scholars are aware of the rich and diverse ways in which the term "Son of God" is used in the Hebrew Bible, in subsequent Jewish literature, and in the New Testament writings themselves, not to mention various non-Jewish texts (including inscriptions and coins) of the Greco-Roman period.

Most of us who teach in the field of Christian Origins get asked from time to time by students or in public lectures, "Professor, do you believe Jesus was X." Sometimes X is "Messiah," other times it is "Divine," but in my experience, most often, the question is "Do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God." In good Socratic fashion one is tempted to reply, "Well what do you mean by the term 'Son of God,' and such a counter question is certainly more than subterfuge. Here is a listing of most of the complex ways in which that term is used in the Christian Bible and other related traditions:

1) In the Hebrew Bible the precise phrase "son of God" does not occur, although the plural phrase "sons of God" (b'nai 'elohim) occurs five times in the Masoretic text (Genesis 6:2,4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), likely referring to a group of "angelic" beings who comprise God's heavenly court and are charged with the responsibility of overseeing, ruling, and reporting on human affairs. In Psalm 82:6 this group is directly addressed: "You are Gods, sons of the Most High all of you." In the Dead Sea Scroll copies of Deuteronomy, the phrase "sons of God," occurs two more times in the "Song of Moses," also likely referring to these heavenly custodians of human affairs (Deut 32:8; 43), and these two additional references are also found in the Greek Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew from the 2nd century BCE. There is also an Aramaic reference (bar 'elahin) to such a heavenly being who is said to be like "a son of the Gods" in Daniel 3:25.

2) The anointed kings of ancient Israel were referred to as "son of God." Samuel tells David that God has promised to make a covenant with him and his royal descendants will rule as kings forever. Yahweh declares, according to Samuel, "I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me" (2 Samuel 7:14). According to a later Psalm, the Davidic ruler will cry "You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation" and God will make him "the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth" (Psalm 89:26-27). This is the background of Psalm 2, where Yahweh says to the king, "You are my son; today I have begotten you." Some scholars are convinced that this language was used in some kind of coronation ceremony, and various Psalms are classified as "royal Psalms," in that they celebrate the reign of Israel's King as Yahweh's direct human agent (Psalm 45, 72, 110).

3) The people of Israel are called "God's son." Moses tells Pharaoh of Egypt "Thus says Yahweh, Israel is my firstborn son" (Exodus 4:22), and the prophet Hosea, looking back to that time, has God declare, "when Israel was a child I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son" (11:1).

4) In late 2nd Temple Jewish writings one who devoutly follows God is said to be his "son" (Wisdom of Solomon 2:16-18; 5:5; Sirach 4:10). For example, the various patriarchs such as Noah, Lamech, and Shem are addressed as "my son" regularly in 1 Enoch.

5) Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, and subsequent Roman emperors were regularly referred to as "son of God" (divi filius), on coins and inscriptions, as were a host of Greco-Roman "heroes" whom were called "divine men." Some of these were said to have been "fathered" by a God, while others were honored for their extraordinary deeds. However, the terms "Lord," "Son of God" and "Savior," in the time of Jesus, was used rather widely in Greco-Roman materials to refer to such legendary, political, philosophical, or religious figures.

6) Adam, and by extension, all humankind, is called the "son of God" on the basis of being created in God's image and likeness (Luke 3:38; Acts 17:26-29). This is akin to the general notion of God as Creator being "Father" of humankind.

7) Jesus at his baptism hears a voice from heaven that declares "You are my Son, the beloved, with you I am well pleased" (Mark 1:11). Mark records no birth narratives of Jesus at all. Matthew follows Mark here but there were versions his gospel in Hebrew that added the phrase "Today I have begotten you," based on Psalm 2:7. This interpretation was referred to as "adoptionism," meaning that Jesus was made and declared to be God's son at his baptism when the Holy Spirit came upon him. Apparently such a view was held by some early Jewish followers of Jesus, associated with James the Just, the brother of Jesus, who came to be labeled in later years as "Ebionites." We are told that they used the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, but in a version that lacked the virgin birth story of chapters 1-2, that they believed Jesus had a human mother and father, and that he was designated ("adopted") as God's son at his baptism as an indication of being chosen and favored as Messiah.

8) Jesus is said to be the "son of God" based on his mother Mary becoming pregnant through the Holy Spirit, with no human father, as explicitly stated in Luke 1:35. This idea of no human father is found in both Luke and Matthew. Even though the gospel of John has no explicit account of the "virgin birth," his statement about the "Word (Logos) becoming flesh and dwelling among us" likely reflects this same idea of incarnation-the Son of God born in the flesh (John 1:14).

9) Jesus declared to be the "Son of God" by his resurrection from the dead. This idea is most explicitly stated by Paul in Romans 1:3-4, where he says Jesus is a descendant ("seed") of David in the flesh, but a "Son of God" in the Spirit. The same idea, including the quotation from Psalm 2:6, "You are my son, this day have I begotten you," is applied to Jesus through his resurrection from the dead in Acts 13:33. We have no indication that Paul thought Jesus was born without a human father, indeed, he says that he was of the "seed" or lineage of king David, but his status as "Son of God" was, according to Paul, based on his resurrection from the dead.

10) According to Paul those followers of Jesus who have received the Holy Spirit are made "sons of God," and indeed, Paul says that Jesus is "firstborn of many brothers" (Rom 8:14-17; 29-30). Paul uses the term "adoption" to describe this idea that one becomes a "son of God" and calls God Father upon receiving the Holy Spirit. The writer of Hebrew speaks explicitly of these "many sons of God" who are to come (Hebrews 2:10). John expresses a similar idea of an extended family of "sons of God" based on a new spiritual "birth" for those who united with Jesus (1:12-13).

Given this complexity and diversity what one might mean by calling Jesus the "Son of God" could range from an affirmation of Jesus as God's favored choice as Israel's anointed king, to ideas of a preexistent Divine being who is born of a woman with no human father, and thus "becomes flesh" (Incarnation), with ranges of views in between. But not to dodge the question, my own view is that he was an apocalyptic proclaimer of the Kingdom of God who went to his death with faith in God's promise to redeem Israel and the world.
 

Shasta

Well-known member
Don't take my word for it. In fact, take no one's word for what Christianity is, was and most likely will be.

Terms like Lord, God, Son of God, Savior of the World were all understood by first century folks to be attributes of Caesar Augustus.
Those qualities were everywhere--carved into the marble facings of the buildings and temples and stamped on the coins.

Don't take my word for it. Study ancient history.

And it was no accident that Paul and the early Christians used those same exalted titles to apply to Jesus as well. In fact, it was an act of high treason.

Study Luke/Acts. He was a Hellenistic Jew who saw Jesus' Kingdom of God for what it was: what the world would be like if God sat on the throne instead of Caesar.

And ALL of the elevated titles of Jesus were applied to him long after his death. The gospel accounts were written from 50 to 100 or so years after Jesus' death. Do some research on this. That should give you plenty of truth.

1. Those titles came out of the Messianic Judaism of the time. They were not borrowed from Rome. You have shown this in the scriptures you have cited which were written before Rome became a world power.

2. The most fundamental belief was the resurrection. Evidence is that this belief did not develop slowly over centuries but that it existed from the very earliest years. Look at what scholars (liberal and conservative) are saying about the "pre-Pauline creedal" statements in the NT. They reveal that the earliest Christians believed in the resurrection. No one who did not believe in the resurrection was considered a Christian then nor can they be now. If Jesus did not come back from the dead, as Paul said, our faith is vain.

3. The teachings of Jesus, the events of His life, His claims were originally transmitted orally but that did not diminish the accuracy of the accounts because that is the primary way truths and teachings were passed down in that culture. They learned how to memorize things verbatim from the rabbis and would rehearse it until they could do it flawlessly. You should study about that while you are reading.

4. Textual evidence increasingly supports the notion that the most basic tenets of the Christian faith are the same as those expressed in the NT.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Don't take my word for it. In fact, take no one's word for what Christianity is, was and most likely will be.

Terms like Lord, God, Son of God, Savior of the World were all understood by first century folks to be attributes of Caesar Augustus.
Those qualities were everywhere--carved into the marble facings of the buildings and temples and stamped on the coins.

Don't take my word for it. Study ancient history.

And it was no accident that Paul and the early Christians used those same exalted titles to apply to Jesus as well. In fact, it was an act of high treason.

Study Luke/Acts. He was a Hellenistic Jew who saw Jesus' Kingdom of God for what it was: what the world would be like if God sat on the throne instead of Caesar.

And ALL of the elevated titles of Jesus were applied to him long after his death. The gospel accounts were written from 50 to 100 or so years after Jesus' death. Do some research on this. That should give you plenty of truth.

:rotfl:

You ever heard of the Old Testament? Moses? Isaiah? All those folks who predated Caesar Augustus?

Isaiah 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

John 1:23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.​
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
Come on, Heir, don't play Jerry's game of having to always be right and have the last word. If you think you're correcting me, then you'd better read what I posted again. We're here but, I will say again, that certainly doesn't mean they will hear or even want to hear. Are you going to argue with that?
I never said all will hear, but how will any without a preacher? I don't believe all will be saved, but that doesn't change the fact that the good news to ALL men (including the ones who make some "sick") is that sin/sins is not the issue today as God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself; not imputing their trespasses unto them (2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV). 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV is the gospel that is the power of God to save every one that believeth and the message that must be testified in order for man to be saved! Scripture will have the last word!

1 Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

1 Timothy 2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

1 Timothy 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
:rotfl:

You ever heard of the Old Testament? Moses? Isaiah? All those folks who predated Caesar Augustus?

Isaiah 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

John 1:23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.​

Not only that, it was only a mere 6 months before most of the disciples were scattered, only the Apostles and a few remained at Jerusalem.

There is no plausible reason why the Gospels were written 50 to a 100 years later.

:nono:
 

heir

TOL Subscriber
You are using the word do in the sense of doing a meritorious work but do also represents an act of the will.
Peter told the people in Acts 2 to DO something. Paul didn't tell the Philippian jailer to DO anything. Pretty simple to see.

Acts 2:38 KJV

Acts 16:31 KJV

No need to make it hard. They both are true, but not true to you.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
1. Those titles came out of the Messianic Judaism of the time. They were not borrowed from Rome. You have shown this in the scriptures you have cited which were written before Rome became a world power.
Textual evidence of the polemics written by Christians against the pagans and the pagans against the Christians show that, for example, the idea of a Son of God or a divine hero was accepted as normal by both sides. It was the Romans, however, who discounted the sonship of Jesus because he was a peasant commoner and not of royal birth. And how could a common criminal be called a "Son of God"?

2. The most fundamental belief was the resurrection. Evidence is that this belief did not develop slowly over centuries but that it existed from the very earliest years. Look at what scholars (liberal and conservative) are saying about the "pre-Pauline creedal" statements in the NT. They reveal that the earliest Christians believed in the resurrection. No one who did not believe in the resurrection was considered a Christian then nor can they be now. If Jesus did not come back from the dead, as Paul said, our faith is vain.
The best scholars are well acquainted with the ancient languages and have studied the emergence of the term resurrection from its earliest beginnings and how it accumulated more and more theology and more and more literal interpretations.

3. The teachings of Jesus, the events of His life, His claims were originally transmitted orally but that did not diminish the accuracy of the accounts because that is the primary way truths and teachings were passed down in that culture. They learned how to memorize things verbatim from the rabbis and would rehearse it until they could do it flawlessly. You should study about that while you are reading.
Studies of oral tradition have pretty much proved that passing on history involves creativity at every step of the way. Homer's Odessy is a good example. The bards who spread the classic poem were expected to add to the text with their own talents.

Here is a book on oral tradition and comparisons with the written word. It's a dense read but it is instructive:

http://www.amazon.com/Orality-Liter...=1-1&keywords=walter+ong+orality+and+literacy

4. Textual evidence increasingly supports the notion that the most basic tenets of the Christian faith are the same as those expressed in the NT.
Textual evidence has shown that Christianity is a developing tradition with different theologies and traditions throughout the New Testament.

Today the faith has an "empty center." The Nicean Creed that many believers are expected to repeat in the pews every Sunday only says that Jesus died, suffered and came to life again. There is no mention of his Kingdom of God or any other historical information about him.

He has been deliberately avoided and largely forgotten, except for ancient theological formulations such as "Son of God," "born of a virgin," "Messiah," "Lord and Savior," etc. Today, being a Christian seems to be concerned with having the ability to give one's assent to these Iron Age beliefs.
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Peter told the people in Acts 2 to DO something. Paul didn't tell the Philippian jailer to DO anything. Pretty simple to see.

Acts 2:38 KJV

Acts 16:31 KJV

No need to make it hard. They both are true, but not true to you.

The Israelites had to first believe what Peter said.

That was that Jesus was Lord and Christ.

First belief, then baptism for remission of sins.

Same with the Gentiles.

First belief, then baptism for the remission of sins.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
:rotfl:

You ever heard of the Old Testament? Moses? Isaiah? All those folks who predated Caesar Augustus?

Isaiah 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

John 1:23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.​
The Hebrew prophets spoke to their own time and place. We have Matthew to blame for taking their words out of context and applying them to one Jesus of Nazareth to attract the Jews to the new faith.
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Studies of oral tradition have pretty much proved that passing on history involves creativity at every step of the way. Homer's Odessy is a good example. The bards who spread the classic poem were expected to add to the text with their own talents.

Here is a book on oral tradition and comparisons with the written word. It's a dense read but it is instructive:

http://www.amazon.com/Orality-Liter...=1-1&keywords=walter+ong+orality+and+literacy

Knock it off with the oral tradition nonsense.

Alexandria was the intellectual capital of the world and famous for its extensive library, which in the 3rd century BC was said to contain 500,000 volumes. The Museum was a center of research, with laboratories and observatories, and had scholars such as Euclid and Eratosthenes working there. Alexandria was also a center for biblical studies. The chief librarian commissioned the Septuagint, which was the oldest Greek version of the Old Testament.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Knock it off with the oral tradition nonsense.
Why is oral tradition "nonsense"? It was the primary way history was passed on to folks in a pre-literate culture! We would have no Bible if there weren't oral tradition!

Alexandria was the intellectual capital of the world and famous for its extensive library, which in the 3rd century BC was said to contain 500,000 volumes. The Museum was a center of research, with laboratories and observatories, and had scholars such as Euclid and Eratosthenes working there. Alexandria was also a center for biblical studies. The chief librarian commissioned the Septuagint, which was the oldest Greek version of the Old Testament.
I am aware of that library. The tragedy was that it caught fire and was completely destroyed.

But all those codices, books and scrolls were the result of oral tradition. It is not nonsense and I cannot believe anyone living in the 21st century would say such a thing.

It is astonishing!
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Not only that, it was only a mere 6 months before most of the disciples were scattered, only the Apostles and a few remained at Jerusalem.

There is no plausible reason why the Gospels were written 50 to a 100 years later.

:nono:
If you study historical methodology and not faith statements, you can understand the dating processes that have been discovered and refined for the last 200-plus years.

These scholars today stand on the shoulders of giants. There is a focused science that dates ancient manuscripts. It is not a matter of simply reading a copyright notice.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Not only that, it was only a mere 6 months before most of the disciples were scattered, only the Apostles and a few remained at Jerusalem.

There is no plausible reason why the Gospels were written 50 to a 100 years later.

:nono:
If you study historical methodology and not faith statements, you can understand the dating processes that have been discovered and refined for the last 200-plus years.

These scholars today stand on the shoulders of giants. There is a focused science that dates ancient manuscripts. It is not a matter of simply reading a copyright notice.

Did you know that the word "gospel" actually translates to the phrase "Good news"? The gospels are proclamations of faith, not modern biographies. Such a category was unknown in the ancient world.
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
The Hebrew prophets spoke to their own time and place. We have Matthew to blame for taking their words out of context and applying them to one Jesus of Nazareth to attract the Jews to the new faith.

The Bible is a God inspired Book. So, when you blame Matthew or
any other writer for taking things out of context, you're blaming
God as well. You're a "braver man than I" to create an argument
against He who inspired the Bible!
 
Top