Bible question: Teaching a man to fish...

[CrabCake]

Yet the charlatan Saul/Paul ended up living in his own fine home in Rome, of all places.

Go figure.

The fact remains that the historical record clearly shows your original position to be wrong. Early Christianity was not an easy path for its first 300+ years; it was quite the opposite and it DID promote a change of lifestyle. Thus, it cannot be true that Pauline Christianity spread like wildfire as a result of its offer of an easy path to heaven.

In fact, the idea of salvation through faith alone does not make its appearance until Martin Luther develops the sola fide doctrine in the 1500s. It's a doctrine we can easily trace back to a mere 500 years ago, not all the way back to Paul.

 

[CrabCake]

The New Testament, which is God-breathed and guided by the Holy Spirit, who shares Godhood with Jesus in the Trinity, did.

The person I was responding to draws distinctions between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus. If you don't, then this discussion obviously won't make sense to you.

 

[cpwill]

Jesus clearly stated that you get to Heaven by acts of Charity. (His story of the Good Samaritan was in response to the question of how you get to Heaven.)

No. His story was in response to a question about Who Is My Neighbor.

Luke 10

25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”

29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”

When a Lawyer asked him, Jesus indicated that the answer was "“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself". Basically, if you could keep the law, you could gain eternal life.

The problem being, of course, that no one keeps the law. Which is why Christ came to us, to enter us into a New Covenant.

Christianity went in another direction via the creativity of this Saul/Paul character--he invented a whole new and easy way to get to Heaven (which, being easy, became wildly popular and garnered full collection plates for Saul/Paul).

Yeah, I'm used to seeing denunciations of Paul from liberals, because he's the one who dealt the most with the more libertine Greco-Roman culture of the Mediterranean, some aspects of which modern liberals wish to import. The idea that Paul is divorceable from the rest of the New Testament Christianity, however, isn't tenable.

 

[cpwill]

You view people who need a social safety net as lazy people lacking in character; if you didn't then you wouldn't have posted what you did here.

:shrug: that is false. I am responding here not to the poor directly themselves, but rather to the Jim Wallis' of the world.

I think that being lazy and lacking in character does indeed make it far more likely that one stays/falls into low-income/welfare-requiring status. There are, however, plenty of low-income people who do not exhibit those traits. The New Testament draws a distinction between those two groups, and those who argue that "we must have income redistribution because That's What The Bible Teaches" ignore that as much as they ignore the clear guidance that we should give only what we believe in our hearts we should give (hard to create a tax schedule for wealth redistribution based on "whatever percentage you feel like).

your post betrays the assumption that those who need a social safety net are lacking in character and don't want to work.

:shrug: Many do not. Many do. Those in the latter status tend to not remain poor, and the poor are increasingly marked by reduced attachment to the workforce.

If we all viewed the poor through that lens there probably wouldn't actually be any social justice Christians; no one is interested in enabling such people.

:shrug: I am. I work with these people, these people are in my family. I want to build them up, encourage them, and try to enable them into self-reliance and success. Christ didn't wait for me to become a good person before he took up the Cross for me and stood in my place, and I have no business whatsoever waiting for the poor to become good people or else I won't try to help them.

The New Testament, however, makes it clear when it comes to distribution of Church funds to the poor that they are not to go to enabling self-destructive (a category which includes "lazy") behavior. There are lots of ways to help low income folks (my particular area of focus is that I provide basic financial counseling) that don't include state-driven wealth transfers.

Now, personally, it should be noted, I'm not inherently against wealth transfers as a matter of public policy. I came up, ran the numbers for, and repeatedly plug an entire social welfare plan based around one massive wealth transfer program. I just don't go around claiming that people should support my plan because it's what Christianity teaches, because, though it takes advantage of the wisdom in Christian teachings, you'll not find such a program mentioned anywhere in the New Testament, the Councils, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, or anywhere else that could provide support for such an argument.

Those who promote Christian social justice ideals view those people as people who have fallen on hard times or are victims of institutional injustice

If so, then they are ignoring the central Christian Doctrine of Original Sin. We are agents in our own circumstances, especially here, in this country.

Thus a Christian (or any person) who supports a social safety net understands that some people need help getting back on their feet or need help leveling the playing field so they can become productive.

That difference in perspective is obviously going to profoundly affect your opinion on social justice programs and what the bible says about them.

Personally, I am baffled that any Christian can read the prophets and not see God's call for social justice and anger at the people of Israel for neglecting it. Then again, maybe they don't read the prophets because it isn't included in their New Testament only bible.

Cool. What tax rate do the prophets suggest for redistributive purposes?

What angered the Prophets was oppression of the poor. Not the lack of a state-organized single-payer healthcare program for those below a national poverty line. If anything, that the State would collect taxes for it's own purposes was pitched as an argument against centralized government.

 

[Fishking]

Leviticus says a lot of things that Christians ignore, but they all stand by the passage about homosexuality. The other place where homosexuality is proscribed is in the Epistles of Paul, letters written by a poor old sinner to other sinners, containing his opinions on a variety of subjects.

I'm not a Jew so Leviticus doesn't apply to my beliefs. There are certain timeless aspects about the OT but I don't have to follow the law (e.g circumcise or not eat pork). As you correctly pointed out, the NT speaks on the subject of homosexuality. You waving your hands at it "cuz Paul" doesn't lessen that fact.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Jesus said, "Unless you repent, you too will perish." - Luke 13:3

And he also said, "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” - John 8:24

And also,

"I am the way and the truth and the life. NO ONE comes to the father except through me." - John 14:6

Most Christians are not confused by those scriptures, but those who seek to discredit Jesus rarely, if ever, quote those.

You just did what I said you can't. Each quote is out of context.
I repeat, EVERY quote needs context of time, customs, literary forms etc.

Thanks for proving my point

 

[Logicman]

You just did what I said you can't. Each quote is out of context.
I repeat, EVERY quote needs context of time, customs, literary forms etc.

Thanks for proving my point

Nuts.

 

[Vox]

Jesus didn't say that.

Didn't say he did.....I said it's a Jewish concept that he taught.

 

[Vox]

The fact remains that the historical record clearly shows your original position to be wrong. Early Christianity was not an easy path for its first 300+ years; it was quite the opposite and it DID promote a change of lifestyle. Thus, it cannot be true that Pauline Christianity spread like wildfire as a result of its offer of an easy path to heaven.

In fact, the idea of salvation through faith alone does not make its appearance until Martin Luther develops the sola fide doctrine in the 1500s. It's a doctrine we can easily trace back to a mere 500 years ago, not all the way back to Paul.

Except......that wasn't "my position."

I said, "Saul/Paul's complex new religion of "Christianity" was founded on well-known Pagan concepts to fleece the Gentiles. Jesus taught Jewish concepts--faith without works is dead.

S/Paul taught free ride by "Grace." It made him a rich religious charlatan because his free ride was easy."

That's about the difference between the hard, narrow path to Heaven that Jesus taught and Saul/Paul's free ride through his invented concept of "Grace."

The hard sinning Gentiles loved S/Paul and flocked to his fun new religion.......making him a rich man.

 

[Grand Mal]

I'm not a Jew so Leviticus doesn't apply to my beliefs. There are certain timeless aspects about the OT but I don't have to follow the law (e.g circumcise or not eat pork). As you correctly pointed out, the NT speaks on the subject of homosexuality. You waving your hands at it "cuz Paul" doesn't lessen that fact.

That's called 'cherry-picking', when you decide that the laws of Leviticus don't apply to you but the opinions of Paul apply to society as a whole.

 

[CrabCake]

I am responding here not to the poor directly themselves, but rather to the Jim Wallis' of the world.

Then I don't understand your argument. You said:

Generally speaking, those who spend their time arguing that Christianity demands that we have a public social safety net aren't really interested in the work and character requirements in the New Testament.

What did you mean by that if you did not mean to imply that the poor are lacking in character or work ethic?

People like Jim Wallis work tirelessly to try to make a dent in some of the problems our society deals with. You mean THEY are lacking in work ethic and moral character?

The rest of your post goes off topic. We weren't discussing whether the bible supports such views. We were discussing whether people who hold those views care about the bible's teachings on work and character or not. The simple fact is that they do.

 

[CrabCake]

Except......that wasn't "my position."

I said, "Saul/Paul's complex new religion of "Christianity" was founded on well-known Pagan concepts to fleece the Gentiles. Jesus taught Jewish concepts--faith without works is dead.

S/Paul taught free ride by "Grace." It made him a rich religious charlatan because his free ride was easy."

That's about the difference between the hard, narrow path to Heaven that Jesus taught and Saul/Paul's free ride through his invented concept of "Grace."

The hard sinning Gentiles loved S/Paul and flocked to his fun new religion.......making him a rich man.

Right. But history doesn't support your conclusion. History shows that what Paul taught was NOT a free ride through Grace...in fact that teaching did not appear until Martin Luther. History also teaches that what Paul was teaching was NOT easy. It was NOT fun. It was guaranteed to get you ostracized and might even get you tortured and killed. Your idea simply flies in the face of recorded history. The world you are inventing simply didn't exist.

 

[Captain America]

Teach a man to fish so he cannot afford drugs. LOL!

 

[Vox]

The first time you said this I thought maybe you misspoke. Do you mean to say that works alone will do the trick?

My understanding is that works alone are meaningless. You have to actually BE a Christian/believer, of which works are a part, but actually being a Christian/believer means what you do when no one is looking.

When a man asked Jesus how to get to heaven.......

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?

That's what spawned the story of the good Samaritan......a story of love in action.

And that's how we know how to get to Heaven. You have to do WORKS of love.

The free ride and new religion that the liar Saul/Paul invented was just that.......an invention.

 

[Vox]

Right. But history doesn't support your conclusion. History shows that what Paul taught was NOT a free ride through Grace...in fact that teaching did not appear until Martin Luther.

History totally supports my conclusion.

Study Saul/Paul's letter to the Romans that was written circa 55 AD. There he outlines his free ride he called "Grace."

Martin Luther came along 15 centuries later and used S/P's letter in his rebellion against the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Grand Mal]

Not really. People attempt sometimes to argue that the Bible recording an event is the equivalent of giving moral approval to it, but the Bible's moral message is fairly clear and consistent on a variety of issues.

No it is not consistent. The God in the Bible is downright quadrophenic. Hell, the God in the Old Testament is at least four-fold and He became another triple in the New.
Listen. My favourite book in the Old Testament is Ecclesiastes, and the God in Ecclesiastes would not have stopped the rotation of the earth to give Joshua time to slaughter every man, woman and child. Nor would the God who inspired the Song of Solomon or the Psalms. Never mind the accountant-God who inspired the Proverbs. Or the proudly unsympathetic God who fvcked with Job because He had a bet with Satan.

 

[CrabCake]

History totally supports my conclusion.

Study Saul/Paul's letter to the Romans that was written circa 55 AD. There he outlines his free ride he called "Grace."

Martin Luther came along 15 centuries later and used S/P's letter in his rebellion against the Roman Catholic Church.

Do a quick study on the "sola fide" doctrine; that is the proper name for the "grace only" doctrine you are describing. You will see that it wasn't developed until the 1500s. No one from Paul's time believed it.

Heck, I even provided you with evidence from writings of the time period proving you wrong! The writings of Pliny the Younger prove that early Christians were focused on sanctification and not just a free ride.

I also showed that it was NOT easy and they were subject to ostracism and persecution.

Your beliefs just don't have any legs to stand on.

 

[Vox]

Right. But history doesn't support your conclusion. History shows that what Paul taught was NOT a free ride through Grace...in fact that teaching did not appear until Martin Luther.

Wrong.

History totally supports what I say.

Saul/Paul's letter to the Romans, Chapter 3. Written about 55 AD.

"23Because all of them have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God, 24And are made right by grace without charge and by the redemption that exists in Yeshua The Messiah, 25This One whom God preordained as the atonement, by the faith of his blood, for the sake of our sins which we had formerly sinned, 26In the space that God in his patience has given to us, for the demonstration of his justice which is in this time, that he would be The Just One and would by justice declare righteous the one who is in the faith of Our Lord Yeshua The Messiah."

Martin Luther came along 1500 years later.

 

[Vox]

Heck, I even provided you with evidence from writings of the time period proving you wrong! The writings of Pliny the Younger prove that early Christians were focused on sanctification and not just a free ride.

I also showed that it was NOT easy and they were subject to ostracism and persecution.

Your beliefs just don't have any legs to stand on.

You're the one without legs.

Your source Pliny changes nothing. I'm not talking about persecution (which was political) I'm talking about the freedom to sin and still get to a "Heaven," which was what enticed the Gentiles and made Paul a rich man.

 

[Vox]

When a Lawyer asked him, Jesus indicated that the answer was "“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself". Basically, if you could keep the law, you could gain eternal life.

The problem being, of course, that no one keeps the law. Which is why Christ came to us, to enter us into a New Covenant.

No. First of all, the "Christ" was an invention of Saul/Paul. He never knew Jesus, never MET Jesus....he just had a good idea for a new religion. The REAL disciples of Jesus loathed this liar.

Second, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself".........has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW.

All it meant was living a life of love in action.

The Jewish LAW had nothing to do with it.

 

[cpwill]

Then I don't understand your argument. You said:

Generally speaking, those who spend their time arguing that Christianity demands that we have a public social safety net aren't really interested in the work and character requirements in the New Testament

What did you mean by that if you did not mean to imply that the poor are lacking in character or work ethic?

I mean that

those who spend their time arguing that Christianity demands that we have a public social safety net​

Which is to say, those who spend their time arguing that Christianity demands that we have certain levels of state-provided public safety nets, and draw upon biblical references of caring for the poor to make those arguments

aren't really interested in the work and character requirements in the New Testament.​

Generally try to avoid the fact that those references are also fairly clear on the division between what used to be called "the deserving poor" and those who are poor due to sloth, and other decisions made through problematic moral character.

If, for example, you want to predict today which children will be most likely to end up poor, the single best question (statistically) that you can ask is: "Are their parents married?" It's not structural societal injustices of oppressive weight or anything of that nonsense - it's whether or not your parents teach you how to stick to a marriage.

People like Jim Wallis work tirelessly to try to make a dent in some of the problems our society deals with. You mean THEY are lacking in work ethic and moral character?

No, I think that he ignores the New Testament restrictions on recipients of Church Aid when he tries to conflate it with government wealth transfers.

The rest of your post goes off topic. We weren't discussing whether the bible supports such views. We were discussing whether people who hold those views care about the bible's teachings on work and character or not. The simple fact is that they do.

I have read Jim Wallis. I have never seen him argue to let those who are able bodied but perennially choose to do without work should be allowed to starve until they feel motivated enough to get a job (2 Thess 3:10). I have never seen him argue that we should only let elderly widows "onto the rolls", and/or that we should send the poor first to their families, and expect their families to do something about it (1 Tim 5:4). I have never heard or read Jim Wallis argue for the imposition of a character test (1 Tim 5:10). I have never seen Jim Wallis say that we should conduct as a matter of public policy wealth transfers to the poor which are funded by whatever percentage of their income people come in their heart to believe that they should pay (2 Cor 9:7). I have only ever seen him argue for wealth redistribution "because that's what the bible preaches" :roll: That is not what the Bible preaches.

I'm sure Wallis means well. But theologically I categorize him with the Joel Olsteens of this world.

 

[Vox]

No it is not consistent. The God in the Bible is downright quadrophenic. Hell, the God in the Old Testament is at least four-fold and He became another triple in the New.
Listen. My favourite book in the Old Testament is Ecclesiastes, and the God in Ecclesiastes would not have stopped the rotation of the earth to give Joshua time to slaughter every man, woman and child. Nor would the God who inspired the Song of Solomon or the Psalms. Never mind the accountant-God who inspired the Proverbs. Or the proudly unsympathetic God who fvcked with Job because He had a bet with Satan.

Yes. It's more than that.

The OT God is a homicidal maniac in most places.

The writings are mostly self-serving Jewish campfire stories showing the Jews to be superior to all other people and the chosen ones of God.

There are exceptions like Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, etc., but most of it is just a cynical justification for murder and theft.

 

[Vox]

Generally try to avoid the fact that those references are also fairly clear on the division between what used to be called "the deserving poor" and those who are poor due to sloth, and other decisions made through problematic moral character.

If, for example, you want to predict today which children will be most likely to end up poor, the single best question (statistically) that you can ask is: "Are their parents married?" It's not structural societal injustices of oppressive weight or anything of that nonsense - it's whether or not your parents teach you how to stick to a marriage.

The fatal flaw in this type of "thinking" is that nobody can reliably tell us which poor are "deserving" and which are not......and blaming parents has the same problem.

The proper response is simply "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Simple.

 

[Logicman]

I said, "Saul/Paul's complex new religion of "Christianity" was founded on well-known Pagan concepts to fleece the Gentiles. Jesus taught Jewish concepts--faith without works is dead.

S/Paul taught free ride by "Grace." It made him a rich religious charlatan because his free ride was easy."

That's about the difference between the hard, narrow path to Heaven that Jesus taught and Saul/Paul's free ride through his invented concept of "Grace."

The hard sinning Gentiles loved S/Paul and flocked to his fun new religion.......making him a rich man.

There's a super paper this one Christian wrote on RighterReport.com that explains Justification by Faith. Here's some highlights:

"Initial saving faith is the precursor to works. Abraham was not saved (justified righteous - Genesis 15:6) by performing works, he was performing works of A Godly nature because he first was saved and regenerated by faith. Works of a Godly nature are the result of our regeneration and salvation, not the cause of it. Faith by grace is the antecedent of works. It chronologically occurs first. Once the Holy Spirit indwells a believer at the point of salvation, He starts the process of Progressive Sanctification, and one of the effects of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5-7) is that of causing, or compelling a person, by a change of heart and mind and with the believer’s cooperation, to perform works of a Godly nature. James’ argument in James chapter 2 addresses that time period of a person’s life, following true salvation and regeneration, when good works are supposed to be in evidence. He is saying, “Now that you claim to be saved, we should be seeing some good works out of you. However, if these good works are not apparent, then your initial faith was probably not genuine, and you were never, either in the eyes of God, nor in the eyes of man, justified righteous.”

Justification by Faith

https://righterreport.com/2011/12/1...-how-believers-are-declared-righteous-by-god/

Theologian Kevin Conner Conner explains it this way:

“When Adam sinned, all that he was and all that he did was ‘imputed’ to the whole, unborn human race. Sin left a debit on the books (Genesis 3:1-16; 2:17; Romans 5:12; 6:23). In Adam all sinned, and all died, spiritually and physically (I Corinthians 15:22). When Christ died on Calvary, the sin of Adam and the whole human race was ‘imputed,’ or put to Christs’ account. And because God imputed our sin to Christ, He suffered our penalty, which was death. All our liabilities were transferred to Him….(and) Christ’s righteousness was ‘imputed’ to us. His righteousness is credited to us, put to our account (Psalm 32:8; Romans 4:8). Justification pronounces the sinner legally innocent, freeing him from condemnation.”

In Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem makes the point that, “the word ‘justify’ in the Bible indicates that justification is a legal declaration by God. Paul says, “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; who is to condemn?” (Romans 8:33-34). Grudem continues, “In God’s legal declaration of justification, He specifically declares that we are just in His sight. This (legal) declaration involves two aspects. First, it means that we have no penalty to pay for sin, including past, present, and future sins. The second part of justification is that God must declare us not to be merely natural in His sight but actually to be righteous in His sight. In fact, He must declare us to have the merits of perfect righteousness before Him.” (Grudem 724-25)


Did Paul and Jesus Teach the Same things? Yes. https://carm.org/questions/other-questions/did-jesus-and-paul-teach-same-thing

Jesus - "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life," (John 5:24). See also John 3:16-18; Luke 18:9-13.

Paul - "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1).

Next, can you do 'good works' of a Godly nature unless you first believe? You can't SINCERELY PREACH THE GOSPEL unless you SINCERELY believe first, right?

And what did Jesus teach about good works? Here's his key teaching on that from John chapter 6:

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

God bless!

 

[cpwill]

No it is not consistent. The God in the Bible is downright quadrophenic. Hell, the God in the Old Testament is at least four-fold and He became another triple in the New.
Listen. My favourite book in the Old Testament is Ecclesiastes, and the God in Ecclesiastes would not have stopped the rotation of the earth to give Joshua time to slaughter every man, woman and child.

:raises eyebrow: God didn't stop the Earth to give Joshua time to slaughter every man woman and child. In Joshua God stopped the rotation of the Earth in order to complete the defeat of an army made up of an alliance of Kings who had come against Israel's new ally, Gibeon. That's not to say that cities didn't get sacked, wiped out, etc. in the OT accounts of the Israelites moving into the Promised Land, but if you're going to try to critique the OT, you should be accurate in it.

Nor would the God who inspired the Song of Solomon or the Psalms. Never mind the accountant-God who inspired the Proverbs. Or the proudly unsympathetic God who fvcked with Job because He had a bet with Satan.

:shrug: that. Or you are anthropomorphizing feelings instead of trying to understand a universal, timeless, and omnipotent entity whose ways and intentions are not your own.

Heck, even for humans this logic makes little sense. "Hitler loved dogs and was kind to children - how could he have murdered Jews?!?"

Furthermore, Job is a wonderful and beautiful text, every bit as philosophically important as Ecclesiastes.