Coletti,
What sins did Christ die for?
The only sins that Christ died for was the original sin, and any minor transgressions up to the point he died. He did not die so that future generations could continue to sin and still get into heaven. He was the forgiveness of God for our original sins, a pardon if you will, thus allowing generations born after Christ to be able to gain back the relationship with god. The relationship man had with god before the taking of the forbidden fruit was almost like Father to child. When god was betrayed he not only punished us, but punished satan as well. We were forgiven, Satan is not.
When Christ died he left behind an instruction manual on how to remain in the favor of god. (Teachings of god) His story is not just about words but also in action.
Our original sins were forgiven up to the point of Christ, but we are responsible for those that occurred after, those are not forgiven….yet.
It is not enough to just believe in Christ, you must atone, and not just for your own sins but the sins of those before you.
Mike
Sorry Feivel I am done being off topic for now.😉
Originally posted by rapalla7Could we get back to the road to Damascus.
Coletti,
What sins did Christ die for?
The only sins that Christ died for was the original sin, and any minor transgressions up to the point he died. He did not die so that future generations could continue to sin and still get into heaven. He was the forgiveness of God for our original sins, a pardon if you will, thus allowing generations born afte ...[text shortened]... t the sins of those before you.
Mike
Sorry Feivel I am done being off topic for now.😉
Feivel
Originally posted by rapalla7People here (you) have said that Paul received authority from the high priest according to the new testament. That is at best problamatic since the high priest had no authority whatsoever in Damascus (or in any of king Atreas cities). Secondly a bit of history would be in order. In the first century the Saducees were the "sympathizers" with Rome while Roman rule was vehemently opposed by the Pharasees (which Paul claimed to be). How does a supposed Pharasee get authorization and possibly work for high priest that is a Saducee? Besides religious differences (which would be overcome), there is also the political difference that would be an insurmountable impass. A Saducee and a Pharisee collaborating would be totally unheard of. For the Saducee and Pharisee to be in agreement would be an impossibility. Now again I ask, besides what is written in the new testament can anyone give me any historical or any other "proof" as why Paul was on the road to Damascus with letters from the high priest authorizing him.
Lead on Im with ya.🙂
Feivel
Originally posted by FeivelWell... I'm no corrinthian but I did send an army over the alps and defeat the romans! Long live Carthage! Or course that was 200 years before the jew, Christ was born.
In this thread I would like to discuss the biblical and extra-biblical evidence that examines who Paul is and whether as it states in the new testament (in the words of Paul) [quote]But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being cra ...[text shortened]... ion on the [b]TOPICwould be greatly appreciated.
Feivel
[/b]
giggle... you have to know the history of... never mind.
Why waste time on biblical silliness when there are all the real world and all it's issues to consider? Not trying to be a downer, but it seems as well that we argue whether mud is sticky as to argue the bible.
Sorry. I have been mispelling the name of the king of Dmamscus as Atreas. It is Aretas and here is some information on the region he ruled over.
The Nabataeans, a people of ancient Arabia, whose settlements in the time of Josephus gave the name of Nabatene to the border-land between Syria and Arabia from the Euphrates to the Red Sea. Josephus suggests, and Jerome affirms, that the name is identical with that of the Ishmaelite tribe of Nbioth, which in later Old Testament times had a leading place among the northern Arabs, and is associated with Kedar much as Pliny associates Nabataei and Cedrei. The identification is rendered uncertain by the fact that the name Nabataean is properly spelled with i not t. Thus the history of the Nabataeans cannot certainly be carried back beyond 312 BC, at which date they were attacked without success by Antigonus I. They are described by Diodorus as being at this time a strong tribe of some 10,000 warriors, pre-eminent among the nomadic Arabs, eschewing agriculture, fixed houses and the use of wine, hut adding to pastoral pursuits a profitable trade with the seaports in myrrh and spices from Arabia Felix, as well as a trade with Egypt in bitumen from the Dead Sea. Their arid country was the best safeguard of their cherished liberty; for the bottle-shaped cisterns for rain-water which they excavated in the rocky or argillaceous soil were carefully concealed from invaders. Petra or Sela was the ancient capital of Edom; the Nabataeans must have ocupied the old Edomite country, and succeeded to its commerce, after the Edomites took advantage of the Babylonian captivity to press forward into southern Judaea. This migration, the date of which cannot be determined, also made them masters of the shores of the Gulf of Aqaba and the important harbor of Elath. Here, according to Agatharchides, they were for a time very troublesome, as wreckers and pirates, to the reopened commerce between Egypt and the East, till they were chastised by the Greek sovereigns of Alexandria.
The Nabataeans had already some tincture of foreign culture when they first appear in history. That culture was naturally Aramaic; they wrote a letter to Antigonus in Syriac letters, and Aramaic continued to be the language of their coins and inscriptions when the tribe grew into a kingdom, and profited by the decay of the Seleucids to extend its borders northward over the more fertile country east of the Jordan. They occupied Ilauran, and in about 85 their king Aretas became lord of Damascus and Coele-Syria. Allies of the first Hasmonaeans in their struggles against the Greeks, they became the rivals of the Judaean dynasty in the period of its splendor, and a chief element in the disorders which invited Pompey's intervention in Palestine. The Roman arms were not very successful, and King Aretas retained his whole possessions, including Damascus, as a Roman vassal. As allies of the Romans the Nabataeans continued to flourish throughout the first Christian century. Their power extended far into Arabia, particularly along the Red Sea; and Petra was a meeting-place of many nations though its commerce was diminished by the rise of the Eastern trade-route from Myoshormus to Coptos on the Nile. Under the Roman peace they lost their warlike and nomadic habits, and were a sober, acquisitive, orderly people, wholly intent on trade and agriculture. They might have long been a bulwark between Rome and the wild hordes of the desert but for the short-sighted cupidity of Trajan, who reduced Petra and broke up the Nabataean nationality. The new Arab invaders who soon pressed forward into their seats found the remnants of the Nabataeans transformed into fellai~tn (?), and speaking Aramaic like their neighbors. Hence Nabataeans became the Arabic name for Aramaeans, whether in Syria or Iral~ (?), a fact which has been incorrectly held to prove that the Nabataeans were originally Aramaean immigrants from. Babylonia. It is now known,however, that they were true Arabsas the proper names on their inscriptions show who had come under Aramaic influence.
Feivel
Originally posted by Feivelfrom what I understand, Feivel, Paul (whos original name was Saul [sorry if this was already mentioned] was going to Damascusto kill some Christians. During the trip there he was blinded by God/angels (?) and shortly after this was healed of his blindness and converted to Christianity
Yes he was there to persecute christians but I wanted a "deeper" answer. Why was Paul going to Damascus to persecute christians (the answer is in the bible)? Not only that but why did he expect to persecute anyone in an are that was under King Aretas (an Arab not under Roman nor Jewish rule)?
Feivel
EDIT: As to why he actually went there, I'm not quite certain. Your knowledge about the king from the previous post clearly shows your ahead of me when it comes to the historical account. As far as I remember, Saul always had a hatred for the Christians.
Originally posted by lioyankYou give the new testament account. The historical account is what we are (or were) examining here.
from what I understand, Feivel, Paul (whos original name was Saul [sorry if this was already mentioned] was going to Damascusto kill some Christians. During the trip there he was blinded by God/angels (?) and shortly after this was healed of his blindness and converted to Christianity
EDIT: As to why he actually went there, I'm not quite certain. Your kn ...[text shortened]... to the historical account. As far as I remember, Saul always had a hatred for the Christians.
Feivel
Originally posted by FeivelThere is only one account of Jesus' discussing 'heavenly judgement,' and that is the account of the sheeps and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46). This suggests that it isn't sufficient to avoid lying, adultering, stealing, and so forth. One must be active in spreading compassion in the world.
And jesus said do what? Did he say believe in him or did he say do the commandments?
Feivel
You are right. Jesus never said 'believe in me' and you'll get into heaven (or at least as far as I know). However, this touches on the issue of faith and works which has so long divided the church. Nowadays, both Lutherans and Roman Catholics assert that these two aspects are in fact the same things. Faith is to do good works, and to do good works is to be faithful. Jesus touches upon this in several other passages, often when depicting the fervency of the Pharisees to adhere to ritual while ignoring the needs of those around them (e.g. Luke 18:9-14, Matthew 23:1-36).
This touches upon the notion begun by Karl Rahner called the 'anonymous Christian.' This concept involves understanding that all compassionate actions are motivated by an implicit faith. So, professing 'Jesus Christ is Lord,' with your lips is 'outside of the cup' and, as such, has no spiritual (or salvific) meaning. By giving food to the hungry, however, you are professing it inwardly (even if you do not know it or acknowledge it). Doing so cleans the 'inside of the cup.'
Therefore, according to this theory, one who is denies Christ outwardly but serves the needs of the poor, the sick, the lonely and imprisoned is does His work and believes in Him implicitly.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioSo when Paul said believe in jesus he really meant do what jesus said?
There is only one account of Jesus' discussing 'heavenly judgement,' and that is the account of the sheeps and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46). This suggests that it isn't sufficient to avoid lying, adultering, stealing, and so forth. One must be active in spreading compassion in the world.
You are right. Jesus never said 'believe in me' and you'll ...[text shortened]... the sick, the lonely and imprisoned is does His work and believes in Him implicitly.
Nemesio
Feivel
Originally posted by nemesioIf works and faith are:
There is only one account of Jesus' discussing 'heavenly judgement,' and that is the account of the sheeps and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46). This suggests that it isn't sufficient to avoid lying, adultering, stealing, and so forth. On ...[text shortened]... isoned is does His work and believes in Him implicitly.
Nemesio
Works earning your way in, doing what you are told to get there.
Faith doing nothing to get in, it was earned for you.
I believe both of those will cause rejection under those simplistic
terms. It is a relationship, which is given in faith, but afterwards
it is obeying, after all He is Lord. The obeying isn't earning, a
trip into heaven it is simply obeying because that is the right thing
to do.
If someone thinks they have to earn their way into heaven than
it is a paycheck, something that God is now obligated to give
for the work done. It creates self-righteous people among us,
because those are the ones doing more, they are creating their
pathway into heaven by the things they do. Jesus did speak about
a group that cast out demons and did miracles but were cast out
because He did not know them.
If someone thinks they have a pass because of what Jesus did,
than they go and sin like there is no tomorrow, because they have
a pass into heaven, ignore God completely afterwards because
they believe, are they followers of Christ? If they don't bother in
attempting to know God, they don't seek God, but instead feed
their every lust. These are than unrepentant sinners who simply
know about Jesus nothing more. They may claim God's righteousness,
but they want nothing to do with God in reality, and reality matters.
If you look at what Jesus said was going to happen after he left
in John 16: 5-16 that the Holy Spirit was going to come, and
among other things guide people into all truth. Now unless one is
following one cannot be guided. It isn't a matter of works, yet
works will be done as a by-product of your relationship with God
through Christ.
The works and faith debate if it centers on establishing one's own
righteousness you know it isn't what God wanted, if it is being able
to sin without regard to God or man because it is 'faith' it will fail
too.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou and I agree on that one.
If works and faith are:
Works earning your way in, doing what you are told to get there.
Faith doing nothing to get in, it was earned for you.
I believe both of those will cause rejection under those simplistic
terms. It is a relationship, which is given in faith, but afterwards
it is obeying, after all He is Lord. The obeying isn't earning, a ...[text shortened]...
to sin without regard to God or man because it is 'faith' it will fail
too.
Kelly
Mike
Originally posted by KellyJayYou've misunderstood my point, largely because of the way almost eveyone is taught about faith and works, that they are two separate entities.
If works and faith are:
Works earning your way in, doing what you are told to get there.
Faith doing nothing to get in, it was earned for you.
I don't distinguish between the two. Works are faith realized, and faith is belief in works. According to Christian doctrine, nothing you can do 'earns' your way into heaven. Faith/works are a duty that is expected of us. Belief in Christ = doing works.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioI agree. Real faith is inseparable from good works. The way I would put it is that good works are a necessary result of salvation, not a prerequisite for it. Hence faith which does not result in good works is not genuine faith. James called such a faith 'dead.' (James 2:26)
You've misunderstood my point, largely because of the way almost eveyone is taught about faith and works, that they are two separate entities.
I don't distinguish between the two. Works are faith realized, and faith is belief in works. According to Christian doctrine, nothing you can do 'earns' your way into heaven. Faith/works are a duty that is expected of us. Belief in Christ = doing works.
Nemesio