Faith without works is Dead

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes indeed, but we are not talking of salvation, we are talking about faith without works.

Who's we?

Originally posted by divegeester
Who's we?

Those of us on the forum who have contributed their personal thoughts, experiences so far.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Those of us on the forum who have contributed their personal thoughts, experiences so far.

So that includes me then.

Originally posted by divegeester
So that includes me then.

naturally, have you something to say about faith and its relationship to works?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
first of all, it is necessary for you to define, in clear terms what a Christian is, i say, its
one who follows the teachings of Christ, that being the case, then you can readily
determine whether those who profess to be Christians actually are, or whether they
are something else, to the degree that they apply and adhere to the teachings of
Christ.

I do not agree that clear definition is either required or possible, since Chistianity has many expressions. It includes a religious, cultural and ethnic aspect. If I want to talk about the Franks who forcibly converted Saxony to Christianity a thousand years ago, then I imagine you would say they were not "really" Christians and you may have a point, but it is not a valid one.

The point being that, while it pleases you to assume that Christianity as a religious faith will lead people to adhere to the teachings of Jesus on the Sermon on the Mount, the evidence is that it has, historically, led people to do things that are beyond the wildest nightmares of gentle Jesus.

This does not dispute that Jesus taught love of our neighbours - it disputes instead the claim that Christianity (a religion incorporating the entire Old Testament and not just the Gospels, invented by Paul, not by Jesus, and developed later by others, especially under the Roman Emperor Constantine) will lead us to an attractive era of human kindness. After 2000 years it has been tested to destruction.

Originally posted by finnegan
I do not agree that clear definition is either required or possible, since Chistianity has many expressions. It includes a religious, cultural and ethnic aspect. If I want to talk about the Franks who forcibly converted Saxony to Christianity a thousand years ago, then I imagine you would say they were not "really" Christians and you may have a point, but ...[text shortened]... us to an attractive era of human kindness. After 2000 years it has been tested to destruction.

nope, unless you are prepared to define your terms in a clear and simple manner, all your
arguments amounts to is an assumption, and as a consequence, its a castle made of sand, that will
fall into the sea, eventually. I therefore reject your claims on that basis, that they are naught but
pure conjecture, until you define your terms.

Originally posted by finnegan
I do not agree that clear definition is either required or possible, since Chistianity has many expressions. It includes a religious, cultural and ethnic aspect. If I want to talk about the Franks who forcibly converted Saxony to Christianity a thousand years ago, then I imagine you would say they were not "really" Christians and you may have a point, but ...[text shortened]... us to an attractive era of human kindness. After 2000 years it has been tested to destruction.

=========================================
This does not dispute that Jesus taught love of our neighbours - it disputes instead the claim that Christianity (a religion incorporating the entire Old Testament and not just the Gospels, invented by Paul, not by Jesus, ...
=======================================

Debate time tough guy.

Point out to me what Paul "invented" which I cannot find in the four Gospels or preached by the forerunning apostles in the book of Acts.

I want to see something new Paul concocted if he "invented" Christianity.
You might just find something. So I ask.

I am out here on a limb now so give it your best shot.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=========================================
This does not dispute that Jesus taught love of our neighbours - it disputes instead the claim that Christianity (a religion incorporating the entire Old Testament and not just the Gospels, invented by Paul, not by Jesus, ...
=======================================

Debate time tough guy.

Po ht just find something. So I ask.

I am out here on a limb now so give it your best shot.[/b]

Debate time tough guy.

Oh you think so? And it was not debate time all along then? Stand up everyone, Jaywill has entered the room. [Oh sit down again, he left...]. These matters have been in debate for some weeks as you know and I have awaited your informed contribution with bated breath.

Point out to me what Paul "invented" which I cannot find in the four Gospels or preached by the forerunning apostles in the book of Acts.

I think we have been here before Jaywill. On 7 April you wrote:

"Any such impression that the four Gospels were written before Paul wrote Romans was not my intent. I know Paul's writings are our earliest NT documents.

I don't have time to study your other comments right now. Hopefully latter."

http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=138856&page=4#post_2646894

Why would you expect the Book of Acts or the Gospels to conflict with Paul when they were produced later and by his converts? They are not objective histories in the contemporary sense. They are religious tracts setting out the Christian story after Christianity has sorted out its basic teachings.

Acts gives an account of Paul's life up to his arrival in Rome at the end of his life [but does not describe his death at all, perhaps to keep a cliff hanger there for future use?] so I cannot imagine you claiming that it came before rather than after. It may indeed refer to what you quaintly call "forerunning apostles" but it is not a forerunning account, is it?

Acts was written by Luke who describes himself in Acts as a sometime companion of Paul. This is not a neutral source. It is an after the event account by someone who holds firm views taught him by (or arrived at with) Paul.

The same Luke I understand (do you disagree?) was the author of one of the four gospels. It would be surprising if this account did not set out Paul's view of things very clearly, would it not? It would be surprising if it did not pick out Old Testament prophecies and tie these in neatly with aspects of Jesus' life. It would be surprising if it proved Paul wrong! (Not totally so I suppose - your posts often prove you are wrong 🙂 ).

We know Paul as a Pharisee and a Temple Guard, with the reasonable assumption that he is well informed on the Jewish scriptures. We know from many sources that at this time (if not at all times) the Jews were alive with debate about messianic prophecies and signs, since we are heading into the rebellion against Rome (slightly unfair odds you would agree, with fanatical Maccabee religious zealotry to explain this stupidity), serious oppression of Jews by Nero, and in time (after Paul) the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. No great surprise if these preoccupations would be incorporated into the Christian story. [No great surprise either if many alternative ideas perished in the destruction of Jerusalem and the massacre of its residents].

I want to see something new Paul concocted if he "invented" Christianity.

Are you really just a comedian? If he invented Christianity, then Christianity is what he invented. Are you saying there was nothing new in Christianity compared to the Jewish faith prior to Jesus? Is Romans just a tired old rehash of the Jewish faith?

You are a delight to talk with Jaywill and I will have a smile on my face for the rest of today. Soon I will be discussing with my grandson if lions are bigger than Tyrannasaurus Rex or if daddy is bigger than that car. He is really sticking to his opinions on these matters but that's ok.

Originally posted by finnegan
Debate time tough guy.

Oh you think so? And it was not debate time all along then? Stand up everyone, Jaywill has entered the room. [Oh sit down again, he left...]. These matters have been in debate for some weeks as you know and I have awaited your informed contribution with bated breath.

Point out to me what Paul "invented" which I c an that car. He is really sticking to his opinions on these matters but that's ok.

here are your words, less you forget them ,

a religion incorporating the entire Old Testament and not just the Gospels, invented by Paul, not by
Jesus

therefore answer the question, what did Paul invent, no amount of posturing, no amount of excuses,
you have made the statement, what did Paul invent.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
naturally, have you something to say about faith and its relationship to works?

Please read my previous post.

Originally posted by divegeester
Please read my previous post.

nope, once is enough for any man, i knew someone would try to make an argument
out of works and salvation, but this is about faith and works, not works and salvation.
But hey if you want to hijack it with a works and salvation argument, feel free, ill
discuss anything, after all, i should feel honoured, you destined to be a King and a
priest already. 😉

What about works without faith, the worthy pagans?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
What about works without faith, the worthy pagans?

What you have faith in you will act on. This is why when we call on the name of the Lord it is an act of faith. This is why the man next to Christ on the cross had a death bed conversion. Although he had no time to do good works, his act of faith in calling on the name of the Lord was all that was needed.

Originally posted by finnegan
[b] Debate time tough guy.

Oh you think so? And it was not debate time all along then? Stand up everyone, Jaywill has entered the room. [Oh sit down again, he left...]. These matters have been in debate for some weeks as you know and I have awaited your informed contribution with bated breath.

Point out to me what Paul "invented" which I c an that car. He is really sticking to his opinions on these matters but that's ok.

==================================
Are you really just a comedian? If he invented Christianity, then Christianity is what he invented. Are you saying there was nothing new in Christianity compared to the Jewish faith prior to Jesus? Is Romans just a tired old rehash of the Jewish faith?
================================= [/b]

Exactly WHERE in this long post is what I asked for ???

Where are the theological inventions of Paul that I cannot trace back to Christ ?

Cheer up finnegan!

Romans is tired old rehash of Jewish faith ? I think you are obscuring your responsibility with asking me questions. I asked you.

So, what in Romans is an invention not to be found in the words of Jesus ? (the four Gospels)

Why turn the question around on me ? You claimed the Christian faith as Paul's invention.

I hope you can smile and think at the same time.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==================================
Are you really just a comedian? If he invented Christianity, then Christianity is what he invented. Are you saying there was nothing new in Christianity compared to the Jewish faith prior to Jesus? Is Romans just a tired old rehash of the Jewish faith?
================================= [/b]

Exactly WHE ...[text shortened]... an invention not to be found in the words of Jesus ?
Why turn the questions around on me ?[/b]

Because your source for the words of Jesus is the Gospel written by Paul's converts. Paul by your own account was the earliest source in the NT.