Paul vs. Jesus

[Lighthouse]

And since scripture is the only thing that does prove scripture, where does that leave us?

Anyway, there is a possibility that Paul simply invented the original sin doctrine, using Genesis, and certain teachings of Jesus to back himself up. This is why one might say Jesus and Paul disagree, because until someone can show me an instance where Jesus specifically said, all men are born sinful, then I'm going to have to assume that Paul invented it. (Whether it was just a mistake, or an outright deception is immaterial).

Did Christ teach that anyone could be holy on their own? Did He ever teach that we were not sinners? And what makes you think that Paul taught original sin as it is most widely accepted? Babies who have had no chance to sin can not be held accountable for their actions, and therefore do not go to hell if they die as infants. And if you read Paul's letters carefully, you will see that he offers up that same conclusion. But if you read only some of what he wrote, out of context, you will miss it.

 

[Lighthouse]

I don't believe Paul was divinely inspired (he certainly never claimed to be).

Did you miss Acts 9? Acts 22? 2 Timothy 3:16?

 

[Lovejoy]

Did Christ teach that anyone could be holy on their own? Did He ever teach that we were not sinners? And what makes you think that Paul taught original sin as it is most widely accepted? Babies who have had no chance to sin can not be held accountable for their actions, and therefore do not go to hell if they die as infants. And if you read Paul's letters carefully, you will see that he offers up that same conclusion. But if you read only some of what he wrote, out of context, you will miss it.

Very true. The concept of "original sin" that requires infant baptism is silly. I tend to think that "justification" rests on children until willful reconciliation can be made. Children are not born "regenerate", they are just born unaccountable.

 

[Lighthouse]

Very true. The concept of "original sin" that requires infant baptism is silly. I tend to think that "justification" rests on children until willful reconciliation can be made. Children are not born "regenerate", they are just born unaccountable.

:thumb:

 

[Gnostic]

You said: "Did Christ teach that anyone could be holy on their own?"

Luke 7:50
Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

You said: "Did He ever teach that we were not sinners?"

Mark 2:17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Jesus did not teach original sin, and he also did not teach that everyone is a sinner, and according to the synoptic gospels he actually rejected such ideas (see above). So I'd say that "everyone's a sinner" is "another gospel."

*

 

[Lovejoy]

You said: "Did Christ teach that anyone could be holy on their own?"

Luke 7:50
Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

You said: "Did He ever teach that we were not sinners?"

Mark 2:17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Jesus did not teach original sin, and he also did not teach that everyone is a sinner, and according to the synoptic gospels he actually rejected such ideas (see above). So I'd say that "everyone's a sinner" is "another gospel."

*

I can't believe that you could read chapter 19 of Matthew and still believe that. It is patently false, in the light of those scriptures. He frankly says it is impossible to be saved on your own, it is only possible through God. He even says no one is good but God!

 

[Gnostic]

I can't believe you could say "He frankly says it is impossible to be saved on your own" without posting the scripture to support your opinion.

But fine, I'll meet you half way by admitting that a little divine intervention does make the process of soul survival somewhat more efficient.

*

 

[Lovejoy]

Matthew 19:25-26 Who then can be saved? Jesus looked at them and said "with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

I just assumed that when I referred to Chapter 19 of Matthew you would know what I was talking about. It is a fairly well know verse.

 

[Gnostic]

Yes God makes it possible by giving us free will so that we may make certain choices. But it's not God making our choices for us, is it?

Question: Do you have free will to choose or is God making your choices for you?

*

 

[Lovejoy]

Hmm, that is not as clear cut a question as it sounds. Surely, God is not just using my puppet form to do His will. However, with a regenerate heart I do not make the same choices I would have made prior to my new birth. It is a little from column A and a little from column B.

 

[Gnostic]

Furthermore, "but with God all things are possible" means what? Consider:

Luke 17:21
nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.”

Therefore you are suggesting that for salvation I look "up there" to some external God sitting in a throne to save me, but Master said that what people seek is within.

Consider:

Colossians 1:27
To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you,

This is certainly a different teaching to certain synoptic gospels which in my opinion mistakenly teach that Jesus physically rose in the flesh and asked for meat to eat, know what I mean?

*

 

[Gnostic]

You said: "It is a little from column A and a little from column B."

If by this you mean a little God and a little you, then that makes some sense.

You said: "However, with a regenerate heart I do not make the same choices I would have made prior to my new birth."

But what made the choice for you to have a regenerate heart? Did you make this choice or did God? If you say you (even in part), then you saved yourself, if you say God, then you have no free will.

*

 

[Lovejoy]

I am afraid that I will have to take this up later. It is long after when I should have gone to bed, especially since I have a test on Monday. Thank you for the brief discussion.

 

[Lovejoy]

You siad: "It is a little from column A and a little from column B."

If by this you mean a little God and a little you, then that makes some sense.

You said: "However, with a regenerate heart I do not make the same choices I would have made prior to my new birth."

But what made the choice for you to have a regenerate heart? Did you make this choice or did God? If you say you (even in part), then you saved yourself, if you say God, then you have no free will.

*

Oops, we posted at the same time! I will take this up again tomorrow, but this has to do (from my perspective) on the order of salvation, or, does faith or regeneration come first. It is also central to the debate between reform and open belief systems. I say that I made the choice to believe on Christ, and at that moment my heart was regenerated (by God) into something capable of Spiritual things. However, I will be more able to discuss this in a few hours. Goodnight!

 

[Gnostic]

My pleasure, Lovejoy, and I thank you also.

*

 

[Delmar]

You said: "It is a little from column A and a little from column B."

If by this you mean a little God and a little you, then that makes some sense.

You said: "However, with a regenerate heart I do not make the same choices I would have made prior to my new birth."

But what made the choice for you to have a regenerate heart? Did you make this choice or did God? If you say you (even in part), then you saved yourself, if you say God, then you have no free will.

*

Gods choice is for all to have a regenerate heart . Most reject it.

 

[Chileice]

You said: "Did Christ teach that anyone could be holy on their own?"

Luke 7:50
Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

You said: "Did He ever teach that we were not sinners?"

Mark 2:17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Jesus did not teach original sin, and he also did not teach that everyone is a sinner, and according to the synoptic gospels he actually rejected such ideas (see above). So I'd say that "everyone's a sinner" is "another gospel."

*

Gnostic,
I certainly don't think Jesus was using Mark 2.17 to teach that you could be righteous. Actually, quite to the contrary, the irony is clear in the context. Jesus was there to help the people who admitted they needed help. If they were self-righteous (as were his accusers) then Jesus could do nothing for them, for their faith was placed in themselves rather than in the Son of God who came to seek and save that which was lost. It is our faith that saves us, not a self-generated faith, but a placing of the faith we all have in the person who will never fail... Jesus.

 

[Gnostic]

Hi Chileice, and thanks for your reply. You said: "Jesus was there to help the people who admitted they needed help."

Actually it simply says he came for "sinners", it does not say anything about whether the "sinners" admit anything. But what about the "righteous" who don't need a doctor, is this not a contradiction to the teaching that everyone is automatically a sinner and needs a doctor?

You said: "I certainly don't think Jesus was using Mark 2.17 to teach that you could be righteous."

Here it is again:

Mark 2:17
Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Clearly according to that scripture Jesus believed that some were righteous and have no need of his help.

Here is another...

Luke 1:6
Both of them were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord's commandments and regulations blamelessly.

This is in direct contradiction to some of "Paul's" teachings. I place Paul in quotes because I don't believe he wrote everything attributed to him since those writings are contradictory and they demonstrate utterly incompatible mindsets. The same is found in "John's" gospel vs. his epistles, they are two very different mindsets.

*

 

[Gnostic]

Hi deardelmar, you said: "Gods choice is for all to have a regenerate heart . Most reject it."

Then your idea of God is that he is not all-powerful. If it's God's choice to regenerate us, and we reject God's choice, then we must be more powerful than God. I'm not sure what you actually believe, please elaborate.

*

 

[Delmar]

Hi deardelmar, you said: "Gods choice is for all to have a regenerate heart . Most reject it."

Then your idea of God is that he is not all-powerful. If it's God's choice to regenerate us, and we reject God's choice, then we must be more powerful than God. I'm not sure what you actually believe, please elaborate.

*

No, not at all! My claim is that his is not the robotic controller of all.