Being "saved"

[Syrokal]

Hilariously ironic coming from a Baha'i!

Why so?(genuine question)

 

[Huntun]

I thought the Egyptian slavery of Israel was now regarded as ahistorical?

I think their is new theory that they served as mercenaries rather than slaves. Eventually they were no longer needed and viewed as possible threat so they had to leave while plundering a little booty on the way. At least that's what I saw on the History channel a while back.

 

[smaneck]

I'm curious.

I thought the Egyptian slavery of Israel was now regarded as ahistorical?

Well, there is no firm archaeological evidence for it, especially not for a community said to have been 600K families strong. And certain the miracles associated with Exodus can't be substantiated, such as Pharaoh's army drowning in the Red Sea or all the first-born sons being killed. But I think there is at least some evidence of a sojourn in Egypt.

1. Both the terms Hebrew [ebri] and Moses are of Egyptian, not Hebrew origin.

2. The arrival of the Hyksos to Egypt coincides with when the Hebrew people were said to come, and both are thought to be from the Levant areas.

If we posit that the Hebrew people were intimately tied to the Hyksos, a good deal of the story just makes sense. But there couldn't have been that many of them.

 

[ContraMundum]

Why so?(genuine question)

Their religion was started by one man. Like every religion on the face of the earth with the exception of the Judeo-Christian faiths.

So, for her to argue that Paul is a lone voice is a) to ignore the accepted facts about Paul and b) to not apply to the same litmus test to her own faith.

 

[smaneck]

Their religion was started by one man. Like every religion on the face of the earth with the exception of the Judeo-Christian faiths.

There is no such thing as Judeo-Christianity. There is Judaism and then there is Christianity. If you are going to put them together then you might as well talk about the Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Baha'i faiths. (Although I prefer to talk about the Irano-Semitc tradition which includes Zoroastrianism.) Then we are no longer talking about a religion started by one man. Otherwise Christianity should be included as one of the religions started by one man, namely Jesus Christ and only Judaism (along with Hinduism) can be considered as a religion with no founder.

So, for her to argue that Paul is a lone voice is a) to ignore the accepted facts about Paul and b) to not apply to the same litmus test to her own faith.

Apparently you missed my point about Paul. Unlike Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab or Baha'u'llah, he is not a manifestation of God. But what I was really objecting to was your suggestion that whatever Paul said is what God revealed. I'm a historian who likes to keep my sources straight.

 

[dlamberth]

Their religion was started by one man. Like every religion on the face of the earth with the exception of the Judeo-Christian faiths.

So, for her to argue that Paul is a lone voice is a) to ignore the accepted facts about Paul and b) to not apply to the same litmus test to her own faith.

There are very few religions that have not been born out of and influenced by other religions.

.

 

[ContraMundum]

There is no such thing as Judeo-Christianity.

You love arguing! LOL

Read carefully what I said next time. I said "the Judeo-Christian faiths."- obviously of which there are two main ones, Judaism and Christianity.

Goodness you love brawling!

Fight! Fight! Fight!

This is why I think for you religion is all between the ears.

Otherwise Christianity should be included as one of the religions started by one man, namely Jesus Christ and only Judaism (along with Hinduism) can be considered as a religion with no founder.

Nah. Fail. Judaism and Christianty alone both have more than witness to their revelations. Sorry to disappoint you, but Hinduism doesn't either. Baha'i and Islam forget it.

Apparently you missed my point about Paul. Unlike Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab or Baha'u'llah, he is not a manifestation of God. But what I was really objecting to was your suggestion that whatever Paul said is what God revealed. I'm a historian who likes to keep my sources straight.

Then you're a bad historian for knowing nothing about Paul's status in the Christian faith and why it is so! Seriously? Mohammed is a manifestation of God? The "Bab" is too? Sounds to me like you're just a preacher who spins history to suit. IOW- for you your faith decides who is from God or not: not your study of history.

 

[ContraMundum]

There are very few religions that have not been born out of and influenced by other religions.

.

Agreed, but it's not much of a point for this discussion.

 

[smaneck]

You love arguing! LOL

Read carefully what I said next time. I said "the Judeo-Christian faiths."- obviously of which there are two main ones, Judaism and Christianity.

Goodness you love brawling!

Goodness you love insulting. The only way you can say Christianity is not founded by a single man and the Baha'i Faith is, is by trying to make it one with Judaism. You can do that, but that will not make any distinction between Christianity and the Baha'i Faith.

This is why I think for you religion is all between the ears.

Or maybe that's how you can avoid taking the Baha'i claims seriously.

Nah. Fail. Judaism and Christianty alone both have more than witness to their revelations. Sorry to disappoint you, but Hinduism doesn't either. Baha'i and Islam forget it.

That statement doesn't even make sense.

Then you're a bad historian for knowing nothing about Paul's status in the Christian faith and why it is so!

I know he does not have the status of a Christ, a Muhammad or a Baha'u'llah. That his concepts becomes the lens through which most Christians read the Bible, I will not debate.

Seriously? Mohammed is a manifestation of God? The "Bab" is too? Sounds to me like you're just a preacher who spins history to suit.

Who is and who is not a Manifestation of God is not a historical question, any more than whether Jesus is the Son of God can be settled historically. History cannot address anything metaphysical.

IOW- for you your faith decides who is from God or not: not your study of history.

The study of history informs my faith, but history as such cannot even tell us if God exists.

 

[ContraMundum]

Goodness you love insulting. The only way you can say Christianity is not founded by a single man and the Baha'i Faith is, is by trying to make it one with Judaism. You can do that, but that will not make any distinction between Christianity and the Baha'i Faith.

LOL....you're kidding, right? How many authors are to the NT? Hint: more than one. How many witnesses? Hint: more than one. Paul was interviewed and endorsed by how many disciples of Jesus? Again....more than one.

Or maybe that's how you can avoid taking the Baha'i claims seriously.

Baha'i has claims I should take seriously? Which ones and why?

Who is and who is not a Manifestation of God is not a historical question, any more than whether Jesus is the Son of God can be settled historically. History cannot address anything metaphysical.

The study of history informs my faith, but history as such cannot even tell us if God exists.

Then simply quit trying to use your "history" to establish religious facts. You've just torpedoed your own argument.

 

[smaneck]

LOL....you're kidding, right? How many authors are to the NT? Hint: more than one. How many witnesses?

Hint: That doesn't make any of them witnesses.

Hint: more than one. Paul was interviewed and endorsed by how many disciples of Jesus? Again....more than one.

Uh, we only have Paul's word on that. James' Epistle seems to completely contradict what Paul says in Galatians and as for II Peter, well Peter didn't write II Peter. It is a second century work.

Baha'i has claims I should take seriously? Which ones and why?

Just that Baha'u'llah is the Promised One and the Manifestation of God for this Age.

Then simply quit trying to use your "history" to establish religious facts. You've just torpedoed your own argument.

There are some religious 'facts' that can be established by history and some which cannot be. I cannot historically 'prove' the divine origin of any religion, for instance. But I can as a historian say whether II Peter was actually written by the same person who wrote I Peter. (It was not.) I can say whether or not the Epistle associated with James agrees with Galatians. I just have to be able to read a text.

 

[dlamberth]

How many witnesses?

None that I'm aware of.

.

 

[light upon light]

Baha'i has claims I should take seriously? Which ones and why?

Just that Baha'u'llah is the Promised One and the Manifestation of God for this Age.

To help translate this into the Eschatology of Christianity, Baha'u'llah means "The glory of God", or "The Glory of the Father".

 

[LordDuncanBurneWilke]

LOL....you're kidding, right? How many authors are to the NT?

No one really knows. Most scholars I imagine agree that the gospels weren't actually written by a Matt, Luke, Mark and John. Who knows about the Epistles. I doubt John of Patmos was 'the apostle Jesus loved'.

How many witnesses?

I imagine there were several.

Paul was interviewed and endorsed by how many disciples of Jesus?

According to Acts and the Epistles, quite a few.

Baha'i has claims I should take seriously? Which ones and why?

I don't know much about the chap. I looked it up and can't say I like his dislike of booze as I enjoy a stiff knock of the good stuff here and there, but he speaks with wisdom. Divine wisdom. That's usually enough to take one seriously. When people spout nonsense, then you shouldn't take them seriously.

Then simply quit trying to use your "history" to establish religious facts. You've just torpedoed your own argument.

I think she is using history quite well.

 

[ContraMundum]

Hint: That doesn't make any of them witnesses.

Uh, we only have Paul's word on that. James' Epistle seems to completely contradict what Paul says in Galatians and as for II Peter, well Peter didn't write II Peter. It is a second century work.

Are you stuck in the 60's or 70's? All that higher criticism stuff is pretty much done and dusted, and also your interpretation is rather...well slack and lazy. Sure, you might have something in common with liberal Christians (are there any still left? A few oldies who just haven't died yet maybe) but seriously, most of those worn out claims are dealt with by better scholarship and up to date discoveries.

Regarding alleged "contradictions" between Paul and James- I have Sunday school kids that could answer that. I don't see any contradiction at all.

Just that Baha'u'llah is the Promised One and the Manifestation of God for this Age.

Prove it.

I know you can't- but you're entitled to follow those claims.

There are some religious 'facts' that can be established by history and some which cannot be. I cannot historically 'prove' the divine origin of any religion, for instance. But I can as a historian say whether II Peter was actually written by the same person who wrote I Peter. (It was not.) I can say whether or not the Epistle associated with James agrees with Galatians. I just have to be able to read a text.

Again, lazy, old moribund scholarship taught you that, and "history" doesn't prove or confirm your assertion. Get with the program.

 

[smaneck]

Are you stuck in the 60's or 70's? All that higher criticism stuff is pretty much done and dusted,

Not in academia it isn't, nor is in any of the mainline seminaries. Scholars have known for a long time that Peter didn't write II Peter and no educated clergyman would suggest he did. Even Origen had doubts about the text. Textual criticism has been around since the 19th century, really since the Renaissance. Lorenzo de Valla first applied it to the Donation of Constantine, proving it to be a forgery. It isn't going anywhere whether you fundamentalists like it or not.

Regarding alleged "contradictions" between Paul and James- I have Sunday school kids that could answer that. I don't see any contradiction at all.

Then you aren't reading the two texts side by side and instead you are trying to reconcile them.

Prove it.

I know you can't- but you're entitled to follow those claims.

No more than you can prove Jesus is the Son of God. I judge the claims of any religious figure by their person, the revelation they claim to bring and the potency of that revelation to transform lives.

Again, lazy, old moribund scholarship taught you that, and "history" doesn't prove or confirm your assertion.

What I was taught is how to read a text, and that includes identifying writing styles which are not consistent between 1 Peter and 2 Peter. The same methods are used to determine which of the epistles associated with Paul are authentic. Rather than respond with cogent arguments all you do is throw labels around in your own intellectual laziness. They won't help you.

Get with the program.

Which program, your's?

 

[Mediate]

Rather than worry about one's soul being "saved" or not, would we not be better off worrying about loving our fellow human beings?

Is it possible that "salvation" in fact comes from compassion and selfless love for others?

I know I feel much closer to God when I am doing God's work - that is, being of service to humanity - than when I am worrying about my own spiritual state.

What I see is that the process defined in most christian sects for being saved requires a ritual setlist to which the party being 'saved' must adhere in order to earn that same salvation.

While sects differ, most promote baptism in water, profession of belief and right understanding of the texts from which christianity has sprung as being prerequisites to 'salvation' from an eternal torture in a place God created for that purpose.

This in itself contradicts the biblical notion that nothing a person can do can 'save' them as salvation is in the hands of Christ, particularly so for those who believe in the predetermination of the life after death of humanity - those who believe that God has already written his 'book of life'. This is a contradiction because, if God has already written his book of life, then what a person does or does not believe on Earth is of no consequence to where they do or don't go after death, unless the purpose of believing is to fulfill God's book of life for those who believe, which creates a paradox in itself since people would never truly have choice to believe or not believe, simply because those who believe and are thus in the book of life would have always believed when presented with the choice to believe or not believe, which is a predetermination taking away the choice of hell or heaven.

The undergoing of the ritual salvation also contradicts the idea of no ritual being correct in the sight of God, and the idea of no compulsion being a true manifestation of character.

The belief that particular interpretations of texts garner for a person the 'gift' (which is usually free, everywhere except christianity) of salvation for oneself also goes against what the bible says on judgement - that it is handed to the son, who has been given all things, and who will 'bring all things to himself' - because the judgement is proposed to be a judgement of the heart and the actions and deeds of the individual, not of their interpretations of specific texts.

The idea of garnering salvation for oneself also denies or at least trivializes the attributes which Jesus held most dear - self sacrifice and selflessness, since such a teaching of garnered salvation promotes the idea that a person should worry first and foremost about their own fate, which in itself creates a paradox where a man's whole life is geared towards finding the textual interpretation that gives him his own salvation from hell and his own place in heaven, which is a means to a selfish end, not an unselfish one like Jesus advocated.

The idea of faith before works also presents a similar paradox, in that if God judges by the heart, which the bible says, then faith in the particular texts means nothing if the heart is not one geared towards giving out and being unselfish. Faith before works doctrines misunderstand that a heart of willing selflessness IS a heart of true faith.

Many, many interpretations of Christianity create complex tensions and paradoxes like this that cannot seem to be resolved except by the doctrine of universal reconciliation, or the reading of the bible as a metaphorical writing of introspective premises, whereby 'hell' is a state of mind as well as 'heaven'.

Universal salvation reflects and confirms the idea that selflessness - thus leading to forgiveness, love of enemies, empathy, compassion for all people, self sacrifice, charity, love and benevolence - is the single most telling attribute of God.

Almost all common interpretations contradict this notion.

 

[ContraMundum]

Not in academia it isn't, nor is in any of the mainline seminaries. Scholars have known for a long time that Peter didn't write II Peter and no educated clergyman would suggest he did. Even Origen had doubts about the text. Textual criticism has been around since the 19th century, really since the Renaissance. Lorenzo de Valla first applied it to the Donation of Constantine, proving it to be a forgery. It isn't going anywhere whether you fundamentalists like it or not.

No offence, but you are really out of touch if that's what you think. There is a resurgence in classical Christian orthodoxy mainly on the back of better and more recent scholarship. I'm sure folks your age still hang in there with 19th-20thC beliefs and ideals, but that stuff really is moribund. I do also accept that fact that you don't like to be contradicted because you are a full-time academic from another religion but the way I see that is more than likely why you won't see it from a different academic perspective. Career academics are rarely wrong in their own estimation.

Then you aren't reading the two texts side by side and instead you are trying to reconcile them.

Me and billions of others throughout history have no problem with James and Paul...and we read them side by side. I don't think you're really interested in any reconcilation though- you need them to be contradictory to validate your own religious convictions.

No more than you can prove Jesus is the Son of God. I judge the claims of any religious figure by their person, the revelation they claim to bring and the potency of that revelation to transform lives.

I think the resurrection pretty much settles the matter, and yes, I think historians that are consistant and honest will acknowledge that you can't just dismiss it as a later construction or myth. I posted a link about that but I doubt you followed it. It did bring up some pretty serious points though.

What I was taught is how to read a text, and that includes identifying writing styles which are not consistent between 1 Peter and 2 Peter. The same methods are used to determine which of the epistles associated with Paul are authentic. Rather than respond with cogent arguments all you do is throw labels around in your own intellectual laziness. They won't help you.

Well, you've been taught wrong- but not unlike people of your generation so I won't blame you. Compare your own writing style of now to twenty years ago- especially to different audiences with different intentions. Very different no doubt. Does that mean you are two different authors?

Also, I don't give detailed answers to people who don't have a genuine interest in discussion. This sub-forum fits that bill well. Out of all the vast universe that is the internet, populated with a plethora of places to absolutely rip on Christianity- you guys pick a Christian forum and pretty much abuse the purpose of it. Very very rarely is there any real discussion about "Christianity and world religion", but instead it's the "rag on the Christians, because I have a gripe" forum. So, why would I bother to dish up details? Show some interest and I might change my mind.

Which program, your's?

No, the one of the 21stC.

 

[smaneck]

No offence, but you are really out of touch if that's what you think. There is a resurgence in classical Christian orthodoxy mainly on the back of better and more recent scholarship.

If you are talking about Neo-Orthodoxy, it does not deny the findings of critical scholarship, including higher criticism.

I'm sure folks your age still hang in there with 19th-20thC beliefs and ideals, but that stuff really is moribund. I do also accept that fact that you don't like to be contradicted because you are a full-time academic from another religion but the way I see that is more than likely why you won't see it from a different academic perspective.

So far you've yet to present an academic perspective. I'll you've done is knock the standard ones, much like the creationists who tell us they can use science to disprove science while breaking every rule of the scientific method.

Me and billions of others throughout history have no problem with James and Paul...and we read them side by side. I don't think you're really interested in any reconcilation though- you need them to be contradictory to validate your own religious convictions.

LOL. I don't need anything from James, but even Luther offered his doctor cap to the person who could reconcile the two. And I can read a text.

I

think the resurrection pretty much settles the matter, and yes, I think historians that are consistant and honest will acknowledge that you can't just dismiss it as a later construction or myth. I posted a link about that but I doubt you followed it. It did bring up some pretty serious points though.

Let's assume for the time being that the Resurrection really did happen. What exactly does that prove?

Compare your own writing style of now to twenty years ago- especially to different audiences with different intentions. Very different no doubt.

Not really.

Also, I don't give detailed answers to people who don't have a genuine interest in discussion.

So that's your excuse for ad hominens and name-calling instead of presenting evidence? Lovely.

This sub-forum fits that bill well. Out of all the vast universe that is the internet, populated with a plethora of places to absolutely rip on Christianity- you guys pick a Christian forum and pretty much abuse the purpose of it. Very very rarely is there any real discussion about "Christianity and world religion", but instead it's the "rag on the Christians, because I have a gripe" forum.

How am I ragging on Christianity? If I became Christian tomorrow I still wouldn't believe that the Prince of the Apostles wrote 11 Peter. Most Christians educated biblical criticism don't. It was Christian scholars who have determined this, not those trying to rag on Christianity.

No, the one of the 21stC.

LOL. Like you know the 'program' of a century not yet 15 years old!

 

[ContraMundum]

If you are talking about Neo-Orthodoxy, it does not deny the findings of critical scholarship, including higher criticism.

Neo-orthodoxy? That's exactly what I mean by old-school. I don't know many people who would call themselves neo-Orthodox today. Actually, I don't know anybody. It's very much the theology of grandpa. It's nice and has some influence I guess, but it's really not on the reading list of any 21stC pastor I know. Sure- retired professors and pastors from dying mainline demoninations might dust off a volume of Barth's Dogmatics when they're bored but I guarantee they don't sell all that well these days.

I rest my case.

LOL. I don't need anything from James, but even Luther offered his doctor cap to the person who could reconcile the two. And I can read a text.

Let's assume for the time being that the Resurrection really did happen. What exactly does that prove?

Not really.

a) Luther was wrong about James and changed his mind- ask any Lutheran. Lutheran dogmatic works accept the full NT canon so his comments on it are not relevant. But then again, you claim to be a Luther scholar so why don't you simply acknowledge that and stop trying to makes points out of context?

b) The resurrection proves everything Jesus said, and thus everything His disciples and Apostles taught. That would mean that your guru guy is a fraud. As is Mohammed.

c) If your writing style and knowledge hasn't changed in twenty years, then you have a growth problem. But then again it does explain where your assertion that 19thC higher critical conclusions are still relevant comes from. Personally, I bet if you honestly compared your first writings to now you would be astonished at how much you've changed and how much your grammar etc has as well.

Your three answers to me above simply prove to me that you're not engaging the discussion, and to be honest, I think you're as flippant about this as I am. They're almost completely missing the point. If you really don't want to engage a point simply snip my posts rather than feel the need to snipe at every sentence.

LOL. Like you know the 'program' of a century not yet 15 years old!

It's the 21stC. That's where I live, and continue to. Differing Christian theologies have a contemporary 21stC program, and they are being developed. What's your problem with that? And why do you care what Christians are doing anyway? I'm confused about that. Wouldn't you grow more in your own religion on a Baha'i forum or perhaps feeding some poor people or something? I can't understand why you are here- you've never said a nice thing about Christianity that I can think of, and I can't imagine you being here to learn.