"True" Christian?

[aiki]

When I refer to what Jesus taught, I'm referring to the four Gospels, so other books in the Bible represent purely what the author thinks, not necessarily what Jesus thinks (and yes, the authors of the Gospels also put their spin on it, more on that in a moment).

Do you know how the canon of Scripture came into being? What you're contending above and in the rest of your post appears to be in ignorance of how the canon of Scripture was defined.

What you are essentially asserting in your response to my question is that the words and deeds of Jesus have supreme authority. All of the rest of the Bible (or at least the New Testament) is unequal to the record of the Gospels. You do this in defiance of both the claims of Scripture itself to being entirely inspired and to the millenia-old Christian view that all of Scripture is, indeed, so inspired.

Further, you have given no reason as to why you are willing to accept the Gospels as divinely-written and trustworthy, but not the other books of the NT. Jesus himself didn't actually pen the Gospels, his followers did - the same followers who wrote the rest of the NT. Why, then, give credence to the Gospels and not to the remainder of the NT? If you can't trust the writing of Christ's followers outside the Gospels, why do so within the Gospels? Do you not see the inconsistency in this approach?

And when you read what Jesus taught, he talks about forgiveness, about repentance, about humility. Humble yourself, treat everyone including the dregs of society with respect, be charitable and loving to everyone, that's what God wants. That's what followers of God should be doing. The only people Jesus ever gets mad at are the church-folk, the Pharisees (ok, he did tell Peter to "get thee back Satan" which is a nice way of saying "go to Hell"). But Jesus doesn't talk about what people have to believe in order to go to Heaven. At least, not in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Actually, yes, he does.

Matthew 5:17-20
17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 5:21-22 (NKJV)
21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.'
22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 9:28-29
28 And when He had come into the house, the blind men came to Him. And Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They said to Him, "Yes, Lord."
29 Then He touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith let it be to you."

Mark 5:36
36 As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, He said to the ruler of the synagogue, "Do not be afraid; only believe."

Mark 9:23-24
23 Jesus said to him, "If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes."
24 Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!"

Mark 16:15-16
15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Luke 8:11-15
11 "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
12 Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.
14 Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity.
15 But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.

Matthew 10:28
28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Mark 9:45-48
45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched--
46 where 'Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'
47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire--
48 where 'Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'

Luke 12:5
5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!

Luke 12:8-10
8 "Also I say to you, whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God.
9 But he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.
10 And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.

I could go on and on but just in these few verses we see Christ emphasizing belief in himself, belief in the gospel, the danger of hell, the necessity of righteousness, and the need to forsake sin.

John is a different story. Three out of four Gospels don't seem to recall Jesus saying that, or consider it important enough to write down (one Gospel doesn't even consider the *resurrection* important enough to mention). But John has Jesus "you must believe in Me" quotes all over the place. Which makes me think John is an outlier, putting his own spin on what Jesus said.

THis is not sufficient reason to justify dismissing John's Gospel as you do. It is plainly evident that, were you not to do this, you could not make the assertions you make about what the Gospels teach. It seems, then, that your objection to John's writing is more in service to your contentions than to the truth. It is common knowledge that the apostle John was not an "outlier" but one of the twelve disciples of Christ and, among those twelve, a favoured disciple. John is also the single greatest contributor to the NT and held in the highest regard by the early Church.

Matthew, Mark and Luke don't record everything in their Gospels identically; they all have their own style and emphasis in their accounts of Christ's life and teaching. This is true of the apostle John, as well. That he differs in emphasis from the other writers by no means justifies dismissing his writing as secondary or suspect.

It doesn't make sense to me that anyone going around saying "believe in Me! It's all about ME!" is going to make an impact on crowds the way Jesus did. I can see the Sermon on the Mount being captivating. Listening to someone talk about how important he Himself is, not so much.

The whole Bible is ultimately about Christ! The over-arching theme of the entire Word of God is God's redemption of humanity; and at the center of that redemption is Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Christ is the gospel; he could not preach salvation without pointing to himself. There is no vanity in this, only necessity.

But that's my humble opinion.

I hope its humble enough to allow you to relinquish your mistaken ideas about what Christ taught.

Peace.

 

[ArteestX]

I responded to this a while ago, but the site went down at that moment and lost my response. So I haven't come back to re-respond until now...

What you are essentially asserting in your response to my question is that the words and deeds of Jesus have supreme authority. All of the rest of the Bible (or at least the New Testament) is unequal to the record of the Gospels. You do this in defiance of both the claims of Scripture itself to being entirely inspired and to the millenia-old Christian view that all of Scripture is, indeed, so inspired.

I do definitely defy (hrmm... try saying that fast five times). Yes, I think the words and deeds of Jesus Christ have more authority in defining Christianity. It doesn't mean I take the Gospels literally or believe everything that's in them. But I do put more weight on those books than, for example, what Paul wrote to the Galatians.

In response to my saying that Jesus didn't talk about what people believe to go to heaven, you posted a wall of text of various scriptures. I don't have time to respond to each one with any substance, other than briefly describe why I don't think these texts overturn what I'm saying. But first, let me say that I don't mean to suggest that Jesus had nothing to say about belief, I'm only saying that phrases like "whosoever believes in Him (Jesus) shall not perish but have eternal life" are only found in John, not the other three gospels. Here's what I mean....

Matthew 5:17-20
Matthew 5:21-22 (NKJV)
talks of actions (following commandments, not murdering) to get to heaven, not belief in Himself

Matthew 9:28-29
Mark 5:36
Mark 9:23-24
nothing suggests belief in Himself as a precondition for getting into heaven

Mark 16:15-16
not considered part of the original gospel and was added onto the end of the book much later

Luke 8:11-15
I think verse 21 right after this upholds what I'm saying, one needs to hear God's word and do God's work. Mere belief isn't enough.

I could go on, but I hope you understand my general point.

That {John} differs in emphasis from the other writers by no means justifies dismissing his writing as secondary or suspect.

You are right about this, and ultimately I don't know what the truth is. But when I read the gospels, it's almost as though Matthew describes Him as red, Luke describes Him as pink, Mark describes Him as burgundy, and John describes Him as neon green. That's how it comes across to me. I'm not saying I should dismiss everything in John, but he does strike me as having a much different description of Jesus than the other three gospels, that's all.

I hope its humble enough to allow you to relinquish your mistaken ideas about what Christ taught. Peace.

I am learning new stuff all the time, and as hard as it is to relinquish long-held ideas, I try to remind myself to be humble. I'm not saying it always works, mind you, but I try. Peace back atcha.

 

[aiki]

I do definitely defy (hrmm... try saying that fast five times). Yes, I think the words and deeds of Jesus Christ have more authority in defining Christianity. It doesn't mean I take the Gospels literally or believe everything that's in them. But I do put more weight on those books than, for example, what Paul wrote to the Galatians.

All you've done here is agree with me that you do defy both the assertion of Scripture and the understanding of millenia of biblical scholarship. Maybe you'd like to give a rationale? Why should your opinion supercede both these things?

But Jesus doesn't talk about what people have to believe in order to go to Heaven. At least, not in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Matthew 5:17-20
Matthew 5:21-22 (NKJV)
talks of actions (following commandments, not murdering) to get to heaven, not belief in Himself

Actually, Jesus was teaching something quite new here. He was setting a brand new standard for behaviour for those listening to him - a standard that exceeded the standard of the most religious Jews in that day. But on what authority could Christ do this? How could he just up and say, "Your righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees." He gives a hint when he says that he came to "fulfill the law and the prophets." In essence, in saying this Jesus was claiming to teach with the authority of the Messiah. So, when Jesus raises the righteousness standard in his Sermon on the Mount, his listeners were being asked not just to accept a new standard of behaviour, but to accept that he had the authority as the Messiah, the Son of God, to set such a standard.

Matthew 9:28-29
Mark 5:36
Mark 9:23-24
nothing suggests belief in Himself as a precondition for getting into heaven

Matthew 9:28-29
28 And when He had come into the house, the blind men came to Him. And Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They said to Him, "Yes, Lord."
29 Then He touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith let it be to you."

Obviously, the question as to where Christ's healing power came from passed through the minds of those who wished to be healed. Many wondered how he was able to heal so completely and easily. Whether or not they understood who Jesus actually was, Jesus was determined that they would understand the value of believing in him. He didn't just heal and then say, "Now you go off and be nice to others." No, he told those he healed that their faith in him was vital to their healing.

Christ's miracles and teaching went hand-in-hand. As I've already explained, Christ's teachings were rooted in the fact that he was the Messiah, the Son of God. His miracles were simply the proof of who he claimed to be. The following passage from Matthew's gospel makes this clear:

Matthew 9:2-8
2 Then behold, they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, "Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven you."
3 And at once some of the scribes said within themselves, "This Man blasphemes!"
4 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts?
5 For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Arise and walk'?
6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins"--then He said to the paralytic, "Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house."
7 And he arose and departed to his house.
8 Now when the multitudes saw it, they marveled and glorified God, who had given such power to men.

Here we have a prime example of how Christ intended that his miracles give witness to his divinity. Its one thing to say, "I am the Messiah, the Son of God"; its quite another to prove it. And this was Jesus' point in the above passage. If he could heal the paralytic man, he would demonstrate his "power on earth to forgive sins," which, as the response of the scribes indicates, was understood to be only something God could do. Though the people looking on didn't understand fully, Christ's miracle at that moment was as much a declaration of his divinity as anything he taught.

Luke 8:11-15
I think verse 21 right after this upholds what I'm saying, one needs to hear God's word and do God's work. Mere belief isn't enough.

True, mere belief is not enough. But this doesn't prove that Christ didn't teach about how one's belief affects one's entrance into heaven. In fact, the whole Sower and the Seed parable explains that if one didn't believe and act positively on that belief, then one will meet finally with destruction. Implicit in the parable and in what Christ says in verse 21 is the fact that action springs out of belief.

I could go on, but I think you get my point.

You are right about this, and ultimately I don't know what the truth is. But when I read the gospels, it's almost as though Matthew describes Him as red, Luke describes Him as pink, Mark describes Him as burgundy, and John describes Him as neon green. That's how it comes across to me. I'm not saying I should dismiss everything in John, but he does strike me as having a much different description of Jesus than the other three gospels, that's all.

You were initially trying to dismiss almost everything the apostle John wrote based on how his emphasis "struck you." This is a profoundly subjective - and potentially myopic - approach to understanding the Bible.

Peace.

 

[ArteestX]

All you've done here is agree with me that you do defy both the assertion of Scripture and the understanding of millenia of biblical scholarship. Maybe you'd like to give a rationale? Why should your opinion supercede both these things?

My opinion is only my opinion. I base it on my reading of the Bible, my reading of biblical scholarship (which has changed immensely in the last 50 years), and what makes sense to me given my logic, worldview, and experiences. But it is ultimately just my opinion.

True, mere belief is not enough. But this doesn't prove that Christ didn't teach about how one's belief affects one's entrance into heaven. In fact, the whole Sower and the Seed parable explains that if one didn't believe and act positively on that belief, then one will meet finally with destruction. Implicit in the parable and in what Christ says in verse 21 is the fact that action springs out of belief.

I could go on, but I think you get my point.

I agree with "action comes from belief." And Jesus does talk about belief. But Matthew 25: 31-45 and Matthew 7:15-27 make it abundantly clear that entrance into heaven is based on how you treat others and not on belief. And you're doing a lot of indirect mental gymnastics in the rest of your post to try to show that Jesus does in fact argue that belief in Himself is the most important criteria to going to heaven. And I don't find it convincing, I'm sorry.

 

[aiki]

I agree with "action comes from belief." And Jesus does talk about belief. But Matthew 25: 31-45 and Matthew 7:15-27 make it abundantly clear that entrance into heaven is based on how you treat others and not on belief. And you're doing a lot of indirect mental gymnastics in the rest of your post to try to show that Jesus does in fact argue that belief in Himself is the most important criteria to going to heaven. And I don't find it convincing, I'm sorry.

Well, of course you don't find it convincing; my comments disagree sharply with your own. But this, by itself, is not a good reason to dismiss my explanations.

As far as the "mental gymnastics" are concerned, my last post simply repeated what is widely known and taught in evangelical Christianity. I have heard essentially the same things I shared with you preached from many pulpits over the years.

Rather than simply saying, "Its not convincing," perhaps you could give a distinct reason why what I say is false. Please show me from the text itself where my comments do violence to it.

Really, I think what you are characterizing as "mental gymnastics" is actually just a careful reading of the text.

Peace.

 

[jpcedotal]

Now my brain hurts.....

 

[ArteestX]

Rather than simply saying, "Its not convincing," perhaps you could give a distinct reason why what I say is false. Please show me from the text itself where my comments do violence to it.

Let me put it this way; in John, Jesus says "believe in me to go to heaven" all over the place...

• John 5:21-24 -- For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life
• John 6:28-29 -- Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
• John 6:47-48 -- I tell you the truth, he who believes in me has everlasting life. I am the bread of life.
• John 11: 25-26 -- Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies and whoever lives and believes in me will never die."
• John 17: 1-3 -- After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

That's what I call direct. No indirect "proving divinity through miracles that establish his authority as God," no subtle "setting new standards above normal Judaism for behavior only possible for a Messiah." No, it's a direct, straight-up "believe in me for everlasting life." Period. Simple, clear, direct. Can you list a quote in Matthew, Mark, or Luke where Jesus says belief in Him is necessary for heaven? Anything akin to these passages above? Sure, Jesus says faith can heal, belief makes things possible, etc. But where does Jesus directly connect belief in Him to heaven and/or everlasting life in those three books?

 

[aiki]

Can you list a quote in Matthew, Mark, or Luke where Jesus says belief in Him is necessary for heaven? Anything akin to these passages above? Sure, Jesus says faith can heal, belief makes things possible, etc. But where does Jesus directly connect belief in Him to heaven and/or everlasting life in those three books?

Well, if you want direct how about this?:

Matthew 10:32-33
32 "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.
33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. (see also Lu. 11:8, 9)

And:

Matthew 10:37-39
37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

And again:

Matthew 16:24-25
24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.
25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. (see also Mk. 8:34, 35)

Matthew 18:3
3 and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Mark 16:15-16
15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Luke 11:23
23 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.

In spite of the completely artificial separation you've made between the first three Gospels and the last Gospel of John, it is still possible to see that Christ did plainly teach in the first three Gospels that he was the Messiah and that belief in this fact was vital to entrance into Heaven.

Peace.

 

[ArteestX]

I'm short of time, so I'm going to discuss two of the three books you quoted....

Mark 16:15-16
Current biblical scholarship says this passage wasn't written by the author of Mark. Everything after verse 8 of this chapter is what someone else, not Mark, wrote much much later.

Luke 11:23
I fail to see how this directly relates to heaven or everlasting life when heaven or everlasting life isn't mentioned. Especially when the context of this passage has nothing to do with the afterlife but on the accusation that he can drive away demons because he is demonic himself, and his answer is that "a house divided against itself will fail" and then goes into this passage.

I'll cover Matthew later when I have more time.....

edit: and now here's my bit about the Matthew passages:

Matthew 10:32-33
Matthew 10:37-39
These passages aren't about getting into heaven, this is Jesus giving his disciples a pep talk before sending them out to preach his Gospel. And what does that entail? It's right there at the beginning...

Matthew 10:7-12 -- As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep. Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you.....

So you need to go heal the sick, help people with disease and demons, don't look for monetary rewards, be humble and thankful to those who welcome you. This is a pep rally for his disciples to go out into the world, do good deeds, and proclaim Jesus's message. And because they are doing all this, not based on belief alone, they will be rewarded in heaven.

Matthew 16:24-25
This isn't about belief getting you into heaven, this is about not being afraid of death. Jesus is predicting his death, Peter is saying "I won't allow it", Jesus tells him to go to Hell and don't be afraid of dying for what you believe in. This is not the same as "believe in me and you'll have everlasting life." In fact, right after this verse 27 says explicitly, "For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done." Note, not what each person according to what he believes, what he has done. But the context as a whole is about not being afraid of death in order to help bring God's kingdom to Earth.

Matthew 18:3
Most translations don't say "convert", they say "unless you change and become as little children" meaning you need to humble yourself. Which is then followed by several stories of forgiving others and that you must show mercy to others for God to have mercy on you. The context of this passage is about forgiveness and humility as the crucial point, not belief in Jesus.

 

[aiki]

Mark 16:15-16
Current biblical scholarship says this passage wasn't written by the author of Mark. Everything after verse 8 of this chapter is what someone else, not Mark, wrote much much later.

Uh huh. I wonder what current biblical scholarship will say fifty years from now...
I wonder: Are these same liberal, "biblical" scholars who want us to believe that almost none of what Jesus is quoted as saying he actually said?

In any case, it is included in the canon of Scripture and has been for quite a while now.

Luke 11:23
I fail to see how this directly relates to heaven or everlasting life when heaven or everlasting life isn't mentioned. Especially when the context of this passage has nothing to do with the afterlife but on the accusation that he can drive away demons because he is demonic himself, and his answer is that "a house divided against itself will fail" and then goes into this passage.

My main point in posting most of the verses that I did was to establish that Christ placed himself at the center of why and how people followed him. He didn't say, "Be nice to each other and you'll get to Heaven someday." No, instead, he made himself an integral part - actually, the main part - of the way to Heaven. The verse from Luke you cite above I referenced in demonstration of how centrally Christ positioned himself in his message of the kingdom of heaven. Two camps are identified by Christ in this verse: Those who are with him and those who are not. Jesus leaves no middle ground, or additional groups into which people are divided. One is either for him or not; and if one is not, he works in direct opposition to Christ's purposes. Christ makes no distinctions here based on pious conduct, or good deeds, but solely upon direct affiliation with himself.

Matthew 10:32-33
Matthew 10:37-39
These passages aren't about getting into heaven, this is Jesus giving his disciples a pep talk before sending them out to preach his Gospel. And what does that entail? It's right there at the beginning...

Matthew 10:7-12 -- As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep. Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you.....

So you need to go heal the sick, help people with disease and demons, don't look for monetary rewards, be humble and thankful to those who welcome you. This is a pep rally for his disciples to go out into the world, do good deeds, and proclaim Jesus's message. And because they are doing all this, not based on belief alone, they will be rewarded in heaven.

Wow. I am amazed at your capacity to gloss over the obvious! Even in view of the passage you quote above, you haven't managed to alter or lessen the fact that, in the verses I posted, Christ makes himself the prime issue in following him. In these verses Christ stipulates the following for those who would be his disciples:

1). One must love Christ before all others.
2). One must confess Christ before men.
3). One must be willing to lose his life for Christ's sake.
4). One must take up the cross of self-sacrifice, just as Christ did, in order to properly follow him.

All of these things, Christ makes clear, are non-negotiable for those who would follow him. In essence, these verses establish that Christ must be the primary focus of one's love and life. Obviously, if this is not the case, one must be in doubt about the genuiness of one's discipleship. As these verses explain, mere good works are not at the heart of what it means to follow Christ; it is Christ himself who occupies this place. All the things Christ commands his disciples to do in Matthew 10:7-12 are as a consequence of the central position Christ has been given in their lives. This seems to me to be very apparent...

Matthew 16:24-25
This isn't about belief getting you into heaven, this is about not being afraid of death. Jesus is predicting his death, Peter is saying "I won't allow it", Jesus tells him to go to Hell and don't be afraid of dying for what you believe in. This is not the same as "believe in me and you'll have everlasting life." In fact, right after this verse 27 says explicitly, "For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done." Note, not what each person according to what he believes, what he has done. But the context as a whole is about not being afraid of death in order to help bring God's kingdom to Earth.

First, I should point out that what Christ literally said to Peter was, "Get behind me, you adversary." He did not tell Peter to "go to Hell." This is the characterization of modern, liberal, Christians who would like to increase the shock value of Christ's words and justify their own use of crude language.

Again, your observations on the verses I posted ignore completely the very explicit point of them.

Matthew 16:24-25
24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.
25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. (see also Mk. 8:34, 35)

Here, once again, Christ makes himself the focal point of what it means to be a Christian. If one wants to be a Christ follower, a Christian, Jesus commands that one "deny himself, take up his cross in emulation of Christ, and follow him." One must even be willing to lose his life for Christ's sake. All these things were - and are - to mark out Christ's disciples. It is not simply doing good that would distinguish a person as one of Christ's but a clear, personal allegiance to Christ himself. People can do good deeds completely apart from any connection to Christ. But such people do so with a wrong base motive. The writers of the Gospels in question make it clear that what distinguishes a Christian from all other do-gooders is a total commitment to following Jesus Christ. This commitment to, this love for Jesus, is to be the well-spring of Christian righteousness. Without this love, and the consequent covering of such a person in the righteousness of Christ, no amount of doing good will be acceptable to a perfectly holy God.

Peace.

 

[ArteestX]

All I asked is if there were a passage in Matthew, Mark, or Luke where Jesus said "believe in me for everlasting life" as he did in John umpteen times. Something similarly clear and unambiguous. Not if Jesus made a demonstration on how centrally Christ positioned himself in his message of the kingdom of heaven, not if Jesus saw himself as the well-spring of Christian righteousness, not if Jesus gave commands to the disciples as a consequence of the central position of Christ in one's life. John quotes Jesus many many times "believe in me for eternal life" or some derivation of that. And the other three Gospels do not. Yes, Jesus talks of the importance of belief. Yes, Jesus talks of good works being accompanied with the love of God. But He doesn't say directly and clearly "believe in me for everlasting life" in the other three Gospels. That's all I was trying to say.

For the record, the "go to hell" comment was actually something I heard from a conservative, fundamentalist minister on television many many moons ago. I did not mean to offend.

Without this love {and commitment to Christ}, and the consequent covering of such a person in the righteousness of Christ, no amount of doing good will be acceptable to a perfectly holy God.

All I can say is that Matthew 25: 31-46 makes it pretty clear that belief isn't the criteria for heaven. Loving the least of them *was* loving Christ.

 

[aiki]

All I asked is if there were a passage in Matthew, Mark, or Luke where Jesus said "believe in me for everlasting life" as he did in John umpteen times. Something similarly clear and unambiguous. Not if Jesus made a demonstration on how centrally Christ positioned himself in his message of the kingdom of heaven, not if Jesus saw himself as the well-spring of Christian righteousness, not if Jesus gave commands to the disciples as a consequence of the central position of Christ in one's life. John quotes Jesus many many times "believe in me for eternal life" or some derivation of that. And the other three Gospels do not. Yes, Jesus talks of the importance of belief. Yes, Jesus talks of good works being accompanied with the love of God. But He doesn't say directly and clearly "believe in me for everlasting life" in the other three Gospels. That's all I was trying to say.

And I'm saying, that while the other writers of the Gospels don't use exactly the same words and phrases as the apostle John, they nonetheless communicate exactly the same message: Entrance into the kingdom of heaven is only through belief in, and submission to, Christ. This is the central tenet of The Gospel. All of the things Christ commands his disciples to do in the first three Gospels is predicated on their belief in him as the Messiah, the Saviour of the world.

All I can say is that Matthew 25: 31-46 makes it pretty clear that belief isn't the criteria for heaven. Loving the least of them *was* loving Christ.

But why is that distinction important? Why does Jesus draw attention to the fact that loving "the least of these" was an act of love toward himself? Is a Muslim who loves someone through an act of kindness, loving Christ? How about a buddhist, or a pagan? Obviously not. In doing good they seek to serve someone else entirely. Do their acts of kindness, then, secure them a place in heaven where Christ - not Muhammad, or Buddha, or some pagan deity - sits at the right hand of God? From the passage in question we can see that the answer is "no." And this is because Christ is at the heart of the matter. The acts of kindness mentioned in Matthew 25:31-46 are very specifically aimed at those whom Christ calls "my brethren," (see Mark 3:32-35) not just anyone, anywhere. You can be sure that the primary focus of a Muslim's good deeds will not be toward Christians, but toward other Muslims. Same thing with Buddhists. Their priests and temples primarily serve other Buddhists. This is true also of Christians. The main focus of their service and good deeds is upon other Christians, which is the underlying point in Matthew 25:31-46. As a general principle, it is Christians who serve other Christians, which is why their service appears to be the sole basis upon which they gain entrance to heaven in the passage in Matthew. It is tacitly understood that this service arises out of a love for, and faith in, Christ.

If you refuse to take all of what Christ says and does together in understanding his message, you're going to continue to make the erroneous assumptions you're making about what the gospel really is. The thing is, you can't afford to get this wrong. Making mistakes in this matter has very serious, eternal consequences, which is why I'm taking such pains to discuss all of this with you.

Peace.

Peace.

 

[ArteestX]

Why does Jesus draw attention to the fact that loving "the least of these" was an act of love toward himself? Is a Muslim who loves someone through an act of kindness, loving Christ? How about a buddhist, or a pagan? Obviously not.

I fundamentally disagree with you. I think the radical nature of Jesus's message is that *anyone* helping the least of them is helping Jesus. We all take for granted the Good Samaritan story, and we don't appreciate how Samaritans were thought of back then. Replace "Samaritan" with "Muslim" or "Buddhist" or "Pagan" and we might have a better sense today of what Jesus was trying to teach.

The acts of kindness mentioned in Matthew 25:31-46 are very specifically aimed at those whom Christ calls "my brethren," (see Mark 3:32-35) not just anyone, anywhere.

There isn't anything in these passages limiting who does and doesn't count as brethren. Mark quotes Jesus as saying anyone who DOES my Father's will (which is to love your neighbor) is his brethren. It IS anyone, anywhere who is being loving, forgiving, and compassionate. *That* is the radical message of Jesus.

You can be sure that the primary focus of a Muslim's good deeds will not be toward Christians, but toward other Muslims. Same thing with Buddhists. Their priests and temples primarily serve other Buddhists. This is true also of Christians. The main focus of their service and good deeds is upon other Christians, which is the underlying point in Matthew 25:31-46. As a general principle, it is Christians who serve other Christians, which is why their service appears to be the sole basis upon which they gain entrance to heaven in the passage in Matthew.

Perhaps you are sure, but I fundamentally disagree. I don't think good Muslims are only concerned with Muslims, or good Buddhists only concerned with Buddhists. I don't see them that way at all. Christian charity doesn't only count if it's for Christians. In fact, I would argue that Christian charity that focuses on Christians isn't being charitable and is not following the tenets of Jesus. I cannot disagree enough with this sentiment, I'm sorry.

The thing is, you can't afford to get this wrong. Making mistakes in this matter has very serious, eternal consequences, which is why I'm taking such pains to discuss all of this with you.

I appreciate the concern, and I understand it's coming from a good place.

 

[aiki]

I fundamentally disagree with you. I think the radical nature of Jesus's message is that *anyone* helping the least of them is helping Jesus. We all take for granted the Good Samaritan story, and we don't appreciate how Samaritans were thought of back then. Replace "Samaritan" with "Muslim" or "Buddhist" or "Pagan" and we might have a better sense today of what Jesus was trying to teach.

The Good Samaritan parable was in response to the question, "Who is my neighbor?" Its point was rather different from that which Christ makes in Matthew 25. Certainly, Christians are to help others no matter who they are - as the Good Samaritan parable illustrates. But my "neighbor" and my "brother," as Christ taught it, are two very different people.

There isn't anything in these passages limiting who does and doesn't count as brethren. Mark quotes Jesus as saying anyone who DOES my Father's will (which is to love your neighbor) is his brethren. It IS anyone, anywhere who is being loving, forgiving, and compassionate. *That* is the radical message of Jesus.

Now you're contradicting yourself. You begin, in the quotation above, by saying there is no limitation set by the passage in Mark and then go on to explain what Mark meant by the limitation he does set in the passage. Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. It seems to me that, even when you want to, you can't escape the plain statement of the verses: Only those who do the will of God are Christ's brethren.

I would ask you why Christ makes the qualification, "Who does the will of God" rather than, "Who loves their neighbor"? What is the difference? The difference is that, in the former instance, the motive for good deeds is specifically God-centered, but in the latter instance it is not. It is the difference between a Christian loving another and an atheist loving another. You would contend that both, no matter their motive, do the will of God when they show kindness to someone. Is this what Christ taught, however? No, it isn't.

Matthew 7:21-23
21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

If the simple act of doing good were the sole basis upon which we gain entrance into heaven, then those in the above passage who were sent away should not have been. They freed people from demonic possession, they preached and performed miracles in Christ's name. These people were doing good things and yet it wasn't sufficient to gain them entrance into heaven. So, what was the problem? Christ says, "I never knew you." But being their Creator, we know that he did know them. So, what did he really mean? Jesus goes on to explain:

Matthew 7:26-27
26 But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand:
27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.

Hang on. Didn't Christ emphasize doing the will of the Father? Why now does he hang everything on doing what he himself has taught? Could it be that Christ believed he was teaching with the authority of the Father? Could it be that, as far as Jesus was concerned, doing the will of God and obedience to his own teachings were one and the same thing? I think so. And why was this? Because Christ acted and taught as the Messiah, the prophesied Saviour, the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

So, is Jesus condemning casting out demons and preaching and performing miracles in his name? Does he send away those who were doing these things because of what it was they did? I don't think so. Christ's own disciples did such things with his approval. No, it seems plain to me that the problem wasn't with what was done, but with why it was done. And so we come back to the motive issue. It seems clear to me, given the above passage from Matthew 7 that an atheist's good deeds aren't going to be held on par with a Christian's. And that is because an atheist, or any non-Christian, won't be doing good out of obedience to Christ and his teachings like a Christian would be.

Perhaps you are sure, but I fundamentally disagree. I don't think good Muslims are only concerned with Muslims, or good Buddhists only concerned with Buddhists. I don't see them that way at all. Christian charity doesn't only count if it's for Christians. In fact, I would argue that Christian charity that focuses on Christians isn't being charitable and is not following the tenets of Jesus. I cannot disagree enough with this sentiment, I'm sorry.

I wondered as I wrote if you would take this tack. I didn't, to be precise, say the only good a Muslim, or Buddhist, or Christian might do is toward their own. Please re-read what I wrote.

Peace.

 

[ArteestX]

But my "neighbor" and my "brother," as Christ taught it, are two very different people...... Only those who do the will of God are Christ's brethren.

Absolutely right. But I think Jesus's definition of brethren is broader than what you say Jesus's definition is.


Matthew 7:21-23
I almost used this passage in my previous response, but I suspected you would read it differently. You link "knowing Christ" to belief, demonstrating that works alone is insufficient. But I come away with a very different reading. To me, Jesus is saying "you can call yourself religious if you want, say Lord Lord and all that, but that doesn't mean you are." In fact, throughout the gospels, Jesus *does* get mad at people --- those who see themselves as religious. He overturns tables in the temple, he decries the Pharisees, he rebukes crowds trying to stone a prostitute. He never gets mad at a prostitute, or tax collector, or those with leprosy, or any of the other sinners and, contrary to popular belief, says the god-awful Samaritan is doing God's will. His words of anger are only for those who wrap themselves in religiosity yet cannot forgive, show compassion, or help those in need.

Look, I don't think Jesus is some ultra-liberal saying "all you need is love" and "loving others is all you need to do." He does discuss the need for belief, for seeking to do the will of God. But I don't think Jesus is some firebrand evangelical telling everyone belief is the only thing that will save you from the pits of hell (once you get out of John). Jesus hung out with the prostitutes and fishermen telling the religious leaders of the day that they have corrupted the word of God. I think if Jesus were to come back today, he would hanging out with the homosexuals and homeless telling the evangelicals that they have also corrupted the word of God. But ultimately, that's a statement of faith.

 

[aiki]

Matthew 7:21-23
I almost used this passage in my previous response, but I suspected you would read it differently. You link "knowing Christ" to belief, demonstrating that works alone is insufficient. But I come away with a very different reading. To me, Jesus is saying "you can call yourself religious if you want, say Lord Lord and all that, but that doesn't mean you are."

Well, so far, we are agreed.

In fact, throughout the gospels, Jesus *does* get mad at people --- those who see themselves as religious. He overturns tables in the temple, he decries the Pharisees, he rebukes crowds trying to stone a prostitute. He never gets mad at a prostitute, or tax collector, or those with leprosy, or any of the other sinners and, contrary to popular belief, says the god-awful Samaritan is doing God's will. His words of anger are only for those who wrap themselves in religiosity yet cannot forgive, show compassion, or help those in need.

No, Jesus doesn't get mad at the tax collector, or prostitute, or the lepers, but he does confront them on the matter of their sin and their belief. The woman at the well is exposed as an adulteress and commanded by Christ to cease her life of sin. The tax collector Zacchaeus is provoked by his time with Christ to repay fourfold what he had stolen through his tax collecting. The leper is told by Jesus, "Your faith has made you well." Christ's contact may have been gentler with these people, but it was still very pointed and demanding. They had to believe he was who he said he was and do as he commanded them to do. Its the same for those who wish to be Christians today.

Look, I don't think Jesus is some ultra-liberal saying "all you need is love" and "loving others is all you need to do." He does discuss the need for belief, for seeking to do the will of God. But I don't think Jesus is some firebrand evangelical telling everyone belief is the only thing that will save you from the pits of hell (once you get out of John).

I agree with you. I think that genuine belief in Christ as Saviour always produces corresponding action. Simply saying, "I believe" without any expression of that belief in conduct is not enough. I think this is why, in the case of Zacchaeus for example, that it is not until Zacchaeus promises to return what he had stolen that Jesus says, "Today salvation has come to this house..." Zacchaeus believed that Jesus was who he was saying he was, but acting on that belief was solid evidence of the sincerity and depth of that belief.

Jesus hung out with the prostitutes and fishermen telling the religious leaders of the day that they have corrupted the word of God. I think if Jesus were to come back today, he would hanging out with the homosexuals and homeless telling the evangelicals that they have also corrupted the word of God. But ultimately, that's a statement of faith.

I don't agree. The Bible says that when Christ returns he will be coming for his bride, the Church.

When Christ walked this earth, there were as yet no Christians - in the fullest, born-again sense of the term. Not so today. There are literally millions of Christ followers around the world at the moment. Some of them are suffering terribly for their faith in the Saviour. I think Jesus would, first and foremost, wish to be with them.

Peace.

 

[donb1959]

C S Lewis
If we only have the will to walk, then God is pleased with our stumbles.

C S Lewis
Love is unselfishly choosing for another's highest good.

William Wordsworth
We bow our heads before Thee, and we laud, And magnify thy name Almighty God! But man is thy most awful instrument, In working out a pure intent.

Shalom,
DonB

 

[2 King]

Back when I was a christian, I had often heard my pastor talking about some christians being "true" christians, while others are merely playing with the religion.

So, what is a "True" Christian?

Jesus is the perfect example of a "true" Christian. With that said, it is hard to imagine anyone being a "true" Christian then. But a second example that comes to mind is St. Paul, the Apostle. He was a "slave" to Christ, in the most loving way. He once wrote, "So I am willing to endure anything if it will bring salvation and eternal glory in Christ Jesus to those God has chosen."- 2 Timothy 2:10
I firmly believe that "true" Christians have that attitude. Just remember, that some of us a growing Christians who are still on the "milk" and have yet to move to the "solid food".

 

[silscr]

A true Christian to me, is someone who trully loves God and therefore can trully LOVE ME.

 

[silscr]

Hi SGal

I really have enjoyed reading your posts.

I hope to see more of you and your posts around here.

My answer lol to your question is still "LOVE."

Have a good day today