Christianity question

[grampster]

"2a.  Not really.  To say that a child or retarded person is "not accountable" is not to say that they are Christians, merely that God will not hold them accountable for their sins."  (fistful)

My own limited view of this is grounded in part in Ecclesiastes.  Narrowing our view of the book a bit to the above quoted comment, The Teacher constantly speaks of life being "meaningless" but at the same time reminding us that we are to be held accountable for our choices in our "meaningless" life by God.  Profound notion, that.  The implication imo, is that we are able to make free will choices or have the ability of discernment, so we will be accountable.  We have no excuse.  Sort of releases those who do not or cannot discern or make choices due to age or infirmity.  The overarching lesson of Ecclesiastes is that we not give in to our dark side as our lives don't have much meaning, (giving in to the dark side would be selfish and greedy) but to enjoy our lives no matter our circumstance while being thankful for what we do have and cognizant that what we choose or do or don't do, is fully noted by the Almighty.

On the other hand, scripture also tells us that we are not able to understand the ways of God.  We don't even know the why of creation itself other than it was for His purpose and His will to do so.  It might be better advice for Christians to ponder less the unanswerable questions and instead apply each of ourselves to what we as individuals should understand and act or not act upon.

[MicroBalrog]

Any Jew will tell you that the use of wine is mandatory in the Passover evening.

[grampster]

Paul himself advised Timothy to have a bit of wine to aid in digestion or ameliorate a bit of stomach distress.  Modest use of red wine is found to be a healthy practice.

Paul also was inspired to tell us that all things are permissable, but that all things may not be beneficial.  Goes to our ability of discernment.  A little wine = good.  A lot of wine = whine.

This thread is starting to be fun and interesting as well as typical APS behaviour with hot button issues.  Good on us.

[Stand_watie]

...1b.  You have trouble with the idea that Jews who believe that Jesus was divine could be considered Christians?  Am I missing something? ...

I don't have any trouble with that. I don't know where you got the idea I did.

[roo_ster]

Grampster hit the nail on the head.  Also, check out the second quote in my sig.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't have any trouble with that. I don't know where you got the idea I did.

I was thinking of this:

    1. Rightous Old Testament folks and Jews who believe in the divinity of Christ are also "Christians", or....

I guess you were talking about Jews who believe the Christ (who is not Jesus, in their view) will be divine? 

Also, I thought you were disapproving of all the points of view you cited.  Perhaps not?

[lupinus]

I think it falls under that Jews who lived below Jesus time, but had faith in the coming messiah and need for him, not those who lived at the same time or have come since and have denied him.

[MechAg94]

What do y'all mean when you say "Righteous people who have not heard the gospel"? 
My understanding is that the Bible teaches us that ALL men commit sin no matter how good they appear.  That means no man is Righteous in God's eyes, which is the whole point of Jesus offering himself as a sacrifice for the sins of all mankind since he was without sin.

[Perd Hapley]

We're talking about people who would become Christians, but they've never heard about Jesus.  Usually, that refers to people in deep, dark jungles or other places without much communication with the outside world. 

They're "righteous" in contrast to others. 

[Stand_watie]

What do y'all mean when you say "Righteous people who have not heard the gospel"? 
My understanding is that the Bible teaches us that ALL men commit sin no matter how good they appear.  That means no man is Righteous in God's eyes, which is the whole point of Jesus offering himself as a sacrifice for the sins of all mankind since he was without sin.

I didn't mean righteous in the sense that they meet God's standard of perfection, but rather that they lived well enough to fall under God's grace, absent having either the revealed "Old Law" or the Christian understanding of salvation through faith by grace. Examples would be Job, and Noah.

***

I. WHY NOAH FOUND GRACE IN THE EYES OF THE LORD

   A. HE WAS "A JUST MAN" - Gen 6:9
      1. Some translations say "righteous"
      2. This likely refers to his moral relation to God (Keil &
         Delitzsch)

   B. HE WAS "PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS" - Gen 6:9
      1. Other translations (NASV, NIV) use the word "blameless"
      2. Not that he was sinless, but that there were no blatant faults
      3. He was a man of moral integrity among the people

   C. HE "WALKED WITH GOD" - Gen 6:9
      1. This is how he manifested his righteousness and integrity
         (Keil & Delitzsch)
      2. In walking with God, he imitated the example of Enoch, his
         great-grandfather - Gen 5:24
      3. Walking with God in Noah's case likely involved...
         a. Calling upon the name of the Lord (which began in the days
            of Seth - Gen 4:26)
         b. Offering sacrifices to God (which began in the days of Cain
            & Abel - Gen 4:3-4)

   D. HE "DID ACCORDING TO ALL THAT THE LORD COMMANDED HIM"
      1. Twice this is emphasized in the Scriptures - Gen 6:22; 7:5
      2. We learn from the writer of Hebrews that this obedience of
         Noah came from faith - He 11:7

   E. HE WAS "A PREACHER OF RIGHTEOUSNESS" - 2Pe 2:5
      1. He not only "lived" a righteous life
      2. But he also "proclaimed" the need for righteousness, even though
         he lived in a very ungodly world

[Noah certainly was an unusual man, but perhaps we see well why only he
and his family "found grace in the eyes of the Lord."

[Stand_watie]

I was thinking of this:

I guess you were talking about Jews who believe the Christ (who is not Jesus, in their view) will be divine? 

Also, I thought you were disapproving of all the points of view you cited.  Perhaps not?

I was referring to Jews who believe Jesus of Nazareth was divine and the Christ, and I don't at all disapprove of the views I cited. I don't claim to understand or be able to quantify or qualify God's grace. I know what I believe is right for me, that there is one way to heaven through Jesus... but I don't claim to know for sure that someone from darkest Peru who has no knowledge of Jesus cannot find Grace in the eyes of God. My answer to that question is simply "I don't know".

[grampster]

"My answer to that question is simply "I don't know"."

And that my friend is the best answer one can give to an unaswerable question. 

[lupinus]

"My answer to that question is simply "I don't know"."

And that my friend is the best answer one can give to an unaswerable question. 

Yep. One of mans greatest faults is the "need to know or understand". The fact is God has revealed to us what he has deemed necessary, if he wanted us to know more details on a subject he would have revealed them.

Those things we simply don't know we don't need to know and should trust in Gods will and judgment. Those things we do know, but the process did not get explained in detail, we know enough. At the Last supper Jesus said this is my body, this is my blood. We know this is his body and blood because that is what he said. We know Jesus fed several thousand on what should have fed a handful, rose the dead back to life, etc. Modern science can try and explain these things or people can deny them and question them, but we know them to be true through faith. If we needed to know exactly how they were accomplished, God would have revealed the process. He didn't wish us to know or didn't think we needed to know, that's good enough for me.

[Perd Hapley]

I was referring to Jews who believe Jesus of Nazareth was divine and the Christ, and I don't at all disapprove of the views I cited. I don't claim to understand or be able to quantify or qualify God's grace. I know what I believe is right for me, that there is one way to heaven through Jesus... but I don't claim to know for sure that someone from darkest Peru who has no knowledge of Jesus cannot find Grace in the eyes of God. My answer to that question is simply "I don't know".

I more or less agree.  I think scripture gives us some hints on that score, but not much. 

[grampster]

They perhaps don't "find" grace.  Rather they are given grace, the same we who have knowlege have been given grace because we chose to accept it.  Grace is not a wage, it is a gift.

[Matthew Carberry]

The fruit of the vine as indicated in the Book of Luke, would have been unfermented grape juice, not wine, in order for the passover prohibition against leaven to be complied with.

Nonsense.

You're selectively pulling Scripture to prove your point.  Any text out of context is pretext.

Luke 22:13 [NIV]

13 They left and found things just as Jesus had told them.  So they prepared the Passover.
14 When the hour came, Jesus and His apostles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the Kingdom of God." 17 After taking the cup He gave thanks and said, "take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes."

The verses, taken in context, are merely Christ informing His apostles that He wouldn't be around next Passover.

Jews used wine for the Passover feast, Jesus was an observent Jew, ipso facto He had no problem with wine at Passover which therefore transfers to Communion.

[CAnnoneer]

I think pretty much all major successful religions have a bunch of anti-sociopathic precepts, to allow for an organized workable society. What in my mind places Christianity apart from the pack is the idea that "The meek shall inherit the Earth". This concept is so alien to real life that in makes a big impression on me.

[Perd Hapley]

I hope you were not under the impression that "the meek shall inherit the earth" is proposed as a law or principle of normal human relations.  I, at least, have always thought of it as a promise for believers that the rights of the oppressed would be restored at the final eschaton. 

[CAnnoneer]

I hope you were not under the impression that "the meek shall inherit the earth" is proposed as a law or principle of normal human relations.  I, at least, have always thought of it as a promise for believers that the rights of the oppressed would be restored at the final eschaton. 

I never was under the impression that it was a law. I always perceived it as either a promise or a prediction, or both.

The reason why it stands out in my mind is because I cannot think of another religion that makes the same statement. Buddhism teaches forbearance, Taoism balance, Confucianism social ethics etc., but nothing like that. Also, most religions promise some kind of nirvana, perfection, paradise, elysium etc. in the afterlife, but as far as I know only Christianity says that the meek shall have the Earth, or our material universe, on this side of death. It is bizarre.

And it may very well be that I am taking the statement way too literally...

[Perd Hapley]

First of all, I think it could justifiably be understood to mean "the meek will have it all," which could mean that meek people will have all they ever wanted in a non-physical heaven.  If it does refer to the physical earth, it's not limited to this life.  The Bible teaches that all will be resurrected for the Judgment.  After that, it depends on one's view of Last Things.  Some believe that Christ will rule on Earth for a thousand years, after which time the believers will be taken to a heavenly paradise.  Others believe that we will live forever on "a new heaven and a new earth." 

Let me know if that made things any clearer.   

I thought you were saying that it didn't match our experience in the world, where meekness seems like a good way to get nothing much.  On the other hand, being nice sometimes works better than being aggressive, something also mentioned in scripture. 

Wait a minute.  All the other religion threads get locked.  How'd this one escape?

[Strings]

I was actually wondering the same thing. Especially since the original question has been answered already.

Maybe it's because there hasn't been any real mudslinging in this one?

[Perd Hapley]

It's sad when people are so lazy they won't even fling some mud.  I blame the pagans. 

[Balog]

In a gesture of inter-faith goodwill, I suggest a Christian-Pagan alliance get together to chuck Fisty into a mudhole.

[Strings]

Why would we want to dirty-up a good mudhole like that?

[Balog]

Why would we want to dirty-up a good mudhole like that?

Let's pick one that's already an EPA "Sooperfun" site, then after Fisty let's chuck all the policritters in too...