This post is not going to be in the standard format. Instead of laying out what I think about a particular issue and then possibly getting into a discussion afterward, I really just want to ask a series of questions that I hope readers will answer in the comment section.
My background with Christianity is with a very fundamentalist variety that believes faith, grace, and works are all tightly woven together — each plays a necessary part in salvation. I’m much less familiar with more liberal versions of Christianity, and that’s what I’m hoping to learn more about in this discussion. So here are my questions:
- The New Testament speaks a lot about salvation. What exactly are Christians being saved from?
- In a similar vein, are non-Christians bound for a different fate than Christians? What will the afterlife be like for each?
- What does God/Jesus expect from us? Anything?
- Of what value are works? Is baptism a work? If so, then is faith also a work?
- What’s the relationship between faith, grace, and works?
I’ve numbered these for ease of reference, but please answer any or all of them in whatever way you like. Or if some of them are bad questions, let me know that too. It’s time to witness, folks! 🙂
Finding Truth 
Whoops! Here’s the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futility,_or_the_Wreck_of_the_Titan
LikeLike
“Hypotheses that the Jesus stories were copied from pagan myths about dying and rising gods were popular a hundred years ago, but contemporary historical scholarship has rejected them.”
unkleE, contemporary historical scholarship cannot re-write the words of Justin Martyr.
Romans believed Jupiter was divine every bit as much as the Christians felt about their God. They even believed in a trinity of gods. It was said that the Temple of Jupiter was dedicated on September 13, the year of the Roman Republic, c. 509 BCE and was sacred to the Capitoline Triad consisting of Jupiter and his companion deities, Juno and Minerva. The story of Jupiter certainly seems to predate Christianity.
Justin’s argument was the Jesus Story was in fact older because of the claims made in the OT the christians used to point to Jesus.
Again, I am not arguing a point. I am merely sharing with you how one of the greatest and earliest christian writers was dealing with the pagan belief systems of the day. Justin must have thought the Roman Pagans 1.) truly believed in their Gods and 2.) felt their stories were older or he wouldn’t have used the OT to claim his Jesus story had been around since the beginning of time. Nor would he have claimed that Satan planted those pagan stories in earlier times just to confuse the Christians.
”3) the historical evidence for the pagan gods is zero whereas the historical evidence for Jesus is compelling.”
I’m not sure if this is a fair comparison. It should be stated the historical evidence for the pagan gods and the Biblical God is zero whereas the historical evidence for the jewish prophet Jesus is compelling. In fact there are at least 4 , 1st century ossuaries (burial bone boxes) with the name Jesus inscribed on them that have been discovered around Jerusalem so far.
LikeLike
Josh, as I have just told unkleE, I am not arguing any point. If you guys want to argue, you need to bring up Justin Martyr from the grave. He made these remarks, I’m simply publishing them here.
I initially stated that reading what these early christian authors wrote caused me to re-think Christianity. These men helped form the institution we now refer to as “The Church” Men like Justin Martyr may have held original documents penned by Paul, John and others. Clement according to the Bible itself actually knew Paul.
What they thought of the scriptures and how they defended them is something I find fascinating .
LikeLike
Josh, if you like quoting CS Lewis, here is a quote from his book, “The World’s Last Night” where he says,
““Say what you like,” we shall be told [by some critics], “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘This generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.” [Here the imaginary critics end speaking. CS Lewis begins next.]
It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side.
LikeLike
“If you guys want to argue, you need to bring up Justin Martyr from the grave. He made these remarks, I’m simply publishing them here.”
Fair enough. Just pointing out that, if you saw Martyr’s points as valid, they aren’t really that valid. If you don’t see them as valid, nevermind. However, if you don’t see them as valid, I don’t understand why you’d post them.
LikeLike
“Fair enough. Just pointing out that, if you saw Martyr’s points as valid, they aren’t really that valid.”
I’m not sure how you came to this conclusion. He was one of the earliest and greatest writers of the earlier church .
LikeLike
“I’m not sure how you came to this conclusion. He was one of the earliest and greatest writers of the earlier church .”
The point about previous stories having similar themes and events. Martyr copped to it, which is fine because it was true. The trouble is, it doesn’t matter if stories with similar themes and events happened prior. The accounts can still be true. Hence, my point about the Titan vs Titanic.
LikeLike
Josh, “The trouble is, it doesn’t matter if stories with similar themes and events happened prior. The accounts can still be true. ”
Wouldn’t that also be possible for the prior accounts ? Certainly the Romans and Greeks believed them to be true.
Titan was never intended to be a real story. Titanic became a real story. What was the likelihood of this happening ? The fact that the North Atlantic has been full of icebergs for a very long time and heavily traveled by boats and to write about a big boat and call it Titan….. ??? I certainly don’t find this astonishing .
I also don’t find it astonishing that stories of a dying and rising savior would pop up in 1st century Jerusalem. The Greeks and Romans had theirs. It would only make sense the Jewish and Gentile citizens would have theirs. And they ALL believed theirs was true.
Based on the evidence that Martyr had available to him, he defended his beliefs as best he could. If you read his works you will find out one of the major reasons he became a Christian was “being at once impressed with the extraordinary fearlessness which the Christians displayed in the presence of death”
I wouldn’t agree with his reason for becoming a Christian however any more than I would become a Muslim because of their fearlessness when blowing themselves up in the name of their God.
LikeLike
Josh, “Fair enough. Just pointing out that, if you saw Martyr’s points as valid, they aren’t really that valid.”
I always try to be respectful to the other people on this blog. I have to respectfully say your statement above seemed very silly to me ! 🙂
LikeLike
“I have to respectfully say your statement above seemed very silly to me!”
I’m sure we both respectfully think a lot of things the other says are silly. Just to clarify, though, I wasn’t saying that all of Martyr’s writings or points were invalid. Nor was I trying to fault him for doing the best he could at the time. I was just pointing out that, based on information I can show you now, he was wrong in that he didn’t necessarily need to give those previous stories any weight just because they already existed. For instance, I know of at least two other people that have the same full name I do, grew up in the town I did, went to the same high school, took out student loans from the same company, and now we get each other’s mail from the loan companies sometimes. None of these facts, nor all of them together, mean that only one of these “Josh’s” could possibly exist. Martyr maybe couldn’t make this kind of argument in his day. Not his fault. I’m just saying I can refute it more easily with more modern information. Sorry if I was unclear re: that comment 🙂 Really, no offense to Martyr was meant.
LikeLike
@Josh
”I’m unaware of a single shred of irrefutable evidence for pretty much anything.”’
This could quite easily wander down the ridiculous Metaphysical path so as I am a very simple bloke I’ll keep it simple.
My boxer dogs are sitting by my feet as I type. Hold on a second.
There, I just stretched out and stroked them. That is real and as far as I am concerned irrefutable evidence that they are here and I stroked them.
I would accept the same from you if you told me.
However, your whole life is based on accepting the cobbled together text in an ancient book claimed by ancestors of a blatantly corrupt church to be the inspired word of a god.
It contains tales that no sane man would accept if it weren’t because he had been inculcated from birth or weren’t emotionally disturbed.
That you don’t require ANY proof is indicative of the power of inculcation.
I would say, ask Nate, but as you have been inculcated you would likely tell me Nate was not a proper Christian in the first place.
Try this….This post, although humorous, quite clearly demonstrates the point and I recommend everyone read it.
http://attaleuntold.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/are-you-frikkin-nutz/
LikeLike
Josh, “Martyr maybe couldn’t make this kind of argument in his day. Not his fault. I’m just saying I can refute it more easily with more modern information.”
We can refute a lot that was said by the ancients with more modern information. We know the earth is round not flat. We know the earth revolves around the sun and not the opposite. We know we can’t see the entire earth from a mountaintop. We know the earth doesn’t have 4 corners nor does it have a foundation. Rabbits do not chew cud. Bats are not birds. The earth does spin on its axis. Just to refute some of the many statements made in the Bible.
LikeLike
Hi kcchief1
I’m sorry Ken, but it is you who are confusing the point. It is irrelevant that Justin was a real person (we both know that), what is relevant is whether the christians borrowed from the pagans. And I made the following points:
First, the scholars say almost unanimously that christianity did not borrow in any substantial way from the pagans. The scholars know Justin Martyr better than you or I do, so this fact ought to make you wary of claiming too much about Justin until you are very well read on the topic.
Second, I gave 3 reasons why the scholars conclude there are very few parallels (beyond a few religious themes common to the time, such as ritual meals):
“(1) most of the parallels are spurious, (2) there is more evidence of the pagans copying from the christians, and (3) the historical evidence for the pagan gods is zero whereas the historical evidence for Jesus is compelling.”.
I should have added a 4th, and probably most important reason, that the historians tell us that pagan ideas generally had almost zero influence on first century Judaism from which christianity grew. Eminent scholars like Sanders, Vermes, Casey, Hengel and Wright have been very strong in their conclusion that Jesus and early christianity must be understood in the context of first century Judaism.
Justin Martyr must be understood in the light of all this. I haven’t read much about him but this is what I understand:
(i) He did not believe in the truth of the pagan legends:
“[the Greeks] called them [i.e. demons] “gods”, and gave to each the name which each of the demons chose for himself. And when Socrates endeavoured, by true reason and examination, to bring these things to light, and deliver men from the demons, then the demons themselves, by means of men who rejoiced in iniquity, compassed his death, as an atheist and a profane person, on the charge that “he was introducing new divinities;” and in our case they display a similar activity.”
(ii) He did not believe, say or admit that the christians had copied from the pagans. (This is your central claim – can you find a quote that says that? I haven’t been able to so far.) He rather defended christian beliefs saying they were no more “unusual” or detrimental than similar, and “worse”, beliefs by pagans.
(iii) Rather, he says that both christians and pagans got their ideas from Jewish prophecies – with the difference that the christians interpreted them rightly, and the pagans did not. You may not agree with his conclusion, and I think we would both find some of his arguments bizarre, but I’m only pointing out what he said.
So I conclude this brief examination thinking the same as I said before – the scholars haven’t found much in Justin Martyr to sway their view that christianity was minimally influenced by pagan religions, it is only poorly researched websites (and films) which make the connection for eager unbelievers to latch on to what they want to hear rather than believe the experts.
The existence of God is a matter of opinion which we could discuss, but is not under discussion here. The point is that Jesus was indeed (according to the experts) a historical figure, and there is no evidence that any of the pagan gods were.
Best wishes.
LikeLike
unkleE , Do you ever find experts who don’t agree with your thoughts ? I seriously doubt it.
I never said Justin Martyr believed Christians borrowed from the Pagans. He did say that the Jesus story propounded nothing new to what the Pagans already believed about the sons of Jupiter.
You keep comparing Pagan Gods to Jesus. This is not a fair comparison. Either compare Pagan Gods to the Biblical God or compare the man Jesus to any other man of your choice. There is no evidence Jesus was a Deity other than the Bible.
BTW, I didn’t get my comments about Justin Martyr from the Internet. I read all 10 volumes of the ante-nicene fathers which included the works of Justin Martyr. I take this seriously. I’m not just another pretty face of a Deist ! 🙂
I think we are both beating that old horse again. 🙂
LikeLike
unkleE, Here’s a question for you to ponder. There are many well educated men with PhDs who bang their heads against the ground five times a day while facing Mecca. Many are serious scholars. They think their best evidence is better than yours ! Who should a non-believer listen to ? I think that’s a fair question. I really don’t need an answer because this would take pages of comments . It would definitely make an interesting new blog topic ! 🙂
LikeLike
Hi kcchief1, congratulations on reading 10 volumes of church fathers, that’s much more than I have done!
Yes I do, often, and I learn from them. That’s why I read them.
But I think this matter is worth discussing in greater detail. Hopefully we can clarify a few matters.
Let us start with a few definitions. A fact is something that can be known with reasonable confidence. Gravity is a fact, even though Newton’s laws had to be modified by relativity. And in NT studies, these are facts:
(a) There are multiple independent sources for the life of Jesus.
(b) Historians regard multiple sources as good evidence for historical truth.
(c) Therefore most historians regard Jesus as a historical figure, and the gospels as useful historical documents.
(d) Likewise, for reasons I have outlined, most historians regard Judaism, and not paganism, as the main sources for understanding Jesus.
Next we have opinions – things that each of us conclude for whatever reason. In this matter, the existence of God and the identification of Jesus as divine are opinions on which you and I have different views.
Finally, we can identify, somewhere between the two, expert opinion, which is the conclusion, after due study, of experts in the field. If I have a test for cancer and it comes up negative, a doctor can give me an expert opinion on how likely that result is to be correct. The doctor may be wrong, but I would back their opinion over mine any day, but if I am unsure, I can get a second opinion.
Notice I didn’t, and haven’t said, that the conclusions of the experts are facts (for they are expert opinion), I have only said that it is a fact that the vast majority hold those expert opinions.
Daniel Moynihan is quoted as saying: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”
It is facts and expert opinion that we are discussing here, and I try always to be very careful to describe whether I am talking about them (an expert’s conclusions) or opinion (my conclusions). If you check out my comments on this discussion, you’ll find that I gave my opinions in answer to Nate’s questions, but I argued “facts and expert opinions” in response to your comments.
Historical knowledge and learning is not the same as opinions about God. I rely on the experts to teach me about history, ancient culture and language, etc, just as I rely on experts to teach me about science. What the experts think about God is of less interest to me. For the record, of the 5 scholars I mentioned, Wright is a christian, Vermes was a Jew, Sanders is agnostic, Casey is a non-believer and I don’t know about Hengel.
So I hope that makes things a little clearer. We are talking facts and expert opinion at the moment. Only after we reach some agreement on those things is there any point in discussing opinions based on those facts. Do you agree?
So what was your original point then?
But that’s what Justin martyr was talking about.
That may be true, though I couldn’t name any – can you? But it is quite irrelevant. We are discussing historical facts remember, and I don’t know any Muslim scholars who write about history and Jesus, but if they are reputable scholars, their beliefs don’t matter. Again, please try to distinguish between historical evidence/facts, expert opinion on history, and personal belief.
I hope this comment can help us focus on the issues under discussion and not get into side issues. Best wishes.
LikeLike
@Unklee
”(a) There are multiple independent sources for the life of Jesus.”
Really? Which sources are these that irrefutably show the life of Yashua.
I have never come across a single one that could confirm him. Not one.
Christians. Yes. Without a shred of doubt. There are loads of references.
But Yashua?
I think you must be smoking your socks.
LikeLike
@ Unklee
3) the historical evidence for the pagan gods is zero whereas the historical evidence for Jesus is compelling.”.
Once again. There is NO historical evidence for the divine character as depicted in the gospels. None.
It is unethical of you not to make the distinction, because you worship the divine character.
In fact it ought to be incumbent on every one that engages you to insist you demonstrate the veracity of your claim, for otherwise you are playing both ends of the field, insinuating that you have scholarly leanings whereas you are, in fact, quite disingenuous in your whole approach.
I have raised the topic of you using Bart Ehrman before but it is worth raising again, especially for non Christian readers who might be baffled or at worst vaguely inclined to agree with you.
You have in the past willingly cited Professor Ehrman when requiring an expert to back your claims of an historical Yashua but will drop him like a hot cake when the question of divinity arises.
You demonstrated a similar lack of integrity when discussing the Nazareth issue with Bernard.
Your arguments are fallacious.
LikeLike
unkleE,
a,b and c are only true if you are a believing Christian.
d, I never said or implied that paganism was the main source for Christianity. I have traveled and seen first hand concepts of Christianity which were used by older cultures. Go to Egypt and you will find the symbol of the Ankh on top of many Coptic Christian Churches. Go to the Temple of Luxor and you will find in reliefs the picture of a Pharaoh being baptised by 2 Gods making him a God with them to form the Trinity. Go to the Cairo Museum and you will see a Pharaoh’s footstool with the faces of his enemies painted on it making it a “footstool under his feet”. I don’t really care what your hand chosen experts say, I know what I saw firsthand.
You appeared disingenuous in your compliment of me reading the 10 volumes of the ante-nicene fathers. I only mentioned that I had read them because you said in a previous comment, “it is only poorly researched websites (and films) which make the connection for eager unbelievers to latch on to what they want to hear rather than believe the experts. I mentioned Justin Martyr as an example. If you want to take the time to read the 10 volumes you would see other examples of how the early church fathers tried to explain away problems in their religion.
You are getting back to your old habits of appearing condescending and flying loose with your evidence.
It is not within your being to ever end a subject with someone else having the last word. In my opinion it’s simply a trait of someone who can never be wrong.
Again I think we have beat this horse enough but no doubt you will indeed need to “Have the last Word” I won’t respond to your response on this matter because I can stop , without having the last word. 🙂 The best to you
LikeLike
Just to clarify one thing. My statement about a b and c is my opinion
LikeLike
They are facts. They have nothing to do with being a christian, and scholars who are not christians accept those facts just as much as those who don’t. But if you don’t think so ….
I’m sorry it seemed like that to you, and a little surprised. I was quite genuine in complimenting you. I guess your reaction shows how easy it is to misunderstand on the internet, which is sad.
OK, see you later.
LikeLike
(a) There are multiple independent sources for the life of Jesus.
No there are not.
This is an outright flagrant untruth.
(b) Historians regard multiple sources as good evidence for historical truth.
Yes they do. This does not necessarily apply to Yashua as you are smudging the line between the biblical character and a minor Galilean preacher.
(c) Therefore most historians regard Jesus as a historical figure, and the gospels as useful historical documents.
Not the character as portrayed in the bible. It is important that this point is clarified, as you never will.
LikeLike
”They are facts. They have nothing to do with being a christian, and scholars who are not christians accept those facts just as much as those who don’t. But if you don’t think so ….”
Nope. Not facts at all. You are showing a degree of ignorance that is quite surprising for one who continually tries to assure that you are open-minded and base your beliefs as much on ‘facts’ as you do faith.
The best we can say is that Christianity is a religion full of Christians.
Maybe you should do a post about Christian facts?
Even though you have banned me from commenting I would still read it. It would be fascinating.
LikeLike
Ark, Thanks for your comments. unkleE did reference Geza Vermes as one of his experts.
Here is what is said about Vermes that I find interesting.
“Vermes described Jesus as a 1st-century Jewish holy man, a commonplace view in academia but novel to the public when Vermes began publishing.[4] Contrary to certain other scholars (such as E. P. Sanders[17]), Vermes concludes that Jesus did not reach out to non-Jews. For example, he attributes positive references to Samaritans in the gospels not to Jesus himself but to early Christian editing. He suggests that, properly understood, the historical Jesus is a figure that Jews should find familiar and attractive. This historical Jesus, however, is so different from the Christ of faith that Christians, says Vermes, may well want to rethink the fundamentals of their faith.”
LikeLike
I was thinking this over my general attitude a bit last night while reading through these comments again. As someone who claims to believe in the pure grace and mercy of God, I really am not a very shining example of that with a lot of the comments I’ve left here. Some of them are rude, some subtly (or, not so subtly) insulting, and a lot quite thoughtless toward the paths others have taken toward their beliefs. I’ve come across as presenting a view that everyone “should” recognize Christianity as truth if they “really” thought about it, even though I know that is not reality, and that I can’t defend Christianity as an objective truth (maybe others think they can, but I realize I cannot). My intention in commenting was to engage in the discussion toward “finding truth”. I have to say I don’t feel I’ve done that, either fairly or thoughtfully.
So, for what it may be worth, I want to make a general apology for the snubbing and insulting comments I’ve made, and other comments which imply that others have not thought about their beliefs as much as I implied they “could have”. And, I want to specifically apologize to Nate. I didn’t intend to come across the way I have. I hope to remedy that in future discussions (not arguments :).
LikeLike