Christianity is false because it contradicts itself.

[RyanP]

"But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live." --Ezekiel 18:21-22

We are justified by our behavior.

"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith." --Romans 3:28-30

We are justified by faith in Jesus Christ.

[TMMaria]

"But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die....

Keeping God's decrees and doing what is just and right...is certainly a prerequisite of accepting Jesus' gift of salvation. A wicked man who refuses to turn away from sins, essentially is sinning against the Holy Spirit who prompts and calls to him how many times to receive the grace of penance...certainly will not receive the gift of salvation.

We all tend to think in the linear temporal time...for God there is no past, present, or future...all but one present to Him. So the justification requirements for the man in OT, NT, or modern times does not change. The rights to justification is won for us by Jesus, God's Son, and it matters whether our own behavior collaborate with His works as well as our attitudes toward His Holy Spirit.

[Goose]

Paul came from Tarsus. During the 1st Century, there were very few Jews in Tarsus. However, it WAS a major hub for the Persian version of Mithraism.
Some of the concepts about 'salvation' are similar to Mithraism, and one of the concepts that diverge from Judaism. Paul's attitudes were shaped by where he grew up.

What are the pre-Christian sources for Mithraism that show there is a similarity in salvation?

The Gathis, written between 600 and 300 bc.

Quote and reference the passage.

However, I suspect that the Chrisitan Salvation was more influenced as a counter point to the Cult of Augustus, which used the exact same terminology in Latin, but dated from 30 bce.

Quote and reference the passage. Your suspicians along with your feelings are not evidence.

Here is a christian source that discusses it

http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/ar ... icleId=388

Just as I thought. You haven't got a primary text. The article is merely a discussion of others interpretations of what they think without a single reference to a primary text. Here's is a quote from the article:

Churches, literally "assemblies," were the Christian counterparts to the Roman ekklesiai where Caesar was celebrated, according to Horsley, a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Boston. "Caesar was the 'Savior' who had brought 'salvation' to the whole world."

According to Horsley!

As far as Mithra and salavation. look at Yasna, 53

Yasna 53

Verse 1:
Every wish of the prophet Zarathushtra Spitama have been fulfilled in the best possible manner and
Ahura Mazda, the Lord of Life and Wisdom, has granted him the best blessings, i.e. a happy,
prosperous and holy life through all Eternity. Even those who have opposed him have learnt to pay
him reverence and follow the good religion in every word and action.
Verse 2:
So, let all strive with thought, word and deed to satisfy Mazda. Let each one choose to perform good
deeds as his worship. Kavi Vishtaspa, the faithful devotee of Zoroaster together with Maidyo-Mah
and Frashaoshtra are treading the path of Truth and have chosen the Faith inspired and revealed by
the Saoshyant (1), or the Savior of Mankind, taught by Ahura.

And how is THAT anything like the Christian concept of salvation? Let me guess, because it uses the words eternity and saviour? You've reconfirmed to me why it is so important to ask for evidence for these types of copy-cat claims. Under scrutiny they fall to pieces.

[Goat]

Paul came from Tarsus. During the 1st Century, there were very few Jews in Tarsus. However, it WAS a major hub for the Persian version of Mithraism.
Some of the concepts about 'salvation' are similar to Mithraism, and one of the concepts that diverge from Judaism. Paul's attitudes were shaped by where he grew up.

What are the pre-Christian sources for Mithraism that show there is a similarity in salvation?

The Gathis, written between 600 and 300 bc.

Quote and reference the passage.

However, I suspect that the Chrisitan Salvation was more influenced as a counter point to the Cult of Augustus, which used the exact same terminology in Latin, but dated from 30 bce.

Quote and reference the passage. Your suspicians along with your feelings are not evidence.

Here is a christian source that discusses it

http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/ar ... icleId=388

Just as I thought. You haven't got a primary text. The article is merely a discussion of others interpretations of what they think without a single reference to a primary text. Here's is a quote from the article:

Churches, literally "assemblies," were the Christian counterparts to the Roman ekklesiai where Caesar was celebrated, according to Horsley, a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Boston. "Caesar was the 'Savior' who had brought 'salvation' to the whole world."

According to Horsley!

As far as Mithra and salavation. look at Yasna, 53

Yasna 53

Verse 1:
Every wish of the prophet Zarathushtra Spitama have been fulfilled in the best possible manner and
Ahura Mazda, the Lord of Life and Wisdom, has granted him the best blessings, i.e. a happy,
prosperous and holy life through all Eternity. Even those who have opposed him have learnt to pay
him reverence and follow the good religion in every word and action.
Verse 2:
So, let all strive with thought, word and deed to satisfy Mazda. Let each one choose to perform good
deeds as his worship. Kavi Vishtaspa, the faithful devotee of Zoroaster together with Maidyo-Mah
and Frashaoshtra are treading the path of Truth and have chosen the Faith inspired and revealed by
the Saoshyant (1), or the Savior of Mankind, taught by Ahura.

And how is THAT anything like the Christian concept of salvation? Let me guess, because it uses the words eternity and saviour? You've reconfirmed to me why it is so important to ask for evidence for these types of copy-cat claims. Under scrutiny they fall to pieces.

Well, keep on believing that. If you look at the cult of Augustus, yes, there are differences, but the terminology used by the early Christians was a 100% rip off from the titles of Augustus, and from his worship. The idea of a man made God is so familiar to the Roman empire. (since practically every emporer was made a God, following the pattern of Egypt).

"Mighty Augustus, son of God, savior of the world" .

[Goose]

Well, keep on believing that. If you look at the cult of Augustus, yes, there are differences, but the terminology used by the early Christians was a 100% rip off from the titles of Augustus, and from his worship. The idea of a man made God is so familiar to the Roman empire. (since practically every emporer was made a God, following the pattern of Egypt).

"Mighty Augustus, son of God, savior of the world" .

What primary text is that taken from goat? Link me to it.

[myth-one.com]

We are justified by our behavior.

We are justified by faith in Jesus Christ.

Mankind was justified by his behavior under the Old Testament covenant and by faith in Jesus Christ under the New Testament covenant. There really is no contradiction!

The Bible is divided into the Old and New Testaments. These testaments contain wills or covenants between God and man. The reward or inheritance which is received by humans who qualify as heirs under terms of the testaments is eternal life. Those not qualifying will perish.

The path to eternal life under the first covenant was to never sin (ie behavior). However, there was a fault in the first testament in that all mankind sinned! Therefore, no one could gain eternal life under the first covenant. Since the first covenant contained faults, God created a second or New Testament:

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (Hebrews 8:6-7)

If the wages of sin is death and all have sinned, then all must die! That's how the original testament was set up. Consequently, no heirs to everlasting life were produced under the Old Testament covenant. What could be done?

Suppose some human could live a sinless life. He would not be under the death sentence. He could then give his life freely as a sacrifice for the others to free them from the death sentence imposed by the first covenant. Man would then no longer be liable under that first covenant. Our liability would be eliminated when the penalty was paid. Therefore, mankind could enter into another covenant with God in which the flaw in the original could be corrected. This is exactly what occurred when Jesus Christ came to earth as a human. He lived a sinless life, then sacrificed His life as punishment for our sins. Since His sacrifice made eternal life possible for us, the new requirement to attain eternal life under the New Testament became a belief in Jesus Christ and recognition of His sacrifice.

Under the New Testament man came under grace and not the law. Good works earned one salvation under the Old Testament. That is, if a person never violated any of God's laws, he gained eternal life. After Jesus died for us, we fell under the grace of Jesus Christ for our salvation, not our works to fulfill the law. So sin does not control our salvation:

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. (Romans 6:14)

We must now believe in Jesus Christ to inherit eternal life. Upon creating a New Testament, the first covenant became the Old Testament:

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13)

When did the Old Testament vanish away and the New Testament become valid?

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth (Hebrews 9:15-17)

The New Testament became effective and the Old Testament vanished away as a will when Jesus Christ (the testator) died on the cross.

So under the Old Testament one gained everlasting life through his behavior and now under the new covenant one gains everlasting life through a belief in Jesus Christ as his Savior from sin. With no contradiction!

[RyanP]

Since the first covenant contained faults, God created a second or New Testament

Does that mean God makes mistakes?

[myth-one.com]

Since the first covenant contained faults, God created a second or New Testament.

Does that mean God makes mistakes?

Excellent question! The correct answer is absolutely not. Here's why:

The New Testament covenant did contain a fault. But was the fault with God or man? First of all why was remaining sinless the requirement for qualifying as an heir? God originally created a host of eternal beings to maintain His creations. But a third of these angels under the archangel Satan rebelled against God. Man is an effort to eventually replace these rebellious angels. God made man a "little lower than the angels." The primary difference is that man is mortal. Why replace an immortal being with freedom of choice with another eternal being with freedom of choice and risk being stuck with more rebels for eternity? And why did these original angels fail? They sinned! So the requirement for these new beings to gain everlasting life was to remain sinless. God wanted to eliminate or minimize sin. Thus, man is mortal and the wages of sin is death. Those sinning will die.

Having made that covenant with mankind, was it God's fault that no man ever had the character to live a sinless life? Could any human ever live a sinless life and become an heir to eternal life under the Old Testament? All it takes is one to prove it was possible.

By living a sinless life as a human being, Jesus Christ became the first and only human to ever qualify for eternal life under the Old Testament. This proved that it was possible for man to gain everlasting life under that first covenant. Thus, the fault in the original covenant was not due to its design by God. The fault was man's inability and lack of character to remain sinless!

[RyanP]

God originally created a host of eternal beings to maintain His creations. But a third of these angels under the archangel Satan rebelled against God. Man is an effort to eventually replace these rebellious angels. God made man a "little lower than the angels." The primary difference is that man is mortal. Why replace an immortal being with freedom of choice with another eternal being with freedom of choice and risk being stuck with more rebels for eternity? And why did these original angels fail?

Nowhere in the Bible is the genesis of angels explained. Yes, we know Yahweh manifests himself physically in this world but we don't know how or why. Why did you say "a third of these angels under the archangel Satan rebelled against God?" Why a third? Where did you get that information?

[OnceConvinced]

The apparent contradiction lies in the two different perspectives of the authors. Ezekiel, looking from the human perspective, sees "Wicked man--repents--is forgiven". Paul, looking from a [Calvinist] perspective, sees "God gives wicked man faith & ability to repent--man repents--is forgiven".

It's like looking at a cone. Ezekiel looks at it from the bottom and says, "It's a circle!" Paul, looking from the side, sees a triangle. He compares his view with Ezekiel's and comes up with a cone.

Perspective is, I think, where many people trip up in reading the Bible, coming up with apparent contradictions because they failed to take into account the perspective from which the author was coming from.

I agree that perspective is a huge thing. However trying to figure out the perspective of the author is often not that easy. Some Christians claim that the holy spirit helps us do that. But yet even then, Christians still can't seem to agree. Another thing I find is that many Christians look at scripture with the mindset that "It's the infallible word of God" and this means that they must try to justify every contradiction they see. So they will not see a contradiction even if it is a contradiction. For them it will always be something that has to be justified. They will always have to ask "am I taking this out of context?" "Is there another meaning I can gain here?" "Can I find an alternative meaning to a particular word?" "Should I take this as literal or symbolic?" "Can I look at this from a slightly different perspective?"

I'm not saying the scriptures quoted above are necessarily contradictions. But there are plenty of others that have to have a lot of mental gymnastics and shucking and jiving to explain.

[OnceConvinced]

Man is an effort to eventually replace these rebellious angels.

Where does this believe come from? I've never heard anyone make that claim before!