Questions about God...

[dualceleron]

Hi everyone,

I came across this on the web:

http://uqconnect.net/slsoc/bsq/budchr4.htm

I found the arguments there hard to refute. Can some Christian brothers and sisters help me refute the arguments there?

[Scrotum]

Actually, me being quite knowledgeable about Buddhism, would like to point out, that originally Buddhism is actually not a Religion at al. Its a way of Life.

But then the two ways Broke up, similar to the Christian Church. And the main believers of Buddha today, is more of a religion, whiles the original, which you can find in Sri Lanka if i remember, is what Buddha himself taught, which is a way of life, not a religion.


Swedish people in general have a very similar way of life to the original Buddhism, which is fascinating itself (i think). We have a word called "Lagom", which means "In between", or not to much, not to little. Which is the basic of Buddhism.

[Cathar1950]

It seems that the early church was divided between believers (Pauline) and doers (James) and people of the way, which included the Jewish law and ritual. Paul’s visions separated them into two worlds one he called death the other he calls life in the body of the cosmic Christ. Later his apologetics become liberal with their own rituals and laws.
This was accomplished with a Jewish scapegoat and division with inclusion dependent on belief alone and servitude to the world as the way of life. This worked well as a religion of the empire as it incorporated aspects of the popular mystery religions including dieing and rising and being incorporated into a god. As the two Jewish wars provided a need to remove themselves from the people of the way and given the need for them to further isolate themselves the division became complete. Only some isolated heretics lingered and were either eventually absorbed into the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim cultures.
A few isolated Ebonite and Nazarene communities survived but many of them were also absorbed.

[Easyrider]

Quote: It seems that the early church was divided between believers (Pauline) and doers (James) and people of the way...

PAUL AND JAMES - Are they in agreement with each other?

Much has been said over the years about salvation, justification, and works, and their relationship to each other. I think it is best to look at this from a chronological perspective, starting with the words of the apostle Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9:

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this
not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that
no one can boast."

Paul makes the following points:

1. You are saved by (God's) grace through faith (in Jesus Christ).
2. This salvation did not originate from yourselves.
3. It is the gift of God (therefore it cannot be earned).
4. This salvation is not by any type of works that a man can perform.


Back in Romans chapter 4, Paul gave an illustration from Genesis 15:6 concerning Abraham's justification:


"If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something
to boast about - but not before God. What does the scripture
say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as
righteousness." (Romans 4:2-3)

Now, going forward to James chapter 2 we read:

"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but
has no deeds (works)? Can such faith save him? Faith, by
itself, if it is not accompanied by action (works - KJV), is dead.
You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds
is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous
for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You
see, a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."

James is clearly referring to Genesis chapter 22 as the point where Abraham was justified righteous. What we see here is an illustration that James uses to answer those people who are claiming to have saving faith but no works. Specifically, he states, "Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? (what good is that man's faith?)" In effect, James is saying, "You claim to have faith? You claim that God has saved you, put His Holy Spirit in you, and sealed you for redemption? You claim all these things and yet you let the poor go without food or clothes? What kind of a faith is that? I, James, will tell you quite frankly that if you possess the kind of saving faith that results in regeneration and changes a person's life, the Holy Spirit will do a work in you and cause you to follow the Lord's decrees (Ezekiel 36:27) and feed and clothe the poor."

Well, what then does Paul state about works as proof that a person's life is changed? Perhaps not surprisingly, he agrees with James:

"I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove
their repentance by their deeds (works)." (Acts 26:20)

So why did Paul state in Ephesians that a person is saved by grace through faith, and not by works? And why did he refer to Genesis 15:6 as the point of Abraham's justification and not Genesis 22?

Initial saving faith is the precursor to works. Abraham was not saved (justified righteous) by performing works, he was performing works because he first was saved and regenerated by faith. Works is the result of our regeneration and salvation, not the cause of it. Faith by grace is the antecedent of works. It chronologically occurs first. Once the Holy Spirit indwells a believer at the point of salvation, He starts the process of progressive sanctification (see Ezekiel 36:25-27), and one of the effects of the indwelling Spirit is that of causing, or compelling a person, by a change of heart and mind, to perform works of a Godly nature. James' argument addresses that time period of a person's life, following true salvation and regeneration, when good works is supposed to be in evidence. He is saying, "Now that you claim to be saved, we should be seeing some good works out of you. However, if these good works are not apparent, then your initial faith was probably not genuine, and you were never, either in the eyes of God, nor in the eyes of man, justified righteous."

Another way to illustrate this is to consider the thief on the cross next to Jesus - the one who stated, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Then Jesus responded by saying, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:42-43). It was at this particular moment that the repentant thief received his salvation, and was justified righteous in the eyes of God. This particular moment would also coincide with Genesis 15:6, when Abraham believed God and it was credited (imputed to his account) as righteousness, and would also coincide with what Paul stated in Ephesians 2:8-9. Note that there is no evidence that the thief had performed any good works in his life. To the contrary, his works were more of a criminal nature than a Godly nature. That was the very reason he was being crucified. Even as he initially hung from his cross, he heaped insults on the Lord (Mark 15:32). But then the sky darkened, his pain and suffering magnified, and the words Jesus spoke on the cross hit their appointed target, and the thief had a change of heart and believed on the Lord. At that point, the thief received his salvation and justification.

Now, if by some means the thief could have come down from the cross, prior to death, and continued on with his life, then eventually his saving faith would have produced good works (corresponding to Abraham in Genesis 22 and James chapter 2). There is a progression whereby salvation leads to good works. In the eyes of God, Abraham was genuinely justified righteous in Genesis 15:6. Because his faith was genuine, it produced his works in Genesis 22, whereby he was seen as being justified righteous in the eyes of men. James and Paul, though they approach the issue of justification from two different points in time and two different perspectives (the perspective of God and the perspective of man), nevertheless are in total agreement with each other.

Jesus is Lord!

[dualceleron]

LOL this thread is hopeless

[Easyrider]

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. " - 2 Timothy 4

[Cathar1950]

2 Timothy 4
Here we have a known (at least suspect) forgery not written by Paul being used to support Paul’s doctrine.
As I recall James, Peter and the Jerusalem Church (assembly) removed themselves from Paul and his doctrines. They made have agreed on some things but not everything.
Now when Paul goes to Jerusalem and agrees to humble himself where he causes a riot among other believers he is conveniently saved by declaring himself Roman.
From the letter of the official in acts it sounds like Paul preplanned the interruption.
Most likely he was trying to bring Gentiles into the temple or corrupting the gospel or both. All we really have is the Pauline take on it from Acts.

[Easyrider]

2 Timothy 4
Here we have a known (at least suspect) forgery not written by Paul being used to support Paul’s doctrine.
As I recall James, Peter and the Jerusalem Church (assembly) removed themselves from Paul and his doctrines.

Although sometimes disputed, “the external evidence for the Pauline authorship of the PE [pastoral epistles] is as good as for any other of his letters except Romans and 1 Corinthians.” Irenaeus is the first explicitly to cite them as Pauline, though there are virtually definite quotations from them in Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Heracleon, and perhaps 1 Clement. Even though they are missing from Marcion’s Canon, “Tertullian says Marcion rejected them, which is no wonder, since the content of 1 Timothy 4:1-5 is completely antithetical to Marcionism.”

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1337

[Cathar1950]

It is a moot point even the conservative apologist consensus is against The pastoral letters.
But the last part is beyond dispute Paul was rejected and when push come to shove he used the Roman card. As he hung out with the Herodians for a few years he is hardly a stand up guy.

[Easyrider]

But the last part is beyond dispute Paul was rejected and when push come to shove he used the Roman card.

Can you be more specific on this please? He was rejected by who and because of what?

[achilles12604]

LOL this thread is hopeless

I see what you mean dual. I think this might be more along the lines you were looking for. If not let me know and I will return to my sources for something else.

http://tektonics.org/copycat/buddha02.html