I was raised as a Christian. I have trouble with the discussions over the many "right" or "correct" paths to "salvation". I believe in the end that it is important to believe in God and/or Christ, repent of your sins, and ask for Salvation. I do not believe there is a single, "right" path. So much depends on what path you have chosen and how you have lived your life. None of us are without sin or fault.

Although it is somewhat off topic and I can’t find the specific post now, I recall that someone raised the question of how open disagreements among Christian believers affected the views of nonbelievers. Nonbelievers don’t believe for many different reasons and as I’ve said before, they don’t have anyone at the head of groups or organizations to lay down doctrine about why they shouldn’t believe. All that being said, the thoughts of one nonbeliever may be of interest. (If, however, the originator of this thread believes this discussion is inappropriate here, I will delete it.)

I find the discussions of disagreements such as those in this thread to be interesting and informative. I’ve mentioned before that I’ve learned as much, if not more, about my fellow human beings from this forum as I have about guns and shooting. I’m somewhat of an introvert and don’t personally interact much with other people, but as Alexander Pope said, “The proper study of mankind is man.” The most important part of studying mankind is knowing their opinions and what they know. I’ve long been grateful for my membership here for that reason.

What’s also been informative was learning in this thread some of what people disagreed about concerning a vital subject: religion. I’ve been asked why I care about the subject when I’m not a believer myself, and although it may include a degree of rationalization, I justify it to myself as part of the study of mankind (or “humanity” if that last word disturbs anyone). In any event, the disagreements expressed here prompted a renewed interest in the subject. I just finished reading Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman, and have started How Jesus Became God: the Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee by the same author. Both books are so interesting as to have overtaken my usual fare of histories and fiction thrillers.

That renewed interest is therefore one way this thread has had an effect on me, but after all that, have the arguments and disagreements expressed here or the discussions in Ehrman’s books hardened my unbelieving heart? No.

The questions of whether Catholics expect saints and angels to fulfil their requests themselves, whether true believers can handle venomous serpents and drink poison without harm, or whether Jesus became angry when asked to heal a leper and why there are disagreements about them are all interesting, but their answers one way or the other have no bearing on my beliefs—or lack thereof—which are based on questions unrelated to those topics.

To reiterate, I cannot speak for other nonbelievers, but that’s one answer to the original question of this post.

Your contributions are always welcome, Sigfreund. In reading a brief synopsis of How Jesus Became God, I can see that Mr. Ehrman has some very provocative and controversial opinions. To imply that Jesus is not, in fact, God (as in the structure of the trinity) is to challenge a fundamental pillar of the truth.

Another thing that has me posting in this thread today is the recent round of strikes in Iran. I pray that The Lord sees fit to use events like this to soften the hearts of all involved; to convict them; to give them opportunities to give and receive His love. I pray that He shows himself to those on both ends of such a conflict. To those of us observing from afar as well: I pray that He grants us unique and compassionate perspectives.

quote:

To reiterate, I cannot speak for other nonbelievers, but that’s one answer to the original question of this post...

Sigfreund, I always read your posts because they are interesting. I also have a higher opinion of you than other nonbelievers, but that's because I know you are thinking about these 'higher questions'. I don't know how much thought other nonbelievers give to these questions but my impression is not much.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

Another thing that has me posting in this thread today is the recent round of strikes in Iran. I pray that The Lord sees fit to use events like this to soften the hearts of all involved; to convict them; to give them opportunities to give and receive His love. I pray that He shows himself to those on both ends of such a conflict. To those of us observing from afar as well: I pray that He grants us unique and compassionate perspectives.

On the other hand… we have the example of Pharaoh. Who would think that after nine divine judgments, Pharaoh still stubbornly refused to let the Israelites go? It took the death of every first born in Egypt except those who had the blood of the Passover lamb on their door’s lintel, two doorposts, and the threshold, did Pharaoh relent and let the Israelites go. But even then, he changed his mind and pursued them to the middle of the Red Sea where his army drowned.

So what God allows to happen is to sometime allow people to harden their hearts and, unwittingly, become part of God’s plan to glorify Himself.

We read that the whole world will encircle Israel at some point. And at that point when Israel’s complete annihilation seems nigh, God’s ultimate redemption for Israel will take place when Messiah delivers them and take them to be His people.

What people meant for harm, God meant for good (Genesis 50:20).

Hitler meant to eradicate the Jews; God meant it to return the Jews to their land. Egypt, Jordan, and Syria meant to take away territory from Israel during the six-day war, God meant it to add territory to Israel including Jerusalem.

All that has been happening and will continue to happen is meant for all the world’s countries to surround and finally destroy Israel, God is meaning it to reveal Himself to the whole world.

Indeed. May His will be done.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Your contributions are always welcome, Sigfreund.

Thank you. I appreciate being a part of discussions like these to whatever degree is appropriate.

Does it matter who wrote this-that-or-the-other book of the Bible?

Everyone has their "favorite" verses or books in the Bible. 1 and 2 Peter are among mine. In reading about them just now, there is much debate as to who wrote them. Of course, Petrine authorship would be something "special", considering Peter's apparent seniority among the Apostles. But, it ultimately matters not who wrote the dang thing. It's the word of God. I favor it over some other books because of how it speaks to me, not because of who wrote it.

This ties back to the theme of Biblical and theological academia, which I have found myself at odds with lately. The way men commit themselves to the study of how best to believe and worship, and then often commence to debate among other believers, is a detrimental distraction from the execution of the simple directives of Christ.

The title How Jesus Became God strikes me as a bit click-baitish, but it seems authors must attract attention however they can these days.

As a brief commentary, though, what the book actually does is discuss the history of the various beliefs about Jesus’ status that were common among early Christians. In the first years following the crucifixion those beliefs ranged from Jesus’ being a “mere” (non divine) man who was nevertheless strongly favored by God to being God himself without being any sort of a man at all.

Bart Ehrman is a self-professed agnostic and as a highly-educated scholar and translator of early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts he does of course offer his interpretations of what they say and mean. I believe, though, that he keeps his opinions about other people’s beliefs to an appropriate minimum.

I think the reason why JC was always considered “fully man and fully Divine,” was because anything else makes God a deceiver. (This is something which just occurred to me. I have not researched it/thought through it in depth.)

While there’s explicit no mention of it, TMK, as Christ was born of Mary, presumably He lived like a mortal - He ate, drank, etc.

We know He slept. We know He drank. I think there’s mentions of His eating. We know He endured pain, showed signs of suffering, and fought temptation. (Now, I’m not sure how much Satan could really tempt JC, but it is in Scripture.)

With the miracles, Resurrection, Pentecost, etc He would appear to be the divine being He said he was - and there’s no indication He was a liar.

As such, claiming He was either fully mortal or fully divine, means rejecting His own words, deeds, and appearance.

People who think He was mortal, are just the usual deluded fools, who enjoy feeling like they are more clever than everyone else.

I think those who feel He was fully divine, have difficulty accepting the weight of what the Son of God subjected Himself to.

To accept what Grace really means: that He which spoke the universe into existence debased Himself to that extent, fo such a worthless person as yourself, is incredibly humbling.

To be loved like that, and to face the myriad, and continual ways in which I reject that love, is a real weight.

And - not sure of this - but I think our damnation costs Him more pain, than what He went through on Earth.

He’s the Father of a bunch of addicts, wrecking themselves, with our constant desire for sin.

Maybe the Passion was the ultimate form of what so many parents of addicts wish they could do, to save their children.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:


To accept what Grace really means: that He which spoke the universe into existence debased Himself to that extent, fo such a worthless person as yourself, is incredibly humbling.

To be loved like that, and to face the myriad, and continual ways in which I reject that love, is a real weight.

And - not sure of this - but I think our damnation costs Him more pain, than what He went through on Earth.

While no one can fully comprehend or appreciate the things you've captured, scripture gives us some insights that we can possibly barely grasp until we can understand fully. "For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known (1 Corinthians 13:12)."

Scripture says God's intent is to redeem for himself a people that is His very own. "We wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good (Titus 2:14)."

But the suffering and sacrifice of Jesus was not a plan B; it was not an afterthought. It was NOT a reaction to the sin problem. God knew that for the kind of people He wants, Jesus had to go through what He went through. And this plan was already made from the creation of the world. Even as God said, "Let there be light" the death and resurrection of Jesus was already determined. Revelation 13:8 refers to Jesus as "the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world."

1 Peter 1:18-20 says the same thing: "For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake."

This doesn't diminish or discount what Jesus had to go through simply because it was a part of His plan from the very beginning. Rather, I think it magnifies His love and intent toward us in that He knew that to get the kind of people He wanted would require Jesus to go through what He did and He still went ahead. God practiced for Himself the same principle Jesus taught in Luke 14:28-30, "Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you,saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish.’"

In continuing to passively study the Catholic/Protestant divide, I have returned to the sacraments and prayer.

Some Protestants beef with the sacraments, arguing that they can't "impart grace". However, a google searched phrased "what do Catholic sacraments do?" provokes this AI overview...

In the Catholic Church, sacraments are considered visible signs of invisible grace, instituted by Christ, that convey God's divine life to those who receive them with the proper disposition.

"With the proper disposition." One of faith, perhaps? "By faith alone; not sacraments!" would be the Protestant argument. Well, it seems the sacrament doesn't "take" if there's no faith there, so everyone's actually in agreement.

With the apparent pre-requisite of faith aside, I think that it is even perhaps biblically verifiable that a degree of God's grace can indeed be "imparted" upon even non-believers...

1 Timothy 2:1-2
James 5:16
Galatians 6:2

...Through prayer. That 1 Timothy excerpt certainly tells us that prayer has power over everyone. Even though my faith was not there when I was confirmed, partook of the eucharist, and confessed my sins in my formative Catholic years, the priest and my fellow parishioners praying for me in the context of the sacraments, and otherwise, had a divine effect on me; they imparted a degree of grace. It is biblical.

To say that sacraments (prayer) can't "impart grace" is to say that my church brothers praying for conviction and salvation for someone at my request is pointless. They can't pray salvation upon him in totality, and he be reconciled, but they can pray that the Holy Spirit will provoke the target; and He will.

The James verse supports the sacrament of reconciliation. People get so hung-up on "telling their sins to the priest". You're confessing them to God, and the priest is there praying with and for you. Would a Protestant hesitate to ask his preacher for counsel and prayer concerning a struggle with sin?

The Galatians verse does not necessarily imply any ability to bear the weight of sins of non-believers. However, it does support the notion that we can bear each others' burdens as brothers and sisters. Obviously this extends to preachers and priests.

Food for thought.

So, the Protestant thing about confession - at least, how Luther wrote about it, was that it’s impossible to track all of your sins.

It’s better to focus and pray about the ones you struggle with, consciously, and simply ask for redemption for the ones you aren’t aware of, at the moment.

As for Christ being determined to be sacrificed from the moment of Creation…

No. That negates Adam’s choice.

That it was a foreseen possiblity, yes.

I THINK this is biblical - God is beyond time, and beyond this universe - so while he is Omnipotent, all of time only exists as “Now.” So, from His perspective, the present day, Adam eating the apple, and the Passion, are all at the same instant.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

"With the proper disposition." One of faith, perhaps? "By faith alone; not sacraments!" would be the Protestant argument. Well, it seems the sacrament doesn't "take" if there's no faith there, so everyone's actually in agreement.

When Protestants talk about Sola Fide or "faith alone" it's in a soteriological context. We wouldn't say that grace is imparted by "faith alone" or that "faith alone" means there are no sacraments. What we're saying is that salvation is through faith alone, apart from works. Ephesians 2:8-9

We would also proclaim Sola Gratia or "grace alone" (Ephesians 2:8-9) but again this is in a soteriological context and it doesn't mean we don't have ordinances (sacraments) or prayer.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:

As for Christ being determined to be sacrificed from the moment of Creation…

No. That negates Adam’s choice.

That it was a foreseen possiblity, yes.

You say one cannot be true (Revelation 13:8 refers to Jesus as "the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.") because it would negate another apparent truth (Adam’s choice).

I would suggest if you are a traditional Christian that you already believe things that cannot be true at the same time based on human logic. You believe that there is only one God but you also believe that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. I believe in the same thing. But the trinity, which is what we believe in, defies human logic. Human logic says you can’t insist there is only one God yet claim three persons, each in their own right, is God. Both things can be true as the Bible claims it is true.

In the same way, we can believe the Bible when it says Jesus was the chosen lamb of God from the creation of the world and that Adam had a choice. Both can be true in the same way that both parts of the trinity concept is true. How time figures in because God is outside of time doesn’t resolve anything.

Just as we believe by faith in the trinity, we can also believe by faith that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and sovereign and also believe that Adam and every human being has free choice. They’re paradoxes that are beyond our ability to wrap our minds around. But we can, as we come across each truth presented in the Bible just accept it to be true, confident that it will be reconciled in the end.

quote:

What we're saying is that salvation is through faith alone, apart from works.

I understand. Is the Catholic position on works merely a doctrine that keeps the faithless in church then?

If the faith is there, the works come naturally, by way of The Spirit. Is it possible, then, that the Protestant approach could disillusion those who haven't yet been saved, and cause them to stray, where the Catholic approach would keep them nearer good influences because of the appeal of the potential for works-based salvation?

The issue, though, as I have learned based on my personal experience, is the potential for someone to waste their life away in the Catholic church, due to a lack of stress on faith.

A separate question:

Can someone give me an example of dogma, and an example of doctrine?

I am not confident in the differences between the two, and when to use which.

Edited. As I believe that you are asking about doctrine and dogma in a religious sense, not generally, see the next post.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

Once again KSGM, a question of yours piqued my interest ( ), so I did ask Microsoft AI Copilot what the difference was in the context of religion, and this was part of the answer:

1. Religious Doctrine

Definition: A doctrine is a formal teaching or set of teachings held and promoted by a religious tradition.
Purpose: It provides guidance on beliefs, ethics, and practices.
Flexibility: Doctrines can develop or evolve over time through interpretation, scholarship, or councils.

Examples:
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
The Islamic doctrine of Tawhid (oneness of God).
The Buddhist doctrine of Anatta (non-self).

2. Religious Dogma

Definition: Dogma refers to core beliefs that are considered incontrovertibly true and must be accepted by adherents.
Purpose: It defines the essential truths of a faith that are non-negotiable.
Flexibility: Dogmas are typically unchanging and authoritatively declared.

Examples:
The Immaculate Conception in Catholicism.
The infallibility of the Qur'an in Islam.
The Four Noble Truths in Buddhism (in some traditions, considered dogmatic).

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Is the Catholic position on works merely a doctrine that keeps the faithless in church then?

If the faith is there, the works come naturally, by way of The Spirit.

Is it possible, then, that the Protestant approach could disillusion those who haven't yet been saved, and cause them to stray, where the Catholic approach would keep them nearer good influences because of the appeal of the potential for works-based salvation?

I suppose the protestant position is less focused on getting and keeping people in church and more about teaching biblical truth that points people to salvation. Of course there are mega churches and various pop-Christianity churches that focus mostly on getting and keeping people in church but I would disagree that this should be the goal of the church. Biblically speaking, the church is the body of Christ and only consists of believers, so keeping unbelievers in church each Sunday morning or Wednesday night is not the function of the church.