Yet more theological inconsistency...

[wavy]

The 14th chapter of Romans. Yeah we all know what's in this passage.

But if Paul is contrasting Jews who choose to obey Torah (according to traditional christianity, sabbaths and kosher laws in this context although neither are mentioned here) as being "weak in faith" to those "gentiles" who are not, why does he say "let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind"?

Why would he tell the Galatians to stay away from the ones who were troubling them about the awful "law"? Why did he have to go to lengths to try to stop them from supposedly keeping that bondage if he teaches others to make up their own minds about it? Weren't those Jews of the Roman congregation judging their "gentile" bretheren because they didn't keep the sabbath as they did or keep kosher the same way the Galatian heretics were?

Why not tell them, "be fully persuaded in your own mind, Galatians..."???

And for that matter, why doesn't he ever try to help believing Jews to stop keeping that "bondage" of theirs?

So what is the 14th chapter of Romans really talking about? Or for that matter, what is Galatians talking about?

 

[cyberjosh]

I know this is an old thread, but it caught my eye and it was never answered, so here I go...

The 14th chapter of Romans. Yeah we all know what's in this passage.

But if Paul is contrasting Jews who choose to obey Torah (according to traditional christianity, sabbaths and kosher laws in this context although neither are mentioned here) as being "weak in faith" to those "gentiles" who are not, why does he say "let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind"?

Why would he tell the Galatians to stay away from the ones who were troubling them about the awful "law"? Why did he have to go to lengths to try to stop them from supposedly keeping that bondage if he teaches others to make up their own minds about it? Weren't those Jews of the Roman congregation judging their "gentile" bretheren because they didn't keep the sabbath as they did or keep kosher the same way the Galatian heretics were?

Why not tell them, "be fully persuaded in your own mind, Galatians..."???

And for that matter, why doesn't he ever try to help believing Jews to stop keeping that "bondage" of theirs?

So what is the 14th chapter of Romans really talking about? Or for that matter, what is Galatians talking about?

Romans 14 is talking about believing Christians, whether Jew or Gentile and is telling them that they can choose on the non-essentials (many of which were classified and decided upon in Acts 15 - of what should be binding to the Gentiles as well), but Paul is also saying that it is sin to exercise this freedom in Christ at the expense of another believer's conscience. The Galatian heresy was different in that Judaizers were teaching adherence to the law as a condition to the Gospel that they may "boast in [thier] flesh" (Galatians 6:13) which brings them dangerously close to being unbelievers and not even preaching the true Gospel of Christ, but rather "another Gospel" (Galatians 1:6-10). Bondage means dependency, and the Judaizers in Galatians were preaching a dependency Gospel that made points of the law mandatory, rather than the free conscience-driven observance by faith in Christ spoken of by Paul in Romans 14 and Collosians 2. And when those things are observed (if you so choose to do them) then they are to be "as unto the Lord" and not as compulsory.

I hope that answers your question.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Oh also, although the example may most immediately seem to apply to Jews as contrasted to Gentiles, Romans 14 applies for all believers, and it is not saying that Jews are those "weak in the faith" (as if it were some indicative statement) but rather is a situtational classifier/description for any new believer who may have a sensitive conscience to any observance in the Church that may possibly present a stumbling block to them.

~Josh

 

[wavy]

wow, this is an old thread! and i new exactly where i was going it with it too. too bad i am now an atheist and could care less. :-D

~eric

 

[cyberjosh]

wow, this is an old thread! and i new exactly where i was going it with it too. too bad i am now an atheist and could care less. :-D

~eric

That's a real shame.

 

[Arphaxad]

Hey wavy!

An atheist? WOW! That means that you have somehow been everywhere in the entire universe in space and time and have done a thorough search for God. And having not found Him, have definitely proven to yourself and all the rest of us that there is no God.

By the way, is there any liquid water on Mars? How about any other Earth-like planets outside the Milky Way? If Global warming is as bad as scientists say, we might need to use your knowledge of the universe to find another home for mankind. :o

Sinning is thinning,
"Arph"
------------

 

[gila]

wow, this is an old thread! and i new exactly where i was going it with it too. too bad i am now an atheist and could care less. :-D

~eric

I don't understand you. If you are an atheist why do you question about the Scripture?

Any way, the answer to your question is simple; We are now free from the bondage of sacrificial laws because Jesus paid for our sins. Paul is teaching what is to be obeyed and what is not. Christians won't make many mistakes if they obey what Jesus is directly commanding in the Gospels.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....Romans 14 is talking about believing Christians, whether Jew or Gentile and is telling them that they can choose on the non-essentials....

What? Clarify. And clarify where the Bible says which teachings are essential and which are not.

 

[mutzrein]

Hey Wavy

Are you saying that you are now an athiest BECAUSE of the inconsistencies in scripture or for another reason?

 

[Imagican]

CC,

What Cyber offered is OF truth. For there are MANY things that one CAN be judged by that another WOULDN'T. PAUL offered PLAINLY that he was FREE to DO as he PLEASED. But that ALL that he MAY choose would NOT be profitable. He therefore CHOSE to DO that which WAS.

THESE are the NON essentials to which Cyber refered. But, as Paul offered, perhaps CYBER"S offering is NOT ABLE to offer edification in 'such a manner'. For the understanding of ONE to 'rightiousness' COULD WELL BE 'the destruction of another in ingorance'. For EACH is on their OWN path to Salvation. And SOME have succeded in a MORE progessive 'walk' than OTHERS.

Paul being ABLE to sit and eat with those that have offered such FOOD in sacrifice to 'other gods' could WELL lead ANOTHER into a COMPLETE destruction of their understanding or judgement. I hessitate to discuss such matters MOSTLY for MOST are unable to EVEN understand the CONCEPT, much LESS, discuss it in a 'reasonable manner'. ONE DAY, maybe...............

Blessings,

MEC

 

[wavy]

I don't understand you. If you are an atheist why do you question about the Scripture?

Perhaps an open mind would be the proper remedy for your misunderstanding, and I don't intend that to be offensive. I like biblical literature. You don't have to believe something to read and study it or its history.

Kind regards,
~Eric

 

[wavy]

Hey Wavy

Are you saying that you are now an athiest BECAUSE of the inconsistencies in scripture or for another reason?

I wouldn't say 'because', but noting the inconsistencies did start me on my journey towards atheism.


Kind regards,
~Eric

 

[Bick]

Hey Wavy

Are you saying that you are now an athiest BECAUSE of the inconsistencies in scripture or for another reason?

I wouldn't say 'because', but noting the inconsistencies did start me on my journey towards atheism.

Kind regards,
~Eric

Hi Eric. Ya know, I would like to hear about your faith...for it takes faith to believe that the just write Earth: with it's just right balance of elements in the air, it's just right amount of surface water (which itself is amazing, being different from most? every other liquid; for, when frozen it freezes on the top, allowing fish and sea creatures to survive, all happened by chance?? Oh, c'mon, Eric.

Go to http://www.reasons.org for many answers such as the above, and how science and mathematics substantiate there must be a Beginner to the universe.

 

[wavy]

Hi Eric. Ya know, I would like to hear about your faith...for it takes faith to believe that the just write Earth: with it's just right balance of elements in the air, it's just right amount of surface water (which itself is amazing, being different from most? every other liquid; for, when frozen it freezes on the top, allowing fish and sea creatures to survive, all happened by chance?? Oh, c'mon, Eric.

Go to http://www.reasons.org for many answers such as the above, and how science and mathematics substantiate there must be a Beginner to the universe.

Typical refuted creationist arguments...

Anyway, this thread is not about my atheism and I refuse to discuss it at length here.


Thanks,
~Eric

 

[mutzrein]

Hey Wavy

Are you saying that you are now an athiest BECAUSE of the inconsistencies in scripture or for another reason?

I wouldn't say 'because', but noting the inconsistencies did start me on my journey towards atheism.


Kind regards,
~Eric

May I ask then, at what point were you when you started?

 

[wavy]

Hey Wavy

Are you saying that you are now an athiest BECAUSE of the inconsistencies in scripture or for another reason?

I wouldn't say 'because', but noting the inconsistencies did start me on my journey towards atheism.


Kind regards,
~Eric

May I ask then, at what point were you when you started?

I was a fundamentalist.

Thanks,
~Eric

 

[mutzrein]

May I ask then, at what point were you when you started?

I was a fundamentalist.

Thanks,
~Eric

Mmmm - OK. What is a fundamentalist - by your understanding.

Cheers

 

[wavy]

Some one who believes in all (or most) of the fundamentalist doctrines of Christianity. I started out as your mainstream Christian, then fell of into Sabbatarianism, then Sacred Nameism, then full-blown Messianism. I believed the earth was created in six days...the whole package (except for the Trinity; I started out believing in it but after becoming Messianic I held Oneness Pentecostal views, then Unitarian views). After I got out of Messianism, I came back to mainstream Christianity (and for a time again, believed in the Trinity). That's when I really started embracing biblical contradictions and other problems and became liberal.

After that I decided that being a liberal Christian was futile since you can pretty much believe whatever you want to about the bible, making belief in the bible pointless. So I dropped the Christian faith altogether, became deist, then agnostic, and here I stand now as an atheist.


Kind regards,
~Eric

 

[mutzrein]

Some one who believes in all (or most) of the fundamentalist doctrines of Christianity. I started out as your mainstream Christian, then fell of into Sabbatarianism, then Sacred Nameism, then full-blown Messianism. I believed the earth was created in six days...the whole package (except for the Trinity; I started out believing in it but after becoming Messianic I held Oneness Pentecostal views, then Unitarian views). After I got out of Messianism, I came back to mainstream Christianity (and for a time again, believed in the Trinity). That's when I really started embracing biblical contradictions and other problems and became liberal.

After that I decided that being a liberal Christian was futile since you can pretty much believe whatever you want to about the bible, making belief in the bible pointless. So I dropped the Christian faith altogether, became deist, then agnostic, and here I stand now as an atheist.


Kind regards,
~Eric

Can I suggest to you wavy, with respect, that you have been hoodwinked. Your approach to Christianity (whatever you perceive it to be) is entirely based on your intellect. Now I’m not denying that there is a problem with your intellect or indeed that you shouldn’t exercise it but when one thinks himself to be a believer (or non-believer) in any stream of theology in the manner that you have described, it is as plain to me as the fingers on your hand that you do not KNOW the one whose hands were pierced. You may know about Him (and now perhaps not want to) but knowledge is different to relationship.

Regards

 

[Devekut]

That's when I really started embracing biblical contradictions and other problems and became liberal.

After that I decided that being a liberal Christian was futile since you can pretty much believe whatever you want to about the bible, making belief in the bible pointless. So I dropped the Christian faith altogether, became deist, then agnostic, and here I stand now as an atheist.

Eric's story illustrates a micro scale example of the final end of Christian Liberalism, certainly as it would stand founded on the Historical Critical school. The kind of weak Christianity that, in the end, is really nothing other than a doctrinal puddy for one's own individual shaping according to convienence is a poison in the Christian bloodstream. Personally, there is a sense in which atheism is preferable as it makes its break with Christianity out in the open.

Eric, could I suggest that you pick up Pope Benedict's "Jesus of Nazareth"? Or perhaps his book "An Introduction to Christianity" (written as Cardinal Ratzinger).

The Pope's approach to Jesus scholarship is quite unique and this book (Jesus of Nazareth) is, I belive, something of an accomplishment. He is not at all ignorant of the Historical Critical method and knows that its findings can not be ignored. Yet, he marveously illustrates the true unity of the New Testament, and even touches on the the profound nature of the Bible as a theological tapestry, using a combination of exegetical methods.

One starts to realize, or at least I have come to believe, that Christian orthodoxy is the true successor of the New Testament message, and that the likes of the Jesus Seminar are floundering precisely because they only ever look at the New Testament in fragments- and therefore render it incomprehensible.