It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
And when Jesus called the Pharisees "white washed tombs for dead man's bodies" He meant it as a compliment.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Charles,

We could start a debate as to whether the Gospels really tell a story of resurrection, I believe that they do not, that could go on for pages and pages, and derail this thread. In my opinion, the crux of this thread is about the concept of the existence of righteous people, as Jesus taught, contrasted with concept of original sin, of which Paul was the father. It's not about whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, which I don't believe happened.

Jesus never taught original sin. The Old Testament teaches against original sin. Jesus taught a path that leads to righteousness through actions and thoughts. Jesus never taught that, by his dying, Abel, Abraham, Moses, Job, his father Joseph, and other biblical figures that were identified as righteous, needed his death to be redeemed.



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

It appears I'm guilty of causing some misunderstanding. Please help me out. But first of all, I have a question. So what? By that I mean take or leave original sin, there is or there isn't any such thing, by the time we've been able to make choices for a year or so, we've all sinned.

Who hasn't been hateful or greedy? Who hasn't told a lie or been lustful. So whether we are sinners on the day of our conception or the day we turn six, what is the significance in your eyes?

Here's a wonderful bit of Chesterton:

Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin--a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing.

But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R.J.Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street.

The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.


www.pagebypagebooks.com...

So, if we have all sinned (and if you disagree, could you point me toward some teenagers or adults who haven't?), none of us are righteous. Those who claim they are, are among the most in need of "washing."

There was the exception of Mary, who was prepared for the role of Jesus' mother from the time of her conception, and some Biblical figures who became righteous, but righteousness is not the common lot of man until we have been forgiven and start over.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 28 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Charles,



There was the exception of Mary, who was prepared for the role of Jesus' mother from the time of her conception, and some Biblical figures who became righteous, but righteousness is not the common lot of man until we have been forgiven and start over.


Was Mary Righteous? Was she born that way? Do you think that Mary sinned, ever? If Mary was prepared for her role as a virgin mother, why did it come as a surprise to her?


Luke 1
29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?




So what? By that I mean take or leave original sin, there is or there isn't any such thing, by the time we've been able to make choices for a year or so, we've all sinned.

Who hasn't been hateful or greedy? Who hasn't told a lie or been lustful. So whether we are sinners on the day of our conception or the day we turn six, what is the significance in your eyes?


You see sin as something that is born from evil. Something that emanates from a deity that is deliberately working against your God. You see it as a failure. I don't believe in sin, per say, as defined as going against God's will or breaking God's law. We weren't meant to be born perfect.

I believe that my soul IS the essence of who I am, and who I am, naturally, is a reflection of God. I think that all "dis-ease" is born from not being true to who we really are. We are learning to be who we are, and to be the same on the inside (thought) as we are on the outside (deeds), and to become completely transparent (naked), without shame.

I have made mistakes that have caused others pain, and knowing that, I feel a pang of remorse. I learn from these painful experiences, both committed by me and against me, and use my inner moral compass to move forward and learn from my mistakes, making me a better person for it.



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

Where would I ever get fresh viewpoints, if not for you?


Was Mary Righteous? Was she born that way? Do you think that Mary sinned, ever?
I believe she was born sinless, therefore righteous. The Church teaches she stayed sinless, and I don't have any evidence to the contrary. Mary had daily contact with God, that had to have a huge effect on her.

If Mary was prepared for her role as a virgin mother, why did it come as a surprise to her?
Because the preparation was before she was even born. I suspect she was born as a normal girl in the eyes of everyone, and grew up impressing the neighbors with her piety and obedience.


You see sin as something that is born from evil.

Right.

Something that emanates from a deity that is deliberately working against your God.

That's not quite how I'd put it. First Satan isn't a deity, he's just one of God's creations that rebelled against God. (Not a good career move, by the way.) Although evil does come from Satan, as opposed to coming from God, Satan's job is to lie, distort, and damage.

In your terms, Satan is working to darken or distort us as a reflection of God. He offers us the chance to grab onto some temptation, like anger, knowing that it will darken or distort us if we accept. And, of course, we often do.


I don't believe in sin, per say, as defined as going against God's will or breaking God's law.
Ok, can you believe in sin as deliberately distancing ourselves from God? Turning to follow some other desire rather than the desire for Him?


We weren't meant to be born perfect.
We are, after Eden, meant to become perfect.


I believe that my soul IS the essence of who I am, and who I am, naturally, is a reflection of God. I think that all "dis-ease" is born from not being true to who we really are. We are learning to be who we are, and to be the same on the inside (thought) as we are on the outside (deeds), and to become completely transparent (naked), without shame.
Although the wording is unusual, I can agree with you. But I would insist that the reflection we are now, is a cracked and dirty one. The reflection has to be mended and kept clean.


I have made mistakes that have caused others pain, and knowing that, I feel a pang of remorse. I learn from these painful experiences, both committed by me and against me, and use my inner moral compass to move forward and learn from my mistakes, making me a better person for it.
I rejoice that you are a better person, I would like to be one, too. But be careful with using the term "mistake." I can make a "mistake" in adding and never know it. Mistakes are expected, we're only human. What we deal with in this world is sin. We know what is right, and do the wrong thing anyway. Or, even, we know what is right, and fail to do it.

Keep your reflection bright!

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 06:16 AM
link   
What is righteousness (as described by oneself) but the ego discarding the unnecessary to bolster its value of currency in itself...and sinners...mmm...

Placed at the altar of koan, this statement, in and of itself, was clearly not for mortal mens' ears...

Å99



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 



We weren't meant to be born perfect.



Its human nature to sin and as Christians themselves say, its near impossible for a man to live a "perfectly sinless life. However, the Bible teaches that the remedy for sin is sincere repentance on the part of the sinner which results in forgiveness from God. A righteous man humbles himself and seek repentance from God.



"Then I acknowledged my sin to You; I did not cover up my guilt... and You forgave the guilt of my sin." ---
- Psalm 32:5

"if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."
- 2Chronicles 7:14

"on account of sins. When our transgressions prevail over us, thou dost forgive them."
- Psalms 65:3

"Thou didst forgive the iniquity of thy people; thou didst pardon all their sin. "
- Psalms 85:2

'The LORD is slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression,
- Numbers 14:18

"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."
- Isaiah 55:7

"And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me."
- Jeremiah 33:8


The Christian idea that a man can be redeemed of his sins through the "sacrifice" of Jesus is on the same lines as the Hindu belief that a mans sin can be washed by bathing in the River Ganges. Such theologies are not in line with these Biblical teachings regarding sin, repentance and forgiveness.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Luke 5:30-32 New International Version (NIV)

30 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

31 Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

*******************************
For crying out loud. Jesus was speaking in terms that the people could understand. He wasnt' saying the righteous were sinless and didn't need him. What he said was very obvious ... he came for everyone but some people need him more. Just like everyone on the planet gets sick with headcolds but those who have life threatening illness are the ones that need the doctor .... not the ones with headcolds. And Jesus is the doctor for the soul.

Again .. hang it up ... 2000 years of Christian theology has it easily explained.
It's all there and easily found online IF you really wanted to know.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   

sk0rpi0n
Such theologies are not in line with these Biblical teachings regarding sin, repentance and forgiveness.

Dead wrong. The agenda here is obvious ... and it won't work.
Jesus Redemptive Death Part of God's Plan

601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received", St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfills Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401

"For our sake God made him to be sin"

602 Consequently, St. Peter can formulate the apostolic faith in the divine plan of salvation in this way: "You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers. . . with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake."402 Man's sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death.403 By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."404

603 Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned.405 But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"406 Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all", so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son".407



MORE AT THE LINK



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Charles,



I believe she was born sinless, therefore righteous. The Church teaches she stayed sinless, and I don't have any evidence to the contrary. Mary had daily contact with God, that had to have a huge effect on her.


This is a perplexing statement for me. Aren't all babies born sinless? Does the church teach that all babies are born in sin because of the sins of Adam and Eve, or are all babies born pre-convicted of the sins that they WILL commit?

How can a baby, that has absolutely no capacity to sin, be righteous? If Mary was righteous at birth, then all babies are born righteous.

If God prepared Mary, in the womb before her birth, to be sinless, does that mean that she didn't have the capacity to sin? If God prepared Mary, in the womb before her birth, to be sinless, does that mean that she didn't have free will?



Mary had daily contact with God, that had to have a huge effect on her.


Don't all of God's children have daily contact with God?



Ok, can you believe in sin as deliberately distancing ourselves from God? Turning to follow some other desire rather than the desire for Him?


You and I have a fundamental difference in our definitions of sin. I believe that all humans are driven to seek and experience God. Even sin is an attempt to experience the divine. Sin may be a personal tactic to conquer "fate" and take control over one's life, rather than accept defeat as God's will. A bank robber may be convinced that it's not God's will that he should be poor.

Sin may be committed to impress God.

A serial killer may think that he's doing God's work by eliminating prostitutes, for example. Or, a serial killer, who kills for "fun", may do so because at the time of his victims death, he glimpses the divine spark as it leaves, or as the divine embraces the victim, as angels swoop in to take that soul to heaven. It may be the only way that the sick mind of a serial killer can experience the divine.

A drug addict may have become addicted because the high that the drug gave him caused him to experience something divine. It may the only way that person can feel what God's love feels like, while he's under the influence. Sobriety is the perceived separation from God.



I rejoice that you are a better person, I would like to be one, too.


Charles, with every breath you take, you're becoming. I'm sure, because of your resolve, that you're becoming better.




posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


There are people, it is possible to do, who take the words of Jesus in context with the prophets and poets and epic stories of the Old Testament. Pauline philosophy and theology was developed after the death of Jesus and DOES NOT reflect the teachings of Jesus AT ALL! It is solely based on the importance of his death, not his life. It defines that death as a sacrifice. Something Jesus never asked for or supported.

There are people who take the words of Jesus to stand alone. You don't need Paul to appreciate the teaching of Jesus. You don't have to believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection or or that blood sacrifice is necessary for salvation.

The life and teachings of Jesus is testimony enough. Paul is superfluous!



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   

windword
The life and teachings of Jesus is testimony enough. Paul is superfluous!

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU.

ETA ... but the OP has a different agenda going on ...
edit on 9/30/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



He wasnt' saying the righteous were sinless and didn't need him. What he said was very obvious


Jesus differentiated between the righteous and the sinners... in stark contrast to the Christian doctrine that everybody is a sinner... that refuses to acknowledge that the "righteous" and the "sinners" are differentiated throughout the Bible.

If Jesus wasn't interested in the righteous, then it means they were doing something right. It was the sinners who needed Jesus. I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't tell his mother that she was a sinner who would go to hell unless she believed he would be dying for their sins.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I think that the OP's agenda is to provoke a discussion about the theology of righteousness. The OP's personal religious viewpoint doesn't embrace the deification of Jesus, but sees him as a highly righteous messenger, sent by God himself. (Am I right, Scorpio?)

I think he's reaching out in an attempt to find common ground. Unfortunately, quoting Paul doesn't do anything but hinder the OP's olive branch.

At any rate, that's the way I see his agenda.


EDIT: I guess, ultimately, the OP is making the statement that one can be righteous and NOT be a Christian. I agree with that statement. I think Gandhi was a righteous man, for example.


edit on 30-9-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

You are being too nice. I'll just leave it at that.



sk0rpi0n
Jesus differentiated between the righteous and the sinners... in stark contrast to the Christian doctrine that everybody is a sinner...

No. Jesus came for everyone because everyone is a sinner. But He stated that some need Him more. This isn't that hard to understand .... sick people need to get well, but REALLY sick people need a doctor to help them get better faster.

You are trying to complicate something that isn't that complicated.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Job didn't need Jesus for his righteousness, or for salvation. Job was righteous before and after his tribulations.



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

I know I'm gushing, so I'll stop right now, but I will say I envy your husband. You must have fascinating discussions.

From the Catechism, section 1250:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism.

Babies are not "pre-convicted." In a sense, baptism transfers them from the world of Satan and original sin, into the kingdom of God. There's more to it, of course, but in short, Original Sin yes, "pre-conviction" no.


How can a baby, that has absolutely no capacity to sin, be righteous? If Mary was righteous at birth, then all babies are born righteous.
Mary was sinless at birth only because a unique gift and preparation was given to her. Other babies (with the exception of Jesus) are not so blessed.


If God prepared Mary, in the womb before her birth, to be sinless, does that mean that she didn't have the capacity to sin? If God prepared Mary, in the womb before her birth, to be sinless, does that mean that she didn't have free will?
She had free will, she could have said no to Gabriel, she could have sinned, but she chose not to do either.

Back to the Catechism:

969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfilment of all the elect.



Don't all of God's children have daily contact with God?
Yes, in a way, but only Mary changed His diapers. (Or listened to Him as He tried to learn Aramaic, or carpentry, or at play.)


You and I have a fundamental difference in our definitions of sin.
Believe it or not, maybe we don't. For there to be a mortal (or really serious) sin, one has to be in control of one's mind and actions. An insane person, or one acting under the influence of drugs, or some similar condition, has reduced capacity to sin, or none at all. As the catechism says:


1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."


I'll grant you that people who intentionally sin are looking to get some good from it. But nobody does something because they expect bad to come from it. I don't know of anyone who tries to find God by committing serious sins. That doesn't make sense to me.


A bank robber may be convinced that it's not God's will that he should be poor.
Even if the robber is correct, how in the world did he get the idea that God wanted him to get money by threatening people and stealing it?


Sin may be committed to impress God.
Not by a reasonably sane person.


Or, a serial killer, who kills for "fun", may do so because at the time of his victims death, he glimpses the divine spark as it leaves, or as the divine embraces the victim, as angels swoop in to take that soul to heaven. It may be the only way that the sick mind of a serial killer can experience the divine.
Again, he's nuts. Illusions, falsehoods, and death aren't divine, they don't come from God. The same is true for the addict, although, in his own way, he is also insane. And, as you point out, he has no control over himself.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

Dear windword,

Interesting discussion you're having with FlyersFan. May I add a little bit of opinion?

I don't think righteous and sinless have the same meaning, especially in the Old Testament. If I recall correctly, the best that a Hebrew righteous man could expect was to be sent to Abraham's Bosom. That's a place, if you'll forgive the levity, that I see as the VIP lounge in a nice airport terminal. It's comfortable and all, but still it's not where you're going, it's a stopover.

It wasn't until Christ died and was resurrected that the door to heaven was opened for mankind.

As far as the righteous and unrighteous go in the New Testament. I think Jesus was using the term "righteous" for the self-identified righteous. Remember, His whole ministry was to take away sins, and draw people to Him because He was the way to God.

If He walked up to someone and said "You've sinned, just like all the rest of mankind. Turn to Me and you'll be saved." I can imagine the self-identified "righteous" man saying something like, "Me? You talkin' to me? I go to temple, I make the sacrifices, I don't cheat people, never killed no one. Why, even the temple priests think I'm an OK guy. So get off my back with that stuff. I got mine, Jack."

That's not who Jesus was sent to call, but the man who knew he had really fouled up. The corrupt tax collector, the poor man who didn't have the money or the time to follow all the laws, or didn't care about them. The "unrighteous," the people who needed hope, a new life, those were the ones he was sent to call.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



.........and death aren't divine, they don't come from God.


How does that fit with "the lord giveth and the lord taketh away"?


edit on 30-9-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 

Dear Akragon,

Hello, Akragon! You ask how it fits? Very nicely, thank you.

First of all, who is taking away? Not the Lord, certainly, but Satan. If I recall that was part of the deal between them.

Job is speaking from his limited understanding of the world. He doesn't know about the deal and assumed, incorrectly, that God was taking it away.

Second, what was being taken away? Job's possessions and family. The entire verse reads:

and said, “Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither. The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.”
He's saying I started with no possessions and will end with no possessions. God gave me the possessions, they're His to do with as He wills. As far as the possessions go, removing some or all of our possessions is not necessarily evil.

Basically, I see Job as saying, "Hey, I'm going to keep praising God. It's all in His hands anyway. Up or down, I can take it."

Remember also, that Job is considered to be the first book written. It's inspired, and has a lesson from God, but it's not meant to be a polished guide to theology.

With respect,
Charles1952




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join