Reincarnation carries it's own weight of probablility. The resurrection has it's own. Both can be dowsed for very high probability. I just observing how you admit one, on the witness of four guys under the control of the Catholic Church, and dismiss the overwhelming evidence for the other.
When you consider the range and complexity of ideas presented through all the world's religions, it is only natural that there will be conflicts and opposing ideas. I don't see why that is something to be avoided. The religions are often in conflict with each other and almost all of them are willing to admit it. What is so hard about admitting that the Cross is something that is diametrically opposed to the other world's religions? I just don't see the purpose in trying to explain this inherent tension...
I have no idea where you're coming up with this. Traditional Christianity has much better apologetic arguments that this and I think, or at least I hope, that you know that...
Shoe: >...{snip}if there is a God that has any kind of higher >intelligence, then it is unlikely he would make >basic Truth so confusing or hidden that it could >not be discovered. My goodness man -- finally something you and I completely agree on. Too bad "basic Truth" is so confusing and hidden that the world's greatest religious scholars (along with a few Billion amateurs) can't agree on what it is. --of course I have examples...how about salvation by faith or by sacrament. NOTHING could be more basic that that AND YET!!!!! JB
God - No salvation for mortals. Jesus - Saved by deeds. (Never claims salvation through faith or believing) Paul - Saved by faith, not deeds. Hmmm....
Hey! So you're still lurking around here, eh? Hereâs the part that I donât understand about what youâre saying. Yes, I agree with you that thereâs a lot of disagreement even among Christians. But hereâs, I think anyway, the point that I canât get you to see: it doesnât matter. Suppose just for a minute that I, and others like me are correct. In other words, letâs say that the gospel is really as simple as believing in Jesus and that then itâs up to Him â again supposing there is a Christian God â to give rebirth and the Holy Spirit. If that is really the case, then whether or not you sprinkle at baptism, emphasize works a little more, etc, etc. really isnât that critical to rebirth. In fact, the likely cause for all confusion is the fact that the gospel is so simple and counterintuitive that men muck it up. I know you know this is true: I can go to a conference with a bunch of evangelicals (and even mainstream Protestants) and feel very comfortable there. Thereâs probably not one of them that I would agree across the board with. But I know that the great majority of them are probably really born again anyway and so they're my bro's. This is how evangelicals think about it: simple faith leads to a born again experience. So while all the difference among Christians is fun debate material, it has little practical value or interest to the typical evangelicalâ¦
I understand what youâre saying in the sense that Jesus had no formal Pauline apologetic and did sometimes mention works-related issue with respect to salvation. But Jesus very definitely mentioned a rebirth experience, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that would follow and mentioned faith and belief every other sentence he spoke. So, again, the problem that you are going to have with this line of thought if that the greatest proponenet of being born again was Jesus Himself. Again, thatâs why all jus evangelicals and Protestants generally, feel so comfortable around each other. Itâs the born again experience and belief that unites us â not theological uniformity.
there was only one time in the bible where jesus was specifically asked what it takes to enter heaven. he could have said just believe in me or just have faith. he did not. in the story he said: Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, " `Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and `love your neighbor as yourself.'" "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?" Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
That is a good point. But if there is one place where faith merits eternal life and both Paul and Jesus allude to it. 1 cor 11 29 and Jesus' bread of life sermon in John 6:53 and on. If you think it is purely symbolic you must study the words. You must also wonder why the Jews would have walked away, and then the Multitudes and when Jesus turned to the disciples would they say but Master where would we go? This is the one spot in my mind where both Jesus's words about deeds and Paul writings about faith collide into one saving spot. It is interesting that Protestants have lost the faith on this passage arond the time Newton started speaking about cause and effect. And the Catholic Church keeps sinners way from communion even though 1 corinthians says you must go to communion "worthily" not "worthy". Of course we are not worthy but that is not the Point. Jesus is giving us his body and blood and we therefore are granted through grace eternal life.