Ask your Questions regarding Christianity.

[Mark2020]

Why are you two having a debate here?
Shouldn't this thread be about questions to fallingblood?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I will have to do a little bit more research on this, as off the top of my head I can't a specific quote. I would personally put it back to around 90-95 C.E. with the Gospel of John. A very good case can be made for the idea that the author of John saw Jesus as God, or a form of God.
Now, it would be doubtful that one could locate the first exact statement, as the idea would have been worked out in the oral tradition, but I would say that the Gospel of John is possibly the first time that the idea was written, that we know of.

Didn't John write [1v34] that for his record [written record] that he, John, believed Jesus was the 'Son of God'. No where does John write Jesus is God.

John, as a man, saw Jesus in the flesh. If John believed Jesus was God,
then why would John write in verse 18 that:
No man has seen God at any time?

Didn't John also at 1st John 4v12 write that No man has seen God at any time?

John wrote in his gospel that 'Nathanael' [1v49] believed Jesus is Son of God.

John wrote [6v69] that 'Peter [speaking for all 12]' believed Jesus was the Holy One of God.

John wrote [10v36] that the 'Jews' thought Jesus blasphemed because Jesus said, "I [Jesus] am the Son of God:.

John wrote [11v27] that 'Martha' believed Jesus is Son of God

John wrote [14v28 B] that Jesus' Father is greater than Jesus.

John wrote [19v7] the 'Jews' thought the reason Jesus ought to die was because Jesus made himself the Son of God.
[does not say made himself God].

John wrote [20v17 B] the resurrected 'Jesus' thinks his Father is still his God.
[Rev 3v12]

John concludes at John [20v31] that the reason John wrote his gospel was so that we might believe Jesus is the Son of God.

Jesus warned against oral traditions or customs.
Mark 7 vs1-7,13; Matthew 15v9

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am currently in the process of expanding the information on my website, and one way I plan on doing this is to incorporate a question and answer section on my site. So I am asking people to submit any question they may have regarding Christianity, and I will post it as well as an answer on my site, as well as this thread. Thank you.

Thank you.

What is your view of the Desposyni?

 

[Katzpur]

Were Arians not Actual Christians? (This goes to Fallingblood) Are JW's not "actual Christians"? Mormons? Christadelphians? Unitarians?

All of the above are Christians (except for those Unitarians who don't even claim to be).

Do you think its possible that Trinitarians are actually NOT "actual Christians?"

No, an error in doctrine does not make a person's belief in Jesus Christ null and void.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

It depends. First, just a little background. I grew up in an evangelical fundamentalist household. I actually got ordained in the church we attended (a non-denominational), and then later with the Assemblies of God (the church I attended merged with an Assemblies congregation, so I went through ordination again. I have now had that ordination revoked). I was born again, saved, baptized with the Holy Spirit, etc.

So I guess it boils more down to whether or not one believes in the idea once saved always saved. Personally, I don't have an opinion on it.

Heheheh.... I guess it didn't go over to well when you started preaching that sin doesn't exist.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So I guess it boils more down to whether or not one believes in the idea once saved always saved. Personally, I don't have an opinion on it.

However, the apostle Paul wrote God's opinion about once saved always saved.

Hebrews [6 vs4-6] starts out with what is impossible.
What is impossible is regarding those who have once been enlightened,
and who have tasted the heavenly free gift,
and who have become partakers of holy spirit,
and who have tasted the good word of God and powers of the world,
or order of things to come, but > who have fallen away, <
to renew or revive them again to repentance,
because they impale the Son of God afresh for themselves
and expose Jesus to public shame.

Paul is also clear [1st Cor. 9v27] that he wanted to keep his body in subjection lest after he preached to others, that Paul himself should be a castaway.
If 'once saved always saved' was Scriptural there would have been no need for Paul to have any concern about being disapproved somehow by God.

 

[Shermana]

Why are you two having a debate here?
Shouldn't this thread be about questions to fallingblood?

I originally said "This goes to fallingblood" and then I was questioned and had to respond.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I am currently in the process of expanding the information on my website, and one way I plan on doing this is to incorporate a question and answer section on my site. So I am asking people to submit any question they may have regarding Christianity, and I will post it as well as an answer on my site, as well as this thread. Thank you.

How about pathways into Heaven and how they differ in each of the Abrahamic Religions. While its generally accepted that the only way to Heaven is be accepting Christ as your savior I think there are some special dispositions for innocents like infants and children. If a baby dies in child birth it gets to go to heaven and such. Comparing the Christian methods to the Jewish and Islam methods might be cool too. I know that in Islam there are 3 paths to heaven; through nature, through the holy books, and through the prophets. I always thought that was interesting since in Islam, Jews and Christians can still get to Heaven since Islam recognizes all the Jewish prophets and consider's Jesus to be one as well.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

I would like to ask about the word "christianity"?

where in bible Jesus said that your religion is called "christianity"?

if Jesus didn't mention that , then who called them so?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I would like to ask about the word "christianity"?
where in bible Jesus said that your religion is called "christianity"?
if Jesus didn't mention that , then who called them so?

Gospel writer Luke also penned the Bible book of Acts.
Luke wrote at Acts [11v26] which first names Jesus' followers as Christians.
Later on at Acts [26v28 A] Luke records Agrippa using the word Christian.

Jesus' apostle Peter wrote at 1st Peter [4v16] the possibility of suffering as a Christian.

I hope the above is of help to you. Please keep in mind that Jesus did teach that many would come 'In His Name' but prove false in Matthew chapter 7.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

How about pathways into Heaven and how they differ in each of the Abrahamic Religions. While its generally accepted that the only way to Heaven is be accepting Christ as your savior I think there are some special dispositions for innocents like infants and children. If a baby dies in child birth it gets to go to heaven and such. Comparing the Christian methods to the Jewish and Islam methods might be cool too. I know that in Islam there are 3 paths to heaven; through nature, through the holy books, and through the prophets. I always thought that was interesting since in Islam, Jews and Christians can still get to Heaven since Islam recognizes all the Jewish prophets and consider's Jesus to be one as well.

Jesus taught at John [3v13] that: No man has ascended up to heaven.
Everyone that lived between Genesis and Malachi and all that died before Jesus died did Not go to heaven. Including king David. -Acts 2v34

Adam was never offered heaven but, if obedient, everlasting life on earth. Before Jesus, the only hope held out for mankind was an earthly resurrection.
Under Jesus 1000-year reign over earth, Jesus will fulfill God's promise to Abraham [Gen 22vs17,18] that all families of earth and all nations of earth will be blessed. Blessed with healing or curing of the nations. Rev 22v2.

Please also notice God's viewpoint at 1st Corinthians 7v14.
Parents are responsible for minor children in God's eyes.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Please also notice God's viewpoint at 1st Corinthians 7v14.
Parents are responsible for minor children in God's eyes.

Does that mean if the parents are saved Christians then the child is saved and if the parents are damned then so is the child? Rather harsh don't you think?

 

[fallingblood]

I would like to ask about the word "christianity"?

where in bible Jesus said that your religion is called "christianity"?

if Jesus didn't mention that , then who called them so?

Jesus never uses the term Christianity. As far as we know, none of the earliest Christians (his immediate followers and/or disciples) used the term. For instance, when looking at the work of Paul, the term is absent.

The reason for that is quite simple. Jesus, the earliest movement, and Paul, were still working under Judaism. Christianity, at that time, had not yet emerged as a separate entity.

Acts is the first time that we see the term Christian being used. However, it really doesn't tell us anything in particular, besides that the term was first used in Antioch. At that time, it probably still referred to members of a sect of Jews. Many scholars believe that it was first used by Roman authorities (partially as a insult or slur) to differentiate this new group from other recognized form of Judaism.

The term Christianity doesn't come around until later than that Acts is written around 80-90 C.E. (possibly a little bit later), so we can push back the term Christianity a little bit further than that. It arose out of the rift that was forming between these members of the Jesus movement, and Rabbinical Judaism that started after the first Jewish Revolt. At that time, Rabbinical Jews began centralizing their religion, and essentially pushing out other sects. This included the newer sect of Christians. They were being pushed out of Judaism and eventually formed a separate religion.

The term Christianity was a very good suit because Jesus was also known as Christ. So a derivative of that was a simple way to make a distinction.

 

[fallingblood]

Heheheh.... I guess it didn't go over to well when you started preaching that sin doesn't exist.

I didn't say sin doesn't exist. I do ask if you're going to respond to me (which this thread was intended for questions to be asked to me in the understanding that it would help further the information on my site), please make sure that you actually read what I say and understand it.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I didn't say sin doesn't exist. I do ask if you're going to respond to me (which this thread was intended for questions to be asked to me in the understanding that it would help further the information on my site), please make sure that you actually read what I say and understand it.

You basically said its a creation of man and that God doesn't have a law we can break.

"Honestly, I don't think much about sin. Looking at the dictionary, this is probably the closest definition of sin that I see: "an act regarded as a serious or regrettable fault, offense, or omission." "

"I have a hard time seeing it as a transgression of a divine law, as many definitions suggest. But I do believe that all people sin, and that sin should be avoided as much as possible. I don't think that a person who sins will be condemned though. This is partially because I do not believe in the idea of hell either."

 

[fallingblood]

Thank you.

What is your view of the Desposyni?

Before I actually started doing serious research into Historical Jesus scholarship, and NT scholarship in general, I did spend quite a bit of time reading pseudo-scholarship (I wasn't aware that it was poor research at the time), and other shoddy research on the family of Jesus. In all of that poor research, there were some good gems in all of that.

I do accept that Jesus had siblings, and I have no doubt that they were blood brothers. I know some claim that they were either cousins, or step-brothers/sister; however, such arguments have never convinced me as the Gospels and Paul seem quite clear on the point that they were full brothers, and sisters of Jesus.

Of all of the family members of Jesus, James is the one we know most about, and probably the only one that we have definite information about. And even that is skimpy. Basically there is the treatment in Acts and Paul as well as the short reference in Josephus. I would say what we can know for definite about him is that he was the leader of the Jerusalem church which led the Jesus movement, was quite well respected, and was killed which caused a good deal of upset.

I would say that is nearly all we can really know about the family of Jesus. There is a brief mention of the brothers of Jesus in Paul, and that they were married, but other than that, I don't think they were all that important in Christianity once it moved away from the original movement. Since there is a reference to the brother of Jesus being married though, I would say it is quite likely (especially since he also had sisters) that at least one of his siblings had children. So there was probably some form of bloodline that formed and continued on; however, I doubt it could ever really be traced with any accuracy as I just don't see the early Church being to interested in such matters.

As for the story in Eusebius about the two Desposyni that were brought before Domitian, I wouldn't put much stock in it. I could see how it could have a grain of truth in it, but I doubt it. I see it to be similar to the story about Herod and the massacre of the innocences. Mainly because I can't see an emperor being afraid of the advent of Christ.

Then there are those stories about Jesus having a child and a direct bloodline still in tact; however, those are hardly based on any credible evidence. And when it all boils down, I don't see the Desposyni, to whatever extent it really was, to be that important. I think James was important for the initial movement, but as soon as it moved from Judaism to a separate religion, and family of Jesus would loose actual importance. As soon as they joined Christianity, they essentially would have moved away from what Jesus actually taught. Now, if they continued the actual tradition that Jesus began, it would be different, but we just don't see that.

So to sum up, I just don't see much importance in the Desposyni. I do enjoy reading some of the stories that have come up about them, but in regards to Christianity, or the Jesus movement, I don't think that as a whole, they played a major part. And after Christianity separated into a new religion, there role, if any, just was nothing important.

 

[fallingblood]

You basically said its a creation of man and that God doesn't have a law we can break.

"Honestly, I don't think much about sin. Looking at the dictionary, this is probably the closest definition of sin that I see: "an act regarded as a serious or regrettable fault, offense, or omission." "

"I have a hard time seeing it as a transgression of a divine law, as many definitions suggest. But I do believe that all people sin, and that sin should be avoided as much as possible. I don't think that a person who sins will be condemned though. This is partially because I do not believe in the idea of hell either."

You didn't read what I said carefully, and instead interjected your own biases towards me into your understanding. I stated that I believe all sin, thus I believe in sin. I also did not state it was a creation of man, and I didn't state that God doesn't have a law. I simply stated that I have a hard time seeing sin as a transgression of a divine law (I don't state that it doesn't exist, and neither do I say that it is man made).

Basically, you didn't take enough time to really read what I said.

 

[fallingblood]

I will get back to the rest of the questions later today. When I post these answers on my site, I will also polish them a bit, but the answers will be the same.

I do thank everyone who has asked a question thus far, and I will get to them as often as possible.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

You didn't read what I said carefully, and instead interjected your own biases towards me into your understanding. I stated that I believe all sin, thus I believe in sin. I also did not state it was a creation of man, and I didn't state that God doesn't have a law. I simply stated that I have a hard time seeing sin as a transgression of a divine law (I don't state that it doesn't exist, and neither do I say that it is man made).

Basically, you didn't take enough time to really read what I said.

But you're saying if God has a law that its not a law we're capable of breaking. As far as the relationship between a man and his creator is concerned sin doesn't exist

 

[fallingblood]

But you're saying if God has a law that its not a law we're capable of breaking. As far as the relationship between a man and his creator is concerned sin doesn't exist

No, I'm not saying that.