Ask your Questions regarding Christianity.

[fallingblood]

I am just curious as to what makes you think God exists? You say people are saved but you don't believe in Hell. What are they saved from?
If you don't believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead does he have the ability to still save you from death?Why should people not have the fear of death?
Do you assume Heaven exists but not hell?
Since none of your idealogies are based in scripture where do you get them from?
Sorry for so many questions but you have me puzzled.

I think God exists simply because I do. My belief in God is based on personal reasons, primarily a need for answers. It answers, for me, the question of how the universe came about. Now, I wouldn't argue that God is the creator of the universe, but I do have faith in that. It also answers more mundane questions as well.

I also just like the idea of God. Growing up with such a belief, it really stuck. I find some comfort in my belief of God, and it just isn't something that I want to give up. Really, I just believe in God because I do.

As for what people are saved from? That is a hard question. I don't believe in hell, so people won't be saved from that. I can see them being saved from death (obviously people would still die, but instead of just rotting in a hole, their soul would go to heaven or some equivalent). It could be being saved from the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth (assuming that the idea of reincarnation is true).

Really, I don't have a definite answer (I don't think much about death in general, or theological ideas). But I do think that something does happen after death. I don't know exactly what, but I do think that something happens.

Now I don't think that Jesus physically raised from the dead. However, I do believe that there was possibly some sort of resurrection (again, this is a very theological question, and I just don't delve much into the field). I think that it is possible that a spiritual resurrection occurred, in which the physical body of Jesus was left, but his spiritual self (a spiritual body) was resurrected. So even though out physical body dies, we still do not fully die. Thus, we have no reason to fear death, as it is only this physical form of us that actually die.

As for heaven, I can't say for. I think it is a possibility, but I also think it is possible that reincarnation is what really happens. I even am not opposed to the idea that we just die. I do like the idea of an after life, and the concept of heaven is appealing, but I just don't have a definite belief on the subject.

Where do my beliefs come from? Part of them do come from scriptures. I just interpret them a little different. Many of them are influenced by different religions, including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Atheist thinkers have also helped influence my beliefs. However, much of it boils down to the scholarly research that I have done. It has influenced much of my religious thinking by seeing things in more historical terms, instead of theological terms.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

fallingblood-

Yes, people being 'saved' from death.
The 'biblical hell' [sheol] is just the common grave of mankind.
The dead sleep in the 'Bible's hell'. [John 11 vs11-14; Ecc9v5]
Jesus having the keys to unlock death and the grave makes the resurrection possible.
[Rev 1v18] Resurrection to either life in heaven, or resurrected to life on earth.
The prophet Daniel looked forward to being awakened from death's sleep.
[Daniel 12vs2,13]

Do the humble sheep-like people of Matthew [25vs31,32,46] die?_______
They are 'saved' from death right into everlasting life.
Everlasting life starting at the time of Jesus messianic 1000-year reign over earth.
They are 'saved' through the great tribulation [Rev 7v14; Matt 24v21]
The 'come out' alive right into Jesus millennial reign over earth.
That leaves the rest [dead mankind] to be 'delivered up' [resurrected] out of the 'Bible's hell' [gravedom].
Then, according to Rev [20vs13,14], 'emptied-out hell' dies a symbolic 'second death' or no further existence for the 'biblical hell' ever again.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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.

Doesn't Acts [11v25] mention 'Saul' [That was Paul's original name].
So, Saul [Paul] was already involved with Christianity by verse 26 where the term Christian is first mentioned.

At Acts [26v28] isn't it King Agrippa that addresses: Paul ?
By listening to 'Paul' King Agrippa was influenced.

Peter wrote around the year 64, before Jerusalem was destroyed in 70.
Peter uses the word 'Christian' at 1st Peter 4v16.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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?

On the surface it can sound rather harsh.
God has made his standards known through the pages of Scripture.
[That is why the commission of Matthew [24v14] is so vital today]

God always first forewarns before taking action:
Noah was not just an Ark builder but a preacher according to 2nd Peter 2v5.
Noah declared God's pointed warning message.
God's resolve to bring ruin to the ungodly.
That is why Peter also writes [3v7] God's wrath is for the perdition or destruction of the ungodly.
Verse [9 B] informs God is not willing that any should perish [be destroyed] but that all should repent.

Revelation [11v18B] mentions God will bring to ruin those ruining the earth.
Besides greedy people poisoning the earth with pollution,
as in Noah's day the earth is polluted with violence and immorality.

How many follow God's moral standards today?
One person told me his job includes transporting 'delinquent toddlers'.
Toddlers that only know cursing and rap and who they are going to cut up.
God knows the limit when a person is beyond reform or redemption.
Paul describes the bad attitudes and actions how people would behave in the last days of badness on earth before Jesus ushers in Peace on Earth toward men of goodwill.

Jesus [according to Rev 19v11] will carry on 'righteous warfare'.
Unlike men's wars No one innocent will be killed. [Isaiah 11vs3,4]
That means the children of ungodly parents have now, or will, so to speak,
have also reached the point of no return. [As the twig is bent........]

 

[fallingblood]

Do you think it's possible Paul was one of the false apostles who Jesus warned would deceive the elect and was the "False apostle of Ephesus" warned about in Revelation?

My opinion on Paul has changed greatly, especially lately since I'm spending more time researching him and his life. As a very simple answer to your question, I would say no.

A more complicated answer; I think Paul is interesting. I would label Paul, before his "conversion" an extremist Jew. He tells us himself that he persecuted this new Jesus movement, and that he was very fervent in his beliefs.

Then all of a sudden, he switches his ideas. And honestly, I think he was confused to a point. He had this new found idea, and he simply had not formed it all of the way. At the same, he believed that the end was near, and that he had to get this message out. In his view, there wasn't really time to fully form this new belief, as it wouldn't matter as shortly, the end would be here. So, he had more of an immature view of the religion.

This idea that the world was going to end soon, shaped many of his beliefs, or helped direct where his beliefs would go. I think this is why he was open to the idea of allowing gentiles into the movement as well. He wanted to save as many people as possible, and because of that, it opened his ideas quite a bit.

This belief that the end was soon also probably put him into somewhat of a panic, at least at first. Closer to the end of his ministry, we do see him settling down a bit. I personally think that if he ended up realizing that his first idea that the end was near was simply untrue (which I think he would have if he had lived longer), his message would have changed quite a bit.

So basically, I think he was some what confused. He didn't think he had enough time to study the subject in depth. He saw the end was near, and wanted to get the message out as quickly as possible, and basically developed his theology while on the road, many times off the top of his head. Which is mainly why his teachings were the way in which they were. I wouldn't call him a false prophet, just a confused one.

 

[fallingblood]

Was there a time when you genuinely believed Jesus was God? That we died and rose to pay our our sins? You know, the stuff that actual Christians believe? Do you acknowledge that Christianity teaches that the doctrines you are spreading are straight from the Devil's mouth? Given your Christian background, does that instill fear in you, fear of the wrath of God?

I do feel that this is not a very honest question. But I will answer it anyway.

As I have stated previously, I did grow up in a fundamentalist household, and was even ordained. I truly believed that Jesus was God, and the resurrection story. So yes I did genuinely believe in those ideas.

However, to say that those are ideas that actual Christians believe, simply is false. Christianity is extremely diverse, and has changed greatly over time. The idea that your ideal of Christianity is correct, and those who disagree with you aren't Christians, simply is ridiculous, arrogant, and very close-minded.

And no, spreading what I think is a good message does not fill me with fear of the wrath of God. I think God would have no problem with what I'm spreading. And no, I don't think what I'm saying is taught by Christianity to be coming from the mouth of God. Yes, I accept that there are some Christians, who are narrow-minded, who would say such, but I don't let them get to me.

 

[fallingblood]

Doesn't Acts [11v25] mention 'Saul' [That was Paul's original name].
So, Saul [Paul] was already involved with Christianity by verse 26 where the term Christian is first mentioned.

At Acts [26v28] isn't it King Agrippa that addresses: Paul ?
By listening to 'Paul' King Agrippa was influenced.

Peter wrote around the year 64, before Jerusalem was destroyed in 70.
Peter uses the word 'Christian' at 1st Peter 4v16.

I'm not going to really address everything you said, as the purpose of this thread is something very different. But I will address two things here.

First, Paul is never said to be a Christian, and never uses the term Christian. The first time that the term Christian is used (which does not mean that Christianity existed. Christianity most likely formed after the term Christian was coined, and is probably the reason why Christianity was named such) simply says that it was first used in Antioch. It does not say when it was first used though. From what we can know, it was probably first used after Paul was dead. Paul simply never used the term.

As for 1st Peter, it wasn't written by Peter. Most all scholars agree that it wasn't written by Peter, but someone using the name of Peter in order to give the letter more authority.

 

[Katzpur]

Non-trinitarians can be very confusing to deal with.

To me, it's the exact opposite!

On the one hand they might say that Jesus isn't the only God. One other hand they call themselves monotheists. Which is it?

One one hand they say, "...the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God." On the other hand, they say, "and yet they are not three Gods, but one God." Which is it? (For crying out loud, they just named three individuals, each of whom is "God.")

I would say that it's entirely possible to be a non-Trinitarian monotheist. If you look up the word "Godhead" in pretty much any dictionary (I prefer it to "Trinity" since it is the term used in the scriptures), you will find that "God" is one of the synonyms listed for it. In other words, the two words are interchangable, at least in certain contexts. I see "Godhead" as a collective noun, similarly to the way I see the word "team" or "partnership." There is only one Godhead -- comprised of three individuals: a divine Father, a divine Son and a divine Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit). If I am worshipping "God," I am worshipping the Godhead as a single unit. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "one"; I fully believe that. But nowhere in the scriptures are they said to be "one in substance." Throughout the New Testament, though, they are shown to be "one in will and purpose." Don't forget that there are multiple definitions for the word "one." "One" can be used as a numerical designator; it can also be used to mean "united," and with respect to the members of the Godhead, spiritual unity is infinitely more important than physical unity.

I also see "God" as a title which is shared by three individuals, so even though it is accurate to call the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost by this one title, that doesn't change the fact that the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is not the Father.

 

[Shermana]

"Godhead" Actually means "godhood", it's an olde English term that was originally spelled "godhede".

Godhead - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

On the surface it can sound rather harsh.

I totally disagree with you but I don't think this is the correct thread for this debate. How about I start a new one? Look for it momentarily.

 

[uttam]

three questions. (one) Jesus is son of God, Mary is mother of Jesus then is Mary wife of God ?
( two) God is the creator of all thing. is Satan also created by God ? you pray to God for what ?
(three) do christian believe in plant or animal soul . we see pet animals cry and express their feelings by different way which indicate that they have mind and they can think also. how their acts will be judged and what will be the end of their soul after death ?

 

[Katzpur]

I hope you don't care who answers these, or how many different points of view you get.

three questions. (one) Jesus is son of God, Mary is mother of Jesus then is Mary wife of God ?

No. Mary became the wife of Joseph of Nazarath. At the time of Christ's conception, she was not married. The conception took place miraculously, but God was Jesus' literal Father just as Mary was Jesus' literal Mother.

( two) God is the creator of all thing. is Satan also created by God ?

Yes, he is.

you pray to God for what ?

I pray to Him for pretty much everything I need. (I'm still trying to figure out what this question has to do with your question about Satan. Presumably, I missed something.)

(three) do christian believe in plant or animal soul . we see pet animals cry and express their feelings by different way which indicate that they have mind and they can think also. how their acts will be judged and what will be the end of their soul after death ?

Some Christians do. I am one of them. I believe that all life will be resurrected. As far as I'm concerned, if there are no animals in Heaven, it won't be Heaven.

 

[Katzpur]

I think God exists simply because I do.

Me too.

 

[Gaura Priya]

How can Jesus' words be right when there are hundreds and hundreds upon even more interpretations of the same Scripture? How can Christianity be correct or true, when the very Scripture upon it stands seems so completely undependable with various different people saying different things?

Can one just profess a simple faith in Jesus Christ via the New Testament and/or the Book of Mormon, repent, become baptised, and then live a life of charity and kindness towards others, of prayer and simple Christian gatherings?

 

[fallingblood]

three questions. (one) Jesus is son of God, Mary is mother of Jesus then is Mary wife of God ?
( two) God is the creator of all thing. is Satan also created by God ? you pray to God for what ?
(three) do christian believe in plant or animal soul . we see pet animals cry and express their feelings by different way which indicate that they have mind and they can think also. how their acts will be judged and what will be the end of their soul after death ?

No, Mary wouldn't be the wife of God. Most likely, she was the wife of Joseph (even though one could debate that to a point).

There is also reason to doubt that Jesus is the actual son of God. Historically, it is not a defendable position. Since it would be a miracle, it becomes, by the definition of miracle, to be unlikely. Not impossible, but not likely.

However, if we take the story literally, God is only the catalyst to the birth of Jesus. There is no sexual union, no intercourse. Jesus is just miraculously conceived. So the father does not actually have to be the husband.

To the second question, yes, Satan is created by God. Personally though, I don't subscribe to the idea of Satan. I think he is a man made entity that developed out of various traditions. But yes, if Satan exists, and God is the creator of all, Satan would have been created by God.

However, believing in God, doesn't mean one has to believe that he is the creator of all. Personally, I don't subscribe to that idea either. I think he is the beginning catalyst that started the creation of everything, but not the actual creator of everything.

As for praying, I only do it for comfort. For me, praying just allows me to process information, and it allows me to release stress.

To your final question. That depends on various Christians. Most accept that humans have souls (I would probably say all accept that). As for animals, that depends. I personally have no opinion on it. There are those who do not believe that animals have souls. That would be something that definitely separates us from "lower" life forms. I would say this is probably the more dominant view.

Others believe that animals do have souls, but not all animals have souls.

Then others accept that all animals have souls. It really is dependent on each individual.

 

[fallingblood]

How can Jesus' words be right when there are hundreds and hundreds upon even more interpretations of the same Scripture? How can Christianity be correct or true, when the very Scripture upon it stands seems so completely undependable with various different people saying different things?

Can one just profess a simple faith in Jesus Christ via the New Testament and/or the Book of Mormon, repent, become baptised, and then live a life of charity and kindness towards others, of prayer and simple Christian gatherings?

I will first deal with the idea of Christianity being correct or true. The saying of Jesus only compromise a part of the Christian tradition. In fact, it is actually a small part of the tradition.

When dealing with the sayings of Jesus, it is a problem to know exactly what he said, and what he meant. The context that he lived in and that he was apart is very different from the context that we live in. So it is difficult to know what he was saying.

With difficult study, we can narrow that down (and narrow down what he actually said). This sometimes can be very difficult, and at times, means we have to abandon some sayings as being outdated, or just not productive.

In my opinion though, it should all come back to love. Jesus stressed that point.

However, none of this would show that Christianity is true. Simply, one can't show that Christianity is true. In my opinion, it is just one of the possible paths. For some, it works, for others it don't. So I wouldn't say it is the truth, but one form of the truth.

This path, Christianity, can be very different for different members. I still think that it should boil down to love though. That should be a litmus test (and really, I think that should be with any religion or belief form). Some forms don't require the NT or any form of scripture. It may just rely on the perceived idea of Jesus's teachings. It may not require baptism, or prayer, or anything like that.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

three questions. (one) Jesus is son of God, Mary is mother of Jesus then is Mary wife of God ?
( two) God is the creator of all thing. is Satan also created by God ? you pray to God for what ?
(three) do christian believe in plant or animal soul . we see pet animals cry and express their feelings by different way which indicate that they have mind and they can think also. how their acts will be judged and what will be the end of their soul after death ?

1] No God did not marry Mary. God transferred Jesus pre-human life into Mary.

2] Pray to God as Jesus prayed. Worship in truth. [religious truth] John 4vs23,24.

3] After receiving the breath of life Adam came to be a living soul. -Gen 2v7

At death Adam became a dead soul or lifeless soul.
The soul that sins dies according to Ezekiel 18 vs4,20.
The soul can be destroyed according to Acts 3v23.
Animals go by instinct.
Humans have a built in conscience.
Animals were not created to live forever as Adam was.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Others believe that animals do have souls, but not all animals have souls.
Then others accept that all animals have souls. It really is dependent on each individual.

According to Numbers [31v28] like humans animals are souls.

All go to dust according to Ecclesiastes [3 vs19,20].

Animals, nor insects, were promised everlasting life.

 

[muslim-]

Faith vs works, which do you believe in, and which view really represents mainstream Christianity?

Also, I read somewhere that Jesus when young, killed a boy by pushing him off a cliff or something, is this correct? If so, how do you reconcile this with his divinity?

Finally, regarding the Bible, how long after Jesus do you believe was the Bible written and by who?

In a related question, how do you perceive texts like these while maintaining that the Bible today is authentic?

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes [1], page 1528)"

"The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew no only up the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mk that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1008)"

"Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading "According to Mark" in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother's house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1064)"

The questions aren't to debate, but I do wonder sometimes about the position of Christians on this, is it simply accepting "blind faith"?

Speaking of which (sorry for the many questions), do you generally believe in/accept blind faith?

Sorry for the many questions.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Faith vs works, which do you believe in, and which view really represents mainstream Christianity?
Also, I read somewhere that Jesus when young, killed a boy by pushing him off a cliff or something, is this correct? If so, how do you reconcile this with his divinity?
Finally, regarding the Bible, how long after Jesus do you believe was the Bible written and by who?
In a related question, how do you perceive texts like these while maintaining that the Bible today is authentic?
"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes [1], page 1528)"
"The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew no only up the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mk that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1008)"
"Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading "According to Mark" in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother's house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1064)"
The questions aren't to debate, but I do wonder sometimes about the position of Christians on this, is it simply accepting "blind faith"?
Speaking of which (sorry for the many questions), do you generally believe in/accept blind faith?
Sorry for the many questions.

Mainstream Christianity or Christendom is just Christian 'in name only' [Acts 20vs29,30] mostly following customs of men or oral handed-down traditions of men outside of Scripture and that would be credulity or blind faith.
[Mark 7vs1-7,13; Matt 15v9]
Whereas Jesus based his teachings on logical reasoning on Scripture.
Jesus often prefaced his statement with the words: "It is written".
Written already in the Hebrew OT Scriptures.

Faith and Christian works go hand in hand. -James 2v17; Matthew 24v14.

It was the people that wanted to push Jesus off a cliff. -Luke 4 vs28,29

In John [6v15] the people also became disappointed with Jesus because Jesus turned down the opportunity to be in politics by turning down the people's offer who wanted to make him a king in that system of things.
Some were disappointed Jesus was not a political Messiah for them.

How long after Jesus was the Christian part of the Bible written?
John was the last Bible writer completing his work nearing the end of the first century around the years 96 and 98 of our common era.

Good point about those last added on verses in KJV in Mark.
Yes, they are Not part of the original. Mark ends at Mark 16v8.
Jerome and Eusebius agree Mark ends at verse 8.
Unlike the rest of Scripture, there are No corresponding or parallel verses to match after verse 8.
In other words, the ancient manuscripts support Bible canon.
What is apocryphal excludes itself.

Matthew was also known as Levi. Son of Alphaeus [Matt 10v3;Mark 2v14]
Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew. Eusebius quoted Papian of Hierapolis as stating Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language.
[Ecclesiastical History III,xxxIx,16]

Origen made reference to Matthew's account
[Ecclesiastical HistoryVI xxv, 3-6]

Jerome also wrote Matthew composed his gospel in Hebrew.
[De viris inlustribus]

More than 40% of Matthew is not found in the other three gospels.
That includes at least 10 parables or illustrations.
Matthew's gospel contains about a hundred references to the Hebrew Scriptures.

The gospels are meant to be put together in order to create a whole.
In other words, put together in order to make a complete picture.