Christian Concepts

[URAVIP2ME]

Christians find Satan and original sin and any of their other doctrines very easily in the OT. However, lots, or all, of those doctrines aren't from Judaism. I don't think Jews need a Satan/Devil like Christians have. And, they don't need us born with original sin, so that we would need to be saved from our sin inherited from Adam and Eve. So why do Christians need them and when did they come up with them?

Do you know of anyone who has never sinned ? ______
When people break man's laws it is called a crime.
Don't some people also ' sin ' by breaking the motor-vehicle code ?
If we could stop sinning we would Not die.
Since we can Not stop sinning we die.
We can Not resurrect oneself or another, so we need someone who can resurrect us.
According to Scripture, Jesus can give us our life back with the opportunity to gain ' everlasting life ' forever.

 

[CG Didymus]

Do you know of anyone who has never sinned ? ______
When people break man's laws it is called a crime.
Don't some people also ' sin ' by breaking the motor-vehicle code ?
If we could stop sinning we would Not die.
Since we can Not stop sinning we die.
We can Not resurrect oneself or another, so we need someone who can resurrect us.
According to Scripture, Jesus can give us our life back with the opportunity to gain ' everlasting life ' forever.

So if a Jew breaks one of the Laws of their God, what do they do? Don't they have to repent and ask for forgiveness? When a Christian breaks a Jewish Law what do they do? Most of the time they say, "we are not under the Law." Christians do keep a few of the rules like: don't lie, don't steal, don't commit adultery etc. So what do they do when even after getting saved and being filled with the Holy Spirit, they sin anyway? They get convicted of their sin and are expected to repent. How is that different than what a Jew already does? Doesn't God forgive a repentant Jew?

 

[CG Didymus]

If I can respond to this, let me just say that the theology of the RCC is not literalistic in nature, so variations are understood to exist because of the humanness and differences of the authors. It's predominantly the main teachings that are considered to be inerrant.

Hmmm? Humans implied that Jesus was God, but that's okay he doesn't have to literally be God, right? It seems Christians want it both ways. Many of them believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but when there's differences, they claim eyewitnesses see things a little different. But none of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses. Did any of them bother to ask Mary Magdalene what happened? Or did Mary give a different story each time? Or, are the variations because these are handed down "traditions" of what happened.

Here we have the most important event in the history of people and the stories vary? What happens in a court of law when "eyewitness" stories vary? I don't know what happens in real life, but with TV and movie lawyers they tear those eyewitnesses to pieces, for example "My Cousin Vinny". But what happens when the testimonies are from people who heard about the event from eyewitnesses, but their stories vary? Forget about it, why would we trust them? I know, because it's God's Word and it can't be wrong. Hmmm? Hold on a minute. Humans wrote the stories. Humans decided which writing were God's Word. But wait, aren't humans imperfect? Oh, sorry, you said the "main teachings" are inerrant. Just the secondary stuff is off a little. But, if the whole Bible is the Word of God, isn't all of it the "main" stuff? I hope First Baseman comes back and answers some of this, but go ahead Metis and add your thoughts. Thanks.

 

[metis]

Hmmm? Humans implied that Jesus was God, but that's okay he doesn't have to literally be God, right? It seems Christians want it both ways. Many of them believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but when there's differences, they claim eyewitnesses see things a little different. But none of the gospel writers were eyewitnesses. Did any of them bother to ask Mary Magdalene what happened? Or did Mary give a different story each time? Or, are the variations because these are handed down "traditions" of what happened.

Here we have the most important event in the history of people and the stories vary? What happens in a court of law when "eyewitness" stories vary? I don't know what happens in real life, but with TV and movie lawyers they tear those eyewitnesses to pieces, for example "My Cousin Vinny". But what happens when the testimonies are from people who heard about the event from eyewitnesses, but their stories vary? Forget about it, why would we trust them? I know, because it's God's Word and it can't be wrong. Hmmm? Hold on a minute. Humans wrote the stories. Humans decided which writing were God's Word. But wait, aren't humans imperfect? Oh, sorry, you said the "main teachings" are inerrant. Just the secondary stuff is off a little. But, if the whole Bible is the Word of God, isn't all of it the "main" stuff? I hope First Baseman comes back and answers some of this, but go ahead Metis and add your thoughts. Thanks.

First of all, let me just say that what FB says will not be seen by me, so you can have all the fun with him.

What I think likely happened way back when is that the apostles likely believed that Jesus spoke for God, but after they were gone the interpretation became more that Jesus was God. It is unimaginable to me that a group of Jews would pledge allegiance to a man who said he was God. For example, if I say "I am God", what's your gut reaction? And the fact that, when push came to shove, the apostles abandoned Jesus, which should tell us something as well.

Also, Jesus frequently mentions "the Father", thus clearly indicating that he believes God is a separate entity. Also, when referring to the "end of times", Jesus says that he doesn't know when that'll be-- "only the Father knows".

With Paul, who is actually quite bright, imo, he does something that is very "Jewish"-- he uses metaphors frequently, such as that which you also see in the Psalms, Proverbs, and even Revelation. Jews then would understand that these shouldn't be taken literally, but later generations of people not familiar with that form of writing would tend to take them more literally. A great many Christian theologians well know this, but all too often it doesn't trickle down to the masses.

What do you think?

 

[ukok102nak]

:smoke: we really like to reply unto something like this and
sometimes ask question
such as this (WE
NEVER INTENDED TO PUT A OFFTOPIC SITUATION
FOR WE ARE
JUST ASKIN
CAUSE WE ARE NOT ALL KNOWING )
:read:
how are we goin to divide into constituent or distinct elements such as preachin and
especially proselytizing and
specially SOLICITING or
try to obtain (something) from someone
(THIS TICKLE A LOT
FOR WE NEVER TOOK ANYTHING
UNTO ANYONE
EVERSINCE WE LEARNED TO ACCEPT
WHAT IS GOOD AND WHO CANNOT LIE)
and many more

 but sometimes with an
honest mistakes
sometimes took it as those kind of things
(preachin , proselytizing and many more)

~;> we are kindly new here so
bear with us cause if we are goin to debate
are we not supposed to put our own belief
and that's why
sometimes misunderstood it
but with a truthful conversation and
with unintentional displaying of acts
as it is just a misinterpretation unto our belief
to distinguished it from each and everyone's
belief of every individuals
and we're not saying its someone's fault or
anyother way around
as what we've said earlier
sometimes someone like them
who mistakenly (an honest mistakes) thought it as it is
as what they forbid here in RF
and again
we humbly consider to rational between facts and beliefs
for
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

hope you could enlighten us with this
one single question and
hope this is not to much to ask


:ty:



godbless
unto all always

 

[CG Didymus]

First of all, let me just say that what FB says will not be seen by me, so you can have all the fun with him.

What I think likely happened way back when is that the apostles likely believed that Jesus spoke for God, but after they were gone the interpretation became more that Jesus was God. It is unimaginable to me that a group of Jews would pledge allegiance to a man who said he was God. For example, if I say "I am God", what's your gut reaction? And the fact that, when push came to shove, the apostles abandoned Jesus, which should tell us something as well.

Also, Jesus frequently mentions "the Father", thus clearly indicating that he believes God is a separate entity. Also, when referring to the "end of times", Jesus says that he doesn't know when that'll be-- "only the Father knows".

With Paul, who is actually quite bright, imo, he does something that is very "Jewish"-- he uses metaphors frequently, such as that which you also see in the Psalms, Proverbs, and even Revelation. Jews then would understand that these shouldn't be taken literally, but later generations of people not familiar with that form of writing would tend to take them more literally. A great many Christian theologians well know this, but all too often it doesn't trickle down to the masses.

What do you think?

I think you're the best. So much is dependent on the NT being accurate. Some Christians don't take parts of the Bible literal, but still believe in Jesus, the Trinity, Satan, hell, heaven etc. I can't do that. If some things aren't true than I'd rather believe in a different type of religion, one that doesn't condemn most of humanity for not believing. Other than feeling lost and empty, I don't believe a thing Christians tell me.

Now for FB, lots of strikes against him already just because he's Catholic. My parents were very weak Catholics. So even as a kid I asked, "If you guys don't follow all this stuff, why push it on me?" But, I have to admit, things have changed. Catholics tell me it was Vatican II, what ever that is. And now, I like Catholics. A lot of my Catholic friends treat people with other religious views with a lot of respect, which is nice. But is the Catholic Church the one and only truth? Sorry, I can't believe it. Immaculate conceptions? Assumptions? If we're questioning Christian concepts, I have to question how the biggest, most dominate Christian Church came up with these doctrines pawned them off as the truth. For me, Protestants aren't much better... the way they take Jewish Scripture out of context to build doctrines and beliefs ain't going to fly either. To much of every religion really seems to be man made.

 

[ukok102nak]

in christian concepts​

those who are believers of christjesus
(as it is written carefully check every single detail on it
then kindly correct us if we are wrong)
:read:
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:
Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

~;> (so as it is written carefully check every single detail on it
then kindly correct us if we are wrong)
:read:
If all of you be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are all of you; for the spirit e of glory and of God rests upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.
Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
For the time has come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?


:ty:



godbless
unto all always​

 

[ukok102nak]

as what we've said earlier
as they say
:read:
Think not that we come to disobey the rules, or the belief of individual: we not come to disobey, but to fulfill.

for there is a thing
that we called a misconception
meaning if we to authenticate it with
our own view
without recieving their witness or
receive not our witness.
wait .. . .
perhaps we should further clarify about this
so called witness
becaused we used this term to
substitute the word written facts
as one of the basis of our faith
that's why
as what we've said before
there is a thing
that we called a misconception
meaning if we to authenticate it with
our own view
without recieving their witness or
receive not our witness.
if someone would take advantage unto this kind of writtings
without analysing it first or askin the very author of this writtings
then probably
to some degree it could be futile
on both side especially within this
RELIGIOUS DEBATES
(so as it is written carefully check every single detail on it
then kindly correct us if we are wrong)
:read:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and all of you receive not our witness.
If I have told you earthly things, and all of you believe not, how shall all of you believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

~;> and
in addition unto this
we also follow our faith and the rules
so that the very individual
would not misunderstood it
but rather to reconsider it
and either if they believed it or not then
its their right and their choice
and that's the goodwill inside of them
as the good freewill unto all

. ... by the way
its not proper to dictate anyone nor
to tell unto anyone that
THE CONCEPTS OF CHRISTIANS are
BASE ON MAN'S THINKING . . .
for when it come's to christian concepts there's somekind of A LITERALLY PHYSICAL THINGS AND A SPIRITUALLY MYSTICAL THINGS
which are not something a human could distinguised only as for themselves
and by themselves only
(we are pertaining unto those who needs to be enlighten about the concepts of christians)
as for to say something against it
without investigating it first
we could somehow say or
we might be also thinkin
that unfamiliarity with a certain thing could cause to act dishonestly in return

for there is much diffirent from one's opinion unto another
and by giving an opinion a opinion could also be accepted or in in vice versa
(such as this
as it is written carefully check every single detail on it
then kindly correct us if we are wrong)
:read:
For not he that commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends.

also
for not being bias
we entertain another concepts
(where the facts is base from modern science of archaeology)
who is according to him
It is a biblical principle that matters of testimony should be established by the mouths of two or three witnesses. According to Hebrew law, no person could be found guilty of an offense without properly attested evidence from witnesses, even though this law was put aside at the trial ofJesus.

When it comes to the Word of God, a similar principle is demonstrated from the modern science of archaeology. We are told in Psalm 85:11, “Truth shall spring out of the earth,” and in Psalm 119:89, “Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven.” God’s Word is sure. It outlasts human generations, and in His own time God vindicates its truth. This puts God’s Word in a unique category: it is the “other side” of the two-way communication pattern between God and man. Man’s speech distinguishes him uniquely from all the animals, and God’s written Word distinguishes His special communication to man as immeasurably superior to all other supposed revelations.

According to that biblical principle of “two or three witnesses,” we shall now select evidences that support the truth and accuracy of God’s Word. In every area, the evidence has been forthcoming: God has vindicated His Word, and His Book is a genuine writing, with prophecies and revelation that must be taken seriously. His Book is unique because it is His Book.

Those inspired men of old wrote down God’s message, applicable to themselves in their own times, and also applicable to men and women across the centuries, right down to the present century. The Bible is the “other side” of the Christian’s study of the miracle of language. It is God’s chosen way of revealing His thoughts—the deep things which are unsearchable except by the revelation of the Holy Spirit.


:ty:



godbless
unto all always

 

[metis]

I think you're the best. So much is dependent on the NT being accurate. Some Christians don't take parts of the Bible literal, but still believe in Jesus, the Trinity, Satan, hell, heaven etc. I can't do that. If some things aren't true than I'd rather believe in a different type of religion, one that doesn't condemn most of humanity for not believing. Other than feeling lost and empty, I don't believe a thing Christians tell me.

Now for FB, lots of strikes against him already just because he's Catholic. My parents were very weak Catholics. So even as a kid I asked, "If you guys don't follow all this stuff, why push it on me?" But, I have to admit, things have changed. Catholics tell me it was Vatican II, what ever that is. And now, I like Catholics. A lot of my Catholic friends treat people with other religious views with a lot of respect, which is nice. But is the Catholic Church the one and only truth? Sorry, I can't believe it. Immaculate conceptions? Assumptions? If we're questioning Christian concepts, I have to question how the biggest, most dominate Christian Church came up with these doctrines pawned them off as the truth. For me, Protestants aren't much better... the way they take Jewish Scripture out of context to build doctrines and beliefs ain't going to fly either. To much of every religion really seems to be man made.

My wife would give you quite an argument about me being "the best", and I have to agree she's undoubtedly more right than you are, but thanks so much for the compliment anyway. It seems to me that we're so much on the same page that maybe we're identical twins?

My approach to reading scripture is to try and understand what is written in terms of time, place, and authorship, while avoiding getting into the "did this really happen?" kinds of thinking, and then taking the lessons taught and seeing which may apply to make us a better person/society. It's an imperfect art, no doubt, but it helps put things into a perspective that I can live and learn with.

 

[CG Didymus]

My wife would give you quite an argument about me being "the best", and I have to agree she's undoubtedly more right than you are, but thanks so much for the compliment anyway. It seems to me that we're so much on the same page that maybe we're identical twins?

My approach to reading scripture is to try and understand what is written in terms of time, place, and authorship, while avoiding getting into the "did this really happen?" kinds of thinking, and then taking the lessons taught and seeing which may apply to make us a better person/society. It's an imperfect art, no doubt, but it helps put things into a perspective that I can live and learn with.

Yes, you're the best, but I don't have to live with you. That's tough, putting up with the good and the bad day after day. Did you show her the post?

 

[Neo Deist]

Jews then would understand that these shouldn't be taken literally, but later generations of people not familiar with that form of writing would tend to take them more literally. A great many Christian theologians well know this, but all too often it doesn't trickle down to the masses.

What do you think?

I have been saying that for years.

 

[metis]

Yes, you're the best, but I don't have to live with you. That's tough, putting up with the good and the bad day after day. Did you show her the post?

No, I didn't, but we've discussed it together many times and she pretty much agrees.

BTW, she's a very observant Catholic, and I do go to mass with her regularly. With us being married for 49 years, she's a saint, let me tell ya, but somehow my own halo seems to have gotten tied up in the mail somewhere.

 

[savagewind]

You have a Th D and a D.D. and you ask me a theological question? I thought your higher education made you the expert?

Jesus said "I and the Father are One." The Jews killed Jesus because He claimed He was equal with God. But of course since you probably don't believe the Apostles you probably don't believe this, either.

Jesus and the Father are One meaning they are equal. Who gave God all authority in Heaven and on Earth? Matthew 28:18

 

[savagewind]

If you read the verse where Jesus proclaims to the Sanhedrin that they will see Him coming on the clouds of Heaven, and if you know how that imagery is used in the Old Testament (here's a hint: Only God is ever spoken of as coming on the clouds of Heaven, do a search), then you know that Jesus was claiming complete and total equality with God.

Who gave God all authority in Heaven and on Earth?

 

[savagewind]

I think the definition I know of GOD is; It which is above every authority. If Jesus is God, WHO gave Jesus all authority? Please answer the question.

I will help you. To be given something must mean that it wasn't yours. Whose was it?

 

[savagewind]

I checked on what the experts might say about it. I googled: can someone give something to ones self and I got nothing. But then, I thought a headache, I can give myself a headache. But I think, if I have a headache, can I still give myself one?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So if a Jew breaks one of the Laws of their God, what do they do? Don't they have to repent and ask for forgiveness? When a Christian breaks a Jewish Law what do they do? Most of the time they say, "we are not under the Law." Christians do keep a few of the rules like: don't lie, don't steal, don't commit adultery etc. So what do they do when even after getting saved and being filled with the Holy Spirit, they sin anyway? They get convicted of their sin and are expected to repent. How is that different than what a Jew already does? Doesn't God forgive a repentant Jew?

Under the Constitution of the Mosiac Law an animal sacrifice was used in connection to repentance.
Perhaps you might recall Job 1:5 B where Job even made sacrifices for possible missed sins.
Since Jesus became a once-for-all-time sacrifice - Hebrews 9:26 - then animal sacrifices were No longer necessary in connection to repentance.
It is ' after getting saved ' because Jesus taught the ' one who endures to the end ' is the one who is saved - Matthew 24:13
We either endure to the end of one's life, or endure to the end of this world of badness to be saved - Matthew 24:14
Christians are also to 'keep the rules', so to speak, of Matthew 24:13-14; Matthew 28:18-20; Acts of the Apostles 1:8; John 13:34-35
Those who endure to the coming ' time of separation ' on Earth are classified as being the figurative humble sheep of Matthew 25:31-33,37
So, everyone ( Jew and non-Jew ) are expected to repent ( turn around and Not practice sin ) so as Not to 'perish ' (be destroyed) - 2 Peter 3:9

 

[Muffled]

Me: Pilate, who was known to be cruel, simply had Jesus executed to make an example out of him. He had the Roman army at his disposal and took orders only from Caesar. Christians moved to make Jesus into a martyr.

You: Jesus is part of some holy trinity, became God in the flesh by way of a virgin birth after some ghost raped Mary, nothing about his life is described from the age of 12 to 30, he gets teleported around the world by the boogeyman Satan who throws temptations at him, he gets nailed to a crucifix and dies in a classic Roman style of execution, the Gospels disagree on who all went to the tomb, resurrects three days later even though no one recognizes him, and eventually ascends into heaven where millions of people believe they will rejoin him, even though the Bible never says we go to heaven, just paradise on new earth. His sacrifice paved the way for the forgiveness for our sins by an omnipotent creator of the universe (who could skip all the rep tape and just say "all sin is forgiven" and be done with it).

And yours is the greater logic?

I believe so but if you are dubious you should put it to the test.

Let's look at your logic:

Pilate was cruel.
Pilate executed Jesus to make an example out of Him.
Pilatae had to answer to Caesar.
Therefore Christians made Jesus a martyr.

I believe you should notice that there is no mention of Christians in the premises so how does one reach a conclusion based on nothing? It is called a non-sequitur.

 

[Muffled]

I think the definition I know of GOD is; It which is above every authority. If Jesus is God, WHO gave Jesus all authority? Please answer the question.

I will help you. To be given something must mean that it wasn't yours. Whose was it?

I believe only God has all the authority so He can only give it to Himself. Otherwise it makes no sense.

 

[Muffled]

:smoke: we really like to reply unto something like this and
sometimes ask question
such as this (WE
NEVER INTENDED TO PUT A OFFTOPIC SITUATION
FOR WE ARE
JUST ASKIN
CAUSE WE ARE NOT ALL KNOWING )
:read:
how are we goin to divide into constituent or distinct elements such as preachin and
especially proselytizing and
specially SOLICITING or
try to obtain (something) from someone
(THIS TICKLE A LOT
FOR WE NEVER TOOK ANYTHING
UNTO ANYONE
EVERSINCE WE LEARNED TO ACCEPT
WHAT IS GOOD AND WHO CANNOT LIE)
and many more

 but sometimes with an
honest mistakes
sometimes took it as those kind of things
(preachin , proselytizing and many more)

~;> we are kindly new here so
bear with us cause if we are goin to debate
are we not supposed to put our own belief
and that's why
sometimes misunderstood it
but with a truthful conversation and
with unintentional displaying of acts
as it is just a misinterpretation unto our belief
to distinguished it from each and everyone's
belief of every individuals
and we're not saying its someone's fault or
anyother way around
as what we've said earlier
sometimes someone like them
who mistakenly (an honest mistakes) thought it as it is
as what they forbid here in RF
and again
we humbly consider to rational between facts and beliefs
for
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

hope you could enlighten us with this
one single question and
hope this is not to much to ask


:ty:



godbless
unto all always

It is fun to debate with a newbie so welcome aboard.

I believe just posting scripture without saying anything about it tends to be pointless

I believe just rattling off a bunch of things you believe without responding to a posting could well be considered preaching.

I believe telling someone they need to change can be considered proselytizing.