Christianity: A Summary

[David T]

You succeeded in making no sense at all.

I know its really complex is t it. Avout one second is what it takes to understand but that requires a moment of with reality. I suggest hiking wilderness trails. Anything to get out of the nonsense.

 

[lukethethird]

I have been a student of Christian history and the Bible for over 45 years. My goal here is to offer a simple summary and historical consensus of the Christian faith. I will try to avoid denominational issues or cultural influences, and concentrate on the central elements of historical, biblical Christianity. Many of the terms will be of classical usage, and might carry ambiguity for some. I will try to clarify if there is confusion.

Christianity has been the caretaker of a worldview, concerning the nature of God, man, and the universe.
God
God is infinite, eternal, omnipotent, and omnipresent. He created all things with a word. He is everywhere, and has no constraints of time and space. He is perfect, without flaw, gender, or limitations common to the creation.

Man
Man was created as a perfect being, and enjoyed open communion with God. God created man in His image, and shares traits with the creature. Man was created as an eternal soul, that transcends his material being.

The Universe
The universe was created in purity and perfection, and will be restored to that state when the fallen era ends. The order and majesty of God is reflected in the material universe.

The Fall
Evil and discord entered the universe when an angelic being rebelled against God, and corrupted the perfection of God's creation. Death and suffering became part of the experience of all living creatures. Man joined in that rebellion, where lies, murder, and human corruption ran rampant. Both the material and spiritual realms are in discord, in this cosmos of rebellion and enmity toward God.

Redemption
God made provision for the rebellion of man. Even though man's sins and corruption were contrary to the standard and nature of God, He provided a Way of escape from the coming reckoning. He became a man, Himself, and took the penalty for all of man's sins, if they will receive it. God appeared in the person of Jesus, and revealed the nature of God. He outlined the process of redemption, for those who would accept it. It is a spiritual transaction that has been likened to rebirth, or going from darkness to light. It is a quickening of the soul, where the lost human is awakened to the perception of spiritual reality. It usually involves acknowledging God and the atonement of Jesus, repentance for past wrongs, and the reception of God's Spirit into the redeemed soul. It is a very personal transaction, and transforms the life of the recipient.

Citizenship
The redeemed souls are now God's people. They have been likened to the children of God, His beloved bride, and a home for His dwelling. They are no longer of this fallen world, even though they still live in it. Their primary loyalties are to God and His government, not to any earthly institution of man.

Deception
This world is under the influence of a great deceiver. His goal is to kill and destroy, and to bring confusion to man so he cannot understand the redemption process, and be reconciled to God.

Restoration
The evils, suffering, and deceptions of this world are temporary, and will end when Jesus returns to make all things right. The universe will change, and God's kingdom and rule will be absolute and complete. Sin, death, and evil will no longer define the cosmos, but a restoration will take place, and make all things new.

My goal here is to present a concise summary of the basic, historical Christian faith. I feel that footnotes and proof texts would detract from this goal, but i would be happy to elaborate on any point. My perspective here is one of a 20th century American, but i have tried to avoid temporal or regional biases in this summary. This is, however, my perspective of the basic consensus of Christian belief and teaching, over the last 2000 years.

There are many more nuances and expanded points of science, empiricism, miracles, eternity, destiny, and origins that can be examined in greater detail, if there is interest. But i hope this provides a basic framework for better understanding of the Christian faith.

It reads like ancient science fiction, interesting but have read better.

 

[Road Warrior]

I thing that demiurge is in a way emanation OT of the True God to specifically deal with soul types of consciousness, i.e. reflection of how that consciousness sees True God. OT covers a wide range of spiritual conditions.

The OT was also written in less sophisticated times compared to the NT. There's a big difference between the actions of a bunch of desert barbarians and those of a civilized group of people over 1200 years later.

 

[Salvador]

The evils, suffering, and deceptions of this world are temporary, and will end when Jesus returns to make all things right

According to Emmanuel Swedenborg, Jesus Christ's return already did occur; this happened in the spiritual realm and within each person's personal spiritual relationship with Jesus.

References:

The Last Judgment and Babylon Destroyed. All the Predictions in the Apocalypse are at This Day Fulfilled
Emanuel Swedenborg, The Last Judgment and Babylon Destroyed. All the Predictions in the Apocalypse are at This Day Fulfilled, by Emanuel Swedenborg

The True Christian Religion. Containing the Universal Theology of The New Church Foretold by the Lord in Daniel 7; 13, 14; and in Revelation 21; 1,2, Chapter 14

The True Christian Religion, Containing the Universal Theology of The New Church Foretold by the Lord in Daniel 7; 13, 14; and in Revelation 21; 1, 2, by Emanuel Swedenborg

This was one of many events recounted in Emanuel Swedenborg's works resulting from visions he had of Jesus Christ returned . He tells of almost daily interaction with Christ over the course of almost 30 years. His return is not in the flesh, but in His Holy Spirit. "Neither shall they say see here or see there, for behold, the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:20).

Reference: "Angelic Wisdom Concerning the Divine Providence".

 

[InChrist]

What accusation?

Even a child would see a difference between

God1) Adulterers should be stoned to death
God2) Who is without sin throw the first stone.

I think you guys are confused.

I'd say you are confused and don't understand that In the OT God was dealing specifically and distinctly with the nation of Israel where the Law was emphasized, but in the NT God's mercy was revealed in Christ and continues in this time of Grace to the world.

Well, you posted a few definitions of Christianity which contain belief in the one and only Catholic Church. For instance the Nicene creed and the Apostle creed. Assuming you read them before posting them, of course. So, what should we think? That belief in Catholicism is not entailed by Christianity? Why did you post it then if they contain flaws in the definition? Are there other points in those creeds that might not necessarily apply to define a Christian?

And you spent 45 years studying that?

Again, you are very confused.

Ciao

- viole

The word "catholic" means universal and refers to the universal church or the body of believers in Christ and that is the way the word is used in the creeds.

It did not originally mean or refer to the institution of the Roman Catholic Church .


Definition of catholic
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the church universal
b often capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it
c capitalized : roman catholic Her son goes to a Catholic school.
2 : comprehensive, universal especially : broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests a catholic taste in music
Definition of CATHOLIC

 

[leov]

The OT was also written in less sophisticated times compared to the NT. There's a big difference between the actions of a bunch of desert barbarians and those of a civilized group of people over 1200 years later.

OT is very sophisticated, though. Nachmanides says 49 levels of understanding built into it, from literal to level of people who were able to see your mind working. Check meru.org for example. Or search: stan tenen youtube

 

[blü 2]

The dispute over the deity of Christ is perhaps the oldest heresy out there. It was the specific target of many of the early church fathers, apologists, and creeds. I have quoted the Nicene Creed, some of irenaeus' works in 'Against Heresies', and others.

It has NEVER been an accepted 'variable' within Christian orthodoxy. It is a departure from the True Faith, and all the evidence from 2000 years of history confirms that view.

Am I right in reading this as your assertion that 'Jesus is God' is Christian orthodoxy?

If so, yes, for the substantial majority of Christians, it's orthodoxy. Not all, though.

The point is that it's incompatible with the repeated words which the gospels attribute to Jesus in direct speech, with the fact that Jesus never once said 'I am God', and that Paul agrees with Jesus that the Father is God while Jesus is Lord.

It is instead the result of the Trinity doctrine, developed in the 4th century CE to solve the twin political problems of making Jesus God while defending against the jibe that Christians are polytheists just like the pagans.

The Trinity doctrine has the additional problem of being, as theologians call it, 'a mystery in the strict sense', which means that 'it can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed'. If I ascribed that quality to any other proposition, you'd say, 'Ah, you mean it's incoherent, a nonsense.' Yet such is the theology. (The problem is that the Father is 100% of God, Jesus is 100% of God and the Ghost is 100% of God, which means three gods; but the doctrine denies this; and it also denies the alternative, that Father, Jesus and Ghost are fractions of God adding up to 100% eg ⅓+⅓+⅓=1.)

So perhaps unsurprisingly various Christian groups don't accept the Trinity view of God.
+

 

[sayak83]

Obviously, this theme is clearly enumerated in all the early creeds, statements, and apologias. I did not emphasize it in the OP, but allusions to the Godhead are throughout.

Note the emphasized clarifications, in the early creeds..

Apostle's Creed:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

Then,
Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.

The deity of Christ was AMPLIFIED, as the heresies circulated.. Modalism, gnosticism, and many other distortions of the orthodox tenets of basic Christianity circulated until a clarifying statement was needed.

IMO, that clarification is still needed.. constantly..

Am aware. Just saying you missed it in the OP.

 

[blü 2]

No, that is revisionist interpretation, bias, and misquoting. Some shotgun cut and paste from anti-christian web sites does not 'evidence!' make.

First, there's nothing revisionist in what I say. I'm not the one trying to make the bible say things it doesn't say, and I'm not the one pretending the bible doesn't say things it clearly says.

Second, it's not cut and paste, nor is it from any 'anti-christian web sites'. And while I'm not a Christian, and while I'm opposed to fundamentalism of all kinds, I'm not against Christians as such.

Third, you asked for evidence, and I gave you evidence. Your response has been to wave your hand and try to wish the evidence away. Disappointing.

You understand neither the scriptures, nor the power of God..
/shakes head/

It might be fair to suggest that your unresponsive generic attempt at dismissal of the evidence you asked for indicates you're not even willing to read scriptures if they disagree with you.

 

[Jos]

Jesus that the Father is God while Jesus is Lord.

What's the difference between a Lord and a God?

 

[JJ50]

What's the difference between a Lord and a God?

There are human Lords here in the UK, gods are entities for which there is no evidence of their existence.

 

[paarsurrey]

I think Paul is following Christ Jesus exactly.

Then Paul would have not believed that Jesus died a cursed death on Cross. The essence of Sign of Jonah was that as Jonah did not die in the belly of the Fish, so should Jesus not die on the Cross. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Kenny]

This looks like only the OP's personal version of Christianity. One problem with it is that he believes the Adam and Eve myth and many Christians do not. They look at that tale as allegory. One that was not meant to be taken literally.

No... I wouldn't say personal. Quite prevalent, really.

 

[pearl]

Not sure of your criticism. Are you claiming that any of these points are NOT exemplary of historical Christianity?

No. But the theology develops as it must where Mystery is concerned.

 

[usfan]

That God can’t find Adam and Eve in the Garden
Gen 3:9 But the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?"

This is not an example that God 'can't find someone!' That is stretching the translation to say what it is not saying. It is not the intent of the passage, nor is it alluded to. That is a 'gotcha!' moment for hostile critics looking for anything to attack.

That God doesn’t know the number of righteous in Sodom
Gen 18:26 And the LORD said, "If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.

Again, the intent of the passage is not that God can't find someone. The questions Abraham asks are rhetorical, and the replies are also hypothetical. Specifics are not mentioned, just generalities. The progression from 50 to 10 'righteous people', is the crux of the exchange, as Abraham discovers more about the nature of God.

It is not intended or implied that 'God can't find someone!!' 'Ha ha!' That is an absurd caricature from hostile detractors looking for smears and 'gotcha!' moments.

Christianity: A Summary
Paul's Christianity presents Pagan-Christ, it is not related to the teachings of Jesus.
Regards

Incorrect. Paul does not contradict any teachings of Jesus, but affirms them all.

Notice this practice of quashing dissent and decreeing has resulted in thousands of divisions of the church or don't. That is your choice if you don't want to admit it,

I acknowledge, 'quashing dissent and decreeing!', as a human thing, primarily attributable to despots and controlling manipulators. It is not a virtue, in the teachings of Jesus, and to blame Christianity for the actions of despots or charlatans is a flawed attribution.

You do not have to include speculations or allusions to my 'choices!' or understanding. I'll tell you what i think. You don't need to.

The Orthodox and the RC you both disagree with and do not trust.

Again, you put words in my mouth i did not say, nor imply. This is a fallacy. Please stick with reason and facts, in your rebuttals of my points.

On the one hand you tout Iranaeus, but your doctrines only became possible through the freedom of choice which Iranaeus would never have approved of.

My doctrines? I have never brought up my doctrines, and they are irrelevant in this discussion.

Are you going to be just another fallacy heavy debater?

Freedom you call anti christian,

Now, false accusations. I have said the opposite.

The OP is rather a Fundamentalist Calvinist summary of Christianity. But it is not a summary of Christianity because if it were it would contain a summary of the sum total of all Christian viewpoints or all Christianities including those which the OP disagrees with like the Christianities of the Mormons of the JWs or the Roman Catholics or of the various Liberal Christianities. But it doesn't and that is why it fails as a summary. It is a prejudicial, bigoted and myopic opinion as to what Christianity is.

The goal here is to cleary define and enumerate the original, precise, and historical Christianity, as begun by the Founder, continued by His disciples, and extending throughout history as a continuous ideological belief. Departures FROM the original can be noted, or used to contrast comparisons to the original.

Christianity has an exact history, and exact teachings and orthodoxy, directed from the beginning by the Founder. 'Not Christianity', or offshoots, 'inspired by!' copies, or overt heretical departures can be many things, but if they don't fit the historical definition of Christianity, then they are 'not Christianity'.

Islam, Mormonism, Modalism, and Arianism are good examples of this departure from Christian orthodoxy.

One thing for certain is Christianity is clearly well past its zenith now, and will decline into mediocrity

Yes, many people have predicted the demise of Christianity over the millennia.. might as well toss your hat in the ring..

I don't think there are too many folks who don't have a grasp of what the basic beliefs of Christians are. What I question is why they accept them as true.

I see just the opposite. The false caricatures of Christianity are repeated loudly and constantly, until the actual Truth is obscured. That seems to be the goal..

No, not at all. Once again you demonstrate that you do not understand what an ad hom is nor what a deflection is. Are you merely repeating claims used against you? That is what appears to be the case when you keep repeating such basic errors. Where is the ad hom? Please be specific. How was it an ad hom? Once again, you should not use terms that you do not understand.

You can have your Orwellian redefinitions if you want. 'Ad hominem', has been around for thousands of years, and is well known and understood by educated, intelligent people.

Why are progressive indoctrinees so enamored with redefinitions and revisionism?

It reads like ancient science fiction, interesting but have read better.

No problem. I was not looking for a trophy. But your literary critique will be memorable, i am sure..

According to Emmanuel Swedenborg, Jesus Christ's return already did occur; this happened in the spiritual realm and within each person's personal spiritual relationship with Jesus.

Yes, there are many opinions and speculations, and offshoots, from historical, biblical Christianity.

Am I right in reading this as your assertion that 'Jesus is God' is Christian orthodoxy?

Yes. The deity of Christ is a major theme, and is THE CENTRAL ISSUE in orthodox xtian orthodoxy.

If so, yes, for the substantial majority of Christians, it's orthodoxy. Not all, though.

Then those are 'inspired by!' copies, not the original.

It is instead the result of the Trinity doctrine, developed in the 4th century CE to solve the twin political problems of making Jesus God while defending against the jibe that Christians are polytheists just like the pagans.

No, this is a false narrative, that the Deity of Christ was added later. NONE of the gospel writers promoted that false teaching. As this heresy grew, the expansion of terminology was employed to emphasize His Divinity. In every creed, statement, and apologia, the deity of Jesus was constantly emphasized, defended, and affirmed.

Jesus, the disciples, and the earliest apologists all affirmed Christ's Deity. Irenaeus used the terms, 'very God of very God,' which was alluded to in the Nicene creed. Athanasius (a participantin the Nicene council), in the 4th century, expanded the arguments to combat the heresy of arianism, which had become rampant in the 4th century. Tertullian even lamented that 'the whole world had become Arianist.'

In the 4th century, a new term was crafted to describe and clarify the Godhead, from a definitional POV.

ὁμοούσιον

Homoousion (Greek: ὁμοούσιον, romanized: homooúsion, lit. 'same in being, same in essence', from ὁμός, homós, "same" and οὐσία, ousía, "being" or "essence")[1][2] is a Christian theologicalterm, most notably used in the Nicene Creed for describing Jesus (God the Son) as "same in being" or "same in essence" with God the Father (from wiki)

Athanasius crafted an in depth creed, refuting Arianism, and the 'Dark Dwarf' went through several periods of exile for his dedication to this core Christian tenet of faith.

An excerpt from the Athanasian Creed:
Now this is the catholic faith:
That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.
For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
the person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.

And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty being.

Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.

Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.

Just as Christian truth compels us
to confess each person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in their entirety the three persons
are coeternal and coequal with each other.

As you can see, Athanasius does not just say, 'Jesus is God!', but expands, amplifies, and clarifies until there is no doubt as to what he was saying. He was not a word mincer..

A decent article on Athanasius and Arianism, including the Nicene council:
Athanasius

 

[usfan]

It might be fair to suggest that your unresponsive generic attempt at dismissal of the evidence you asked for indicates you're not even willing to read scriptures if they disagree with you.

..maybe.. but it would be ACCURATE, if not 'fair', to say my dismissal of unbased accusations, distortions, and caricatures of Christianity are from tedium, boredom, constant repetition, and weariness in fighting the phony propaganda memes from hostile anti-christian indoctrinees..

 

[blü 2]

What's the difference between a Lord and a God?

Paul's notion (also found in John) appears to reflect the Gnostic concept, where God is perfectly pure and also perfectly remote; therefore a different heavenly being, the demiurge, was required to bring the material world into existence, and to mediate between the material world and God.

So the greatest likelihood is that 'Lord' indicates Paul's version of the demiurge.

In any event, in Paul and in all four gospels, Jesus is expressly not God.

 

[pearl]

Obviously, this theme is clearly enumerated in all the early creeds, statements, and apologias. I did not emphasize it in the OP, but allusions to the Godhead are throughout.

Exactly. The Trinity is the central doctrine of Christianity, on which all other doctrines developed.

 

[leov]

Then Paul would have not believed that Jesus died a cursed death on Cross. The essence of Sign of Jonah was that as Jonah did not die in the belly of the Fish, so should Jesus not die on the Cross. Right, please?

Regards

Sign of Jonah is a symbol of the Temple initiation where old man dies and reborn as spiritually enlightened person. Paul was Gnostic , he knew what it meant. Initiation of Lazarus, cursing of the fig tree are all related events.

 

[leov]

Paul's notion (also found in John) appears to reflect the Gnostic concept, where God is perfectly pure and also perfectly remote; therefore a difference heavenly being, the demiurge, was required to bring the material world into existence, and to mediate between the material world and God.

So the greatest likelihood is that 'Lord' indicates Paul's version of the demiurge.

In any event, Paul and in all four gospels, Jesus is expressly not God.

Yes, Paul was proto - Valentinian Gnostic , as such he clearly separates his church on psychic and pneumatic while addressing both groups ( faith and knowledge) on the same page, a pneumatic would read his letters to interpreted to psychic. For psychic God meant demiurge for pneumatic True God, Lord often meant JC.