Evangelical Christians closer to authentic Christianity?

[fallingblood]

Christ was a Jew, so I hardly think he is going to call himself a child of Satan. Being anti-establishment isn't hateful. And Rome were the Jews oppressors, again, hardly hateful to hope one's deity nukes one's oppressor.

In the Gospel of John, which did represent at least one community of the early Jesus movement, Jesus is quoted as saying that the Jews were the children of Satan. Even in the other Gospels, Jesus is seen attacking the Pharisees and Sadducees. Now, those may not have been his words, but they are representative of the different sects in the Jesus movement.

Also, regardless of being oppressed or not, one can still hate the government in charge. Calling for the destruction of Rome, with the Kingdom of God taking it's place, is not peaceful in any manner.

Finally, I would say being anti-establishment, to the point in which one would burst out in anger, and disrupt a Jewish practice that was needed in the temple in order to keep everything in lines with scripture, is quite hateful.

You stated, in effect, that Evangelicals did not do this, and now you state that it's OK since they did it around Paul and Christ.

I never stated that Evangelicals do not gather around leaders.

The scriptures attempt to claim they are the word of God. Therefor, to be taken literally, the scriptures have to be taken as infallible as well.

And whether "new" or not, science proves each and every fable and myth in Genesis false (and msot elsewhere as well), which destroys any credibility in the wentire scripture and especially in any ultimate authority of Jehovah.

It is claimed that Jehovah, as a demi-urge, is omni-sentient. Seems to me that "new" shouldn't be an issue at all and that said "infallable" scriptures would reflect modern knowledge.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. If scripture is believed to be literal, thus infallible, then it is logical to assume that Jesus believed that scripture was infallible. As Genesis would have been a likely candidate for a book that would have been considered scripture to Jesus, it is only logical to assume, if he did read that story, that it is infallible. Thus, you're basically proving what I said.

First, you sure are promoting it like it's your religion. Second, I merely paraphrased the atmosphere you are building in this thread, that Evangelical Christianity is the best thing since sliced bread.

Evangelical Christianity is not my religion. I find it to be a radical sect for the most part. However, I also see Jesus and his movement to be radical, at least by today's standards. I may not have stated that effectively in my first post, but it was never my intention to promote Evangelical Christianity to be the best form of Christianity.

Makes the world of difference. "Faking it" doesn't make it real, nor does it vindicate one's religion, and it certainly degrades the religion as well. Recordings of people "speaking in tongues" have been examined by linguistic experts and are found to be mere unstructured gibberish.

I agree that speaking in tongues, as done by Evangelical Christians, to be gibberish. However, I know from experience that they are not faking it. They truly believe that they are baptized by the Holy Spirit, and received the gift. I don't know if I could say this is any different from what the disciples experienced though.

You mean like Popov and others? Really, one doesn't see average Joe Evangelical going about faith healing or exorcising. One sees cretins like Popov and other such "ministers".

I've seen many average Joe Evangelicals go about faith healing and exorcising. Some may get more attention; however, I've seen many ordinary people go about the same things.

Just out of curiosity, do you have something against the Catholics?

I have nothing against Catholics. I believe they are worshipping God in their own manner, and should be free to do so. My problem is with people who claim that some how they have are teaching what Jesus would have taught or that they are some how special because of the supposed Apostolic Succession which has been shown to be flawed.

 

[fallingblood]

Sure falling blood you can dismiss those so clear verses I pointed out if you want to, which I notice you didn't even address the one about the Church being the pillar and ground of truth. You said evangelicals have traditions. Sure they do, but is it the tradition of the Apostles handed on through hand to hand sucession that was to preserve the Apostolic preaching? Is it Apostolic Sucession?

I would say that that yes, they believe, just as the Catholics or traditional Christianity do, that they are preserving Apostolic preachings. However, I would say that neither can prove that as it is clear that they simply aren't, and have been shown that.

Also, as for the idea that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. They are not talking about the Church as you are referring to. The church organization had not even fully formed during that time. Church is simply referring to the adherents of the Jesus movement, as the actual word, used in context, actually means.

 

[logician]

Gnostic according to who? Yes, there were some gnostic sects, but that was not all of Christianity. And I'm speaking more specifically of the Jesus movement (which I have been calling early Christianity, but I explained that more in the first post).

I do agree with the second statement, that if someone of the actual Jesus movement walked into a Christian church, it would not be recognized as the same. However, I propose that they would find more in common with Evangelical Christianity.

Read Freke and Gandy's "The Jesus Mysteries " and "The Laughing Jesus" for more info about the religious environment before, during, and after the supposed time of Jesus.

 

[logician]

However, I know from experience that they are not faking it. They truly believe that they are baptized by the Holy Spirit, and received the gift. I don't know if I could say this is any different from what the disciples experienced though.

.

Strange, I have been in a NUMBER of their services, and I know for sure they aRE
faking it.:sleep:

 

[fallingblood]

IMO, in all your points, you completely ignore "tradition" in favour of a position that relies on the Bible alone.

It may very well be that Evangelical Christianity is closer to a "pure" Sola Scriptura position than "traditional" Christian denominations are. However, this avoids one of the big questions that divides the two groups: which is (to use your term) more "authentically" Christian? Sola Scriptura, or holding both Scripture and Holy Tradition up as equal sources of authoritative teaching?

I would say that Evangelical Christians also use certain traditions which they see as equally authoritative. They are based to a point on the Bible, or more so their interpretation.

As to which is actually correct, I believe neither are. I believe they both have their own ways of worshipping God. I believe they both miss what the Jesus movement was about though, and that they are teaching something quite different from the original movement.

I'm not sure if that answered your question. If it didn't, just tell me what I missed and I will try to make it more clear.

 

[fallingblood]

Right 9-10th's Penguin. Traditional Christianity holds that the holy tradition has indeed been transmitted through hand to hand sucession that can historically be traced to the Apostles, and that scripture and tradition emminate from one divine wellspring of truth.

The thing is though, it can't be historically traced to the Apostles. Paul and Peter, who they base a lot off of, were both Jews. They were not Christians. More so, there has been so much corruption in the Christian religion as a whole, as well as the scripture itself, that there is no logical way they can support their idea that their teachings came from the Apostles.

Just the NT itself, and the creation of it, shows that.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Falling blood do you mind showing from the Bible that Christianity is supposed to be based on scripture alone?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

The thing is though, it can't be historically traced to the Apostles. Paul and Peter, who they base a lot off of, were both Jews. They were not Christians. More so, there has been so much corruption in the Christian religion as a whole, as well as the scripture itself, that there is no logical way they can support their idea that their teachings came from the Apostles.

Just the NT itself, and the creation of it, shows that.

How can't it be traced to the Apostles? Have you ever done any actual study into apostolic lines in the traditional churches? The sucession of the Popes? The sucession of the Patriarchs? The sucession of the Archbishop of Canterbury? Have you ever actually looked into the matter? I think you'll find it can indeed be traced and is verified by historical documents.

 

[Comicaze247]

Who gets to define what is an "authentic" opinion on the way the world works that has been changing over the past 2000 years?

 

[fallingblood]

Read Freke and Gandy's "The Jesus Mysteries " and "The Laughing Jesus" for more info about the religious environment before, during, and after the supposed time of Jesus.

Accept that they have been pretty well discredited and the credibility of the book simply is not there.

Michael White has a very well researched book on the subject called From Jesus To Christianity. More so, he was featured, along with other authorities on the subject, in a documentary called From Jesus to Christ.

 

[fallingblood]

Strange, I have been in a NUMBER of their services, and I know for sure they aRE
faking it.:sleep:

How? I'm sure if you asked them they would tell you they weren't.

 

[fallingblood]

Falling blood do you mind showing from the Bible that Christianity is supposed to be based on scripture alone?

I never said that it should be.

 

[fallingblood]

How can't it be traced to the Apostles? Have you ever done any actual study into apostolic lines in the traditional churches? The sucession of the Popes? The sucession of the Patriarchs? The sucession of the Archbishop of Canterbury? Have you ever actually looked into the matter? I think you'll find it can indeed be traced and is verified by historical documents.

Who was suppose to be the first Pope? St. Peter. Yet that was never true. Peter was not a Christian, he was a Jew. And during his time, was never considered a Pope. He may have been a leader of the Church of Jerusalem, but by what we know, was still under James, the brother of Jesus.

Yes, there are historical documents that claim this succession; however, historical documents can easily be faked. Especially when one wants to prove something. A little research into how the Christian church originated shows that those historical documents simply are not fully accurate. Especially when one considers the actual succession of the Popes, which was quite political at one time.

 

[logician]

How? I'm sure if you asked them they would tell you they weren't.

The same question could be asked of you, an honest answer from them would be impossible in such a situation.:sleep:

 

[AxisMundi]

In the Gospel of John, which did represent at least one community of the early Jesus movement, Jesus is quoted as saying that the Jews were the children of Satan. Even in the other Gospels, Jesus is seen attacking the Pharisees and Sadducees. Now, those may not have been his words, but they are representative of the different sects in the Jesus movement.

Also, regardless of being oppressed or not, one can still hate the government in charge. Calling for the destruction of Rome, with the Kingdom of God taking it's place, is not peaceful in any manner.

Finally, I would say being anti-establishment, to the point in which one would burst out in anger, and disrupt a Jewish practice that was needed in the temple in order to keep everything in lines with scripture, is quite hateful.

I would imagine you are speaking about Joseph 8:44. You are taking it out of context. Your Christ is refering not to Jews in general, but to those who woudl murder him. Again, your Christ was (allegedly) a Jew. That would mean he was calling himself a son of your Satan as well.

The rest is a matter of perspective.

I never stated that Evangelicals do not gather around leaders.

"Third, Evangelical submits to the idea of faith healing by the act of laying of the hands on the sick, as Jesus is said to have done. The faith healing, and demon exorcisms as practiced by Evangelical Christianity are reflective of what Jesus taught; that all of his followers had the power to heal and drive out spirits in the name of Jesus. As opposed to the idea of traditional Christianity which rely on holy leaders or specially appointed individuals."

I'm not sure where you are going with this. If scripture is believed to be literal, thus infallible, then it is logical to assume that Jesus believed that scripture was infallible. As Genesis would have been a likely candidate for a book that would have been considered scripture to Jesus, it is only logical to assume, if he did read that story, that it is infallible. Thus, you're basically proving what I said.

Proving your point? Hardly.

Evangelical Christianity is not my religion. I find it to be a radical sect for the most part. However, I also see Jesus and his movement to be radical, at least by today's standards. I may not have stated that effectively in my first post, but it was never my intention to promote Evangelical Christianity to be the best form of Christianity.

And I'll say it again, for someone who claims not be be Evangelical, you sure are alying it on pretty thick.

I agree that speaking in tongues, as done by Evangelical Christians, to be gibberish. However, I know from experience that they are not faking it. They truly believe that they are baptized by the Holy Spirit, and received the gift. I don't know if I could say this is any different from what the disciples experienced though.

Belief does not equal fact.

I've seen many average Joe Evangelicals go about faith healing and exorcising. Some may get more attention; however, I've seen many ordinary people go about the same things.

You'll forgive me if I don't except your ancedotal evidence.

I have nothing against Catholics. I believe they are worshipping God in their own manner, and should be free to do so. My problem is with people who claim that some how they have are teaching what Jesus would have taught or that they are some how special because of the supposed Apostolic Succession which has been shown to be flawed.

So you dont have a prob with RC's, but you do have a problem with one of their fundamental doctrines.

 

[fallingblood]

The same question could be asked of you, an honest answer from them would be impossible in such a situation.:sleep:

Having been one of them, I know, for myself at least, I truly believed that I had the gift of tongues. Of course, some people fake it to fit in; however, to say that all do simply is untrue.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would say that Evangelical Christians also use certain traditions which they see as equally authoritative. They are based to a point on the Bible, or more so their interpretation.

As to which is actually correct, I believe neither are. I believe they both have their own ways of worshipping God. I believe they both miss what the Jesus movement was about though, and that they are teaching something quite different from the original movement.

I'm not sure if that answered your question. If it didn't, just tell me what I missed and I will try to make it more clear.

I don't know if it did.

Both sides adhere to some set of core principles and teachings. IMO, both generally adhere to these beliefs quite closely. The real question, then, is which set of core principles and teachings is the more "authentic" one.

I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to look at how close each group adheres to the Bible until what the Bible's role is supposed to be has been established. It's kinda like trying to judge someone's navigational ability by how good he is at keeping the car in his own lane instead of looking at what road he's on.

 

[fallingblood]

I would imagine you are speaking about Joseph 8:44. You are taking it out of context. Your Christ is refering not to Jews in general, but to those who woudl murder him. Again, your Christ was (allegedly) a Jew. That would mean he was calling himself a son of your Satan as well.

The rest is a matter of perspective.

I will agree that it is a matter of perspective. However, Jesus is not my Christ.

Also, the Gospel of John does attack the Jews quite a bit.

"Third, Evangelical submits to the idea of faith healing by the act of laying of the hands on the sick, as Jesus is said to have done. The faith healing, and demon exorcisms as practiced by Evangelical Christianity are reflective of what Jesus taught; that all of his followers had the power to heal and drive out spirits in the name of Jesus. As opposed to the idea of traditional Christianity which rely on holy leaders or specially appointed individuals."

This never states, or implies, that Evangelical Christians do not gather around leaders. It simply states that they do not rely on religious leaders to perform exorcisms or faith healing.

Proving your point? Hardly.

How does it disprove my point?

And I'll say it again, for someone who claims not be be Evangelical, you sure are alying it on pretty thick.

If my beliefs were examined, or taken into consideration, one would not see me as an Evangelical. Simply, I just don't like various religious ideas to be attacked unfoundedly. Evangelical belief has many faults; however, to dismiss it for Traditional Christianity based on the idea that Traditional Christianity some how is more correct simply does not fly with me.

Belief does not equal fact.

May be so, but facts do not account for many ideas in faith.

You'll forgive me if I don't except your ancedotal evidence.

That's fine; however, simply listing one major faith healer does not show that only individuals like that can do faith healing, or even try.

So you dont have a prob with RC's, but you do have a problem with one of their fundamental doctrines.

If that doctrine is removed, I do not believe much would change. I see them as a legitimate way to worship God; but that does not mean I think they are fully correct. I do disagree with many of their positions; however, at the same time, I also disagree with many ideas of basically any religion.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well falling blood you basically destroyed the argument that evangelicalism is more authentic by saying you never said Christianity should be scripture only based, which is how evangelical churches are based. I did not say Peter was a Christian, I said Peter's lineage can be verified. It was always known, as shown by Tertullian, and in the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, that Peter's lineage came through Clement of Rome. This is a historical fact.

 

[fallingblood]

I don't know if it did.

Both sides adhere to some set of core principles and teachings. IMO, both generally adhere to these beliefs quite closely. The real question, then, is which set of core principles and teachings is the more "authentic" one.

I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to look at how close each group adheres to the Bible until what the Bible's role is supposed to be has been established. It's kinda like trying to judge someone's navigational ability by how good he is at keeping the car in his own lane instead of looking at what road he's on.

I would agree with you on this.

Personally, I would say neither is actually authentic. That was not my intention. My intention was more to show that Evangelical Christianity should not just be dismissed as wholly incorrect or unchristian when traditional Christianity has just as many problems with them being close to the authentic teachings.