Identifying True Christianity

[JayJayDee]

What is it? the gate, was my question. Suspicious that what these churches teach had to be a lie and a lie is something that is 180 degrees off point. Substitutionary atonement, i.e. a direct benefit, was in the sights since it is the common denominator of contemporary churches that assert that they are the same as that which is described in the NT.

We can only go on what scripture says. And it says that Christ's blood cleanses us from all sin. It provides the basis upon which we can seek God's forgiveness.

"God’s law was given so that all people could see how sinful they were. But as people sinned more and more, God’s wonderful grace became more abundant. 21 So just as sin ruled over all people and brought them to death, now God’s wonderful grace rules instead, giving us right standing with God and resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Rom 5:20, 21 NLT)

[Aside. I really don't like to write lengthy discourses since people won't take the time to read them. But in this case it is necessary.]

People are free to read or not to read. If it takes their interest, they will keep reading.

Substitutionary atonement, when explained, alleges that it is only Jesus' crucifixion which has resolved all issues of sin and its consequence and that proposal is its achilles heel. For this doctrine to be true there cannot be any possibility for guilt relative to sin be the primary unresolved residual issue after Jesus was crucified.

Why not? Just as the law prescribed sacrifices for the Jews to be forgiven of their sins on a daily or weekly basis, so the sacrifice of Jesus made forgiveness possible for his disciples whilst they awaited his return. We do not need to sacrifice Christ every day or every week, because he was "sacrificed once for all time" concerning sin. Sin is not eradicated until the coming of the kingdom.....yet future.

But what does the Lord say about two weeks prior to his crucifixion? "When he comes he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin" Jn. 16:8. It does not matter which variable of this doctrine is proposed. Vicarious atonement, penal substitutionary atonement, died in your place, took you place on the cross etc. there cannot be a residual issue of guilt relative to sin and this doctrine or any of its variants hold up to scrutiny.

Yes it does if you understand the nature of blood sacrifice. Do you understand why blood was offered to God to gain forgiveness?

If it is true that Jesus' crucifixion is a direct benefit then it is also true that his statement in Jn. 16:8 is false.

Scripture does not contradict scripture. Our understanding can be wrong, but scripture is not.

But God cannot lie and since Jesus Christ is God manifisted in the flesh the doctrine of substitutionary atonement and any of its variants is entirely false.

Who told you that "Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh"? This is also a false doctrine introduced into Christianity in the early centuries. The Jews never believed in a triune God and neither did the first Christians.
Christ was fully human and as he such could die. God is immortal and so any death suffered by him would be a fake death. God cannot die.

Does it concern me that I might be the only person at this time with my convictions? No not in the least because I know what the gate is it is a law that has been added. There is no possibility that there is any other Way into God's kingdom but by having the faith to confess to God that you are truly sorry his only begotten son lost his life when he was crucified.

Then that means that you are truly sorry that Christ redeemed fallen humanity. I am sorry for the manner of his death as his Father must have been, but I am grateful for the opportunity his death opened up for humans to have their sins blotted out.

There are no exceptions for it is the law.
"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13

Yes, but not in the way you think. There is so much more to it than that....so many 'blanks' to be filled in.

 

[Pegg]

And what makes these features, as opposed to those other Christians will sometimes emphasize, the ones which characterize "true" Christianity?

I guess its because these are the features that Jesus emphasised.


To be a follower of him, our way of worship would likewise emphasise them.

 

[savagewind]

Do you always assume that you know more than the people you talk with and that they are ignorant? Or am I a special case?

No actually, I take their words seriously. Your words revealed something you did not seem to know. That is why I try to be honest all the time. (people like you don't seem to like it) Not knowing something never means not knowing anything. So then....you just did the same thing to me you accuse me of doing to you. I get that alot.

Let's see, JW and Mormons aren't allowed on my block anymore because I enjoy them so much. All I ever did was talk with them. Sorta hurts my feelings. What is that word, for someone who disregards a whole group of humans, just because they belong to a group of humans? There was a Senator, named Robert Byrd, who was part of a group like that, (*before he was a senator, and while he was a senator in his early career.)

I "sorta hurt" your feelings. Now you feel free to hurt mine. That is just one example of knowing someone. Savvy?

Question, what is a Christian. 100 people asked, gave 150 answers

This isn't the answer to my question unless of course you are saying "indentifying what a Christian is won't get anywhere until you identify what a Christian is". Is that right? I'm sure everyone agrees with the understatement. Who wouldn't?

 

[Xian Catalyst]

Who said that JW's and Mormons "aren't allowed" on your block anymore? Who stopped you from talking to them? Why are your feelings hurt? I am intrigued....

The Mormon ward's elders won't let them come my way.

The JW's moved some neighbors of mine when they found out where they settled down. Paid the cost of reletting, and rent until they leased the apartment again, plus utilities' reconnects.

Can you elaborate a little more on this Xian Catalyst? Are you making reference to his connection with the KKK?

No,? why would you ask that? Is it a half handed attempt at a Strawman? I was speaking of that word, for someone who disregards a whole group of humans, simply because they belong to that group.

KKK was just an example, a demonstration, a picture to help you understand.. NOTHING hinted I was applying the KKK concept to a person in the forum, and I wasn't.

 

[savagewind]

KKK was just an example

Oh. I didn't bother to look it up. Saves me. Thank you Jesus!

Christianity is the name of the group of people who will be led by Jesus Christ.

 

[Xian Catalyst]

No actually, I take their words seriously. Your words revealed something you did not seem to know.

No, they didn't, but even if you read it that way, you assumed I was ignorant, you didn't answer my words, or apply to them in response, you went straight for my knowledge base. You took it from the arguments, to the person. It's in poor taste. We all do it at times though....

That is why I try to be honest all the time. (people like you don't seem to like it)

There you go again. YOu don't know me. You can't comment on people like me. But many more comments like that and you may know more of me than you ever hoped to know.

Not knowing something never means not knowing anything. So then....you just did the same thing to me you accuse me of doing to you. I get that alot.

have you ever read about narcissistic personality disorders? Charming their way out of offenses so they can appear righteous all the time is a prime indicator. Deflecting is another... It's really interesting reading. If you were going to follow up on it, you might start with borderline personality disorder.

I "sorta hurt" your feelings. Now you feel free to hurt mine. That is just one example of knowing someone. Savvy?

My last name is Dickey. If you think you can use words to hurt my feelings, you are really putting yourself on a high pedestal. I dealt with words at such a young age, it's not even a thought.

No, I mentioned it because if I'm going to be talking to a person, as it appears I am, who assumes they know MORE than you, and in fact knows so much more they need to teach everyone to be like them, then I'm going to waste my time. That personality type can only use soapboxes and preach AT people, never talk with people.

This isn't the answer to my question unless of course you are saying "indentifying what a Christian is won't get anywhere until you identify what a Christian is". Is that right? I'm sure everyone agrees with the understatement. Who wouldn't?

You wouldn't. The sysops here wouldn't. I wouldn't. In five or six questions, no matter how much you think you and someone else agree on something, I can have you in significant disagreements. The word is indefinable. It's become a cliche. The concept of the word is great. The practical applications of it for the purpose of a theological conversation is as relevant as defining which shade of RED something is in a room of 20 people with red green colorblindness.

We need not discuss anymore. I know much brighter people who can talk AT me and I'll actually learn something. Hope you have a good one.

 

[savagewind]

who assumes they know MORE than you

I do not assume I know more than you about the Jehovah's Witnesses. I am sure I do. I was an attentive Jehovah's Witness for twenty years. I have gone head to head with at least twenty Jehovah's Witnesses personally. They all answer THE SAME. Every time. It is something they are proud of. But you did not listen so you identify yourself as possibly narcissistic. I think it's called deflection, but I'm not sure and I am not going to look it up.

 

[Xian Catalyst]

Oh. I didn't bother to look it up. Saves me. Thank you Jesus!

Christianity is the name of the group of people who will be led by Jesus Christ.

Really? Which people are that? How do you identify who that person is?

Some say they must have the Spirit inside of them.

Romans 8:9 says that means they are not in the flesh. Few people believe that is even possible. So what do you think?

Gal 5;16 says if you are in the Spirit, that you don't give into temptations, I bet you do that sometimes too, does that mean you aren't christian?

ANother group says it's all in the altar call and baptism.

Another says it's because the Church accepts you.

Another says being bit on the butt by a rattle snake is proof IF you live.

Some don't associate the Spirit to it at all, they say it is evidenced in your life

Some say it's evident in your works,
some say if you work you definitely don't have it.

Some believe that you will be full time evangelizing, others' that you'll be full time ministry.

Want me to go on? All of those people will say the same thing you said, but disagree. If I put all of those TYPES of people in their own rooms, then started asking THEM specific questions, I'd fragment them more. Then ask those fragments questions, and again, and again and I'm down to where every person in the room claims they are Christian, and led by the Spirit of God, and since the other's don't agree with them, they are not led by the Spirit, so we'll pray for them, God rest their souls.

SO, what is a question is a very valid question, before you try to identify what a TRUE Christian is.

The phrase itself, in my view, is a pride driven word (nearly always) and the best definition for it is, True Christian = someone who thinks like I do.

 

[Xian Catalyst]

I do not assume I know more than you about the Jehovah's Witnesses. I am sure I do.

There you have it. I have no need to discuss with a person who knows it all, can't be questioned, and feels they can condemn a person just because of their religious affiliation. ESPECIALLY when they denounce the person publically and interfere with my attempt to converse with the other.

That word earlier??? That I defined??? is bigot.

 

[savagewind]

Really? Which people are that? How do you identify who that person is?

Some say they must have the Spirit inside of them.

Romans 8:9 says that means they are not in the flesh. Few people believe that is even possible. So what do you think?

Gal 5;16 says if you are in the Spirit, that you don't give into temptations, I bet you do that sometimes too, does that mean you aren't christian?

ANother group says it's all in the altar call and baptism.

Another says it's because the Church accepts you.

Another says being bit on the butt by a rattle snake is proof IF you live.

Some don't associate the Spirit to it at all, they say it is evidenced in your life

Some say it's evident in your works,
some say if you work you definitely don't have it.

Some believe that you will be full time evangelizing, others' that you'll be full time ministry.

Want me to go on? All of those people will say the same thing you said, but disagree. If I put all of those TYPES of people in their own rooms, then started asking THEM specific questions, I'd fragment them more. Then ask those fragments questions, and again, and again and I'm down to where every person in the room claims they are Christian, and led by the Spirit of God, and since the other's don't agree with them, they are not led by the Spirit, so we'll pray for them, God rest their souls.

SO, what is a question is a very valid question, before you try to identify what a TRUE Christian is.

The phrase itself, in my view, is a pride driven word (nearly always) and the best definition for it is, True Christian = someone who thinks like I do.

Oh. Are you the same person who wrote this?

We need not discuss anymore. I know much brighter people who can talk AT me and I'll actually learn something. Hope you have a good one.

 

[savagewind]

There you have it. I have no need to discuss with a person who knows it all, can't be questioned, and feels they can condemn a person just because of their religious affiliation. ESPECIALLY when they denounce the person publically and interfere with my attempt to converse with the other.

That word earlier??? That I defined??? is bigot.

LOL DENOUNCE??????? THEY ARE PROUD THAT THEY ALL THINK ALIKE. When they say they all agree are they denouncing themselves????????But when I say they all agree you say I am denouncing them.... I gotta go.....

 

[Xian Catalyst]

Oh. Are you the same person who wrote this?

Yep. I made the attempt to respect your comments, and provide an answer. I will show you respect, even though you disrespect me.

 

[savagewind]

Yep. I made the attempt to respect your comments, and provide an answer. I will show you respect, even though you disrespect me.

Thank you. I do not disagree with your premise that there are many definitions of what Christian means. What do you think the outcome would be if the Christian community ever agreed correctly what it is and did it?

 

[Xian Catalyst]

LOL DENOUNCE??????? THEY ARE PROUD THAT THEY ALL THINK ALIKE. When they say they all agree are they denouncing themselves????????But when I say they all agree you say I am denouncing them.... I gotta go.....

PEGG isn't a THEY, she is a SHE, a person, an individual.

You condemn her because of her affiliation. right assumptions or wrong, it's bigoted.
if you are proud of that and are one of the "Bigots for God" campaigns, like Westborro baptist Church, I just don't get it....

To the extent of your bigotry I don't know and don't assume. In the incidence we are discussing, it was bigoted. I'm fairly sure that it's not where your heart is. But nonetheless, those actions fit the definition of the word. You can do what you will with it. Now, really, I will find the ignore button so I won't be tempted to respond. My respect commitment is over.

 

[savagewind]

PEGG isn't a THEY, she is a SHE, a person, an individual.

You condemn her because of her affiliation. right assumptions or wrong, it's bigoted.
if you are proud of that and are one of the "Bigots for God" campaigns, like Westborro baptist Church, I just don't get it....

To the extent of your bigotry I don't know and don't assume. In the incidence we are discussing, it was bigoted. I'm fairly sure that it's not where your heart is. But nonetheless, those actions fit the definition of the word. You can do what you will with it. Now, really, I will find the ignore button so I won't be tempted to respond. My respect commitment is over.

Why are you smashing me?????

This is what I said that you believe deserves your condemnation. -

You are talking to a Jehovah's Witness who is Pegg. They know what a Christian is and they know what is true.

Pegg is a Jehovah's Witness TRUE
They (The Jehovah's Wintesses notice I did not say "Pegg" like you said I said ) believe they are the ONLY true Christians TRUE I mean REAL. They really do.
They believe they know "The truth". They say they are "in the truth".

Put me on ignore. It will be doing me a favor.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You mean this part?

It means the word "you" in my post does not refer to Franklin but to the ones that do lean on other people's understanding. I do not know if you do.

Ah ok

 

[Katzpur]

The Mormon ward's elders won't let them come my way.

I'm genuinely confused by this statement. Is this something you've been told? If so, by whom? I've never in my life heard anything remotely resembling this statement. The only thing I can even imagine is that someone on your block made a physical threat to the Mormon missionaries and that the Church has taken steps to protect them.

 

[JayJayDee]

Conflicting???? perhaps to the lazy student.... You have four different views. So you get the story told four different ways. That's not conflict, that's thoroughness. Because there is a 4 dimensional truth floating before you.
The truth encompasses all four views and draws one complete picture.

The fact that four different writers, three of whom personally witnessed the events they recorded, gives us insight into God's inspiration of his message, not necessarily the exact wording of the account. What we have in the gospels is one complete story with various details filled in by each of them. That makes it very comprehensive as you said.

I have a doctor that saved my life.

That person cut me open without my permission.

a man held me without my agreeing to be held.

There was an accident, I went to the doctor, he put me under and removed my spleen to save my life.

Great analogy.

Sometimes we have our lives saved by someone we don't even know, taking steps we did not request, taking time out of their life to save or improve our own. Shouldn't we be grateful that they cared enough to do that?

 

[Shermana]

what John emphasizes as Christ's message is blatantly at odds with what Mathew and Luke emphasize; for John, what is crucial is accepting certain beliefs about the person of Jesus Christ, and about God.

This is actually quite debatable for the most part, the emphasis of John can also be interpreted as that of going with Jesus's interpretation of the Law and not with what the Pharisees believed, and accepting the Pharisee's hypocrisy and manmade interpretations as a true basis behind Jesus's accusations.

The whole Christology thing, in my opinion, is actually a rather minor concern that only LATER become a topic of concern because of the proto-Orthodox trying to construct their Trinitarian ideology. Originally, John was just like "Okay, so Jesus was the incarnation of the First created soul, and all things were made through him as the vehicle of God's agency, just like Philo said". There was in fact much ado about who Jesus claimed to be, BUT it was more about his emphasis as the incarnation of this being that perhaps may have had many prophecies in certain circles like the Essenes than were recorded in the actual Tanakh.

 

[Xian Catalyst]

I'm genuinely confused by this statement. Is this something you've been told? If so, by whom? I've never in my life heard anything remotely resembling this statement. The only thing I can even imagine is that someone on your block made a physical threat to the Mormon missionaries and that the Church has taken steps to protect them.

Katz, I'm not a hater.
I'm not an evangelizer.
I love to talk about God though.

I don't tell them their faith is whack, I don't do any of those things.

BUT what I believe, I believe because of indepth research. That's only relevant because I can talk to a high level of bible student on my topics. Most topics I'm excited about, I'd go on stage on national TV with Christian leading scholars and discuss, I"m not cocky, I'm that comfortable in the tried thoroughness of my research.

So, I put one of a pair of missionaries into rigors, apparently, and he went home and dropped out of the Church. Again, I'm not one of those "train to debate LDS" protestants. I don't care about that. I actually commend you guys on several of your teachings with admiration. OTher's what I understand of them so far, I think are whack. But I can say that about southern baptist and I grew up one.

The partner missionary, became some trouble. They came to my apartment with an elder who was a real stickler. Wouldn't let me provide decaf tea or sprite or 7 up.. whichever is decaf. I kept them around, I drink tea but have afib so I don't do the caffeine...

The elder got angry at me or frustrated, but frustrated is a type of anger, anyway he was dang annoyed with me because I had answers he wasn't expecting. I wasn't typical.

This is the same story with the JWs who pitched in and moved a family from across the hall from me.

I've been blackballed and my neighborhood marked off the map, so to speak. I can't confirm that because, as you know, I wouldn't be privy to being there to discuss with them. They just stay away.

What I liked, even if I think they are whack, the kiddos know a good bit about what they are doing. And if you get a confident one or pair, you can have some really good give and take. Because, I'm sure you'll agree, there are things we will inherently think the other is crazy about. SO we have exciting chat.

Conversation is really boring if you both agree on something....

How bout those cowboys... .

Good game....
Yep....
yep.....

um hmmmm.
yeah....

end of conversation. SEE? boring. NO chance to learn or teach anything.

I did not mean to cause you grief. I'm sorry if I did. I wasn't really bragging, although I do choose to wear both denoms "fear" (not the right word, but HEY, I grew up on the Greek Isle of Hyperbole) of me and refusal to chat anymore as a piece of ironic funny upside down pride.

Meaning, I just try to put a good spin on it, but respect their wishes. '

I hope that put you at ease. Again, I'm sorry.