If i say am christian..

[Terrywoodenpic]

Ephesians 2:8 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God

I do not disagree that those words are in the bible, however I disagree with the meaning that has come to be put on them.
It is believed by many Christians....
“That you can only be saved through Christ”
“That you can only be saved by the Grace of God”
“That it is sufficient to have faith in Christ to be saved.”

I interpret "Saved" as having been shown the Path ... It is neither prize nor reward but is certainly a gift.

John 3:5-7 ESV

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

That is certainly a very direct and clear statement. However it does not seem to have been known by the other Gospel writers, Or those early Christians using the Didache as their training guide for new Christian recruits.
It starts to be clarified to some extent when you ask,"what does being born of water mean?" ... Many would say ( not me) that the Holy Spirit enters during Baptism (water) In which case what does the "Born of the spirit mean." It all sounds very Gnostic.

Last year, during a private discussion with our rector about baptism, It came out that he believed that the Holy Spirit entered us at conception. Which of course begs the question what is the Holy Spirits role in Baptism. Which in itself begs the question, "What is the functionality of baptism?" ( I will leave you to answer that for your self )

I am of the more "Universalist" view that the Holy Spirit " Guide us all toward God" Christian and non-christian alike. That this presence and guidance is "Unavoidable"
It can however be "Ignored" Every one, of sound mind, knows the difference between "Right" and "wrong" "good" and "evil" However the actions they take are their own choice.
I totally agree, That we can not influence God, and that every thing God chooses for us is by his "Grace."
This does not mean, That there is any time in this life, when we are saved "once and for all"
God's forgiveness is always "on offer" if we truly repent... and when we fail, it is still on offer. ( 7x70 comes to mind. But not as a limit )
So why should we live our lives by Jesus teachings.? It is not so as to be "saved". It is not to influence God's Grace. It is because we Love God ... It is what he wants. We should do so with out any "thought of Reward"

Whilst the Teachings of Jesus were certainly Spiritual... They were also very practical, their major aspect was “How” to live our lives. Their examples, showed the difference between “good” practice, and “bad” practice. He showed “all men” could be good, not just Jews. He shows the ill favoured Samaritan as an example.

Unfortunately very little of his teachings ever found their way into the Bible. What we have to day is mostly faint remembrances and variations on similar stories, Of worked up by people who never
Heard him teach or sat at his feet

“Ephesians” as an example was thought to have been written by Paul, however modern biblical scholarship shows this to be unlikely as it has many words in it not used elsewhere in his known writings.( over 80)

Largely the “Religion” of Christianity was “Manufactured” using the Jewish Faith as a base and the teachings and belief that Jesus was God's Son to differentiate it.
The later concept of the Trinity as a godhead save it from breaking with monotheism.

I am certainly not “Orthodox” If by that you mean unthinking.

 

[sportinnc]

I do not disagree that those words are in the bible, however I disagree with the meaning that has come to be put on them.
It is believed by many Christians....
“That you can only be saved through Christ”
“That you can only be saved by the Grace of God”
“That it is sufficient to have faith in Christ to be saved.”

I interpret "Saved" as having been shown the Path ... It is neither prize nor reward but is certainly a gift.



That is certainly a very direct and clear statement. However it does not seem to have been known by the other Gospel writers, Or those early Christians using the Didache as their training guide for new Christian recruits.
It starts to be clarified to some extent when you ask,"what does being born of water mean?" ... Many would say ( not me) that the Holy Spirit enters during Baptism (water) In which case what does the "Born of the spirit mean." It all sounds very Gnostic.

Last year, during a private discussion with our rector about baptism, It came out that he believed that the Holy Spirit entered us at conception. Which of course begs the question what is the Holy Spirits role in Baptism. Which in itself begs the question, "What is the functionality of baptism?" ( I will leave you to answer that for your self )

I am of the more "Universalist" view that the Holy Spirit " Guide us all toward God" Christian and non-christian alike. That this presence and guidance is "Unavoidable"
It can however be "Ignored" Every one, of sound mind, knows the difference between "Right" and "wrong" "good" and "evil" However the actions they take are their own choice.
I totally agree, That we can not influence God, and that every thing God chooses for us is by his "Grace."
This does not mean, That there is any time in this life, when we are saved "once and for all"
God's forgiveness is always "on offer" if we truly repent... and when we fail, it is still on offer. ( 7x70 comes to mind. But not as a limit )
So why should we live our lives by Jesus teachings.? It is not so as to be "saved". It is not to influence God's Grace. It is because we Love God ... It is what he wants. We should do so with out any "thought of Reward"

Whilst the Teachings of Jesus were certainly Spiritual... They were also very practical, their major aspect was “How” to live our lives. Their examples, showed the difference between “good” practice, and “bad” practice. He showed “all men” could be good, not just Jews. He shows the ill favoured Samaritan as an example.

Unfortunately very little of his teachings ever found their way into the Bible. What we have to day is mostly faint remembrances and variations on similar stories, Of worked up by people who never
Heard him teach or sat at his feet

“Ephesians” as an example was thought to have been written by Paul, however modern biblical scholarship shows this to be unlikely as it has many words in it not used elsewhere in his known writings.( over 80)

Largely the “Religion” of Christianity was “Manufactured” using the Jewish Faith as a base and the teachings and belief that Jesus was God's Son to differentiate it.
The later concept of the Trinity as a godhead save it from breaking with monotheism.

I am certainly not “Orthodox” If by that you mean unthinking.

The purpose of baptism is to symbolize the Holy Spirit coming to you. It is symbolic of your commitment to Christ. Christ himself was baptized and the Holy Spirit descended on him in the form of a dove. Does this mean that He was less God before the baptism? No, it was a symbol to those witnessing for God to show His favor of Christ.

 

[1robin]

I do not disagree that those words are in the bible, however I disagree with the meaning that has come to be put on them.
It is believed by many Christians....
"That you can only be saved through Christ"
"That you can only be saved by the Grace of God"
"That it is sufficient to have faith in Christ to be saved."

You say the Bible says that x marks the spot, yet you do not believe x marks the spot but insist that y marks the spot. I respect your right to do so but with everything we have on the line I consider it extremely unwise. I would also add this: I followed the Bibles plan of salvation and received exactly the same experience as Jesus told John was required to enter the kingdom of God. It was an unmistakable spiritual experience with the Holy Spirit that changed my life forever and corresponded exactly with the Biblical narrative. You may dismiss that, attempt to dilute it, or try and find a parallel in your experience. I can only say that if you had had that experience you would not believe what it is I believe that you do.

I interpret "Saved" as having been shown the Path ... It is neither prize nor reward but is certainly a gift.

I have been debating these issues for many years and to save time let's simply call any thing done to gain salvation i.e. staying on the path, good works, worshiping in truth, going to church, giving to the poor, reading the Bible, obedience, etc...... as either merit or works. No matter what it is that you claim you must do to get to heaven it is either a work or merit of some kind. That is inescapable theological philosophy and has been shown by Aquinas and many others.
That being said then verses like:
"The man without works will be saved"
or
New Living Translation (©2007)
Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.
or
"by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20
Salvation Is Not By Works
These verses seem to be intended to specifically stop anyone from thinking they will ever merit heaven and combined with countless others leave no doubt that if not by pure grace (Grace means to receive that which we do not merit as opposed to mercy which means to not receive what we do deserve) it is impossible for us to make it there.
By the way the word Gift in the verse above is dōron in the Greek and suggests a gift as opposed to reward. In other words they chase a word that specifically meant to receive what was not merited or deserved.

That is certainly a very direct and clear statement. However it does not seem to have been known by the other Gospel writers, Or those early Christians using the Didache as their training guide for new Christian recruits.

I will only say that each Gospel had a purpose and an audience. Johns purpose was more doctrinal than historical compared with the others. There is however no evidence to suggest that the early church fathers or the apostles ever voiced any disagreement about this verse. It is an argument from silence. I would not wager my soul on what someone did not say. In fact I believe a recent fragment found puts John much earlier than previously thought.

It starts to be clarified to some extent when you ask, "what does being born of water mean?" ... Many would say ( not me) that the Holy Spirit enters during Baptism (water) In which case what does the "Born of the spirit mean." It all sounds very Gnostic.

There is nothing Gnostic about it. The core of Gnosticism is knowledge of ones self or secret knowledge not baptism. The ceremony of Baptism is a physical concept that indicates a prior spiritual experience. The dunking in water signifies what the spirit had earlier done when he cleansed the believer of sin and made him new. It also provides a visible sign of an earlier invisible event to the congregation. Water Baptism is symbolic and even though the verse suggests that it is necessary for salvation most scholars and theologians disagree. I will provide one which illustrates the point.
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Of water and of the Spirit - To the baptism of water a man was admitted when he became a proselyte to the Jewish religion; and, in this baptism, he promised in the most solemn manner to renounce idolatry, to take the God of Israel for his God, and to have his life conformed to the precepts of the Divine law. But the water which was used on the occasion was only an emblem of the Holy Spirit. The soul was considered as in a state of defilement, because of past sin: now, as by that water the body was washed, cleansed, and refreshed, so, by the influences of the Holy Spirit, the soul was to be purified from its defilement, and strengthened to walk in the way of truth and holiness. When John came baptizing with water, he gave the Jews the plainest intimations that this would not suffice; that it was only typical of that baptism of the Holy Ghost, under the similitude of fire, which they must all receive from Jesus Christ: see Matthew 3:11. Therefore, our Lord asserts that a man must be born of water and the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost, which, represented under the similitude of water, cleanses, refreshes, and purifies the soul. Reader, hast thou never had any other baptism than that of water? If thou hast not had any other, take Jesus Christ's word for it, thou canst not, in thy present state, enter into the kingdom of God

Last year, during a private discussion with our rector about baptism, It came out that he believed that the Holy Spirit entered us at conception. Which of course begs the question what is the Holy Spirits role in Baptism. Which in itself begs the question, "What is the functionality of baptism?" ( I will leave you to answer that for your self )

Your rector is wrong or at least un biblical. The Bible says over and over that we are born spiritually separated from God. Even Abraham was only declared righteous when he believed as an adult. Are you Episcopalian or Catholic?

I am of the more "Universalist" view that the Holy Spirit " Guide us all toward God" Christian and non-Christian alike. That this presence and guidance is "Unavoidable"
It can however be "Ignored" Every one, of sound mind, knows the difference between "Right" and "wrong" "good" and "evil" However the actions they take are their own choice.

Unavoidable and ignored are pretty contradictory swords. I do believe we all have a God given conscience and can obey it or deny it but that is completely separate from salvation. At the bottom of the post I will try and describe what the Bible says about salvation briefly.

I totally agree, That we can not influence God, and that every thing God chooses for us is by his "Grace."
This does not mean, That there is any time in this life, when we are saved "once and for all"

Christ said he came to forgive all sins (ALL means ALL) when that provision is applied to your life all past present and future sins of ours are forgiven. If they weren't then as the Bible says Jesus would have to die again and he isn't going to every time we sin. That logic also implies some lack in Christ's provision, it just was not good enough or complete enough to save some. Please do not think I am suggesting there is no penalty even for the saved who sin. There are dire penalties but salvation is not one of them.

God's forgiveness is always "on offer" if we truly repent... and when we fail, it is still on offer. ( 7x70 comes to mind. But not as a limit )
So why should we live our lives by Jesus teachings.? It is not so as to be "saved". It is not to influence God's Grace. It is because we Love God ... It is what he wants. We should do so with out any "thought of Reward"

I find it far easier to love a God that completely supplied for my salvation in a simple and completely sufficient package. I find it impossible to love a God who provides something but leaves much of it up to us. Which by the way has standards that are not only not clearly given but are rationally impossible to state.

Whilst the Teachings of Jesus were certainly Spiritual... They were also very practical, their major aspect was "How" to live our lives. Their examples, showed the difference between "good" practice, and "bad" practice. He showed "all men" could be good, not just Jews. He shows the ill favored Samaritan as an example.

There is no doubt that Jesus taught about Morality exhaustively as well as the entire Bible teaching that the law never saved anyone and that any man who claims to be without sin is a liar, and that all have fallen short.

 

[1robin]

Unfortunately very little of his teachings ever found their way into the Bible. What we have to day is mostly faint remembrances and variations on similar stories, Of worked up by people who never
Heard him teach or sat at his feet

I haven't the slightest idea how you could possibly know that. I can say that the Bible is miraculously accurate textually. It contains less than 5% scribal error and less than 1% meaningful error and no textual error concerning doctrine. The Bible is light years ahead of every single other work of any kind in ancient history and the dead sea scrolls proved it. In fact you can check the textual accuracy yourself at home with simple software.
I mean no offense but the God you have described so far can't save us unless we help by obeying some unspecified and unknowable set of requirements, he can't maintain the integrity of his word, and has let his religion be universally misinterpreted. I do not see why that God should be worshipped.

"Ephesians" as an example was thought to have been written by Paul, however modern biblical scholarship shows this to be unlikely as it has many words in it not used elsewhere in his known writings.( over 80)

What? You are suggesting unique vocabulary of far less than 1% is proof of different authors when they are written to different audiences and for different purposes. No two books ever written by one author could pass that test. The only NT book whose authorship is in any doubt is I think Hebrews. Please see:
Blue Letter Bible - Help, Tutorials, and FAQs
or Dr James White.

Largely the "Religion" of Christianity was "Manufactured" using the Jewish Faith as a base and the teachings and belief that Jesus was God's Son to differentiate it.
The later concept of the Trinity as a godhead save it from breaking with monotheism.

I disagree with everything you said here but I do not think the Trinity is worth taking a stand about.

I am certainly not "Orthodox" If by that you mean unthinking.

Actually I meant the opposite. Orthodox doctrine means what he been the scholarly consensus gained by thousands of years of scrutiny and debate.
As for the concept of salvation.
1. God is perfect.
2. God will not dwell eternally with imperfection.
3. We are imperfect and no amount of effort will makes us perfect.
4. We have nothing to offer to remedy the problem.
5. God provided a perfect sacrifice.
6. We gain Christ’s perfect record legally with God and Christ legally gained our imperfect record when we believe in what he did. Substitutionary atonement.
7. Our sins were punished and born by Christ on the cross.
8. We are made legally perfect before God and can dwell with him forever in heaven.
9. We are actually made perfect upon resurrection.
10. There is no other way or name in the Bible by which this may be accomplished.

I suggest you pick salvation, textual reliability, Biblical historicity, or another specific doctrine that we discuss alone. You are covering so many issues that it is impossible to examine them in enough detail to gain resolution. However I usually find that people with your views resist this for some reason. Any way God Bless.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

1robin
We are coming from very different Belief systems.
I am a worshipping Anglican, but have as is often found within that community, many heretical views.
Though Protestant, the Anglican Church is very closely related to Catholicism. Far more so than your Baptist roots. The Church, to an outsider, covers an extraordinary range of practices and beliefs, with sections following the near puritanical to the extremes of Mariology.
As a Church It is worship based, rather than strongly dogmatic. My Family also has strong links to the Irish, Non subscribing Presbyterians, who are in most respects Christian Unitarian, and have no Dogma at all, and encourage free thinking... So you can see that my outlook is very much as a Liberal Christian,.
While I know of, and understand, every thing you have written, it is not what I believe to be true.

Actually I meant the opposite. Orthodox doctrine means what he been the scholarly consensus gained by thousands of years of scrutiny and debate.​

Much of that debate was decided by power, politics, and persecution.​

As for the concept of salvation......​

I do not believe in Salvation, Heaven nor Hell.

1. God is perfect.

God is perfect Love.​

2. God will not dwell eternally with imperfection.​

I have no Idea what that means... God exists out side of time and space and is beyond our understanding.​

3. We are imperfect and no amount of effort will makes us perfect.​

Perfection is not a human trait​

4. We have nothing to offer to remedy the problem.​

God has given us the ability to chose. We can never achieve perfection but he expects us to try.​

5. God provided a perfect sacrifice.​

I do not think Jesus was sacrificed, His death was an example for us, so as to understand how far we should go in following him and obeying God..​

6. We gain Christ’s perfect record legally with God and Christ legally gained our imperfect record when we believe in what he did. Substitutionary atonement.​

Gobledygook there is no such thing as substitutionary atonement.​

7. Our sins were punished and born by Christ on the cross.​

We are responsible for our own sins​

8. We are made legally perfect before God and can dwell with him forever in heaven.​

Our souls are “of God” and perfect. And return perfect. Sin and remembrance of sin can not enter his presence.​

9. We are actually made perfect upon resurrection.​

We are not resurrected .. we return to God will all taint shed from our Souls.

10. There is no other way or name in the Bible by which this may be accomplished.

All is accomplished through God. There is no need to invent problems and then have God solve them.​

Most Dogma derives from false thinking extended by a logical fallacy. False understanding can only lead to false beliefs.
Because a belief might be ancient and authorised, does not make it true.​

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The purpose of baptism is to symbolize the Holy Spirit coming to you. It is symbolic of your commitment to Christ. Christ himself was baptized and the Holy Spirit descended on him in the form of a dove. Does this mean that He was less God before the baptism? No, it was a symbol to those witnessing for God to show His favor of Christ.

I tend to agree
But it is also the entering into the membership of the church and fellowship of the congregation.
And thirdly the taking of vows by God parents and the congregation to teach and care for your Christian upbringing.

In some churches this leads to confirmation when of an age of consent.

Training in the membership of the church was once a vital part of Christianity.
(see the Didache)

 

[Katzpur]

will you be agree ? if yes than its OK , If No, Than why ?

If you say you're Christian, I'll agree that you're Christian. I can't think of any reason why you'd lie and say you're a Christian if you're not.

 

[1robin]

1robin We are coming from very different Belief systems. I am a worshipping Anglican, but have as is often found within that community, many heretical views. Though Protestant, the Anglican Church is very closely related to Catholicism. Far more so than your Baptist roots. The Church, to an outsider, covers an extraordinary range of practices and beliefs, with sections following the near puritanical to the extremes of Mariology.

As a Church It is worship based, rather than strongly dogmatic. My Family also has strong links to the Irish, Non subscribing Presbyterians, who are in most respects Christian Unitarian, and have no Dogma at all, and encourage free thinking... So you can see that my outlook is very much as a Liberal Christian,.
While I know of, and understand, everything you have written, it is not what I believe to be true.

I am very well aware that we have inconsistent positions. I will simply explain how I account or resolve that. I was born again meaning I met Christ spiritually by following what has been determined as protestant orthodox doctrine. However I did not know that at the time. I knew almost nothing of doctrine or denominations at the time. I had simply reached a place where I knew I needed Christ. I was reading the Bible and one night I supernaturally knew somehow it was all true and asked Christ to forgive me. It was an unmistakable experience which radically changed my entire character and the rest of my life the same way it did for Paul. I then spent two years with no TV and studied the Bible constantly until I had determined what the Bible's core doctrine was and then and only then did I select a denomination that best reflected it. I had no roots in the Baptist church. There are three things that can be known concerning my past. My beliefs actually led me to God in person "so to speak" and my doctrine was developed without denominational influence and that the position I adopted was diametrically opposed to what I had spent my earlier life wanting to be the case. I only later found out over 20 years of study that what I had independently understood to be true was also what is the most universally believed in as orthodox Protestantism. There are only three conclusions from this. I am mistaken or delusional. That the experience I describe somehow corresponds to others gained by different methods, or that I am sincere and accurate and counter positions need to be reevaluated. I can only assure you I am not delusional, that the Bible marks out one single narrow road and or gate, and that leaves reevaluation of counter positions.

Much of that debate was decided by power, politics, and persecution.

I disagree almost entirely but that is another debate. I find that anyone who believes in something different that the Bible produces many unjustified claims concerning its accuracy. One being manipulation for which there is little evidence.

I do not believe in Salvation, Heaven nor Hell.

Then what exactly is the point and why bother associating with Christianity? The Bible claims all three exist point blank. Why not just pick another label that does not conflict with the teachings of it's claimed foundations? I have also noticed that approx. 75% of all IMO false religions will associate in some way with Christianity in order to gain credibility but deny it's substance.

God is perfect Love.

Salvation and heaven are certainly more consistent with love than a brief troubled life ending in oblivion unless you have another afterlife.

I have no Idea what that means... God exists out side of time and space and is beyond our understanding.

Yes to both but that in no way means he can't communicate to us what we need to know. He communicated exactly what I laid out.

Perfection is not a human trait

Which is exactly what I said. That is why Christ's perfection is the only way.

God has given us the ability to chose. We can never achieve perfection but he expects us to try.

That is true but completely unrelated to heaven.

I do not think Jesus was sacrificed, His death was an example for us, so as to understand how far we should go in following him and obeying God..

That is exactly contradictory to what he himself said but if you rewrite Biblical history I suppose he can say whatever you desire.

Gobledygook there is no such thing as substitutionary atonement.

I and billions more are living proof there is.

We are responsible for our own sins

Then we are doomed.

Our souls are "of God" and perfect. And return perfect. Sin and remembrance of sin can not enter his presence.

Find me a single verse where those words are used. That has rendered this life a pathetic irrelevant waste.

We are not resurrected .. we return to God will all taint shed from our Souls.

Then God is not just nor Holy.

All is accomplished through God. There is no need to invent problems and then have God solve them.

I invented nothing. Every "problem" I mentioned is in the Bible and is a reality that can be observed.

Most Dogma derives from false thinking extended by a logical fallacy. False understanding can only lead to false beliefs.

Because a belief might be ancient and authorized, does not make it true.

And mere assertions devoid of justification mean nothing. It will be impossible to resolve these issues because you allow no higher standard by which to determine truth. You have basically rejected the most reliable and scrutinized standard in human history yet still claim to understand it's author. You have invented as all do many ways in which to justify that but which do not bear up under scrutiny. I have no idea why what is left is referred to as Christianity by you. Your God may not have been strong enough to supply a reliable revelation but mine was and my theology is consistent with it and the conclusions of great scholars who have spent years pouring over it.

Could you please give me the nuts and bolts of what it is you do believe in, if not hell, heaven, savlation, the Bible, revelation, or the message of Christ?

In what is that grounded if the Bible is unreliable?

By the way how does the fact that modern Bible were 99% accurate with the 2000 year old dead sea scrolls and even a 3500 year old fragment from a Levitical prayer line up with your Bible is unrelieble claim? Or the fact that you can check it at home yourself and verify it is over 95% accurate?

 

[1robin]

If you say you're Christian, I'll agree that you're Christian. I can't think of any reason why you'd lie and say you're a Christian if you're not.

That would be very true in 2nd century Rome when they were hunted, however in the modern US Christianity has gained sort of stigma of meaning you are a good person and people claim to be Christians and wear crosses around their necks having never been born again and acting like sons of Hell. I can claim to be invited to the White House but if my name isn't on the list it will not matter what I claim or you agree with. Same with Christ and the Lamb's book of life.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

1 Robin

I have no idea how to test the truth or accuracy of the Bible.
Certainly the old Testament in most Bibles is a close match to the Jewish scriptures.
But our interpretation of it, with the Christian replacement theology, bears little relationship to the interpretations that a Rabbi might give.
With out the guidance of Jewish oral tradition it is simply incomplete.

Secondly we need to know which Bible we are talking about. they do not even have the same number of books, nor are they ordered or named the same.
I mostly use the KJV and the NRSV which are accepted by most churches. However the JW's Bible, with its undoubted literal sort of word translation, is plainly "Different" in both content and meaning.
I can well understand why the Catholic Church restricted the Bible to trained interpretors for so long.

It is possible to establish any number of theologies from the Bible, all might be "True" to the words found in it and all capable of being the foundation of new and "Different" denominations.

In one of your earlier posts you suggested that the "Trinity" was not important. This is the differentiator between many churches. All Trinitarian churches accept each others baptisms as valid. A non trinitarian baptism is not accepted by any of them.
It would seem some baptist churches are trinitarian and some not... However the roots of triniitarianism are not to be found in the bible.

There simply is not one set of "Orthodox" standards accepted by even a majority of churches.

I simply do not believe God sorts us by what we believe. I do not believe God is less interested in the souls of aliens than us humans. Aliens most probably have very different belief systems to us. I do not believe that God Places one of our religions on a different plane than any other. He is interested in our souls not our religions.

Faith is between You and God. This is the same for every being in the universe.

The closer we get to accepting this ideal, the closer we are to fulfilling Gods work.


I remember in the 1950's Bill Graham held giant Missions in London. Thousands came foreword to accept Christ into their lives. to day these conversions are but memories for the majority.

You wonder what I find in my "Brand" of Christianity to maintain faith in God... The things I believe, do not require me to suspend belief about any thing. My rather cut down version of Christianity, puts contentious issues to the side, not as unimportant, but as of secondary to the things that I know are important. As I said they are between me and God.

This is the way it is for us all, what you believe is no less valid for you.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

That would be very true in 2nd century Rome when they were hunted, however in the modern US Christianity has gained sort of stigma of meaning you are a good person and people claim to be Christians and wear crosses around their necks having never been born again and acting like sons of Hell. I can claim to be invited to the White House but if my name isn't on the list it will not matter what I claim or you agree with. Same with Christ and the Lamb's book of life.

That is a very narrow view indeed. There are thousands of Christians in the world whose very lives are in danger because thay are Christians and attend church. Many pay their ultimate sacrifice for their beliefs.

In the UK the 90% + of the non church going population think think practcing christians are very odd animals. You can not even put out christmast cards or decorations in a hospital ward. I was in hospital over a christmas and a nurse was sent to remove the lot.

When a person professes christianity, the truth of it is theirs to share with God. it concerns no one else. No one else can deny it.

 

[1robin]

1 Robin I have no idea how to test the truth or accuracy of the Bible.

There are many ways and virtually every single accepted study shows it to be extremely accurate. Actually I will let the greatest experts in human history, on evidence and testimony say it for me but I apologise for it's length.

The Testimony of History and Law
The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

An example may be taken from a letter written by Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey:"As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the REsurrection has never broken down yet."

Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university, upon Story's death in 1846. Greenleaf produced a famous work entitled A Treatise on the Law of Evidence which "is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure."
The following are this brilliant jurist's critical observations:
The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in Him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling errors that can be represented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of His disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.
"Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations, and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication." Continued below

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There are many ways and virtually every single accepted study shows it to be extremely accurate. Actually I will let the greatest experts in human history, on evidence and testimony say it for me but I apologise for it's length.

The Testimony of History and Law
The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

An example may be taken from a letter written by Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey:"As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the REsurrection has never broken down yet."

Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university, upon Story's death in 1846. Greenleaf produced a famous work entitled A Treatise on the Law of Evidence which "is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure."
The following are this brilliant jurist's critical observations:
The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in Him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling errors that can be represented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of His disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.
"Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations, and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication." Continued below

None of that measures the accuracy of anything, it is simply opinion. And very old opininion at that.

 

[1robin]

Continued:
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901), English scholar who was appointed regius professor at Cambridge in 1870, said: "Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of if."
Clifford Herschel Moore, professor at Harvard University, well said, "Christianity knew its Saviour and REdeemer not as some god whose history was contained in a mythical faith, with rude, primitive, and even offensive elements...Jesus was a historical not a mythical being. No remote or foul myth obtruded itself of the Christian believer; his faith was founded on positive, historical, and acceptable facts."
Benjamin Warfield of Princeton expressed in his article, "The Resurrection of Christ an Historical Fact, Evinced by Eye-Witnesses":
Michael Green says that "...two able young men, Gilbert West and Lord Lyttleton, went up to Oxford. They were friends of Dr. Johnson and Alexander Pope, in the swim of society. They were determined to attack the very basis of the Christian faith. So Littleton settled down to prove that Saul of Tarsus was never converted to Christianity, and West to demonstrate that Jesus never rose from the tomb.
"Some time later, they met to discuss their findings. Both were a little sheepish. For they had come independently to similar and disturbing conclusions. Littleton found, on examination, that Saul of Tarsus did become a radically new man through his conversion to Christianity; and West found that the evidence pointed unmistakable to the fact that Jesus did rise from the dead. You may still find his book in a large library. It is entitled Observations on the History and Evidences of the REsurrection of Jesus Christ, and was published in 1747. On the fly-leaf he has had printed his telling quotation from Ecclesiasticus 11:7, which might be adopted with profit by any modern agnostic: 'Blame not before thou hast examined the truth.' "
"The evidence points unmistakably to the fact that on the third day Jesus rose. This was the conclusion to which a former Chief Justice of England, Lord Darling, came. In its favour as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.' "
J. N. D. Anderson as This outstanding British scholar who is today influential in the field of international jurisprudence says: "The evidence for the historical basis of the Christian faith, for the essential validity of the New Testament witness to the person and teaching of Christ Himself, for the fact and significance of His atoning death, and for the historicity of the empty tomb and the apostolic testimony to the resurrection, is such as to provide an adequate foundation for the venture of faith."

These are not just scholars, not even great scholars, but some of histories greatest scholars on evidence and testimony. To claim anything different from their and thousands of other expert conclusions is based more on preference than evidence. Many more can be found at:

Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2



Continued below AGAIN!!!!!1

 

[1robin]

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic

Certainly the old Testament in most Bibles is a close match to the Jewish scriptures.

There is nor reason why the NT would be any different.

But our interpretation of it, with the Christian replacement theology, bears little relationship to the interpretations that a Rabbi might give.

With the motivation that if wrong they killed God that isn't surprising. I would need some proof in order to consider this. I have yet in 20 years to see any.

With out the guidance of Jewish oral tradition it is simply incomplete.

In no way ever even in modern law is oral tradition remotely as reliable as written testimony. Especially independent multiple testimonies.

Secondly we need to know which Bible we are talking about. they do not even have the same number of books, nor are they ordered or named the same.

All accepted Cannons for the past 1500 years have 66 books. The Catholics throw in an additional 7 I think, but they are non canonical.

I mostly use the KJV and the NRSV which are accepted by most churches. However the JW's Bible, with its undoubted literal sort of word translation, is plainly "Different" in both content and meaning.

That is only meaningful if we are discussing a certain verse or word and is easily determined in 99% of cases. In fact we even have online original Greek and Hebrew Biblical texts with lexicons. This is not an issue.

I can well understand why the Catholic Church restricted the Bible to trained interpreters for so long.

The Church did that specifically so the people would need them to reach God it was a despicable and political tactic that they were all too famous for. I will add that a few genuinely feared that people would get different interpretations at times but that was never even close to being the dominant reason.

It is possible to establish any number of theologies from the Bible, all might be "True" to the words found in it and all capable of being the foundation of new and "Different" denominations.

While anything is possible they are not valid and with 200 years of study, many scrutinized commentators, the original languages, and the overall narrative of 750,000 consistent words not all that hard to resolve. Most concern trivial and secondary issues like music or transubstantiation. It is invalid to apply that to universal agreement concerning what it is to become a Christian among mainstream denominations.

In one of your earlier posts you suggested that the "Trinity" was not important. This is the differentiator between many churches. All Trinitarian churches accept each others baptisms as valid. A non trinitarian baptism is not accepted by any of them.
It would seem some Baptist churches are Trinitarian and some not... However the roots of triniitarianism are not to be found in the bible.

I think they are in the Bible but do not find the issue crucial. If Jesus is God I must be born again. If he is not I still must be born again. It is a secondary issue regardless of what manmade institutions decree. God's Church consists of the redeemed (born again) not Trinitarians, Adventists, and Catholics.

There simply is not one set of "Orthodox" standards accepted by even a majority of churches.

Concerning trivial or secondary issues. Protestants and Catholics make up 95% of Christianity and both believe in the new birth. You are exaggerating the issue.

I simply do not believe God sorts us by what we believe.

He begs to differ and spent 750,000 words doing just that.

I do not believe God is less interested in the souls of aliens than us humans. Aliens most probably have very different belief systems to us.

Aliens, how did ETs get in this discussion?

I do not believe that God Places one of our religions on a different plane than any other. He is interested in our souls not our religions.

I do not defend religions. I defend what God said. It is far more consistent with a God to make one true and pure revelation that hundreds of conflicting garbage and bury it in a thousand books.

This is the same for every being in the universe.

How do you know what applies to other planets. I am beginning to see what I have suspected since we began this discussion. You have determined what you want to be true and are attempting to mforce reality to adjust. I did the opposite.

I remember in the 1950's Bill Graham held giant Missions in London. Thousands came foreword to accept Christ into their lives. to day these conversions are but memories for the majority.

I doubt it and you have no way of knowing it even if it was true. I have had the experience and there is no way it would ever be forgotten. The same is said by every born again Christian I know as well as how frustrating it is to listen to others evaluate an experience they have no access to.

You wonder what I find in my "Brand" of Christianity to maintain faith in God... The things I believe, do not require me to suspend belief about anything. My rather cut down version of Christianity, puts contentious issues to the side, not as unimportant, but as of secondary to the things that I know are important.

You said what you believe requires no suspension of any facts and then say in the next sentence you cut down Christianity. That is contradictory.

This is the way it is for us all, what you believe is no less valid for you.

I believe what is valid, my belief does not determine what is valid. Now that is truly the way to believe.

That was exhausting.

 

[1robin]

None of that measures the accuracy of anything, it is simply opinion. And very old opininion at that.

Does 2 + 2 = 4 become out dated. Are Newton's claims about gravity no longer valid. Did Ceaser not actually conquor Gall. All historical claims are opinion and based on probability. Denying historie's greatest experts on testimony and evidence is done at your own peril and preference. "Opinions" like theirs are used in History and law every single day to determine reliability even in life and death issues, there is absolutely no justification for suggesting they do not apply to the Bible even if they are inconvenient for you. IN fact there is no other way historical claims are ever evaluated except digging and that isn't any better. The majority of what is taught as historical fact is less founded than what is claimed in the Gospels. Double standards.

 

[1robin]

That is a very narrow view indeed. There are thousands of Christians in the world whose very lives are in danger because thay are Christians and attend church. Many pay their ultimate sacrifice for their beliefs.

Not compared to what I mentioned. Not even remotely close. That is also why I said the US specifically.

In the UK the 90% + of the non church going population think think practcing christians are very odd animals.

They thought the apostles were drunk.So what? The Bible says we are a peculiar people or at least we should be. If you look and act like the world you are probably of the world as the Bible says. It also says to be sheep among wolves. If you have no wolves then you are probably not a sheep. By the way Europe's Church going percentage is almost neglegable these days and so is their morality and economy and we are not far behind.

You can not even put out christmast cards or decorations in a hospital ward. I was in hospital over a christmas and a nurse was sent to remove the lot.

That is truly sad but I do not know why it is relevant. I said specifically in the US. Are you English? If so what has happened to the English Church it used to be an icon.

When a person professes christianity, the truth of it is theirs to share with God. it concerns no one else. No one else can deny it.

That was not my point. I was pointing out that there are true Christians and fake Christians as the Bible says over and over, and the determining factor is not what a person claims nor is it something I would know for sure which is why I almost always confine my comments to what the Bible says being an actual Christian is not specifically who is or not. The term "Christian" is overused and it has lost the effect it once had. It today means next to nothing in general to the public of the west. It used to have impact.

 

[Katzpur]

That would be very true in 2nd century Rome when they were hunted, however in the modern US Christianity has gained sort of stigma of meaning you are a good person and people claim to be Christians and wear crosses around their necks having never been born again and acting like sons of Hell. I can claim to be invited to the White House but if my name isn't on the list it will not matter what I claim or you agree with. Same with Christ and the Lamb's book of life.

So who gets to decide, Robin? Who makes up the list? Are you somehow privy to who's on it and who's not? You probably don't think I'm a Christian, even though I will go to my grave professing a belief in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

2 Corinthians 11 "13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. "


The Christian is called to vigilantly guard against those who attempt to introduce heresies and/or teachings which contradict how our God has called us to live. Usually those teachings come by way of people claiming to be "Christians".

 

[NIX]

If you say you are christian, you say you are christian.

What you say you are is of little, or no consequence to me.