• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

literal belief and christianity

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Christianity doesn't change. Biblical Christianity, Christianity based soley on what the Bible says, is the same as it was at the beginning, and will be the same at the end. Even if no one practices it, it will be there. So, Apostle angelous is correct. You give me to much credit. You're putting me in God's stead. I did not write what the Bible says.
Unfortunately for you, Christianity is not based upon what the Bible says. It's based upon what the Church says, and, ultimately, upon what Jesus says.
No, fortunately you didn't write what the Bible says. Unfortunately, you're promoting your own agenda under guise of "what the Bible says."
I've merely presented what the Bible says. You don't like it, then tough.
I don't like it because it's misleading. It's a lie. You're not presenting "what the Bible says." You're presenting what you believe the Bible says. you should at least make a stab at being honest with yourself.
Evangelism falls on deaf ears for several reasons:

1) The devil
2) Human arrogance
3) Hatred of God
4) The devil
You've listed "the devil" twice. I wonder where Satan might be found? Satan is the father of lies. Evangelism like this falls on deaf ears, because people are intuitive enough to discard this kind of evangelism as trash. it just doesn't ring true.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
This is all news to me. What Christian theology am I ignoring?

Is the reason I'm blind to it, and you not, because you're an apostle?

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that your not willfully ignorant of apostolic traditions in the East or West, along with the various contributions of Bultmann and Tillich but rather parroting theology that you've learned from a fundamentalist Baptist church.

Christianity doesn't change. Biblical Christianity, Christianity based soley on what the Bible says, is the same as it was at the beginning, and will be the same at the end. Even if no one practices it, it will be there.

I would assume that you're completely ignorant of church history as eludicated by Bauer, Ehrman, and just about every other church historian who have demonstrated quite clearly that Christianity has been in a constant state of change from its earliest period until now. You probably don't know that the church has a variety of confessions from its earliest period even within the "orthodox" and "proto-orthodox" (some Trinitarian confessions, some Bi-nitarian - mentioning just the father and son).

You may not even know that the Protestant canon is just one canon of an entire canon law that the Reformers attempted to divorce from the church, in itself a radical change unknown to Christianity before that time. Maybe you're unaware that the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants all have a different canon. Or perhaps you can dismiss all of this in an insane moment of intellectual dishonesty and deny all historical developments and changes to make such a baseless dogmatic claim.

So, Apostle angelous is correct. You give me to much credit. You're putting me in God's stead. I did not write what the Bible says.

You interpret what the Bible says, within your tradition. Why you call me an apostle I have no idea, perhaps you don't know what an apostle is.
 

Luke_17:2

Fundamental Bible-thumper
Unfortunately for you, Christianity is not based upon what the Bible says. It's based upon what the Church says, and, ultimately, upon what Jesus says.

No it isn't based on what the church says. What a warped idea. It is based on what Jesus said, and He said it in the Bible.

No, fortunately you didn't write what the Bible says. Unfortunately, you're promoting your own agenda under guise of "what the Bible says."

It's very easy to use ad hominem arguments. Now for a real argument...

I don't like it because it's misleading. It's a lie. You're not presenting "what the Bible says." You're presenting what you believe the Bible says. you should at least make a stab at being honest with yourself.

Have you even read the Bible? What I've said is what the Bible says in proper context. Tell me where I have been "dishonest" and prove it with scripture.

You've listed "the devil" twice.

That was meant to be significant.

I wonder where Satan might be found? Satan is the father of lies. Evangelism like this falls on deaf ears, because people are intuitive enough to discard this kind of evangelism as trash. it just doesn't ring true.

If the world hates a message from the Bible, it rings true for any Biblist.
 

Luke_17:2

Fundamental Bible-thumper
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that your not willfully ignorant of apostolic traditions in the East or West, along with the various contributions of Bultmann and Tillich

Tradition is man's invention; the Bible is God's.

but rather parroting theology that you've learned from a fundamentalist Baptist church.

Okay. If I parrot theology, then tell me how, where, and prove that my parroted theology is wrong.

I would assume that you're completely ignorant of church history as eludicated by Bauer, Ehrman, and just about every other church historian who have demonstrated quite clearly that Christianity has been in a constant state of change from its earliest period until now.

Christianity has changed.

What the Bible says hasn't. Therefore, that change is of the devil.

You probably don't know that the church has a variety of confessions from its earliest period even within the "orthodox" and "proto-orthodox" (some Trinitarian confessions, some Bi-nitarian - mentioning just the father and son).

This is irrelevant as there is only one confession mentioned in the Bible, and that is a confession of your sins to God. It doesn't matter how you confess, just as long as you confess!

You may not even know that the Protestant canon is just one canon of an entire canon law that the Reformers attempted to divorce from the church, in itself a radical change unknown to Christianity before that time. Maybe you're unaware that the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants all have a different canon. Or perhaps you can dismiss all of this in an insane moment of intellectual dishonesty and deny all historical developments and changes to make such a baseless dogmatic claim.

I don't deny any of this. What I submit is that Christianity went apostate from the teachings of Jesus early in its history, but that God has preserved His word through those who follow it absolutely.

You interpret what the Bible says, within your tradition. Why you call me an apostle I have no idea, perhaps you don't know what an apostle is.

I think you know that I was referring to your arrogant attitude.

I interpret what the Bible says through the context of the words.
 

madhatter85

Transhumanist
I see luke 17:2, Sojurner, and AE's points fo view on this.

While I agree that there are certain biblical traditions such as the sacrament. alot of the traditions in certain religions are definitely Man-made because it was a "good idea at the time" nomatter how old the tradition.

Chrisitianity evolves even in the bible, first starting with the Law of Moses (Eye for an Eye), and then when Christ came there was given a Higher Law (Turn the other cheek). this is a basic example of progression in the Bible as to the doctrines of christianity. While the basic principals have never changed, certain points and commandments have progressed into higher and higher laws.

If christianity has never changed then why aren't we still sacrificing animals, or stoning adulterers? God gives his children more revelation regarding his gospel as time goes on as they are ready to adhere to.
 

Luke_17:2

Fundamental Bible-thumper
Chrisitianity evolves even in the bible, first starting with the Law of Moses (Eye for an Eye), and then when Christ came there was given a Higher Law (Turn the other cheek). this is a basic example of progression in the Bible as to the doctrines of christianity. While the basic principals have never changed, certain points and commandments have progressed into higher and higher laws.

If christianity has never changed then why aren't we still sacrificing animals, or stoning adulterers? God gives his children more revelation regarding his gospel as time goes on as they are ready to adhere to.

What you're describing here is ancient Judaism, not Christianity. Sacrificing animals, and leading a strict sinless society was part of the Levitical law laid down by Moses from God. It had nothing to do with Christianity as CHRIST wasn't to be born for another 2000 years. Other then the fact that it was the method of salvation laid down by God before the birth of Christ, it is a completely different religion. Christianity did not evolve from that. I reject the idea that Christianity is just one more step on the evolutionary scale of religions because God lays down these doctrines, and He doesn't evolve.
 

madhatter85

Transhumanist
What you're describing here is ancient Judaism, not Christianity. Sacrificing animals, and leading a strict sinless society was part of the Levitical law laid down by Moses from God. It had nothing to do with Christianity as CHRIST wasn't to be born for another 2000 years. Other then the fact that it was the method of salvation laid down by God before the birth of Christ, it is a completely different religion. Christianity did not evolve from that. I reject the idea that Christianity is just one more step on the evolutionary scale of religions because God lays down these doctrines, and He doesn't evolve.


Sacrificing Animals was in the similitude of the Only Begotten who was to come into the world later on. this law was given to Adam and Eve by God.

Bible Dictionary: Sacrifices

Soon after Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden, the Lord gave them the law of sacrifices, which included offering the firstlings of their flocks in a similitude of the sacrifice that would be made of the Only Begotten Son of God (Moses 5: 4-8). Thereafter, whenever there were true believers on the earth, with priesthood authority, sacrifices were offered in that manner and for that purpose. This continued until the death of Jesus Christ, which ended the shedding of blood as a gospel ordinance. It is now replaced in the Church by the sacrament of the bread and the water, in remembrance of the offering of Jesus Christ.
Sacrifices were thus instructive as well as worshipful. They were accompanied by prayer, devotion, and dedication, and represented an acknowledgment on the part of the individual of his duty toward God, and also a thankfulness to the Lord for his life and blessings upon the earth (see Gen. 4: 3-7; Gen. 8: 20; Gen. 22: 1-17; Ex. 5: 3; Ex. 20: 24).
Under the law of Moses, sacrifices were varied and complex, and a multitude of rules were given to govern the procedure, in keeping with the general character and purpose of the Mosaic law. Under the law offerings made to God must be the offerer’s own property, properly acquired (Deut. 23: 18). Altar sacrifices were of three kinds: sin offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings.
In all the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic law there were six important acts
The presentation of the sacrifice at the sanctuary door by the sacrificer himself, as his personal act.
The laying on of hands (cf. Lev. 16: 21; Num. 27: 18, 20; Deut. 34: 9) dedicated the animal to God and made it the sacrificer’s representative and substitute (Num. 8: 10; Lev. 1: 4).
The slaughtering of the animal. The sacrificer himself slew his sacrifice (at the north side of the altar), and thus carried out actually the dedication to God that he had ceremonially expressed by the laying on of hands. A later custom was for the Levites or priests to slaughter the victims.
The pouring out or sprinkling of the blood. The priest collected the blood of the animal in a vessel, and applied it in various ways and places to make an atonement (Ex. 30: 10; Lev. 8: 15; Lev. 16: 18; Lev. 17: 11).
Burning the sacrifice on the altar. After the priest had properly prepared the sacrificial victim he offered it (the whole or the fat only) upon the altar of burnt offering. This act symbolized the consecration of the worshipper to Jehovah.
The sacrificial meal (in the case of the peace offering only). The fat having been burnt and the priests’ pieces removed, the rest of the flesh was eaten by the sacrificer, his household, and the poorer Levites at the tabernacle.
The fundamental idea of the sin and trespass offerings was atonement, expiation. They implied that there was a sin, or some uncleanness akin to a sin, that needed atoning for before fellowship with Jehovah could be obtained. Sins committed with a high hand, and for which the punishment was death, did not admit of expiation under the Mosaic law (Num. 15: 30-31). Atonement could be made for1 unconscious, Num. 5: 15, 17);2 noncapital crimes (e.g., theft), after punishment had been endured (Lev. 6: 2, 6; Lev. 19: 20-22);3 crimes that a man voluntarily confessed, and for which he made (if possible) compensation (Lev. 5: 5).

The word Minchah, used frequently of gifts made to men (Gen. 43: 11), and occasionally of bloody offerings (Gen. 4: 4), specially denotes an unbloody or meal offering. (See Meat offering.) The essential materials of the Minchah were corn and wine. The corn was either1 corn in the ear, parched and bruised, or2 fine flour, or3 unleavened cakes. Oil was never absent from the Minchah, but whether as an essential or accompanying element is not clear. It was always seasoned with salt (Lev. 2: 13), and was offered along with incense. Leaven and honey, as fermenting substances, were excluded from its preparation. The Minchah could not be offered with a sin offering; on the other hand, no burnt or peace offering was complete without it. A portion of the Minchah, called the memorial, was placed on the altar of burnt offering; the remainder was eaten by the priests in a holy place.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
1 Can one view the Bible, particularly the new testament as inspired literature from which meaning can be created and be a Christian?
I suppose so. There is a wide range of opinion on how literal any of the Bible is. I don't know how anyone would really know where to draw the line as to what parts of the Bible you need to accept as literal in order to be considered a Christian.

Does one have to accept the literal existence of Jesus to be Christian or can one say he exists in the bible and that's enough?
Well, at the risk of coming across as exclusionary, it seems to me that if Jesus Christ did not really exist, there isn't much point in anyone calling himself a Christian. The basic premise of Christianity is that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, that He came to earth to fulfill a mission -- taking upon himself the sins of mankind so that all who accepted His sacrifice on their behalf could be reconciled to God. If Jesus only existed as a fictional character, I certainly wouldn't want to think of myself as a Christian.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Christianity doesn't change. Biblical Christianity, Christianity based soley on what the Bible says, is the same as it was at the beginning, and will be the same at the end.
That's all very well and good, but what about the Christianity which existed prior to when the Biblical canon was established? You are aware, I'm sure, that the canon has changed considerably over the years.
 

Luke_17:2

Fundamental Bible-thumper
That's all very well and good, but what about the Christianity which existed prior to when the Biblical canon was established? You are aware, I'm sure, that the canon has changed considerably over the years.

The Protestant canon is very recent. However, what is included in it had existed for a long while.

The Catholic Bible have long been considered by non-Catholics (ever since the reformation) to not be completely inspired. Mainly because the Apocrypha was written in a era of silence.
 

madhatter85

Transhumanist
True. The Levitical law was symbolic, but it was part of Judaism which is NOT Christianity.



No it wasn't. The law wasn't to be given for another 2500 years after man's expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

what are you talkign about? Cain killed Abel because he was jealous, Cain was giving crappy offerings to God, God Commanded Adam and Eve to give sacrifices. do you not read the bible?
 

Mr. Peanut

Active Member
Hi!

One could call Christianity the oldest religion in the sense that the first sacrifice was after sin when God made clothes for Adam and Eve with animal skins and Cain and Abel offered sacrifices to God, Abel's being accepted as it was not worked for as Cain's crops were and it was a blood sacrifice without which there is no remission of sins and representative of, at that time, a looking forward to Christ's sacrifice once for all. The Jewish sacrifices and Abel's, being a picture of what was to come as the one true sacrifice for sin.

Cheers!
 

Luke_17:2

Fundamental Bible-thumper
what are you talkign about? Cain killed Abel because he was jealous, Cain was giving crappy offerings to God, God Commanded Adam and Eve to give sacrifices. do you not read the bible?

I thought we were talking about the Levitical law.

Since we're talking about sacrifices, I can go even further back. When Adam and Eve sinned and were sent out of Eden, God gave them garments of fur to keep them warm -those garments had to have come from somewhere, so obviously God killed a couple animals to atone for the first sins of mankind.

It is all symbolic of Christ, His sacrifice, and His life. I'm just saying that Christianity does not equal ancient Judaism. They were both established by God; Judaism was the method of salvation, as Christianity is now. But neither Judaism nor Christianity are the products of religious evolution, as God established both, and God doesn't evolve.
 

Luke_17:2

Fundamental Bible-thumper
The four hundred years between Malachi and Matthew. God sent no prophets, so they wrote no books.

The Apocrypha is very interesting reading but it's not scripture.
 

Mr. Peanut

Active Member
The four hundred years between Malachi and Matthew. God sent no prophets, so they wrote no books.

The Apocrypha is very interesting reading but it's not scripture.
Hi!

This is quite true. There are times when God did not supernaturally intervene for hundreds of years such as the 400 years of slavery in Egypt and the 400 between Mal. and Math.

Cheers!
 

madhatter85

Transhumanist
The four hundred years between Malachi and Matthew. God sent no prophets, so they wrote no books.

The Apocrypha is very interesting reading but it's not scripture.

Amos 8:
11 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.

that time came after Christ died. ever since the beginning of adam and eve there have been prophets, beginnign with Adam, and each prophet was a "dispensation"
Bible Dictionary - lds.org
A dispensation of the gospel is a period of time in which the Lord has at least one authorized servant on the earth who bears the holy priesthood and the keys, and who has a divine commission to dispense the gospel to the inhabitants of the earth. When this occurs, the gospel is revealed anew, so that people of that dispensation do not have to depend basically on past dispensations for knowledge of the plan of salvation. There have been many gospel dispensations since the beginning. The Bible suggests at least one dispensation identified with Adam, another with Enoch, another with Noah, and so on with Abraham, Moses, and Jesus with his apostles in the meridian of time. Paul writes of “the dispensation of the fulness of times” in which the Lord will “gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth”
Ephesians 1
 
Top