similarities among religions

[ThePainefulTruth]

If you are in any way suggesting that I believe repentance is unnecessary, you are very much mistaken. Jesus did, however, say, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Christians believe what He said. And He did instruct His Apostles to gather together regularly to commemorate His life and sacrifice.

If you believe repentance is necessary, you should probably be in the camp that thinks Paul is the beast of Revelation. He was the one who paganized Christianity (read Paulism) after all, having a ritualized Lord's Supper where they symbolically eat the Lord's flesh and blood like the pagans did with Mithras long before Jesus.
Paul was a wealthy upper class Roman citizen by his Herodian ancestry.

 

[Valjean]

Religion is a type of glue to the universe. There will be similarities, due to structural limits. I think the soul, if we have a dehumanisation circuit in the brain ("he's an animal, a reptile...") then there has to be an alternative circuit to engage normally.

If we were more religious would the universe stop expanding?

 

[ronandcarol]

similarities among religions
You can slice it and dice it any way you want to, BUT
the bottom line is that the Christian religion cannot (will not)
compromise on the Gospel.
The mercy and grace of God, to send His one and only
Son to die for our sins, so that we could spend eternity
with Him. That is Love.
Is there a similarity like that in any other religion?
ronandcarol

 

[DavidFirth]

similarities among religions
You can slice it and dice it any way you want to, BUT
the bottom line is that the Christian religion cannot (will not)
compromise on the Gospel.
The mercy and grace of God, to send His one and only
Son to die for our sins, so that we could spend eternity
with Him. That is Love.

Preach it, brother! (I'm serious.)

 

[Valjean]

similarities among religions
You can slice it and dice it any way you want to, BUT
the bottom line is that the Christian religion cannot (will not)
compromise on the Gospel.
The mercy and grace of God, to send His one and only
Son to die for our sins, so that we could spend eternity
with Him. That is Love.
Is there a similarity like that in any other religion?
ronandcarol

But Christians have always compromised, and they cherry-pick like all get-out. They've also managed to generate thousands of different denominations. How could they manage to do that with a single data base?
How are you defining "similarity?" There's nothing in your post that suggests similarity to anything.

 

[12jtartar]

there are many similarities among religions and denominations. people focus on the differences and start religious wars and terrorism and they shun the similarities. so I want to mention some similarities. christianity and islam both have fasting. catholics and orthodox venerate common saints. christianity and hinduism have a trinity concept. all religions as far as I know have a soul/spirit concept. and the list continues.

syo,
I must admit that there are similarities between false religion and the One and only True Religion. Of course it is not the similarities that cause divides, but differences. The things you have mentioned, fasting. True Christianity does not practice fasting for religious reasons. There is no Scripture in the Bible that tells Christians to fast!!! True Christians hold Saints in high esteem, but no one is to be worshipped but God alone, and Christians do not pray to anyone but God alone. Nominal Christians recognize a Trinity, but to True Christians, the concept is blasphemous. God, whose name in English is Jehovah, and whose name was in the Original Writings over 7,000 times, is the Supreme God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all that is in them. Jesus, the Christ is the son of God, and to Christians, he is a mighty god, but not The Almighty God, Isaiah 9:6,7. Jesus was the very first of God's Creations, Colossians 1:15,16, and all other creations were made through Jesus and for Jesus, Colossians 1:16-20. Jesus himself said that he lives because of the Father, John 6:57, that the Father is his God and our God, John 20:17, that the Father is greater than he is, John 14:28. Agape!!!

 

[DavidFirth]

But Christians have always compromised, and they cherry-pick like all get-out. They've also managed to generate thousands of different denominations. How could they manage to do that with a single data base?
How are you defining "similarity?" There's nothing in your post that suggests similarity to anything.

He refers specifically to the Gospel. The Gospel is what makes a Christian a Christian. All of the other stuff is at least somewhat debatable over what is of second most importance.

 

[Katzpur]

similarities among religions
You can slice it and dice it any way you want to, BUT
the bottom line is that the Christian religion cannot (will not)
compromise on the Gospel.
The mercy and grace of God, to send His one and only
Son to die for our sins, so that we could spend eternity
with Him. That is Love.
Is there a similarity like that in any other religion?
ronandcarol

I would agree that all of the world's Christian denominations would be in agreement on the part of your post that I changed to a bold, red font. Beyond that, though, there are many differences between Christian denominations, and probably no group of people in the world is more fond of excluding those within the group who believe differently from them from the family. If I had a nickel for every time I've been told by a professing Christian that I'm not a "real Christian" because some of my beliefs are different from his, I'd be wealthy beyond my wildest dreams. Now, I most certainly do believe that "the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches that God sent His Only Begotten Son to die for our sins, so that we could spend eternity with Him, and that it is only through His grace that our salvation is made possible." If that's all it takes to be a Christian (and I pretty much believe it is, myself), then Christians are fully united. I kind of suspect that most Christians don't see it that way, though.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm really having a hard time figuring you out. First, you say this:

Jesus, like his mentor John the Baptist, taught salvation through repentance.

Then you turn around and say this:

If you believe repentance is necessary, you should probably be in the camp that thinks Paul is the beast of Revelation.

Do you or do you not believe that Jesus taught that we must repent? He either did or He didn't, and you seem to be contradicting yourself. If I've misunderstood you, please correct me, but that's what I'm reading. At any rate, the reason I believe in the need for repentance is because that's what Jesus Christ taught.

He was the one who paganized Christianity (read Paulism) after all, having a ritualized Lord's Supper where they symbolically eat the Lord's flesh and blood like the pagans did with Mithras long before Jesus. Paul was a wealthy upper class Roman citizen by his Herodian ancestry.

If you're suggesting that Paul instituted the practice of using bread and wine to commemorate Christ's death, you're ignoring Jesus' own instructions to His Apostles. It kind of sounds like you are talking about Transubstantiation instead, though, a practice which was neither believed or taught until several hundred years after Paul's death.

 

[Katzpur]

Most Christians would say that, but it isn't what Paul founded his version of the Jerusalem Church on--meaning he corrupted what Jesus and his followers believed:

"But didn’t he earn his right to heaven by all the good things he did? No, for being saved is a gift; if a person could earn it by being good, then it wouldn’t be free—but it is! It is given to those who do not work for it. For God declares sinners to be good in his sight if they have faith in Christ to save them from God’s wrath." --- Romans 4:4 (Living)

I think you're pretty selective as to which parts of the Bible you choose to believe, as well as pretty creative in your interpretation of the passages that don't support your position.

James clearly says that faith without works is dead. You apparently disagree. And Jesus Christ himself said that He would reward every man according to his works.

Jesus also said that when He returns to judge mankind, He'll divide the sheep from the goats. Basically, the goats will have merely talked the talk. Their fate, according to Jesus, was to be "everlasting punishment." The sheep will have also walked the walk. They are the ones who will be blessed with "life eternal." If you honestly believe that God does not want us to obey His commandments, you have missed a very, very important part of what the gospel message is all about. Our obedience does not save us; it can't possibly do so. That doesn't mean it's not important to the Lord.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I'm really having a hard time figuring you out. First, you say this:

Then you turn around and say this:

Do you or do you not believe that Jesus taught that we must repent? He either did or He didn't, and you seem to be contradicting yourself. If I've misunderstood you, please correct me, but that's what I'm reading. At any rate, the reason I believe in the need for repentance is because that's what Jesus Christ taught.

Yes both he and especially John did, but Paul did not, in fact, just the opposite, and Paul's was the final influence. I point to repentance as being the natural resolution for sin since it is the effort to alter one's wrong behavior. Paul's approach does not. In fact, I think human salvific sacrifice leads us away from repentance for the reason Paul states--it's a gift and doesn't need to be worked for, spiritual welfare if you will

If you're suggesting that Paul instituted the practice of using bread and wine to commemorate Christ's death, you're ignoring Jesus' own instructions to His Apostles. It kind of sounds like you are talking about Transubstantiation instead, though, a practice which was neither believed or taught until several hundred years after Paul's death.

The Eucharist is essentially symbolic cannibalism, something that was and would be now, blasphemous for any Jew. Jesus may well have asked his disciples to remember him when they eat and drink, but there certainly wouldn't have been any such symbolism implied, much less trans-substantiation. Further Paul instituted the Roman Mithraic pagan aspects of the rite after claiming to receive it in a vision from Jesus. If Jesus had established such a rite with the apostles, why would it need to be revealed to Paul in a vision? Wouldn't the disciples have kept up the tradition? Even some of Paul's own followers questioned his repeated reliance on visions. And Paul seems to have had very little knowledge of who Jesus was and what he'd done. Even the very early Didache teaches the Eucharist without the blood and body aspects.

I think you're pretty selective as to which parts of the Bible you choose to believe, as well as pretty creative in your interpretation of the passages that don't support your position.

James clearly says that faith without works is dead. You apparently disagree. And Jesus Christ himself said that He would reward every man according to his works.

Exactly. Paul and James were depicted even in the Bible as being at odds with each other, and in all likelihood it was smoothed over by Luke in Acts. James was Jesus successor and head of the Jerusalem Jewish "Jesusites", if you will. Paul was an elite Roman, Herodian who took their beliefs and made them more palatable to the Gentiles.

Jesus also said that when He returns to judge mankind, He'll divide the sheep from the goats. Basically, the goats will have merely talked the talk. Their fate, according to Jesus, was to be "everlasting punishment." The sheep will have also walked the walk. They are the ones who will be blessed with "life eternal." If you honestly believe that God does not want us to obey His commandments, you have missed a very, very important part of what the gospel message is all about. Our obedience does not save us; it can't possibly do so. That doesn't mean it's not important to the Lord.

I don't believe in divine revelation at all, it would destroy our free will. All scripture must be the sole responsibility and words of men. But I'm not trying to talk you out of your beliefs. I just try to align such spiritual writings with history as best as possible. There is great wisdom and history in the Bible, but also great evil (e.g. Paul). I believe Paul was the enemy of the early Jewish "Christians", with him being the beast of Revelation. The number of the beast (not 666, Arabic numerals coming later), is "six-hundred, threescore and six", which is Jewish Gematria for "Tarsus"**--the Roman center of Mithraism and of course Paul's hometown. Let him who has wisdom, understand. That number is also in the Old Testament, two identical times, designating wealth.

**I learned that from modern day Ebionites (the poor ones), the spiritual descendants of the original Ebionites, which is the likely self-designation of James' Jewish Jerusalem Church.