Syncretism.....Can Mixing Religious Ideas Lead to the Truth?

[Deeje]

If you truly want to understand why a syncretist is a syncretist, then read the sacred texts of other religions. You can then see if you understand where they see the parallels.
Tao Te Ching, Bhagavad Gita, Dhammapada. A Taoist, Hindu, and Buddhist text that are entry level I think. These texts made me a syncretist. I perceive them all to have the same author

Perhaps they do have the same author....but what makes you believe it was the God of the Bible...the one who expressly forbade the adoption of false religious beliefs? There is a pretender at large...an "angel of light"...remember? He will present his version of God and pretend to embody all his good points. So again...how do you tell the real thing from a clever counterfeit?

 

[PearlSeeker]

How authentic can such a blend of religions be, outside of that individual?

What do you mean with "authentic"?

Does it matter if no one else shares that mix of beliefs?

No.

"Truth has nothing to do with the number of people it convinces." (Paul Claudel)

What is the motive behind syncretism, and is it merely “religion shopping” or selecting “ingredients” to fit personal religious tastes?

Seeking truth.

What role does God (or gods) play in the choices?

I believe it's guidance and attraction.

How many versions of religious truth can there be?

There is one Truth. A religion doesn't have a monopoly. Religions involve man so they are not infallible.

How can one find the diamond in a pile of broken glass?

By seeking. Who seeks finds.

 

[Muffled]

I see so many here at RF adopting a range of beliefs from various religious systems and making up what appears to be their own personal religions.

How authentic can such a blend of religions be, outside of that individual?

Does it matter if no one else shares that mix of beliefs?

What is the motive behind syncretism, and is it merely “religion shopping” or selecting “ingredients” to fit personal religious tastes?

What role does God (or gods) play in the choices?

How many versions of religious truth can there be?

How can one find the diamond in a pile of broken glass?

Help me understand......

I believe most syncretism doesn't work but I do believe truth can be found in many religions.

I believe anything from God is authentic even if I am the only person hearing it.

I believe I am not responsible for what others believe only for presenting the truth of God.

I believe for many it is an attempt to get a feel good religion. I believe that will always be a false religion and it is basically humanism.

I believe for me God is the only player.

I believe there is only one religious truth and no-one has it except God.

 

[Muffled]

IMO, such endeavors lead to insanity.
Which is part of the reason I instead chose to be an atheist.
Uh... to avoid the insanity part.

I believe going comatose to religion is not good mental health.

 

[Muffled]

When it is not fruitful?

I believe everything bears fruit. Some of it good and some bad.

 

[Secret Chief]

I believe everything bears fruit. Some of it good and some bad.

True, but I was implying beneficial I hope.

 

[Windwalker]

@Windwalker thank you for that thoughtful response and for directing me to Romans ch 14.

As a perpetual Bible student, I am always interested in deepening my understanding and appreciation for God’s word.

Seeing Paul’s recommendations to his fellow Christians in context there, I believe is more important than the words themselves in isolation.

One thing about reading Paul that is often overlooked, is to read his thoughts and ideas isolated from the other later texts. I'm not necessarily saying that in this instance to ignore later thoughts, but it is important to understand, for instance, reading Paul's epistles as if he had full awareness of what was in the 4 different gospels would be improper scholarship.

It assumes later points of view informed his current points of view, as if all Christians believed the same things back then during the first hundred years of the movement. That's a theological assumption, not a scholarly forgone conclusion. Reading authors in isolation to the time they lived in, with the understandings they were working off of at time, is a more critical and proper form of scholarship.

If you think about the basis for their conclusion, you will see what those “necessary things” included....to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols” was not directed towards Jews, because this was already unlawful for them.....the consumption of “blood”, as in eating the flesh of unbled meat or taking blood in the diet in any way was also unlawful for Jews, as well as abstaining from sexual immorality”.....so this recommendation was almost exclusively for Gentiles to whom these things may have been commonly practised.....but for the Jews, there was no recommendation to enforce circumcision on Gentile believers, nor a requirement to follow laws concerning the Sabbath or the festivals etc. For Jewish believers, the Law had been fulfilled by Christ’s death, and was no longer binding on Jewish believers and was not therefore binding on Gentiles except for those “necessary things”.

To read that as "necessary things" as far God requiring those parts of the Law being applied to Gentiles, but not the rest, does not make any sense theologically. It does however make sense administratively as a compromise with those Jewish Christians who struggled with the idea that the law was not necessary for salvation. That's politics, not Divine law.

"Love is the fulfillment of the law", says Paul, "except for not eating blood, that still applies!". Of course he never said the latter, and it would make zero sense that you don't have to do the law anymore, except for those couple few clauses. Christ's death wasn't enough to get rid of those requirements too. Right?

Romans 14 makes pointed clear that it is not a requirement by God, but that what matters is the faith or the sincerity by which one acts upon their beliefs. "I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean."

That is remarkable. Now stack what he just said against what was written decades later after Paul died in the two-part gospel of Luke/Acts, "keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled," with what authentic Paul said in the early 50's , "Nothing is unclean in itself". That's either an administrative compromise and is not a theological requirement, or it is a requirement by God and a contradiction to the teachings of Paul. Either Luke is right, that "Some things are still unclean", or Paul is right, "Nothing is unclean".

Theologically speaking, "nothing is unclean" is correct. It is consistent with everything he teaches in Romans. What is inherently unclean to you in the law of Moses that Paul should have excluded in his sweeping statement that "Nothing is unclean in itself"? "Nothing is unclean in itself, except... eating pork, eating shellfish, anything with the blood still in it, picking up sticks on Sabbath, sacrificing to idols", etc.? Add to this explicit statement that, "the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." You are saying it is a matter of eating and drinking, that we should abstain from blood. Paul does not appear to agree.

Does that make any sense, if from the perspective of God whether it is sin or not is based on how the person doing it considers it in their own minds? Paul explicitly says this in Romans 14. "But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean." And he adds, "So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin".

As you can see, it's not about what you believe doctrinally. It's not about what you practice religiously. But how you do whatever it is you believe is right, so long as it follow the law of love and does no harm to others. The only requirement Paul is stipulating here is Love.

Christianity was practiced under a “new covenant”.....but as in all covenants, it was a binding legal arrangement between God and man. Under this new arrangement, the old was dispensed with and the new arrangement took over.....but there was still rules to follow....not an extensive, external list of laws as Israel had been bound to, but an exercise of faith that came from a law within the heart.

I agree the new covenant was to follow what come from within the heart. This is something I advocate doing, and untangling this notion that God requires the law to be followed in order to be saved. If you follow the law of love through the heart, you will not harm another, and therefore you fulfill ALL the law, not just parts of it. Paul teaches this. So does Jesus. You can't just tack in there, "except for eating food with the blood still in it!". If you do that, then you make yourself obligated to follow all of the rules from that period.

Paul says this. "Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law." Same thing with requiring not eating things with blood in it, for instance. Same principle applies. If you say you have to do that part of the law, you now are requiring you have to do all of it. Paul says this in Galatians 5.

‘The Law of the Christ’ had only two requirements.....”love of God, and love of neighbor”....but Christianity also came under a set mode of operation.

But? Those two requirements did not have a third added to them. Those two summarized and fulfilled ALL of the law, the totality of the religious tradition itself through the "law and the prophets". I thought adding things to the Bible was a no no?

As with all things created by God, there was order, and a congregational arrangement was to be followed by all. Each congregation had its appointed elders and teachers and the members were encouraged to follow their lead. (Hebrews 13:17) These also were authorised by God to administer discipline if any in the congregation stepped out of line. (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)

You read this administrative arrangements and organization structures as if they were the Law of Moses, and that God sits upon high judging our souls whether or not we followed the organizational structures of earlier generations to meet the needs of their day. This is spiritual confusion. It takes external forms, and calls them internal truths that must be obeyed and followed or be considered sin.

The difference between the old and the new covenants, is that one was external rules and laws, inflexible and harsh. The other is internal principles and attitudes, resulting in compassion and cooperation. To tack on a 3rd commandment, "organize your church according to scripture, in addition to loving God and your neighbor as yourself", is to do exactly what Paul decried. If you take that approach, putting new wine into old wineskins, then you are "obligated to obey the whole law". It's not really the new covenant at all that you're following, but a 'graced' version of the old covenant still.

How do you see your own position in relation to that situation. Can we be Christians in isolation?

Yes. Of course. If you are the only person in the whole world who believes they should follow what Jesus taught, you would still be a Christian. Considering the nature of most churches, sometimes being part of them can actually place a drag upon your growth.

In reality however, no Christian is in isolation if they are truly walking with God. They have the Spirit, and that means they are never alone or in isolation.

Or is there necessity for a governed brotherhood, with those who are authorised to teach one truth?

Authorized by who? I know more than a few teachers, who have no right to teach others. They are the blind leading the blind, children teaching children. To me the only ones qualified to teach, are those who actually are spiritually mature. Most are just advocates of teachings and beliefs, which makes them salespersons, not actual spiritual teachers. There is a very real, and serious difference between them.

Can peace, harmony and the search for truth ever be achieved by people doing only what they personally think is right?

No. Not by what they "think is right", but by being led by the Spirit and knowing from their heart, what is right. That is what it means to have the law written upon the heart. If you are only going by what you 'think is right', then you might end up in some religion that claims they alone are the truly saved.

 

[Deeje]

What do you mean with "authentic"?

I mean the real deal. In view of Jesus’ parable of “the wheat and the weeds” we already know that a counterfeit form of Christianity was to be sown by the devil in order to draw the disciples away from the truth that Jesus taught. (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-42) A counterfeit is hard to spot unless you know what you’re looking for.

No.

Have God’s people ever been loners since He formed Israel into a nation? Jehovah is not a God of disorder. He has always appointed leaders for his people and teachers to guide and direct them in the right way. Individuals even among those leaders and teachers can go their own ways and lead others down the wrong path. But there were ways to identify them....by their beliefs and actions...especially by their actions, when they are in opposition or in addition, to what Christ taught.

Some of these would include any kind of justified bloodshed, such as involvement and support for political nations who require their citizens to kill their fellow human beings, even if these "enemies" are of the same religion. (Matthew 5:43-44) Practicing religious rituals, repetitive prayers, idolatry, acceptance of pagan beliefs and practices which find no place in Jesus' teachings. Look hard enough and you will see broken glass everywhere.

"Truth has nothing to do with the number of people it convinces." (Paul Claudel)

I couldn’t agree more. God’s people have always been in a hated minority. Numbers have never really mattered to God. He was always after quality, not quantity.

Seeking truth.

How does one identify the diamond in the pile of broken glass?
Don’t you have to know what you looking at? Broken glass can look like uncut diamonds. How can you tell?

I believe it's guidance and attraction.

The Bible agrees with you (John 6:44; 65) .....but again there is a pretender at large who masquerades as “an angel of light”....so how do we really know *who* is attracting us and giving us guidance? It might seem OK to us. Knowledge is the key.....we have to know what the real thing looks like.

There is one Truth. A religion doesn't have a monopoly. Religions involve man so they are not infallible.

Man’s infallibility has never thwarted God’s will. He has a way of showing up imposters as the scriptures clearly show. But if one is in love with their own ideas, God will permit these ones to keep them. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)

Jesus said that the “wheat and the weeds” would "grow together" until the "harvest time".....otherwise known as “the time of the end”, foretold by Daniel. (Daniel 12:4, 9, 10) God promised an abundance of knowledge in this time when he would "cleanse, whiten and refine" those who saw all the wrongs committed in religion, but who sought the truth that they knew God was telling. Only those who responded to the cleansing would be granted insight and understanding......they would form a new nation whose task it would be to proclaim the "good news of the Kingdom in all the inhabited earth as a witness to all the nations" before God brings an "end" to this evil world system. (Matthew 24:14)
"Just like the days of Noah", Jesus said (Matthew 24:37-39)....and here we are.

By seeking. Who seeks finds.

Not necessarily.....the world is full of "seekers" who will never "find" the truth, because they are seeking the wrong things, in the wrong places.
Most people want God to conform to their will, rather than them conforming to his.

 

[Deeje]

One thing about reading Paul that is often overlooked, is to read his thoughts and ideas isolated from the other later texts. I'm not necessarily saying that in this instance to ignore later thoughts, but it is important to understand, for instance, reading Paul's epistles as if he had full awareness of what was in the 4 different gospels would be improper scholarship.

The letters, teachings and recommendations from the apostles were circulated throughout the brotherhood after Jesus' death and return to heaven. He continued to direct the apostles and holy spirit was operative on all of them, Paul included. That being the case, nothing rested on any one man's opinion. Christ was still directing matters as he promised in Matthew 28:19-20.

It assumes later points of view informed his current points of view, as if all Christians believed the same things back then during the first hundred years of the movement. That's a theological assumption, not a scholarly forgone conclusion. Reading authors in isolation to the time they lived in, with the understandings they were working off of at time, is a more critical and proper form of scholarship.

Different points of view did not enter into Christian teachings until the last of the apostles passed away. These were acting as a restraint for the coming apostasy that was foretold. (2 Thessalonians 2:6-12; 2 Peter 2:1-3)
2 John 10-11 reminds the brothers that no teachings that deviated from what Christ taught would be tolerated.

To read that as "necessary things" as far God requiring those parts of the Law being applied to Gentiles, but not the rest, does not make any sense theologically. It does however make sense administratively as a compromise with those Jewish Christians who struggled with the idea that the law was not necessary for salvation. That's politics, not Divine law.

The "necessary things" were mainly relevant to the Gentiles because the the Jews were already aware of these requirements according to their Law.....but "blood" was a whole different story.

The first law on the consumption of blood was given to Noah on coming out of the ark. (Genesis 9:1-7) It was repeated again in the Law to Israel, (Leviticus 17:11, 14)....and again reiterated to the Christians.....that is how sacred blood was to God....it is the life blood that was never to be disrespected in any generation.

"Love is the fulfillment of the law", says Paul, "except for not eating blood, that still applies!". Of course he never said the latter, and it would make zero sense that you don't have to do the law anymore, except for those couple few clauses. Christ's death wasn't enough to get rid of those requirements too. Right?

Not the requirement to "abstain from blood". The principles of the 'Law and the prophets' were embodied in the Law of the Christ. You could not break any one of God's laws without violating one or both of those. For the Law on blood to be repeated throughout man's history makes it a very important requirement. What makes you think its not?

Romans 14 makes pointed clear that it is not a requirement by God, but that what matters is the faith or the sincerity by which one acts upon their beliefs. "I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean."

As a Jew, Paul would never have recommended something that God forbade...neither the consumption of blood or sexually immoral behavior, which involved another sacred thing to God....the transmission of life.

Blood was not "unclean"...it was "sacred"....that is the difference according to my understanding.

You are saying it is a matter of eating and drinking, that we should abstain from blood. Paul does not appear to agree.

No, this only applied to the things in the law that carried over to the law of the Christ.....the consumption of blood was right up there with sexual immorality, both of which carried the death penalty in Israel. Being a Christian does not give anyone a license to sin.

But how you do whatever it is you believe is right, so long as it follow the law of love and does no harm to others. The only requirement Paul is stipulating here is Love.

True, love is to be exercised in all things, but its not a free for all.....there are many ways to do things that are motivated by love and that do no apparent harm, but which God would never condone....one is the adoption of false religious ideas and passing them off as Christian practices. Most of the teachings of Roman Catholicism come under this category.......the adoration of Mary is done in love and using her image as an adjunct to prayer may seem harmless, but it is flat out idolatry and praying through Mary or the Saints was never once advocated by Jesus Christ. We have only "one mediator" appointed by God....that is Jesus Christ.

Seeing God as a triune Being is also done in love for the most part, but placing other 'gods' in the same position as the Father is a breach of the first Commandment. Jehovah was never a triune God to Abraham or Moses. (Deuteronomy 6:4) This would be seen as blasphemous to them.
Jesus never once claimed to be God, but only ever identified himself as "the son of God"....never as "God the Son". Nor was the holy spirit ever called "God".
There are many more....

I agree the new covenant was to follow what come from within the heart. This is something I advocate doing, and untangling this notion that God requires the law to be followed in order to be saved. If you follow the law of love through the heart, you will not harm another, and therefore you fulfill ALL the law, not just parts of it. Paul teaches this. So does Jesus. You can't just tack in there, "except for eating food with the blood still in it!". If you do that, then you make yourself obligated to follow all of the rules from that period.

One does not need to "follow the law" in order to be saved....Jesus blood provided that for us....but we do need to conduct ourselves according the the principles of the law, which still apply because Jesus said he "did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it". The Law was perfect but it condemned the Jews every day of their lives because no one could keep it perfectly, becoming a curse, as Paul said. (Galatians 3:10-14) We must still obey the principles of the moral laws that Jesus taught from....he taught from the Tanakh.

But? Those two requirements did not have a third added to them. Those two summarized and fulfilled ALL of the law, the totality of the religious tradition itself through the "law and the prophets". I thought adding things to the Bible was a no no?

There is no adding....but a continuation of the principles upon which the Law was based. These "necessary things" still applied...."abstain from blood and do not commit sexual immorality"....why do you assume that this is not included in the apostles recommendations to the entire body of Christ? They applied to all.....but for natural Jews it was no longer necessary to circumcise or to observe the Sabbath, but there was no law against it either. "Abstain" means what it says.

Yes. Of course. If you are the only person in the whole world who believes they should follow what Jesus taught, you would still be a Christian. Considering the nature of most churches, sometimes being part of them can actually place a drag upon your growth.

I agree, but among the "weeds", in the same field (the world) the "wheat" is still "doing the will of the Father" even when the weeds have given up trying. (Matthew 7:21-23) They cannot fulfill the great commission because Christ is not "with" them. (Matthew 28:19-20)

In reality however, no Christian is in isolation if they are truly walking with God. They have the Spirit, and that means they are never alone or in isolation.

We cannot be Christians in isolation....not meaning physically isolated but doctrinally isolated. All true Christians are taught by Christ and therefore are united in all their beliefs and conduct, no matter what nation they find themselves in. (1 Corinthians 1:10; Hebrews 10:24-25) Just as the first Christians met for worship and mutual encouragement, so we need to do the same, especially now as these "last days" draw to a close.

Authorized by who? I know more than a few teachers, who have no right to teach others. They are the blind leading the blind, children teaching children. To me the only ones qualified to teach, are those who actually are spiritually mature. Most are just advocates of teachings and beliefs, which makes them salespersons, not actual spiritual teachers. There is a very real, and serious difference between them.

Again, I agree, which is why I abandoned Christendom. But I did not abandon God, or Christ, or the Bible. I found a united people who are doing the will of God in every nation on earth....some of whom suffer the most unjust treatment and persecution because of the influence of powerful church leaders. Just like it happened to the Christians in the first century. (John 15:18-20)

"Babylon the great" will go down soon, and those who have obeyed God's directive to "get out of her" will be in a position then to prove worthy of the salvation they hope for. (Revelation 18:4-5) Those still clinging to false religion of any sort, will go down with her. That is because all false religion has the same author.

No. Not by what they "think is right", but by being led by the Spirit and knowing from their heart, what is right. That is what it means to have the law written upon the heart. If you are only going by what you 'think is right', then you might end up in some religion that claims they alone are the truly saved.

There is more than one *spirit* operating in this world....how do you know that you are being led by the right one, since both will appear to be right? Counterfeits can be very convincing.....and if one is alone, they will be an easy target for the wolves...there is safety in among the flock. The Fine Shepherd keep watch and is safeguarding his sheep, collectively.
That is how I see things....

 

[PearlSeeker]

A counterfeit is hard to spot unless you know what you’re looking for.

Not everything outside the "club" is counterfeit. Mark 9:38-40

Jehovah is not a God of disorder. He has always appointed leaders for his people and teachers to guide and direct them in the right way.

God enlightens every man (John 1:9). Not just leaders. Not just one nation. "The Spirit blows where it wants to."

Broken glass can look like uncut diamonds. How can you tell?

God gave us intuition, reason, conscience, experience... Otherwise we would blindly believe every text or authority...

Criteria depend on what kind of truth/value do you evaluate - historical value, moral value...

Some examples of criteria:
Criteria of truth - Wikipedia
Quest for the historical Jesus - Wikipedia

 

[Deeje]

Not everything outside the "club" is counterfeit. Mark 9:38-40

Taking other scripture into consideration, we can see that there was no “club” at the time when this incident took place. Jesus said that at that stage, just getting the message out was the important thing...not who did it because they were all Jews. Whoever therefore was “for” him among his people, would receive his teachings, but whoever was “against” him, no matter what he, or his disciples did or said, they would be rejected.. ..there was no "Christianity" at that stage....let alone sects to contend with.

So can you see the difference that context makes in all consideration of scripture? Taking verses out of context to prove a point....anyone can do that, but to make it fit in with the whole of what scripture teaches...that is when you know you have the truth because all verses will agree with no contradiction.

God enlightens every man (John 1:9). Not just leaders. Not just one nation. "The Spirit blows where it wants to."

Again, we can make scripture say whatever we want it to in order to justify our beliefs.

Can you tell me what was the purpose of choosing the “elect”? Were all Christians to be of that group? What was the purpose of having leaders and teachers whom all in the congregation were to obey, if everyone was a chief and there were no Indians? (Hebrews 13:17)

It is true that God is the one who enlightened us individually, (i.e. opens our hearts to his truth) when he sees potential in us to become a citizen of his Kingdom, but what is it that causes him to do that?

And what of those whom he allows to continue in a "strong delusion" because he said that "do not love the truth but take pleasure in unrighteousness"? (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) Are these not just as convinced that they have the truth?

God gave us intuition, reason, conscience, experience... Otherwise we would blindly believe every text or authority...

Jesus also said that no one can come to the Father except through him and that no one could come to the son without an invitation from the Father. What about those who think that they have an invitation, but are adopting all kinds of different beliefs about a lot of things, and finding themselves divided off from other "Christians" whose beliefs are unlike their own? Can there be more than one truth? Do we merely have different lenses? Is that what Jesus taught through his apostles? (1 Corinthians 1:10) It is unity that identifies Christ’s true disciples. He said that “many” would claim him as the “Lord” but they would not be found “doing the will of the Father”.....so again we have a dilemma....who will Jesus reject at the judgment because all are claiming to be Christians.....(Matthew 7:21-23) Why does Jesus reject the "many" if there is no criteria?

Criteria depend on what kind of truth/value do you evaluate - historical value, moral value...

According to James, “faith without works is dead” (James 2:17-20; 26)....so Jesus does not want us to have a blind or inactive faith as if “believing” is all that is required. Even the demons “believe”.
What we personally evaluate is of no consequence....it’s what God establishes as his clear requirements for his worshippers.

Look at the nation of Israel...wasn’t there strict criteria involved in even calling yourself a “Jew”? Even if you converted to Judaism, you had to live and worship as Jews did....no one was permitted to bring elements of their former worship into God’s congregation.

God established the criteria and he still does for Christians today.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Taking other scripture into consideration, we can see that there was no “club” at the time when this incident took place. Jesus said that at that stage, just getting the message out was the important thing...not who did it because they were all Jews.

There were many "clubs" among Jews at the time...

It is true that God is the one who enlightened us individually, (i.e. opens our hearts to his truth) when he sees potential in us to become a citizen of his Kingdom, but what is it that causes him to do that?

Nothing. The Father is perfect. He gives sun and rain to all without any difference. His Word is the Light that enlightens every man.

Jesus also said /.../

Yes, he said that (in a gospel). What does this mean? No one can be close to God and reject love. What is unity? All beliefs exactly the same or love between Christians?

He said that “many” would claim him as the “Lord” but they would not be found “doing the will of the Father”.....

Exactly! See above. Doing the will of God means living righteously (love). This is the criteria.

What we personally evaluate is of no consequence....it’s what God establishes as his clear requirements for his worshippers.

Some say God established this some say God established that. We have to evaluate what others claim as truth. Otherwise you can believe anyone and anything.

 

[Deeje]

There were many "clubs" among Jews at the time...

Jesus only mentioned the Pharisees and the Sadducees. So not many 'clubs', was it?....nothing close to Christendom.

Nothing. The Father is perfect. He gives sun and rain to all without any difference. His Word is the Light that enlightens every man.

Nothing? We need to do nothing in order to be part of God's spiritual family? Where did you get that idea?
Luke 13:24....
“Exert every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.." (NET) Why will some not be able to enter the door? (Luke 6:46)..and why is it narrow?

Yes, he said that (in a gospel). What does this mean? No one can be close to God and reject love. What is unity? All beliefs exactly the same or love between Christians?

The identifying mark of true Christians is love....not just humanitarian concern but a genuine love (philea) for the brotherhood. (John 13:34-35; 1 Timothy 6:12)

Doing the will of God means living righteously (love). This is the criteria.

"Doing the will of God" means obeying the teachings of his son....all of them, not just the easy bits. He is the judge, and he will reject those who think that their works and miracles will save them, but who fail to do as God's son tells them.

Some say God established this some say God established that. We have to evaluate what others claim as truth. Otherwise you can believe anyone and anything.

If you believe that God is powerful enough to create the Universe, then why would it be a difficult thing for him to inspire his written word and preserve its contents for all alive today?

I believe that Matthew 10:11-14 and Matthew 28:19-20, is what real Christians must be doing....before "the end" comes. (Matthew 24:14)

There were many other points...would you care to address them?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Jesus only mentioned the Pharisees and the Sadducees. So not many 'clubs', was it?....nothing close to Christendom.

In the Second Temple there were many main groups: Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Herodians, Essenes, Zealots, Sicarii and early Christians.

There were also some less known or short-lived groups for example the proto-Christian group of John the Baptist and other groups around alleged Messiahs (Judas of Galilee, Theudas, Simon of Peraea, Athronges...).

Nothing? We need to do nothing in order to be part of God's spiritual family? Where did you get that idea?
Luke 13:24....
“Exert every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.." (NET) Why will some not be able to enter the door? (Luke 6:46)..and why is it narrow?

I said God doesn't need any special cause to enlighten every man. Man's response is a different story...

"Doing the will of God" means obeying the teachings of his son....all of them, not just the easy bits. He is the judge, and he will reject those who think that their works and miracles will save them, but who fail to do as God's son tells them.

You think commandment of love (agape) is easy bits? What did Jesus tell? Regarding judgment Jesus said: "Truly I tell you, whatever you did/did not for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did/did not for me."

If you believe that God is powerful enough to create the Universe, then why would it be a difficult thing for him to inspire his written word and preserve its contents for all alive today?

Humans are fallible and have limitations. Otherwise you have to believe any "sacred writing" or myth.

There were many other points...would you care to address them?

Sorry if I missed something. I can't address so many topics at once. Maybe later.

 

[Deeje]

In the Second Temple there were many main groups: Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Herodians, Essenes, Zealots, Sicarii and early Christians.

There were also some less known or short-lived groups for example the proto-Christian group of John the Baptist and other groups around alleged Messiahs (Judas of Galilee, Theudas, Simon of Peraea, Athronges...).

I don’t believe that Jesus was concerned with the sectarianism of the Jews, and is not concerned with sectarianism in Christianity. History is merely repeating. Humans will do what humans have always done....embellish and add to and subtract from what is given to them. Christendom is a mish-mash of human ideas about Jesus....devoid of a genuine understanding about who he was, and why he came.

The “wheat” will not find themselves divided. Their unity and love would be an identifier. (1 Corinthians 1:10; John 13:34-35)
Just as Jesus identified the additions of the Pharisees in adhering to their own traditions over the word of God, (Matthew 15:7-9) so we see the exact same thing in Christendom...only multiplied a few thousand times over.
Those who belong to “non-denominational” churches are actually just more tolerant of the differences which are never resolved. That is not unity....it is a dividing of the truth into palatable mouthfuls which the diner has a choice as to what can be digested.

I believe that there is one truth and one global brotherhood of Christians who are in total unity, carefully avoiding man made traditions established centuries ago, and who are keeping separate from the world in the same way as Jesus original disciples were. How were they separate? Jesus taught them to love their brothers in a very real way, and the Good Samaritan taught them how to treat their fellow man in an atmosphere where Jews avoided any close contact with Gentiles. The hero of his parable was a hated Samaritan who came across a fellow human in need. Stripped of his clothing, the victim was not identifiable as either Jew or Gentile. The Jews passed by, but the Samaritan just saw a fellow human in distress and took care of him at his own expense.

Whilst the Jews were chafing about the political situation in Jerusalem, and the Zealots plotting a revolt, Jesus never once advocated interfering with the political situation because the march of world powers was set by Daniel’s prophesy, and Rome was not the final ruling authority....the last rulers on earth would do so in “the time of the end.”....the time we are living in now. (Daniel 2:44) God’s Kingdom will then “crush” all failed human rulership out of existence.....and replace them as earth’s only ruling authority.

True Christians would be identified as those not involving themselves in politics in any way....never having blood on their hands by either participating in wars or supporting those who did. We know who is the identified ruler and god of this world. (1 John 5:19; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4) To prop up his rulership is to reject God’s kingdom....the only real hope of peace and security.

True disciples of Christ would be preachers like he was, (Matthew 28:19-20; Matthew 24:14) not just in some nations, but on a global scale. Jesus sent his disciples out to preach to those who already believed in God....their neighbors. (Matthew 10:11-14) The good news was not just for “unbelievers”.

I said God doesn't need any special cause to enlighten every man. Man's response is a different story...

The free gift of forgiveness of sins and salvation is offered to all...but just as life itself was conditional from the beginning, so continuing life is conditional......we have to be found finally by our judge as “spotless, blameless and in peace”. (2 Peter 3:11-14) That means following Christ’s teachings to the letter......no additions...no omissions....keeping separate from the world. (John 18:36; James 4:4)

You think commandment of love (agape) is easy bits? What did Jesus tell? Regarding judgment Jesus said: "Truly I tell you, whatever you did/did not for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did/did not for me."

You can love those who love you.....that is the easy bit...but ‘loving your enemies’ (Matthew 5:43-44) is difficult if those around you want them dead and encourage you to participate in, or to otherwise support the killing. Patriotism is often put on the same level as religious duty. This is where true Christianity is put to the test. You cannot love your enemies with weapons....period.

Humans are fallible and have limitations. Otherwise you have to believe any "sacred writing" or myth.

God has only one book....that has survived many attempts to destroy it, and which has survived to the present day intact. Everything we need to know is contained in its pages. There is no need to add or subtract anything.

Misinterpretation might alter what people believe, but Holy Spirit was always going to be more powerful than any attempt of man to subvert the truth. (Hebrews 4:12) Because it is inspired and preserved by God’s spirit, those who want to omit or add their own ideas will come to nothing because God is the one who invites us into his spiritual family. (John 6:65) God will not issue invitations to those who are not “lost sheep” in Christendom or any other religion, just as the truth that Jesus preached was attractive only to the “lost sheep” of Judaism, and later, to the Gentiles who responded to the message.

For those who are confident of their beliefs and approving of the additions or excuses presented by their chosen church, God will leave them to their own devices. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12) People will believe what they want to believe for their own reasons. God is a reader of hearts...so he knows who to invite.

Will God allow those “lost” ones to perish if he sees an obedient heart? Never! But nor will he interfere in the exercise of their free will. What is offered is not always accepted....what we do with God’s truth is up to us.

Sorry if I missed something. I can't address so many topics at once. Maybe later.

That would be good. Separate posts if you prefer.....

 

[PearlSeeker]

God has only one book....that has survived many attempts to destroy it, and which has survived to the present day intact.

I think this is the key point. You believe God has one book (actually collection of books). This assertion begs some questions.

1. How do you know Bible is a reliable account of past events?

2. What if this one book is Quran (or any other book)?

3. How do you know God wanted to communicate this way?

 

[Left Coast]

I see so many here at RF adopting a range of beliefs from various religious systems and making up what appears to be their own personal religions.

How authentic can such a blend of religions be, outside of that individual?

Does it matter if no one else shares that mix of beliefs?

What is the motive behind syncretism, and is it merely “religion shopping” or selecting “ingredients” to fit personal religious tastes?

What role does God (or gods) play in the choices?

How many versions of religious truth can there be?

How can one find the diamond in a pile of broken glass?

Help me understand......

You may want to ask Charles Taze Russell, who invented his own version of Christianity combining various elements of movements before him, starting a group that eventually called itself "Jehovah's Witnesses."

Not to mention that Christianity is, in all its manifestations, a syncretic blend of Judaism and paganism.

 

[Deeje]

I think this is the key point. You believe God has one book (actually collection of books). This assertion begs some questions.

1. How do you know Bible is a reliable account of past events?

It is historically accurate by naming places, people in power, and events that are confirmed by history. Having said that, past events in which nations came off second best to Israel's God, were not known for reporting their defeats.....only their victories. So there will be gaps in the reporting.

2. What if this one book is Quran (or any other book)?

That is subject to faith in the God you worship. Getting to know the God whom Jesus worshipped is key to understanding why the Bible is his only communication with his human creation. The whole story of human existence is contained in its pages. The beginning of the human race....the misuse of free will....the implementation of God's solution to its consequences.....the payment of the required ransom to free humans from the debt that the first human rebels left to their children.....a judgment... and the end of all the woes that the rebellion in Eden caused, and the recording of all that transpired to create legal precedents for the future....and the return to paradise on earth, which was the Creator's first purpose for humankind, and why they were made in his image, using his qualities to be efficient caretakers of the earth and its living things.

Understanding why there are so many forms of worship that are not valid is also important because the Bible itself identifies the same author of all of them....a deceiver and wannabe “god” who is trying to take as many humans down with him as he can fool with all these false religions and holy books. The devil is a mimic....who can transform himself into whatever god you want him to be....or convince you that you don’t need one.

3. How do you know God wanted to communicate this way?

From the times of his first earthly servants, God has communicated with mankind through their mediatorship of his son. Since the sinful condition of fallen mankind no longer permits them to communicate with God directly, he appointed a spokesman (the Logos) who acts as a “go-between” so that we can still talk to our God through him. It’s why we have the privilege of prayer.

It is apparent from scripture that not all that is written in the Bible was the sum of God’s communication with his human servants. Adam communicated with his God freely before his defection. But all humans since then have been held back by sin.
Moses was chosen to record man’s history from creation to the exodus from Egypt and Israel’s wandering in the wilderness for 40 years. There was so much just in his writings that would serve as an example for future generations of what NOT to do, but humans being humans, we see them never learning from past mistakes.

In the Bible, God also recorded prophesy that takes us a thousand years into the future. Giving us a clear picture of what we could expect as the conclusion to our object lesson loomed ever closer.

I believe that we are now very close to “the end” that Jesus spoke about.....but first he commanded his disciples to preach about the Kingdom of God as the only hope for suffering mankind (Matthew 24:14)......it was to “come” ready or not, to cleanse the earth of all the wickedness caused by sin, and to re-establish God’s rule over his earthly creation. A time when God’s will can “be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven”.

Because humans thought that they could do things better by themselves, God allowed them full freedom under the rulership of the “god” they chose in Eden, to test out where that freedom would take them without his interference. So what has the human race learned over millenniums of doing his own thing?

The earth and humankind upon it, as advanced as they believe they are, is on the brink of extinction in more ways than we can count. This pathetic history will be used in the future to remind humankind not to abuse their free will again, because the issue will have been settled once and for all time....never to be repeated, because there won’t ever be a need.....or anything further to prove. Only then can God take us back to the beginning and start again with obedient, tried and tested servants ready to implement what comes next for the human race......we can only imagine what the future holds with God in full control. It can only be wonderful.....

That is how I see it....

 

[Deeje]

You may want to ask Charles Taze Russell, who invented his own version of Christianity combining various elements of movements before him, starting a group that eventually called itself "Jehovah's Witnesses."

A lot has happened since our brother Russell passed away.....things that he hoped for have come to fruition. He was not the founder of our faith, but one of a group of men who came together in the late 1890’s with one purpose.....to find the truth of God’s word. As a gifted public speaker, he became their representative and the International Bible Students were created. These men met regularly to discuss the scripture and to carefully weigh Christendom’s doctrines to see if they aligned with the scriptures. Like the ancient Beroeans, (Acts 17:1011) they studied deeply and found that most of what was taught in Christendom was not biblical....but introduced from pagan ideas incorporated to look and sound like it was. Slowly, over time they weeded out those false beliefs.

Rather than inventing their own Christianity, they merely threw away the inventions and additions that had accumulated over many centuries, and went back to the beginning with a clean slate.....I don't think most people have any idea of how much paganism there is in their "Christianity"......but if you know the Bible, it is not unexpected.....apostasy was foretold.

And a cleansing of God's worship was also foretold in this "time of the end".....so who else has cleaned up their act and gotten rid of their pagan beliefs and practices?

Not to mention that Christianity is, in all its manifestations, a syncretic blend of Judaism and paganism.

Tell me something I don't already know......why do you think I'm no longer a part of Christendom?
Christendom is not and never has been genuine "Christianity".

 

[PearlSeeker]

It is historically accurate by naming places, people in power, and events that are confirmed by history.

First chapters are confirmed by history? They could easily be myth.

Stories with accurate naming, people... could easily be legends and anecdotes written long after the events.

That is subject to faith in the God you worship. Getting to know the God whom Jesus worshipped is key to understanding why the Bible is his only communication with his human creation.

How do you get to know the God Jesus worshiped? Through the Bible? So Bible is the only book of God because Bible says so?

From the times of his first earthly servants, God has communicated with mankind through their mediatorship of his son. Since the sinful condition of fallen mankind no longer permits them to communicate with God directly, he appointed a spokesman (the Logos) who acts as a “go-between” so that we can still talk to our God through him. It’s why we have the privilege of prayer.

It is apparent from scripture/.../

The question was how do you know God wanted to communicate this way. Because Bible says so?