Two Things That Confuse Me About Christianity

[SeekingAllTruth]

It really isn’t self-contradictory. Only when misunderstood...

If one thinks of the many different sects of Christianity, over 30,000(!!), it may seem overwhelming! (All of this simply attests to the fact that it’s been monkeyed with ... tampered with ... by the Enemy of truth revealed in John 8:44.)

So, how can one find it? By following what Jesus said, @ John 13:35...

You don’t necessarily have to worry about what are correct teachings... at least, not initially ; but rather, Jesus indicated to look at their actions / behavior. Matthew 7:18-23

When you find that, then examine the teachings.

Well, I was a Christian for 60 years so I got pretty inured with "following Jesus" (it happens over the course of half a century) But it was when an atheist challenged me study the history behind the creation of Christianity that my eyes were opened. I did an intense 9 mo/1 year investigation into just exactly how the Christian religion first formed from 30 CE to Constantine and was shocked at what I uncovered. From that point I realized that Jesus' teachings weren't his at all--they were a group of anonymous Greek scholars who put together the 4 gospels nearly 75 years after Christ's supposed death. No eyewitnesses; no written records from which to draw. What else could they do but just make it up on the fly based on 50th and 100th hand stories floating around? Anyway I digress. Point is I began to see the flaws in the Bible--something I'd just buried my head in the sand at years earlier.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Well, I was a Christian for 60 years so I got pretty inured with "following Jesus" (it happens over the course of half a century) But it was when an atheist challenged me study the history behind the creation of Christianity that my eyes were opened. I did an intense 9 mo/1 year investigation into just exactly how the Christian religion first formed from 30 CE to Constantine and was shocked at what I uncovered. From that point I realized that Jesus' teachings weren't his at all--they were a group of anonymous Greek scholars who put together the 4 gospels nearly 75 years after Christ's supposed death. No eyewitnesses; no written records from which to draw. What else could they do but just make it up on the fly based on 50th and 100th hand stories floating around? Anyway I digress. Point is I began to see the flaws in the Bible--something I'd just buried my head in the sand at years earlier.

Well, I’ve found just the opposite: harmony . (I’ve been studying it regularly for over 45 years, now.)

I read the apparent discrepancies you posted, after I’d posted my comment. If I may comment on the first: RE sacrifices, the first Scripture you quoted is about the Israelites’ sacrifices ... the next Scripture is regarding Jesus’ sacrifice.
No contradiction...

Good night, my cousin.

 

[Brian2]

Well, I was a Christian for 60 years so I got pretty inured with "following Jesus" (it happens over the course of half a century) But it was when an atheist challenged me study the history behind the creation of Christianity that my eyes were opened. I did an intense 9 mo/1 year investigation into just exactly how the Christian religion first formed from 30 CE to Constantine and was shocked at what I uncovered. From that point I realized that Jesus' teachings weren't his at all--they were a group of anonymous Greek scholars who put together the 4 gospels nearly 75 years after Christ's supposed death. No eyewitnesses; no written records from which to draw. What else could they do but just make it up on the fly based on 50th and 100th hand stories floating around? Anyway I digress. Point is I began to see the flaws in the Bible--something I'd just buried my head in the sand at years earlier.

Why did you believe those things about the gospels and not the things that tell us the synoptic gospels were written 20-40 years after Jesus death and the information came from witnesses and Matthew was an apostle and Mark was around at the time of Jesus and that John was a witness?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Why did you believe those things about the gospels and not the things that tell us the synoptic gospels were written 20-40 years after Jesus death and the information came from witnesses and Matthew was an apostle and Mark was around at the time of Jesus and that John was a witness?

Because it isn't accurate historically. We know from texts that it was Irenaeus at the end of the 2nd century who affixed the names Matthew Mark Luke and John to the gospels. Irenaeus chose 4 gospels because he thought it divine that the flat earth had four corners and four winds blowing from each corner.

An insistence upon a canonical four, and no others, was a central theme of Irenaeus of Lyon...Irenaeus declared that the four he espoused were the four pillars of the Church: ‘it is not possible that there can be either more or fewer than four’ he stated, presenting as logic the analogy of the four corners of the earth and the four winds (1.11.8) His image, taken from Ezekial 1, of God’s throne borne by four creatures with four faces—‘the four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and the four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle’— equivalent to the ‘four-formed’ gospel, is the origin of the conventional symbols of the Evangelists: lion, bull, eagle, man. Irenaeus was successful in declaring that the four gospels collectively, and exclusively these four, contained the truth.

Irenaeus of Lyon Insists on Only Four Gospels : History of Information

So that's the reason there are only 4 gospels in the Bible. What about the other 100 that were known at the time like the gospel of Thomas which has some of the most profound statements attributed to Jesus. Rejected on one man's whim because he had some crackpot obsession with four corners and four winds. Is this kind of obsessive behavior really from God??? I can't believe it.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Well, I’ve found just the opposite: harmony . (I’ve been studying it regularly for over 45 years, now.)

I read the apparent discrepancies you posted, after I’d posted my comment. If I may comment on the first: RE sacrifices, the first Scripture you quoted is about the Israelites’ sacrifices ... the next Scripture is regarding Jesus’ sacrifice.
No contradiction...

Good night, my cousin.

Good night. How are the Jews going to accept jesus' sacrifice if theirs is commanded by God to last forever? Opposites.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is just one truth and God is the one who guides those with the qualities that he is looking for in future citizens of his Kingdom, to his truth. (John 6:44, 65)

Do you believe only the JWs have that one truth? If so why?

 

[Trailblazer]

You don’t necessarily have to worry about what are correct teachings... at least, not initially ; but rather, Jesus indicated to look at their actions / behavior. Matthew 7:18-23

With all due respect, who is the judge of actions / behavior?

Matthew 7:1-4 King James Version (KJV)

7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

 

[Brian2]

Because it isn't accurate historically. We know from texts that it was Irenaeus at the end of the 2nd century who affixed the names Matthew Mark Luke and John to the gospels. Irenaeus chose 4 gospels because he thought it divine that the flat earth had four corners and four winds blowing from each corner.

An insistence upon a canonical four, and no others, was a central theme of Irenaeus of Lyon...Irenaeus declared that the four he espoused were the four pillars of the Church: ‘it is not possible that there can be either more or fewer than four’ he stated, presenting as logic the analogy of the four corners of the earth and the four winds (1.11.8) His image, taken from Ezekial 1, of God’s throne borne by four creatures with four faces—‘the four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and the four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle’— equivalent to the ‘four-formed’ gospel, is the origin of the conventional symbols of the Evangelists: lion, bull, eagle, man. Irenaeus was successful in declaring that the four gospels collectively, and exclusively these four, contained the truth.

Irenaeus of Lyon Insists on Only Four Gospels : History of Information

So that's the reason there are only 4 gospels in the Bible. What about the other 100 that were known at the time like the gospel of Thomas which has some of the most profound statements attributed to Jesus. Rejected on one man's whim because he had some crackpot obsession with four corners and four winds. Is this kind of obsessive behavior really from God??? I can't believe it.

The 4 gospels were in use and known much earlier than the end of the 2nd century and the names attached to them came from what was known earlier. The argument used by Irenaeus of Lyons was probably a rave against those who were picking and choosing which gospel they liked and rejecting the others (eg Marcion) because of heretical ideas they had. And it would have been an argument against the other non authentic gospels which had sprung up in various circles (eg Gnostics).
I think the Gospel of Thomas was not chosen because it was more a list of saying of Jesus and not the actual gospel story.
Here is a site with quotes from the New Testament writings by a couple of early church fathers. They were certainly accepted as authentic very early in church history.
Dating the New Testament - Early Church Fathers
Here is another site with a bit of history of the establishment of the 4 gospels as the accepted gospels. It is a bit long and repetitive but worth the read.
Four Gospels: What, Why, and When?
And here is one that wants to establish the reliability of the New Testament documents from the New Testament quotes in the church fathers.
Can We Construct The Entire New Testament From the Writings of the Church Fathers? | Cold Case Christianity

 

[Brian2]

Well according to our beliefs, the "us" is not you or me.....the chosen ones (the "elect") are the ones anointed by God who will rule with Christ in heaven as Kings and Priests (Revelation 20:6)....do you see yourself in that role?

I see myself as purchased with the blood of Jesus and as part of the nation of priests. Rev 1:6, 1Pet 2:9,Rev 5:10

I do not.....because I do not have that anointing that Paul called "the heavenly calling". (Hebrews 3:1) My future I hope to be on earth where God put us in the first place. The first paradise was right here, planted by God as a blueprint for the rest of the world......and so that is where I feel I belong. God never intended humans to live in heaven or else he would have put us there in the first place, like he did the angels.

But does "the heavenly calling" mean those called to heaven or by heaven. And why do you think that only the 144,000 can go to heaven when all Christians are raised with the new and improved and immortal and incorruptible spiritual body?

There is no "spirit" in man that survives death. We "sleep" and Jesus is the one appointed to awaken all those who are in "memorial tombs" (John 5:28-29)...those whom God will choose to remember and who will have their lives restored.

All will be raised to be judged. Rev 20:12
Those in Christ will be raised first and will be brought with Jesus for the occasion. 1Thess 4:14

The only 'spirits' that goes to heaven are those for whom God has provided a spiritual body for their assignment in heaven. They first have to die and be resurrected because you cannot resurrect something that is not dead.

If you say that God provides a spirit body for the anointed, why is it that Romans 8:23 tells us that our body is redeemed?
A spiritual body is a body that is controlled by our spirit.
You cannot resurrect someone who is not dead and you cannot resurrect someone who does not exist.
If someone sleeps, they still exist.
God can however make a copy of a person before they die and can do that after the person dies. That is the sort of resurrection the Watchtower teaches, making a copy of a person, someone who thinks he has lived before.
Jesus said "Into your hands I commit my spirit". He had and has a spirit. What came from heaven to be a man was not a life force but was Jesus who came and found Himself in the inner form and outer appearance of a man.
Phil 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross. 9Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name above all names,…

God is the Father of our spirits and not of our material body. (Heb 12:9)
Genesis 2:7 shows God putting a spirit into a material body fashioned from the earth. Then the whole man, body and spirit became a living soul. Which part is the soul, the spirit or body? It is the whole man which is the soul. When the body dies the whole man is then the spirit which does not die at the death of the body and so the spirit is then called the soul.

These anointed had to sleep until Christ's return according to Paul. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17) He has been "present" since the last days began, guiding and directing the preaching work that he assigned to his disciples. (Matthew 28:19-20; Matthew 24:14)

That's a bit cheeky, using 1Thess 4:13-17 and not even noticing that it teaches that those who were asleep in Christ actually existed and come back with Him when He comes.
1Thess 3:12 And may the Lord cause you to increase and overflow with love for one another and for everyone else, just as our love for you overflows, 13so that He may establish your hearts in blamelessness and holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints.

When it comes to the last days, those started with Jesus according to a number of verses, eg
Acts 2:15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17 “‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.

The second death can only apply to the incorrigibly wicked. The "lake of fire" is symbolic, not literal. "Gehenna" is a place where things are wiped out of existence forever....including death and the grave. (Revelation 20:13-14)

You would have to acknowledge that God could resurrect people who had been destroyed in the Lake of Fire however if He did it the Watchtower way.

It isn't wrong scripturally if your interpretation is correct. We don't believe our take on the scriptures is wrong because we retain none of the false doctrines that are still promoted by Christendom...one of those false doctrines is the immortality of the soul...or the belief that the soul does not die when the body does.

It is very plain that the soul survives the death of the body. (Matt 10:28) That does not mean that it is immortal however.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

The 4 gospels were in use and known much earlier than the end of the 2nd century and the names attached to them came from what was known earlier. The argument used by Irenaeus of Lyons was probably a rave against those who were picking and choosing which gospel they liked and rejecting the others (eg Marcion) because of heretical ideas they had. And it would have been an argument against the other non authentic gospels which had sprung up in various circles (eg Gnostics).
I think the Gospel of Thomas was not chosen because it was more a list of saying of Jesus and not the actual gospel story.
Here is a site with quotes from the New Testament writings by a couple of early church fathers. They were certainly accepted as authentic very early in church history.
Dating the New Testament - Early Church Fathers
Here is another site with a bit of history of the establishment of the 4 gospels as the accepted gospels. It is a bit long and repetitive but worth the read.
Four Gospels: What, Why, and When?
And here is one that wants to establish the reliability of the New Testament documents from the New Testament quotes in the church fathers.
Can We Construct The Entire New Testament From the Writings of the Church Fathers? | Cold Case Christianity

Well, one question that immediately popped into my mind (bold above): what were these names that the gospels went by prior to Irenaeus?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Baha’is believe that there is an everlasting covenant which remains in force today. It will never be replaced.

The overall covenant God made with His followers in Judaism, known to Jews as the Mosaic Covenant, and to Christians as the Old Covenant, put forth the stipulation of the oneness of God – “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:2) – as the primary law of the Ten Commandments. In exchange for following those principles, God promised that he would never leave His followers without guidance:

Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid … for the Lord thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. – Deuteronomy 31:6.

This eternal covenant between God and humanity, the Baha’i teachings say, remains in force today. The Creator has bestowed bounties on us all, and in return asks us to recognize His prophets and messengers and abide by their laws and spiritual principles. The Baha’i teachings joyously celebrate that covenant:

How to Understand the Baha’i Covenant

The everlasting covenant is like the umbrella which covers all religions. It began with Moses and it will last forever.

In addition to that covenant, the Messengers of God make a Covenant with their followers. This is called the Greater Covenant.
Jesus made a Covenant with His followers, which applies only to Christians.
Baha'u'llah also made a Covenant with His followers, which applies only to Baha'is.

Greater covenant

The greater covenant refers to the covenant made between each messenger from God, which the literature of the Baháʼí Faith name Manifestations of God, and his followers regarding the coming of the next Manifestation from God.[1] According to Baháʼu'lláh, the founder of the Baháʼí Faith, God has promised that he will send a succession of messengers that will instruct humankind.[2] In Baháʼí belief, this covenant is seen to be expressed in prophecy in the religious scripture of each religion, and each Manifestation of God, such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Báb,[3] and Baháʼu'lláh, prophesied the next Manifestation.[1] In return, the followers of each religion are seen to have a duty to investigate the claims of the following Manifestations.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant of Baháʼu'lláh

The Lesser Covenant refers to succession of authority within each religion.

Lesser Covenant

This is the covenant that is made regarding the successorship of authority within the religion.[1] In Baháʼí belief the manner in which the Covenant of Baháʼu'lláh was clearly put forth is seen as being a fundamental defining feature of the religion and a powerful protector of the unity of the Baháʼí Faith and its adherents.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant of Baháʼu'lláh

Baha'is believe that the keys to the Kingdom were handed over to Peter. Jesus says this to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (16:19). Baha'is believe that means that Jesus made a verbal Covenant with Peter and thus we uphold and defend the primacy of Peter as the Prince of the Apostles.

However, that authority was not upheld within the Church because there was no written Covenant as there is in the Baha'i Faith, and that is why Christianity split into hundreds of sects. That will never happen to the Baha'i Faith because Baha'is are faithful to the Covenant if Baha'u'llah, and if anyone tries to break away and start another religion and call it the Baha'i Faith the are removed from membership by the Universal House of Justice and deemed Convent-breakers.

I believe you have a lot of misunderstanding. From what I have read in your posts, you don't even love God, or even think highly of him for that matter. You have talked bad about him over and over. Why would I even consider what you say about him?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I cannot change the gospel, I can only interpret it.
If I interpret it differently than you do, how is that changing it? What do you think I am changing?

The doctrine you are promoting is not found in the scriptures I use.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Maybe the new covenant God was referring to in the OT was the Baha'i.

Maybe Mickey Mouse is president.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Maybe Mickey Mouse is president.

3 months ago he was.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

3 months ago he was.

Actually I was thinking more of your current leader. There is evidence that there was massive cyber fraud that occurred involving China and Iran. Of course it is suppressed by the main stream media and big tech. That may also explain the sham of an impeachment - to help keep the eyes off the evidence of fraud.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

The doctrine you are promoting is not found in the scriptures I use.

And the doctrine you are promoting is not found in the scriptures she uses. Even-steven, I'd say.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Actually I was thinking more of your current leader. There is evidence that there was massive cyber fraud that occurred involving China and Iran. Of course it is suppressed by the main stream media and big tech. That may also explain the sham of an impeachment - to help keep the eyes off the evidence of fraud.

Well, this is a religious forum, not a political one so that's as far as it goes.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe you have a lot of misunderstanding. From what I have read in your posts, you don't even love God, or even think highly of him for that matter. You have talked bad about him over and over. Why would I even consider what you say about him?

What do my feelings about God have to do with whether or not my religion is true? The two are unrelated. Other Baha'is do not feel the way I do, so it is my own personal problem that I struggle with. You cannot even imagine how much I have suffered in my life, only God knows. Most people who have suffered this much would have committed suicide long ago. So why do you think a loving God would allow so much suffering for some people while other people hardly suffer at all?

I hope you realize that I cannot hurt God by disliking Him, I only hurt myself. God cannot be hurt by humans but God could be sad for me that I feel this way. But if God is sad for me and loving, why doesn't He lift my burdens? This has nothing to do with what religion I belong to because other Baha'is do not suffer like I do. I am not saying that no Baha'is suffer but the ones I know do not suffer like I do.

Most Baha'is tell me I should be grateful for my suffering because it helps me grow spiritually and I will be stronger and more spiritual when I die so I will be much better off in the long run, but that is easy for them to say since they do not walk in my shoes.

It is not as if I do not cry out for help, and when I do I cry out to Jesus and God. I was not raised as a Christian or believing in God and I never read one page of the Bible until about eight years ago, but because of what Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha wrote about Jesus, and because of what is in the Gospels I have a heartfelt connection to Jesus. It is always Christian music I listen to for hope, and below is my favorite song which I truly believe. God is our only hope.

 

[Trailblazer]

The doctrine you are promoting is not found in the scriptures I use.

No, of course the Baha'i teachings are not found in the Bible because we have our own scriptures.

I do not have a doctrine because the Baha'i Faith does not have doctrines. We have the original Writings of Baha'u'llah to refer to as well as interpretations that were made by His appointed interpreters, so we need no doctrines. Moreover, we have no clergy so each individual is responsible to come to an understanding of the Writings by themselves.

The Church has doctrines because Christians could never agree on what the Bible meant, so they wrote up doctrines, but the doctrines of the Church are not even based upon what Jesus said in the Gospels. From early on the Church as used those doctrines to frighten and control people.

 

[rational experiences]

I was as a spiritual human confused by religious dogma and science status.

I am one self.

One is holy says humans but most do not believe.

One self review one evil act...machine science against God O planet the God originally.

The human thesis our God earth.

Ignored totally today by most thinkers.

Reaction happened. Conversion minus removal gone sacrificed. Body God history compared to big bang sun blast.

The only event in space known to human mind as it recorded. Vision. Reaction stopped cooling after reaction present.

First vision. Is not a saving of. Image a memory story. Reaction as reaction means sacrificed

A law science ignores.

So did the sacrifice happen? Yes. A huge loss. Ignored.

The status survival we were saved. Yet the reaction removed earth mass. God gone flesh and spirit of planet in mass. Removed garden body bush combusted burnt. Sacrificed insects animals human babies human adults.

Total sacrifice reactive cause not saved.

Lying about saving a reaction is the most evilest contrivance that science preached.

Yet in science looking back from evolution saved is what they preach. The past reaction was never saved. It reacted.

So how many life attacks does it take to teach a satanist?