who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?

[Doug Shaver]

But it won't do any good. Promise. Because the poster isn't really interested in truth. He's only interested in pushing his belief.

Of course it's unlikely that anyone so committed to his dogma will learn anything. But I assume there are lurkers following this conversation, and a few of them might learn a thing or two.

 

[Doug Shaver]

There was only one author.

You say so.

 

[sojourner]

Of course it's unlikely that anyone so committed to his dogma will learn anything. But I assume there are lurkers following this conversation, and a few of them might learn a thing or two.

True dat!

 

[Vishvavajra]

There was only one author.

There was not literally just one author. Many hands composed the texts over a period of at least 700 years, using a variety of languages, dialects, writing styles, cultural backgrounds, philosophical perspectives, and levels of knowledge about the natural world. And in that light it looks like exactly what one would expect the result of that process to look like.

 

[sojourner]

There was not literally just one author. Many hands composed the texts over a period of at least 700 years, using a variety of languages, dialects, writing styles, cultural backgrounds, philosophical perspectives, and levels of knowledge about the natural world. And in that light it looks like exactly what one would expect the result of that process to look like.

Oh, but that's just false religion and scholarship of man talking -- not God's truth, as found in the scriptures.

 

[truthofscripture]

There was not literally just one author. Many hands composed the texts over a period of at least 700 years, using a variety of languages, dialects, writing styles, cultural backgrounds, philosophical perspectives, and levels of knowledge about the natural world. And in that light it looks like exactly what one would expect the result of that process to look like.

Yes, there literally was one author, but many hands wrote the individual books. All were inspired by God using His holy spirit to tell the writers what to write.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, there literally was one author, but many hands wrote the individual books. All were inspired by God using His holy spirit to tell the writers what to write.

Then there were "literally" many authors, if many hands were writing. Even if those many authors were inspired by God through the H.S. You're confusing literary criticism with religious apologetics.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Yes, there literally was one author, but many hands wrote the individual books. All were inspired by God using His holy spirit to tell the writers what to write.

I'm not sure we agree on the meaning of the word "literally."

In any case, isn't it interesting that the authors' own writing styles, worldviews, superstitions, and other notions show through despite the divine dictation? It seems the divine author was doing his best to hide behind them. In fact, the authors themselves don't seem to realize that it's anyone other than them who is writing. It's almost as if the whole affair were designed specifically to keep people from coming to the conclusion that there was a single author, which is a very puzzling thing for a divine author to do, assuming he was trying to convey a clear message to people who would later read the compiled works.

 

[Doug Shaver]

All were inspired by God using His holy spirit to tell the writers what to write.

You say so.

 

[godnotgod]

You say so.

No, I don't say so, but Romans 10:9 says it in so many words:

That if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.

Romans 10:9

The whole point of being a Christian is to be saved via the blood sacrifice of Jesus. That is the central doctrine. So accepting him as one's personal Lord and Savior is what a Christian is.

Don't misunderstand: I am not saying that is my belief; I am saying that is what makes one a Christian.

Also:

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.

John 14:6

 

[Doug Shaver]

No, I don't say so, but Romans 10:9 says it in so many words:

That if you shall confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.

Romans 10:9

No, not in so many words. Romans 10:9 does not use the word Christian. Your interpretation presupposes that Christians and only Christians will be saved.

The whole point of being a Christian is to be saved via the blood sacrifice of Jesus. That is the central doctrine. So accepting him as one's personal Lord and Savior is what a Christian is.

Don't misunderstand: I am not saying that is my belief;

I am aware that lots of other people say what you're saying.

I am saying that is what makes one a Christian.

Yes, you're saying it. But you are giving me no other reason to believe it.

Also:

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.

John 14:6

So what? I am not a biblical inerrantist. And for that matter, neither are most Christians.

 

[godnotgod]

No, not in so many words. Romans 10:9 does not use the word Christian. Your interpretation presupposes that Christians and only Christians will be saved.

If you commit yourself to Jesus Christ, you are a Christian. It's simple, really. And no, it does not say that only Christians will be saved. It doesn't say one way or the other. It says that anyone who confesses and believes will be saved.

I am aware that lots of other people say what you're saying.

Right, but I am only reiterating what they are saying. Because I am saying it does not mean I believe it myself. I'm saying it to illustrate the core doctrine by which one becomes a Christian.

Yes, you're saying it. But you are giving me no other reason to believe it.

Well, sir, no one is asking you to believe anything. All I am saying is that if one commits oneself to Jesus Christ, one is a Christian. I'm not trying to convert you to anything. IOW, when someone says to you: 'I am a Christian', it simply means they have committed themselves to what they see as a spiritual being they call 'Jesus Christ', whether real or not. Anyone who believes that the Earth is flat, and joins the Flat Earth Society, is, for all practical purposes, a Flat-Earther.

So what? I am not a biblical inerrantist. And for that matter, neither are most Christians.

Your beliefs are of no importance here. I am merely providing a definition of what a Christian is. Biblical inerrancy has nothing to do with it. Some Christians believe in Biblical inerrancy and some do not; some Christians believe that only Christians will be saved and some do not. What almost all if not all Christians believe is that if they commit themselves to Jesus Christ, they will be saved via what they see as his blood sacrifice. Whether such beliefs are true or not is not the issue.

 

[leibowde84]

You continued to post that not one word of the law would be changed... If one believed the Christian Greek scriptures and studied them, then that one would know that the law covenant was broken by Israel and replaced with the New Covenant with the 144,000. That's how I made that assumption. If I am incorrect, I apologize.

When did I say that was what I believe? I merely asked a question. I tend to not express my own beliefs on this site when I don't have to. It seems to create an isolating effect. But, you still have failed to explain that passage. The second verse in particular. I guess what I'm asking is, was this passage a mistake? Is it in error? If it is, how is it divinely inspired? Or, was it simply a case where the author wrote a very misleading passage?

 

[truthofscripture]

When did I say that was what I believe? I merely asked a question. I tend to not express my own beliefs on this site when I don't have to. It seems to create an isolating effect. But, you still have failed to explain that passage. The second verse in particular. I guess what I'm asking is, was this passage a mistake? Is it in error? If it is, how is it divinely inspired? Or, was it simply a case where the author wrote a very misleading passage?

Okay then, re-post the passage. I will explain it when I return this evening.

 

[sojourner]

The whole point of being a Christian is to be saved via the blood sacrifice of Jesus.

That's the point for some Christians -- not the "whole" point. Many Christians don't believe in substitutionary atonement, or that it was the crucifixion that saves.

 

[leibowde84]

That's the point for some Christians -- not the "whole" point. Many Christians don't believe in substitutionary atonement, or that it was the crucifixion that saves.

I agree. I believe that Jesus was divine, but I do not give much merit to transubstantiation or the importance of being "saved" for that matter. It just doesn't make sense that Jesus/God would be that cruel to create a barrier between himself and people who do not have a valid opportunity to know God. Does a boy growing up in an extremist muslim household, where he is taught every day that Christianity is a manipulation of the truth and that Islam is the only path to God, deserve to be thrown into hell? I cannot see God doing this to anyone.

 

[sojourner]

I agree. I believe that Jesus was divine, but I do not give much merit to transubstantiation or the importance of being "saved" for that matter. It just doesn't make sense that Jesus/God would be that cruel to create a barrier between himself and people who do not have a valid opportunity to know God. Does a boy growing up in an extremist muslim household, where he is taught every day that Christianity is a manipulation of the truth and that Islam is the only path to God, deserve to be thrown into hell? I cannot see God doing this to anyone.

The whole point (according to the bible) for Jesus was to open the way to God -- not to create a barrier. So I fail to understand why a lot of these people are such staunch gatekeepers. You'd think they'd be happy that God has provided the means for their estranged sisters and brothers to be reconciled.

 

[Doug Shaver]

And no, it does not say that only Christians will be saved. It doesn't say one way or the other. It says that anyone who confesses and believes will be saved.

My point was: It doesn't say anything one way or the other about Christians.

Because I am saying it does not mean I believe it myself. I'm saying it to illustrate the core doctrine by which one becomes a Christian.

I'm not arguing about whether you believe it. I'm asking whether you can give me any reason, aside from your saying it, to believe it myself.

Well, sir, no one is asking you to believe anything. All I am saying is that if one commits oneself to Jesus Christ, one is a Christian.

Why are you saying that, if not to suggest that I, too, ought to believe it?

Anyone who believes that the Earth is flat, and joins the Flat Earth Society, is, for all practical purposes, a Flat-Earther.

If anyone tells me, "I'm a Flat-Earther," I will take their word for it whether or not they have joined any society.

Your beliefs are of no importance here.

They are as important, or as unimportant, as your beliefs.

I am merely providing a definition of what a Christian is.

You are telling me who, in your opinion, has a right to call themselves a Christian.

Biblical inerrancy has nothing to do with it.

Then why try to prove your point by quoting the Bible?

What almost all if not all Christians believe is that if they commit themselves to Jesus Christ, they will be saved via what they see as his blood sacrifice. Whether such beliefs are true or not is not the issue.

I agree that the definition of Christianity doesn't depend on whether any Christian belief is true. I am disputing your authority to decide which beliefs count as Christian beliefs.

 

[leibowde84]

The whole point (according to the bible) for Jesus was to open the way to God -- not to create a barrier. So I fail to understand why a lot of these people are such staunch gatekeepers. You'd think they'd be happy that God has provided the means for their estranged sisters and brothers to be reconciled.

Great point. That is my main issue with organized Christianity in general. I strongly believe that Jesus (and God for that matter) have no interest in what someone believes or attributes to the divine. All that matters is how you live your life, contribute to the betterment of society, treat people with respect/dignity even if you don't "approve" of their lifestyle, and being generous at every opportunity. I fail to see how belief would reasonably fit into the euation.

The most irritating thing is when fellow Christians spew Bible verses in an attempt to prove God's will. First, it is an insult to my own intelligence, as I would not bring up issues like this unless I already had an understanding of scripture. And, second, it doesn't present any kind of valid argument. It merely states what the Biblical authors THOUGHT was God's intention.

I am always searching for the truth, and I am open to pretty much anything. I will never adhere to the belief that the Bible is infallible, simply because it was written by a large collection of imperfect men. Further, there is no eidence pointing to any of the Gospel writers actually knowing Jesus, so I am always skeptical. I do, however, think that the spirit of Jesus' teachings are present in the Gospels, and that is what I'm interested in. There is just a long process of weeding out the human imperfection from the whole thing.

 

[sojourner]

It merely states what the Biblical authors THOUGHT was God's intention.

worse, it merely states what the "spouter" thinks the authors thought was God's intention.