Support NeoGAF

[JGS]

I classify them as ignorant b/c there are proofs that they're beliefs are off-center. Jesus never said anything about Joseph Smith (polygamy was a big one, also the caffeine thing). JWs - Two words, The Watchtower. Once you start reading their reading material, you understand it belongs in a fireplace. You have thousands of Catholics who think of Communion as the literal blood and body of Christ. If it sounds believable, people will believe. Start with the Bible, read for yourself.

This doesn't really answer the question though. I've read Watchtower magazines and other literature (They give the stuff away plus have a website) and since it's Bible based I'm not quite sure what is overwhelmingly different that they say over what you say.

What do they say that deserves burning more than Jesus = God = Holy Spirit?

It's OK if you can't answer. I'll just assume it's regarding the trinity.

 

[ServBotPhil]

What makes them ignorant? Especially JW's since they answer EVERYTHING Biblically. I avoid arguing with them on most things and I love to argue. So what do they not know that you know and why won't you share that with us in any particular detail?

This question? I know that it's okay to say the Pledge of Allegiance. It's okay to have a blood transfusion. It's okay to celebrate holidays. They don't believe in Hell, I do. I don't believe that you have to be baptized. This enough for you?

 

[Fedos]

Jesus also never mentioned that he was part of the trinity, so according to your own criteria for determining truth, your position regarding the trinity is false. I'm used to the typical absurdity of religious claims, but to claim that your exact interpretation is the one possible correct interpretation whilst denying salvation for those who interpret the bible differently takes the cake.

He did say he was a part of the Trinity. 'Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,' Matthew 28: 19. He said it himself. They are one. The Father is God, Jesus Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

The thing is, Jesus Christ is the most divisive figure who ever lived. Some people think he was a good man or teacher, some think he was a prophet, some think he was insane, some think he was a myth and never existed, and yet others hold him to be the Son of God. And it is how you view him that determines your eternal destiny.

 

[JGS]

This question? I know that it's okay to say the Pledge of Allegiance. It's okay to have a blood transfusion. It's okay to celebrate holidays. They don't believe in Hell, I do. I don't believe that you have to be baptized. This enough for you?

I suppose, but I still don't see the issues to the extent you do. For each point:

1. They shouldn't believe in Hell as a torture device since it's the sign of an unloving God.

2. They're beliefs on holidays are as irrelevant as holidays themselves, plus they are 100% correct about all of them. It's just a matter of whether you think it's a big deal that every Christian religion was hijacked from another religion. Whether they should be banned or not is a different story, but doing so for their non-Christian origins makes sense to me- especially Christmas.

3. There's no reason to be a Christian & patriotic. There is nothing Scriptural to support the idea so again there's nothing wrong with refusing it from a religious standpoint.

4. You definitely have to be baptized and it takes months to years depending on how smart you are. It's like a test to make sure you know what you're talking about. There would be far more than 7 million JW's if baptism weren't allowed

5. The literal interpretation of abstaining from blood is sorta understandable since they are simply getting it from the Bible as well (Across all 3 eras no less). It's not something I could do though (Particularly for the kiddies).

Your reasons for disliking them kind of bring up what I said earlier. You dislike them for following the same Bible that tells you that God is Jesus, He tortures people eternally, that splitting allegiances is a-ok, & be sure to look down on others without offering ways to pick them up to your level.

I would have to learn a bit more about Mormon (Although I am a hardcore skeptic regarding a second book and America's role in it), but there's no question I would side with JW's over your brand of Christianity since it seems I have to just accept what you say whereas they explain it in detail.

He did say he was a part of the Trinity. 'Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,' Matthew 28: 19. He said it himself. They are one. The Father is God, Jesus Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

You mentioned the singular but ignore the conjunctions that connect the singulars.

It's like "I pledge allegiance to the (singular) flag AND the United States of America" Two singulars connected in the same principle.

 

[Chaplain]

Jesus Heals a Man Born Blind

 

[F#A#Oo]

*cracks knuckles* Let's see here. So, basically you made and won an argument with yourself. Congrats.

I was just throwing it out there...some people still cherry pick verses without adding the context that it was said in...

He did say he was a part of the Trinity. 'Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,' Matthew 28: 19. He said it himself. They are one. The Father is God, Jesus Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

The thing is, Jesus Christ is the most divisive figure who ever lived. Some people think he was a good man or teacher, some think he was a prophet, some think he was insane, some think he was a myth and never existed, and yet others hold him to be the Son of God. And it is how you view him that determines your eternal destiny.

Ah...you do know...Matthew 28:19 is known to be an insertion.

It is not mentioned in the other three Gospels of Christ entering Jerusalem either.

e.g Mark 16:15 “He said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned"

Another matter that confirms that Matthew 28:19 is insertion is the fact that in the Hebrew manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew this text is not present.

 

[Fernando Rocker]

Do you guys read the New International Version?

 

[Raist]

He did say he was a part of the Trinity. 'Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,' Matthew 28: 19. He said it himself. They are one. The Father is God, Jesus Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

You're using that as a "proof"?
I'm not a native english speaker but I think the preposition "in the name of" is singular no matter what it refers to.

 

[JGS]

Do you guys read the New International Version?

I think that's the one that pops up on Biblegateway.com which is what I use to quote scripture online most times.

 

[Chaplain]

I was just throwing it out there...some people still cherry pick verses without adding the context that it was said in...





Ah...you do know...Matthew 28:19 is known to be an insertion.

It is not mentioned in the other three Gospels of Christ entering Jerusalem either.

e.g Mark 16:15 “He said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned"

Another matter that confirms that Matthew 28:19 is insertion is the fact that in the Hebrew manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew this text is not present.

So, now Matthew 28:19 is an insertion? What next, John 1:1?

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

Do you guys read the New International Version?

Yes

 

[Sutton Dagger]

He did say he was a part of the Trinity. 'Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,' Matthew 28: 19. He said it himself. They are one. The Father is God, Jesus Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

I did not interpret that passage as confirming God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are part of a trinity, in fact the singular use actually solidifies the position that they are separate entities though connected.

Again my point was that condemning someone (hey I'm used to it as an Atheist) to Hell for not accepting your interpretation (which isn't Biblically aligned with what the person is espousing) is fucking disgusting.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ" Mahatma Gandhi...

 

[F#A#Oo]

So, now Matthew 28:19 is an insertion? What next, John 1:1?

Well I guess you already know that Philo of Alexandria wrote what John later copied in his gospel...

 

[Fedos]

You mentioned the singular but ignore the conjunctions that connect the singulars.

It's like "I pledge allegiance to the (singular) flag AND the United States of America" Two singulars connected in the same principle.

You're using that as a "proof"?
I'm not a native english speaker but I think the preposition "in the name of" is singular no matter what it refers to.

I did not interpret that passage as confirming God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are part of a trinity, in fact the singular use actually solidifies the position that they are separate entities though connected.

What about what we have in Genesis, the Old Testament less:

'Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Genesis 1: 26

So human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, according to what the Bible teaches. So if you are Chrisitan you could come to this conclusion: God=the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; human beings=the spirit, the soul, and the body. So God is triune in nature and still one, just as we humans are threefold beings and are still one.

Trying to come to some kind of understanding of the Trinity is one of the biggest obstacles to accepting the Christian faith. But if there is a God (and there is) it would stand to reason that anything about him would surpass our understandings. The fact that it is hard to come to some kind of understanding of the Trinity is one of the reasons why it is true.

Again my point was that condemning someone (hey I'm used to it as an Atheist) to Hell for not accepting your interpretation (which isn't Biblically aligned with what the person is espousing) is fucking disgusting.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ" Mahatma Gandhi...

Well, none of us have the power to condemn anyone to hell. Only God can do that. But I think what we are getting at is that the belief that Jesus is the Son of God is part of orthodoxy.

 

[JGS]

What about what we have in Genesis, the Old Testament less:

'Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Genesis 1: 26

So human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, according to what the Bible teaches. So if you are Chrisitan you could come to this conclusion: God=the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; human beings=the spirit, the soul, and the body. So God is triune in nature and still one, just as we humans are threefold beings and are still one.

Humans are made in the likeness of what has already been created- i.e. spirit creatures. Nothing else up to that time was like them. I am not contesting at all that God is speaking to someone, I just have a problem with the notion that God is speaking to himself in that verse as opposed to a normal conversation with someone- who is mentioned as being by his side.

If we are made in his image, than we would understand the trinity concept more, not be confused by it.

Trying to come to some kind of understanding of the Trinity is one of the biggest obstacles to accepting the Christian faith. But if there is a God (and there is) it would stand to reason that anything about him would surpass our understandings. The fact that it is hard to come to some kind of understanding of the Trinity is one of the reasons why it is true.

If it's not explainable, then it's not worth maintaining as a core belief. Belief should be based on something that is simply to grasp in order to accomadate all the different intellects that adhere to it.

It should be 1+1+1=3 not 1+1+1=1

 

[Fedos]

Humans are made in the likeness of what has already been created- i.e. spirit creatures. Nothing else up to that time was like them. I am not contesting at all that God is speaking to someone, I just have a problem with the notion that God is speaking to himself in that verse as opposed to a normal conversation with someone- who is mentioned as being by his side.

So if God the Father wasn't conversing with God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, who was he conversing with? Angels? I've heard that mentioned before. He couldn't be talking about angels because he says, 'Let us create man in our image.' Angels don't have the power to create. And angels are free will beings like humans though I doubt they have souls like humans, which is what separates us from all other created beings that we know of, we have an eternal soul.

If we are made in his image, than we would understand the trinity concept more, not be confused by it.
If it's not explainable, then it's not worth maintaining as a core belief. Belief should be based on something that is simply to grasp in order to accomadate all the different intellects that adhere to it.

It should be 1+1+1=3 not 1+1+1=1

How about: 1x1x1=1?

 

[F#A#Oo]

If the trinity is such a central pillar of faith than it would have its own doctrine. The fact that there is no doctrine and that people have to use various methods to try and explain and in most cases its the cherry picking variety without the context.

If its important and central everyone from a little child to the old man coming to christianty shoukd be able to understand it without making mind numbing abstract concepts for explaining trinity.

 

[F#A#Oo]

Also are we really saying that if one doesn't believe in the trinity they don't get salvation?

If so how are Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David saved? They never spoke of a trinity and spoke of one god...there is no mention of trinity in the OT...they were also not baptized in the name of the father the son and the holy spirit or any other ritual related to a triune God.

 

[JGS]

So if God the Father wasn't conversing with God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, who was he conversing with?

I don't believe he was conversing with the holy spirit, but I have no doubts that he was speaking to his son Jesus. However, talking to Jesus does not equate to being in a trinity. In fact, I'm not sure the deduction was explained.

Angels? I've heard that mentioned before. He couldn't be talking about angels because he says, 'Let us create man in our image.' Angels don't have the power to create.

I may have confused you, but I didn't say the angels created anything. I also didn't say he was talking to them although they could have been present when discussing it with Jesus. Scripturally, man is described as a little lower than angels (Heb 2:7), God is greater than Jesus (John 14:28; 1 Cor 11:3), angels are lower than God, and both groups are made in the image of him.

And angels are free will beings like humans though I doubt they have souls like humans, which is what separates us from all other created beings that we know of, we have an eternal soul.

I'm not following the reasoning on this one. We aren't exact duplicates of God or Jesus so the condition of our soul appears irrelevant for this. Are you saying that God & Jesus have souls, but angels don't? Assuming an eternal soul, when we croak and are saved, what does that person become? Are you saying that we are better than angels? That last one is definitely not true for at least a couple of reasons.

How about: 1x1x1=1?

This would be a great comeback if we were saying that GodxGodxGod is still God.

However, I have never gotten a trinitarian to admit that God is exactly Jesus & exactly Holy Spirit as if he's a ventriloquist. If there's 3 distinct entities that make up the trinity, addition is the only applicable function.

 

[Fernando Rocker]

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

Is it necessary to get your babies baptized? Most Catholic Churches get the babies baptized and Protestant Churches don't do that.

 

[JGS]

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

Is it necessary to get your babies baptized? Most Catholic Churches get the babies baptized and Protestant Churches don't do that.

Imo, it is usually Yes, but it's the last part of a process.

The other parts require knowledge or acknowledgement so it is not necessary to baptize babies since they don't know anything.

They would either get accepted by the grace of God or go the way of their parents which is why parents have a responsibility to raise their kids in a Christian home.

 

[ServBotPhil]

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

Is it necessary to get your babies baptized? Most Catholic Churches get the babies baptized and Protestant Churches don't do that.

Nope, the man dying on a cross next to Jesus was assured he would be in paradise.

 

[Fedos]

If the trinity is such a central pillar of faith than it would have its own doctrine. The fact that there is no doctrine and that people have to use various methods to try and explain and in most cases its the cherry picking variety without the context.

If its important and central everyone from a little child to the old man coming to christianty shoukd be able to understand it without making mind numbing abstract concepts for explaining trinity.

Ever heard of the Nicene Creed? Go here: http://www.extremetheology.com/2009/11/the-nicene-creed-according-to-the-scriptures.html And highlight the different verses to see why this is Chrisitan orthodoxy. The doctrine of the trinity is Biblical, there's no two ways about it.

Also are we really saying that if one doesn't believe in the trinity they don't get salvation?

If so how are Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David saved? They never spoke of a trinity and spoke of one god...there is no mention of trinity in the OT...they were also not baptized in the name of the father the son and the holy spirit or any other ritual related to a triune God.

The Old Testament saints were saved based on their looking forwards to the work of the Messiah, that is, Jesus Christ. They believed the promises of God, namely, that he would send the world a savior, and they were saved based on their responses to that promise.

I don't believe he was conversing with the holy spirit, but I have no doubts that he was speaking to his son Jesus. However, talking to Jesus does not equate to being in a trinity. In fact, I'm not sure the deduction was explained.

Well then why does in Genesis the scripture says the following: 'Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.' Genesis 1: 2 So the Holy Spirit was there at the beginning as well as the Son, and created the world along with the Father and the Son.

I'm not following the reasoning on this one. We aren't exact duplicates of God or Jesus so the condition of our soul appears irrelevant for this. Are you saying that God & Jesus have souls, but angels don't? Assuming an eternal soul, when we croak and are saved, what does that person become? Are you saying that we are better than angels? That last one is definitely not true for at least a couple of reasons.

Well, when saints die then they go to be with God. The Bible says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. And in the resurrection we will be equal to the angels.

However, I have never gotten a trinitarian to admit that God is exactly Jesus & exactly Holy Spirit as if he's a ventriloquist. If there's 3 distinct entities that make up the trinity, addition is the only applicable function.

Well, that can be explained by saying that God is a God of order.

 

[SRG01]

For me, I think of the trinity as orthogonal vectors or numbers, similar to the triangle diagram I keep seeing. Neither vector can truly add upon each other, but they all combine to form something.

At any rate, the metaphysical debate of the nature of Jesus is a moot point; it only carried weight during Christianity's early development as a splinter group from Judaism.

If, at any point, your fundamental beliefs were dependent on this single (no pun intended) theological concept, then I'm afraid you may have deeper issues with your faith. It is not knowledge that brings us closer to God, but faith and acceptance of His grace.

 

[Misanthropy]

One of my super Christian friends told me a quote from the bible which, as I see it, says that people should all be Christians and that any other religion doesn't lead to "the way". This irks me because now the Bible looks like a chain-mail scam.

The quotes in question are:

John 14:6

and she also told me this:

16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore[a] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Jesus instructed the disciples to go make disciples of all nation and teach them , not to simply save themselves.

 

[SRG01]

One of my super Christian friends told me a quote from the bible which, as I see it, says that people should all be Christians and that any other religion doesn't lead to "the way". This irks me because now the Bible looks like a chain-mail scam.

The quotes in question are:

John 14:6

and she also told me this:

16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore[a] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Jesus instructed the disciples to go make disciples of all nation and teach them , not to simply save themselves.

How does John 14:6 relate?

The last part you wrote refers to the Great Commission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commission You can read more about it. (ie. Last part of Matthew)

edit: You should contrast this with Matthew 10:5, where Jesus explicitly states not to preach to Gentiles. The Great Commission happens after the resurrection of Jesus, whereas the Lesser (?) Commission happens some time before.

 

[Misanthropy]

I said there are many paths to Heaven which don't require Christianity and she said this to say that Christianity is the only way:

(John 14:6) Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

The way to salvation comes through Jesus and a personal relationship with Him. Of course, there are many people in many religions who have a connection to Him -- but He is the path.

 

[legend166]

One of my super Christian friends told me a quote from the bible which, as I see it, says that people should all be Christians and that any other religion doesn't lead to "the way". This irks me because now the Bible looks like a chain-mail scam.

The quotes in question are:

John 14:6

and she also told me this:

16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore[a] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Jesus instructed the disciples to go make disciples of all nation and teach them , not to simply save themselves.

Can you expand on what you mean by this? I'm surprised that you're surprised that Christianity teaches it is the one true religion. You'll struggle to find a biblical Christian who disagrees with that theology.

 

[legend166]

I said there are many paths to Heaven which don't require Christianity and she said this to say that Christianity is the only way:

(John 14:6) Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

The way to salvation comes through Jesus and a personal relationship with Him. Of course, there are many people in many religions who have a connection to Him -- but He is the path.

I'm even more confused now. Can you explain your beliefs a bit more? I'm not sure what angle you're coming from.

 

[SRG01]

I said there are many paths to Heaven which don't require Christianity and she said this to say that Christianity is the only way:

(John 14:6) Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

The way to salvation comes through Jesus and a personal relationship with Him. Of course, there are many people in many religions who have a connection to Him -- but He is the path.

My first question is whether or not you've read John or not, because the language and context of that gospel is very different than the synoptic gospels...

 

[Misanthropy]

Oh I haven't read the Book of John. Perhaps I should explain a little more: I was arguing with this girl over the fact that she didn't know a common story from the Bible (I think it was the one with the prostitute and the stoning) even though she goes to church twice a week. I was telling her how a person like me who doesn't even go to church knows more about the bible than she does. Then I started the generalizations: your preacher doesn't even talk about the bible, he just sputters about concepts and puts an enormous amount of personal bias into his messages, etc. Then I said that there's no need to go to church to be a Christian and that, in my view, Jesus was teaching more about the salvation of each individual rather than that of society. I noted that the Bible was meant for personal salvation rather than social salvation. That's when she used those quotes on me. I'm a Christian Orthodox in case that changes things but I don't go to church.

 

[legend166]

Oh I haven't read the Book of John. Perhaps I should explain a little more: I was arguing with this girl over the fact that she didn't know a common story from the Bible (I think it was the one with the prostitute and the stoning) even though she goes to church twice a week. I was telling her how a person like me who doesn't even go to church knows more about the bible than she does. Then I started the generalizations: your preacher doesn't even talk about the bible, he just sputters about concepts and puts an enormous amount of personal bias into his messages, etc. Then I said that there's no need to go to church to be a Christian and that, in my view, Jesus was teaching more about the salvation of each individual rather than that of society. I noted that the Bible was meant for personal salvation rather than social salvation. That's when she used those quotes on me. I'm a Christian Orthodox in case that changes things but I don't go to church.

Do you not go to church because you haven't found one you like, or because you're against the concept altogether? Because the concept of believers coming together to have fellowship together and study scripture is very, uh, scriptural. I do agree that salvation is personal, not socially based. But your walk should be socially based.

I'm always wary of people who take the "I'm a Christian, I just don't go to church" line. Obviously there are exceptions, and it's probably better to not go to church than go to a bad one, but if you're a Christian you should be wanting to go to church. I often find those who are the "I'll just do it alone" types have very strange and mostly unbiblical doctrine. In this case, your seeming belief that Christ isn't essential for salvation seems to fit that view. Apologies if I've misunderstood or misrepresented you.

Also, I'm confused again. You told this girl that you know more about the Bible than she does, but then you say you haven't read John?

 

[Misanthropy]

It's perfectly understandable that you have a preconception of Christians who don't go to church. I don't go to one because there isn't really one for me in my area. When I lived in another area when I was little my dad would read me stories from the Bible so that's how I knew more about it than her but if you were to ask me specific quotes then I wouldn't be able to. I know the stories not the quotes. I haven't gotten around to reading it yet because frankly I'm afraid that I'll be disappointed by what I find in there. I've read some of the Proverbs part and although some of them are nice others are simply outdated or they don't go with my views.

Now here's the tricky part:

I'm a humanist above a Christian. And when I say humanist I mean want peace on Earth, etc, etc. Now taking that into account when I was telling my friend that there isn't only one path to salvation I was saying it with my views as a humanist in mind. Because imagine the crapstorm that would occur if one religious group of people told all the other religious groups that their own religion is the only way to Heaven and theirs is just Paganism etc. We've already seen this happen in history before and it's not pretty. That's why I believe more in personal salvation than in social salvation because you rarely see the former cause people to do the crusades or 2 year mormon mission etc. Also notice my username. I hope this explains things more and you don't regard me as a pseudo-Christian.

 

[Buckethead]

^

"The road is narrow, only a few find it"

"Take up your cross daily and follow me"

"Stumble in one area, guilty of breaking all"

"I didn't bring peace but a sword"

Google these verses hopefully they'll help you on your journey.

 

[Misanthropy]

^

"The road is narrow, only a few find it"

"Take up your cross daily and follow me"

"Stumble in one area, guilty of breaking all"

"I didn't bring peace but a sword"

Google these verses hopefully they'll help you on your journey.

You're picking three quotes out of 1000's and telling me to view them separately? There's no context to any of what you just told me just a sentence. It's like watching the intermission part of 2001 and thinking that the whole movie is just a black screen with people moaning in the background.

 

[Buckethead]

They all refer to your little blurb up there.

And yeah read one of the gospels. Mark is probably more intellectual/philosophical. Luke is better written with an eye for social justice.

 

[legend166]

It's perfectly understandable that you have a preconception of Christians who don't go to church. I don't go to one because there isn't really one for me in my area. When I lived in another area when I was little my dad would read me stories from the Bible so that's how I knew more about it than her but if you were to ask me specific quotes then I wouldn't be able to. I know the stories not the quotes. I haven't gotten around to reading it yet because frankly I'm afraid that I'll be disappointed by what I find in there. I've read some of the Proverbs part and although some of them are nice others are simply outdated or they don't go with my views.

Now here's the tricky part:

I'm a humanist above a Christian. And when I say humanist I mean want peace on Earth, etc, etc. Now taking that into account when I was telling my friend that there isn't only one path to salvation I was saying it with my views as a humanist in mind. Because imagine the crapstorm that would occur if one religious group of people told all the other religious groups that their own religion is the only way to Heaven and theirs is just Paganism etc. We've already seen this happen in history before and it's not pretty. That's why I believe more in personal salvation than in social salvation because you rarely see the former cause people to do the crusades or 2 year mormon mission etc. Also notice my username. I hope this explains things more and you don't regard me as a pseudo-Christian.

But people say this all the time. I'm saying it right now. Christian theology states it very, very clearly. Now obviously the extent to which you believe it is up to you, but it's not really a very controversial piece of doctrine.

Equating Mormon missions with the crusades is a bit harsh on Mormons But I agree that stuff like the Crusades are horrible. But you're making a jump that doesn't exist in scripture. Believing that Christ is the sole path to salvation =/= forcing conversions or oppressing people.

My honest advice to you is to read the Gospels and get some commentary from well respected theologians to go along with it. Because at the moment it sounds like you're doing what you are accusing others of doing - picking and choosing you believe.

 

[JGS]

Nope, the man dying on a cross next to Jesus was assured he would be in paradise.

Christianity hadn't been established yet so there wasn't a faith to be baptized into. Basically, everyone prior to Christianity couldn't be baptized since it didn't exist. However, Jesus made it a requirement for his disciples. The person hanging next to Jesus wasn't a disciple yet.

Acts is very good to see this because it shows to what extent people went through to ensure that someone was baptized- even Paul. What salvation means for those not Christian and thus not baptized is entirely dependent on the religious belief since the Bible gives two different answers and every religion I've heard from has a different answer.

 

[JGS]

Well then why does in Genesis the scripture says the following: 'Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.' Genesis 1: 2 So the Holy Spirit was there at the beginning as well as the Son, and created the world along with the Father and the Son.

I'm not sure why the Holy Spirit would not need to exist to create the earth. It's pretty clear it is always used when a divine action takes place. That still doesn't mean that God was discussing things over with himself (Or that he was actually speaking to the thing he accomplishes his will with)

The Bible says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. And in the resurrection we will be equal to the angels.

At the end of the day, all this means is that the primary difference between angels and humans is where they are. That doesn't mean that we aren't made in the image of heavenly creations- orimarily when discussing personality.

Well, that can be explained by saying that God is a God of order.

How so?

 

[Chaplain]

The Good Shepherd and His Sheep

 

[F#A#Oo]

Ever heard of the Nicene Creed? Go here: http://www.extremetheology.com/2009/11/the-nicene-creed-according-to-the-scriptures.html And highlight the different verses to see why this is Chrisitan orthodoxy. The doctrine of the trinity is Biblical, there's no two ways about it.

Nicene Creed? There is nothing biblical about Nicene Creed it's 300 odd years after Jesus Christ...Nicene Creed is merely the officializing of another mans work 1 hundred years prior.

Tertullian is the is the father of Trinitarian theology...he developed the concept of Trinity.

Facts:

• The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible
• Harper Collins Encyclopedia of the Bible; states "The doctrine of the Trinity as such is not revealed in either the OT or NT"
• The doctrine of the Trinity started in 200 CE...200 years after Jesus Christ. Tertullian was a lawyer and author of much Christian literature.
• Christians scholars agree it is an evolved doctrine. It is not a revealed doctrine. It was developed by theologians between 200-400 CE. The First Council of Nicaea in 325 developed it. The Council of Constantinople in 381 and ratified into Christian canon. It became authoritative at The Council of Chalcedon in 451. Over a period of 400 years after the time of Jesus Christ was when the doctine of the trinity became authoritative.
• Hans Küng; Leading Theologian and Catholic. "there is no doctrine of one God in three persons, no doctrine of a ‘triune God,’ a ‘Trinity."
• Harper Bible Dictionary; "The formal doctine of the trinity as it was defined by the great church Councils of the 4th and 5th century is not to be found in the New Testament.
• The New Catholic Encyclopedia "The formula itself (the Trinity) does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins. The period origins being the time during the mission of Jesus Christ and the recording of the manuscripts that formed the foundations of the Bible.
• The First Commandment "you shall have no other gods before me"
• "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!"Deuteronomy 6:4. Jesus tells us not once BUT 3 TIMES!:
  “The most important one (Commandment),” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Mark 12:29
  Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. Matthew 22:37
  He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. Luke 10:27
• The Interpreter's Bible; Look up The First Epistle of John 5:7-8.They say these verses are to be rejected. C. I. Scofield in his Reference Bible states that this verse has no manuscript authority and it was inserted. Kurt Aland, Bart D. Ehrman and many others have recognised the insertion that is now called Comma Johanneum. Which has led to removal and or modification of the passages in New Revised Standard, The Revised Standard, NIV, New English, The Good News, New American Standard and Jerusalem versions of the Bible. The First Epistle of John 5:7-8 in a Trinitarian sense has been remove/modified in all these bibles. A rejection of insertion.

The Old Testament saints were saved based on their looking forwards to the work of the Messiah, that is, Jesus Christ. They believed the promises of God, namely, that he would send the world a savior, and they were saved based on their responses to that promise.

Indeed...although I wouldn't call it a promise. Rather they carried out the will of god. Which is enough for salvation.

The point is that they were not baptized in the name of the father, son and holy spirit...something that some Christians say is a requirement for salvation.

 

[Fedos]

Nicene Creed? There is nothing biblical about Nicene Creed it's 300 odd years after Jesus Christ...Nicene Creed is merely the officializing of another mans work 1 hundred years prior.

Did you go to the link? All you had to do was visit the link and highlight the different scriptures and you could see that it is very much Biblical (ie the scriptures are there and they represent the Trinity).

Tertullian is the is the father of Trinitarian theology...he developed the concept of Trinity.

Facts:

• The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible

• 
  
  That doesn't mean anything. The word 'demon' is not in the Bible either, but the idea of the entities is taught throughout scripture. The word 'rapture' is not in the Bible either but the idea is there.
  
  

  [*]Harper Collins Encyclopedia of the Bible; states "The doctrine of the Trinity as such is not revealed in either the OT or NT"
  [*]The doctrine of the Trinity started in 200 CE...200 years after Jesus Christ. Tertullian was a lawyer and author of much Christian literature.
  [*]Christians scholars agree it is an evolved doctrine. It is not a revealed doctrine. It was developed by theologians between 200-400 CE. The First Council of Nicaea in 325 developed it. The Council of Constantinople in 381 ratified into Christian canon. It became authoritative at The Council of Chalcedon in 451. Over a period of 400 years after the time of Jesus Christ was when the doctine of the trinity became authoritative.
  [*]Hans Küng; Leading Theologian and Catholic. "there is no doctrine of one God in three persons, no doctrine of a ‘triune God,’ a ‘Trinity."
  [*]Harper Bible Dictionary; "The formal doctine of the trinity as it was defined by the great church Councils of the 4th and 5th century is not to be found in the New Testament.
  [*]The New Catholic Encyclopedia "The formula itself (the Trinity) does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins. The period origins being the time during the mission of Jesus Christ and the recording of the manuscripts that formed the foundations of the Bible.
  [*]The First Commandment "you shall have no other gods before me"
  [*]"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!"Deuteronomy 6:4. Jesus tells us not once BUT 3 TIMES!:
  “The most important one (Commandment),” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Mark 12:29
  Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. Matthew 22:37
  He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. Luke 10:27

  
  Did you read what Jesus said after he proclaims that the Lord our God is one Lord?
  
  '
  While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”
  “The son of David,” they replied.
  
  43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,
  
  44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
  “Sit at my right hand
  until I put your enemies
  under your feet.”’[a]
  
  45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. Matthew 22: 42-46. So he is one God in three persons.
  
  
  

  Indeed...although I wouldn't call it a promise. Rather they carried out the will of god. Which is enough for salvation.
  
  The point is that they were not baptized in the name of the father, son and holy spirit...something that some Christians say is a requirement for salvation.

  
  Baptisim is not required for salvation. The words of Paul himself: 'For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.' I Corinthians 1: 17.
  
  
  

  I'm not sure why the Holy Spirit would not need to exist to create the earth. It's pretty clear it is always used when a divine action takes place. That still doesn't mean that God was discussing things over with himself (Or that he was actually speaking to the thing he accomplishes his will with)

  
  Well if thats what you choose to believe that's what you choose to believe. But it is clear from the scripture that the Holy Spirit is also God.
  
  

  At the end of the day, all this means is that the primary difference between angels and humans is where they are. That doesn't mean that we aren't made in the image of heavenly creations- orimarily when discussing personality.

  
  Well, I've already explained that we are made in the image and likeness of God and that as he is a triune or threefold being and is still one so too are we.
  

  How so?

  
  Well, in the work of salvation the Father disciplines you as a Christian (when you sin), the Son is your redeemer and advocate, and the Spirit is your sustainer.

 

[Misanthropy]

But people say this all the time. I'm saying it right now. Christian theology states it very, very clearly. Now obviously the extent to which you believe it is up to you, but it's not really a very controversial piece of doctrine.

Equating Mormon missions with the crusades is a bit harsh on Mormons But I agree that stuff like the Crusades are horrible. But you're making a jump that doesn't exist in scripture. Believing that Christ is the sole path to salvation =/= forcing conversions or oppressing people.

My honest advice to you is to read the Gospels and get some commentary from well respected theologians to go along with it. Because at the moment it sounds like you're doing what you are accusing others of doing - picking and choosing you believe.

Then what about Muslims and Jews and all the other religious groups? That exact sentence has led many Christians to wrongfully tell other religious groups that their religion is false. Also, I can't pick and choose what I believe? What is this? Slavery? I don't have to blindly accept everything that's written in the Bible and I can choose whatever I believe and still call myself Christian. Albeit, there are some parts which you need to accept (Christ being the son of God, etc.) but you don't necessarily have to believe all of it if it doesn't fit well with your conscience. P.S. I kind of do relate those mormon missions to the crusades because they're sending "soldiers" (young mormon men) to the "battlefield" (countries without a large demographic for mormonism) to convert them. Yes they don't use swords and catapults but when they go to starving children they have food in one hand and their scripture in another and they essentially condition the kid into believe he must believe in the latter in order to have the former.

 

[JGS]

Well if thats what you choose to believe that's what you choose to believe. But it is clear from the scripture that the Holy Spirit is also God.

That is not really "clear" by any stretch of the imagination based on the verse you mentioned.

Well, I've already explained that we are made in the image and likeness of God and that as he is a triune or threefold being and is still one so too are we.

I'm still not grasping why angels are different based on that reasoning.

Well, in the work of salvation the Father disciplines you as a Christian (when you sin), the Son is your redeemer and advocate, and the Spirit is your sustainer.

But that doesn't require a trinity belief. It's like saying the police, judge, & jury must all be the same in order to have a workable justice system.

Baptism is not required for salvation. The words of Paul himself: 'For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.' I Corinthians 1: 17.

It's a requirement for Christians in most instances. If you are a card carrying Christian, the requirement by Jesus (& his disciples) is baptism. Actually baptism is the card.

Paul's role was not that of a baptizer, but that did not mean that the ones he was speaking to weren't baptized. His role was as a missionary. Others baptized. He was basically lessening his fame since he was being ridiculed for it. From the looks of things, it appears that:

- ALL Christians are supposed to be baptized. It's a requirement (Matthew 28:19,20). Possible exceptions to this are:
1. Babies (Not necessarily minors from our viewpoint) since they can't choose & who tend to be rewarded based on their parent's choices.
2. Non-Christians in line for salvation. This would of course include faithful Jews or ones who lived before the Mosaic Law like Abraham. However, did any of those mentioned indicate that they would be in heaven like Christians seem to be so keenly aware of? Not sure and no time to research.
3. The unrighteous. Possibly ones who lived and died without knowing God or lacking the ability to learn about him. Again, not sure what their reward would be though.

 

[ThisWreckage]

I've often thought about converting to Catholicism because I was raised Southern Baptist and I disagree with a lot of the black and white thinking that goes on in the baptist religion. How would I go about doing that?

 

[Buckethead]

Not surprised to see this become the Christianity |OT| of schism, poorly founded arguments, and denominationalism.

Internet imitates life, I suppose.

 

[JGS]

Not surprised to see this become the Christianity |OT| of schism, poorly founded arguments, and denominationalism.

Internet imitates life, I suppose.

Christianity has always been about disagreeing over beliefs. That's half of the NT although the NT wisely settles them. However, talking it out is either what gets reconciliation or firms up our faith. In short, as long as it stays above board, I've never seen the issue with debating.Calling someone a cultist for not sharing a particular view on the other hand...

Further, it's not unusual in the slightest to think any particular belief is correct. I would assume that most people who think they have the answers would actually be wishy washy about those answers.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I spent 1 year with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Was pretty close to getting baptized as well. Completed the book 'Knowledge that leads to everlasting life' with the elder of the hall that I was studying at. In the end the inconsistency was simply too much to handle. From there I spent 6 months or so praying and studying by myself and eventually was baptized at a Church of Christ.

Having spent 4 years at Fuller Seminary and graduating with my MDiv the amount of pretzling that Jehovah's Witnesses do in reference to the Watchtower and Tract Society is no different nor better than what millions of evangelicals do with their own interpretation and theology.

I will say that the Jehovah's Witnesses unlike say the LDS are much less interested in looking into history, archeology, and the scholarly world in supporting their ideology. Although an example of the WTS being caught with its pants down was that of Bruce Metzger (renown scholar and professor from Princeton). They used his name in supporting their view of Jesus being a creation instead of the creator and he requested they remove his name from their literature. It's happened numerous times with numerous scholars.

If you look at the WTS page on the trinity (not sure if its still active), they mention numerous church fathers, take their statements on the divinity of Jesus and massacre it, edit it, cut and paste it in ways that are truly shocking. Individuals like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc. who clearly supported the full divinity of Jesus are portrayed as arguing the very opposite.

 

[F#A#Oo]

Did you go to the link? All you had to do was visit the link and highlight the different scriptures and you could see that it is very much Biblical (ie the scriptures are there and they represent the Trinity)

What? Nicene Creed is no where in the bible...it came after the bible. 400 years after to be exact. You need to read up on history.

That doesn't mean anything. The word 'demon' is not in the Bible either, but the idea of the entities is taught throughout scripture. The word 'rapture' is not in the Bible either but the idea is there..

I'll state it again...the concept of Trinity comes from Tertullian. The reason why the Bible doesn't mention the word "Trinity" is because it's a foreign concept to OT and NT. It is also why there is no Trinity doctrine in the Bible.

Did you read what Jesus said after he proclaims that the Lord our God is one Lord?

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”
“The son of David,” they replied.

43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,

44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’[a]

45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. Matthew 22: 42-46.So he is one God in three persons..

The answer that Jesus gave was firm, indicating that the expected messiah is not a descendant of David because David called him his Master, and the father does not call his son. It is known that Jesus - according to Matthew and Luke is a descendant of the prophet David - he was often called "O' son of David" (look in Matthew: 1:1, 9:27 and Luke: 19:38).

In the Book of Mark, Jesus said, “David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?" (Mark: 12:37).

It is also mentioned in Luke " And he said unto them, how they say that Christ is David's son? David himself said in the book of Psalms, the LORD said unto my Lord, Sit in my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool. David therefore called him Lord, how is he then his son? " (Luke: 20:40-44).

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

I classify them as ignorant b/c there are proofs that they're beliefs are off-center. Jesus never said anything about Joseph Smith (polygamy was a big one, also the caffeine thing). JWs - Two words, The Watchtower. Once you start reading their reading material, you understand it belongs in a fireplace. You have thousands of Catholics who think of Communion as the literal blood and body of Christ. If it sounds believable, people will believe. Start with the Bible, read for yourself.

You are just being ignorant, if i were to pick a christian denomination that actually knows what they are doing it will be JW's. Whenever you ask them question they refer to the bible which is the rightful source of the information they are preaching, not only are they well equipped but they are also polite. Your comments lead me to believe you don't know jack shit about them.

OTAH (On Topic At Hand): The bible has more verses that shows that Jesus is not God, in-fact their are so many accounts were Jesus was praying to his father in the heaven. Jesus also taught his disciples the "Daily prayer" in which himself also used. If Jesus was God how can he pray to God?