The Fundamentals Of Christianity

[didymus]

I agree with sacredstar. Some of Jesus' teachings were kept from us but they have come forth in spite of man's attempts.

This is probably controversial to some but I don't believe Jesus was born of a virgin in the sense that Mary conceived without sin. If you look at the gospel Mark ( which is the earliest of the 4), it mentions nothing of a virgin birth. Also Paul, whose letters predate the gospel of Mark mention nothing of it either. In fact Paul said that Jesus was the greatest man ever born of woman. There isn't much room for interpretation there.

I do believe though that Jesus was and still is divine. To me Jesus doesn't have to be born of a virgin to be divine, nor did he have to be celibate or without children. We have no evidence one way or the other anyway.

 

[Bandit]

I agree with sacredstar. Some of Jesus' teachings were kept from us but they have come forth in spite of man's attempts.

This is probably controversial to some but I don't believe Jesus was born of a virgin in the sense that Mary conceived without sin. If you look at the gospel Mark ( which is the earliest of the 4), it mentions nothing of a virgin birth. Also Paul, whose letters predate the gospel of Mark mention nothing of it either. In fact Paul said that Jesus was the greatest man ever born of woman. There isn't much room for interpretation there.

I do believe though that Jesus was and still is divine. To me Jesus doesn't have to be born of a virgin to be divine, nor did he have to be celibate or without children. We have no evidence one way or the other anyway.

OK then. If we have all the records in the 66 books and the other books, which is more than enough, then why do you feel you need to surmise things didymus? and even mention things like that?
What difference does the order of the books make?
Things that have no record, possiblities, maybe(s), what if, could be etc., I personally have no interest in that.

A little hint, In my opinion, the more times something is mentioned in it, I consider those the things that are the most important. However all I need is two witnesses and it is established. Everyone can make there own choice to, Take it or leave it.

 

[Sacredstar]

So Bandit it appears you are disagreeing with the word of Jesus?

Being love

Sacredstar

 

[Bandit]

So Bandit it appears you are disagreeing with the word of Jesus?

Being love

Sacredstar

Well no Star, what was said exactly that makes you ask that?


I dont exalt what Jesus said over any other word that is written in the bible because I see it all as ONE word. I dont surmise things that are not written like maybe and maybe not .i.e. Jesus being married and having children.

I am one of the children, through adoption of the spirit.

 

[remmusashi]

First, I would like to apologize for going off track; but, I am hoping that those of you far more knowlegable than myself in the ways of Christianity can answer a fundamental question for me.

I do not, and have never, understood the principle of "Jesus dying for our sins." I am truly at a loss. As a young man growing up in a Christian household, I was expected to know what this meant. Yet whenever I ask or pursue the question, even the most devout have difficulty explaining it.

I have always believed that the Jesus' death sounds as though it was some repayment of a debt. Like a an old-world gangster taking the life of a family member because of some financial obligation. To whom was the debt paid?

A standard phrase to be heard: "God sacrificed his only son for our sins." If God has made the sacrifice (along with the obvious one that Jesus has made
), then to whom is this sacrifice being made? The term "sacrifice" would seem to imply homage to a higher being. This being the case, who is more powerful than God? Who would God be making a sacrifice to?

I have also been told that Jesus sacrificed himself to God. This doesn't make any sense either. What purpose does it serve to require the death of your son to do something that you already knew you where going to do? God could simply have forgiven the sins of humanity and instilled an inhearent knowlege of Jesus' willingness to sacrifice himself without the sacrific taking place.

The sacrifice was not neccessary unless it would have been required by a third party over whom God has no control.

Help me, please. I am very confused.

 

[lunamoth]

in reply to remmu, from http://www.stjohnadulted.org/The_05.htm#How Are We Saved

3. How Are We Saved?

3.1. Introduction

How does Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection save us? What are the mechanisms by which the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, and/or the Resurrection makes our salvation possible?

Some views (not mutually exclusive):

Jesus’ Life and Death Constitutive: 1. Cross as a Sacrifice

2. Cross as Victory

3. Cross and Forgiveness

4. Incarnation and Deification

Jesus’ Life and Death Illustrative:
5. Cross as Moral Example

3.2. The Cross as Sacrifice

The view that Jesus' sacrificial offering of himself on the cross made our salvation possible pervades liturgy. This view proposes:

In dying on the cross, Christ was both victim and priest, offering himself to the Father as the Passover sacrifice

Purpose of Christ’s sacrifice was to appease the Father for the sins of humanity, thus making our salvation possible.

Jesus’ single sacrifice sufficed, was “perfect” because Jesus was divine as well as human, making the “magnitude” of his sacrifice far greater than that of any ordinary human being

Problems / Questions with this view of how we are saved through Jesus' life and death

What does a sacrifice do for God? Why would God want a “sacrifice” before God could be merciful to sinners? How could God’s mercy be dependent on a sacrifice?

Horace Bushnell (1866) suggested:

Christ’s sacrifice awakens our sense of guilt and shows us God suffers because of our sins (illustrative dimension)

Jesus’ death both affected / moved / changed God as well as expressed God (constitutive dimension)

3.3. The Cross as Victory (Christus Victor)

Christ the Victor = Christus Victor

Through his Crucifixion and Resurrection, Jesus achieved a lasting victory over sin, death and Satan. The view that Christ won a victory through his Crucifixion and Resurrection also pervades our liturgy.

But how? How did Jesus' death on a cross achieve a victory?

3.3.1. The "Classic" Theory of How the Victory Was Won

The Classic Theory of How the Victory was Won (Origen, Gregory the Great):

The devil had gotten rights over fallen humanity. God had to respect those rights The devil’s right could only be forfeited if the devil exceeded his authority

God devised a plan to trick the devil in order to get him to unknowingly exceed his authority: Jesus was sent into the world, divine and sinless (the “hook”), but in the form of a sinful human being (“the bait”)

The devil took the “bait” and tried to claim authority over Jesus, discovering too late the “hook” – that Jesus was also divine and sinless. Thus the devil exceeded his authority and had to forfeit his claim on fallen humanity.

3.3.2. Problems with the Classic Christus Victor Theory

St. Anselm was troubled by this classic explanation of the Christus Victor theory because:

How could the devil ever get “rights” over fallen humanity, and why would God be under any obligation to respect them?

God is righteous and would never deceive, not even the devil

3.4. The Cross and Forgiveness of Sins

3.4.1. The "Satisfaction" Theory

Anselm, with later refinement by Thomas Aquinas, proposed:

God acts according to the principles of justice in humanity’s redemption

God’s sense of justice demands some satisfaction or penance be done for the disobedience of humanity before humanity’s sin are forgiven

Jesus’ death allows the forgiveness of sins because: 1. Jesus substitutes for us on the cross. God allows Jesus to stand in our place and take our guilt upon himself.

2. Jesus is the covenant representative for humanity. By his obedience on the cross, he wins the benefit of forgiveness for those he represents.

3. Through faith, believers participate in the risen Christ (Paul: “in Christ”), and thereby share the benefits won by Jesus.

3.4.2. Problems with the "Satisfaction" Theory

Problems with this "satisfaction theory:"

in what sense is it moral or “just” for one human being to bear the penalties due to another?

why does God need “satisfaction” or penance for sins? There surely cannot be some “law of justice” that is higher than God that demands each sin be counterbalanced by a proportionate penance (especially a penance provided by a innocent substitute!)

3.5. Incarnation and Deification

“God become human, in order that humans might become God.”

- Athanasius

Salvation in Orthodox Church: the broken relationship between individuals and God is restored so that human beings can participate in the uncreated energy of God (“deification”)


“Deification” is possible because:

in the Incarnation: Jesus did not only become an individual human being, but:

the Godhead, divinity itself took on general human nature

this new divinized human nature heals the gap between human beings and their Creator Jesus (the “new Adam”) is the first example of divinized humanity, of our ultimate vocation

“It was necessary that the voluntary humiliation, the redemptive selfemptying (kenosis) of the Son of God should take place, so that fallen men might accomplish their vocation of theosis, the deification of created beings by uncreated grace.”

- Vladimir Lossky, 1953

3.6. The Cross as Moral Example

3.6.1. Peter Abelard: The Cross Illustrates God's Love

The incarnation, the life and death of Jesus illustrates God’s love for humanity and moves us to love of God. This love is what saves us.

Peter Abelard:

“the purpose and cause of the incarnation was that Christ might illuminate the world by his wisdom, and excite it to love of himself”

“our redemption through the suffering of Christ is that deeper love within us which not only frees us from slavery to sin, but also secures for us the true liberty of the children of God, in order that we might do all things out of love rather than out of fear. . .”

3.6.2. Christ is the Moral Ideal

After the Enlightenment, this view “expanded” to:

Christ the moral ideal taught by his words

illustrated by his life and death

the most important aspect of this moral ideal was his love for others

Taking to heart and trying to live Christ’s moral ideal is all we need to be saved

For myself, I am content to leave it a mystery and know that it just IS.

Peace,

 

[Bandit]

First, I would like to apologize for going off track; but, I am hoping that those of you far more knowlegable than myself in the ways of Christianity can answer a fundamental question for me.

I do not, and have never, understood the principle of "Jesus dying for our sins." I am truly at a loss. As a young man growing up in a Christian household, I was expected to know what this meant. Yet whenever I ask or pursue the question, even the most devout have difficulty explaining it.

I have always believed that the Jesus' death sounds as though it was some repayment of a debt. Like a an old-world gangster taking the life of a family member because of some financial obligation. To whom was the debt paid?

A standard phrase to be heard: "God sacrificed his only son for our sins." If God has made the sacrifice (along with the obvious one that Jesus has made
), then to whom is this sacrifice being made? The term "sacrifice" would seem to imply homage to a higher being. This being the case, who is more powerful than God? Who would God be making a sacrifice to?

I have also been told that Jesus sacrificed himself to God. This doesn't make any sense either. What purpose does it serve to require the death of your son to do something that you already knew you where going to do? God could simply have forgiven the sins of humanity and instilled an inhearent knowlege of Jesus' willingness to sacrifice himself without the sacrific taking place.

The sacrifice was not neccessary unless it would have been required by a third party over whom God has no control.

Help me, please. I am very confused.

Hi remmusashi
Good question.
I dont see it just for sin as in disobedience, but also to break the curse of death. The death of Jesus was a commandment to him. The third party you mention I see as Adam who was the first, even before Eve, who got the ball rolling. I also would not say that it is not that God had no control, rather He also made us with the ability to choose things. In our fall, he also supplies a way of escape and that is through Jesus.
The Old Testament was a type of sacrifice through animals for sin, but Jesus is the only one who could actually bring the redemption and bring man back into loving favor with God.
Unless you are willing to search the scriptures on your own for days and days and days, and weeks and months and YEARS, it is much easier to simply accept that it works.

Lunamoth left some good variations for you to check out.

Gods ways are different than our ways. Hope we helped ya a little bit and welcome aboard.

Romans 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

 

[Faithfulservant]

Ok before Jesus there was the Law given to Israel by God through Moses. One of the things that they had to do was sacrifice animals on an altar to cover their sins. Then God sent His only begotten Son to the world because even with the sacrifices men could never be truly clean of sin. Jesus was in a sense the choicest of the herd being the beloved Son of God..He is called the Lamb of God. He was sinless from conception till his death on the cross. Jesus on calvary was the FINAL sacrifice.. it was the sacrifice of ALL sacrifices. No longer did man have to pick the choicest of his herd to atone for his sins.. He now could repent and his sins would be forgiven.. Thats if Man accepts Jesus as his savior.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Ok SS.. Ive said this before so I might as well say it again.. Most people do not recognize the books that are not in the bible as being Spirit inspired. Everytime you quote something from them... or quote something that I cannot find in my bible I just disregard it. You asked Bandit if he was disagreeing with the word of Jesus.. the WORD of Jesus is the HOLY bible. Jesus IS the WORD. The Holy Spirit is the WITNESS of Jesus and HE inspired the HOLY bible..the HOLY Spirit interprets the bible for US. the Believers of Christ Jesus. the Savior of MAN the Son of God. The Author of our Foundation.. the ALPHA and the OMEGA. The Beginning and the End. The RIGHTEOUS RIGHT HAND OF GOD and the Great I AM.

Ive seen how you butcher scriptures and Im borderlining on intolerance of your assurance that these other books are the pure word of God and the HOLY bible is roman propaganda which you seem to quote when it suits your purpose.

I do not suggest that you have to believe how I believe or how Bandit believes but I do ask you to get off your high horse and accept that not everyone believes the way you do.. especially on the Christian Forum and especially under this topic that I posted because I was tired of you flaming mine and others beliefs with your weeping over how we are hypocrites and voted a butcher into office.

I and others have tried to be delicate with you in this but delicacy does not seem to be working.

Rant over.. and my apologies to all.

 

[Sacredstar]

Dear remmusashi

SPOT ON! Follow your heart the Christ within and that which GOD is sharing with you directly.

If Jesus died for our sins there would be no darkness on planet earth.

It also did not break the curse of death either, if anything the murder of Jesus increased the crimes of humanity for which we have paid dearly in millions of lives lost. For what it is worth I was told that this was the last part of the fall of humanity down the dimensions.

The liberal 21st century priests are also having a great deal of trouble defending this dogma that Jesus died for our sins.

I was once told that when the crucifix is removed from earth so will all the pain and suffering will be removed from earth. Nostradamus also predicted that the church would be destroyed one brick at a time.

All power structures that attempt to dominate or control GOD's people, GOD allows them to destroy themselves with their own hand and so it is.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

Taking to heart and trying to live Christ’s moral ideal is all we need to be saved

Indeed! If I may be allowed to chime in frankly, what I see with the "fundamentals" as they are presented here, is that they are justifications to hold the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles above other teachings. However, and this is the crucial point, what good is it to believe only and not do? I believe it was James who said something like "be ye doers of the word, and not just hearers only." If a person claims to be Christian, and does not the things Christ taught, then is that person truly "saved?" Likewise, if a person does the things Christ taught, even though that person has no idea who Jesus is, is that person not "saved?" It seems to me the teachings are more important in God's eyes, than any of the teachers. If a person withholds charity from one in need, or sends the naked forth without clothing him with the admonishment "pray, and God will take care of you," that person is not doing what Jesus or the Apostles taught.

My two cents, FWIW.

 

[Bandit]

Juantoo3 you post is appreciated and very in line with the scriptures.

Dear remmusashi

SPOT ON! Follow your heart the Christ within and that which GOD is sharing with you directly.

If Jesus died for our sins there would be no darkness on planet earth.

It also did not break the curse of death either, if anything the murder of Jesus increased the crimes of humanity for which we have paid dearly in millions of lives lost. For what it is worth I was told that this was the last part of the fall of humanity down the dimensions.

The liberal 21st century priests are also having a great deal of trouble defending this dogma that Jesus died for our sins.

I was once told that when the crucifix is removed from earth so will all the pain and suffering will be removed from earth. Nostradamus also predicted that the church would be destroyed one brick at a time.

All power structures that attempt to dominate or control GOD's people, GOD allows them to destroy themselves with their own hand and so it is.

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

Dear SacredStar,
You have this mixed up. If you leave the cross and The death out of it, you have nothing. Jesus was not only murdered he was also a scarifice for sin.
The death of the cross has nothing to do with the pain and suffering of the world.
People bring that on themselves.
The cross did indeed break the curse of death and bring forgiveness IF, IF IF people accept it, you just do not understand it right and have not taken all the scripture.
Jesus dying for our sin is very much so scripture it is NOT dogma.
You have repentance mixed up too Star.
I am sorry but this an area that I will defend and I will always defend.

It is interesting. The fundalmentalists have a way of choking the Word of God, and the liberalsits have a way of throwing 90% of the Word of God in the garbage.

 

[didymus]

There is absolutely no doctrine or dogma in what Jesus spoke of. Everything we have today is an interpretation of scripture and an interpretation of what Jesus said.

I need to rebuttle the comment that anything in the Bible is the Word of God and that not found there is not. What Sacredstar was quoting was from some of the first christians. There were many writings out there. Many. The church leaders made a concious decision on what to include and exclude. Some were not even allowed in the running. If you are at all familiar with the folks that decided what was to become orthodox it was a dubious bunch.

What we have today only remotely resembles early christianity. For example the image of the cross didn't become "christian" util the 4th century. Are you at all familiar with the council of nicea? One can not read about that objectively without asking themselves how devout that meeting was. The same year as the council was held, Constantine, the leader of Rome(the one who called the meeting) had his son and I believe hisd brother killed.

Other christaian sects were squelched because they didn't concern themselves with church bishops and hierarchy. They beleived in knowing God for yourself and experiencing Him. You didn't need approval from a bishop or priest to read scripture or have a prayer mmeeting. This offended the bishops and priests and the group was marganilized. I could go on and on about this I suggest you read it for yourself. You will be troubled that is for sure, if you can be honest with yourself.

 

[Bandit]

There is absolutely no doctrine or dogma in what Jesus spoke of. Everything we have today is an interpretation of scripture and an interpretation of what Jesus said.

I need to rebuttle the comment that anything in the Bible is the Word of God and that not found there is not. What Sacredstar was quoting was from some of the first christians. There were many writings out there. Many. The church leaders made a concious decision on what to include and exclude. Some were not even allowed in the running. If you are at all familiar with the folks that decided what was to become orthodox it was a dubious bunch.

What we have today only remotely resembles early christianity. For example the image of the cross didn't become "christian" util the 4th century. Are you at all familiar with the council of nicea? One can not read about that objectively without asking themselves how devout that meeting was. The same year as the council was held, Constantine, the leader of Rome(the one who called the meeting) had his son and I believe hisd brother killed.

Other christaian sects were squelched because they didn't concern themselves with church bishops and hierarchy. They beleived in knowing God for yourself and experiencing Him. You didn't need approval from a bishop or priest to read scripture or have a prayer mmeeting. This offended the bishops and priests and the group was marganilized. I could go on and on about this I suggest you read it for yourself. You will be troubled that is for sure, if you can be honest with yourself.

The first Christians were the Apostles and you will never change that. I dont care who said or did what after the acts of the Apostles. If you dont like these fundamentals that were set forth by the Apostles then go make your own fundamentals and discuss them with other people who like to make up there own.

If you believe the bible is a 'good holy book' like you say, then concentrate on that instead of the hierarchy through History that came after the Acts of the Apostles.
The Book of Acts is written very CLEAR and very pure with no lies and no alterations. Stick that feather in your cap.

For the fifth time, I am very aware of the lies. But I dont focus on the lies like you do. You act as if you are the only one who has read any History.
Get a grip.

 

[juantoo3]

OK, what I am beginning to see develop is another "knock down, drag out, who says--I says, oh yeah, take that!" Funny, how Christianity can't even get along amongst its own. And this, from a faith that preaches love!

If you believe in the fundamentals as I have seen here, fine. I happen to think most of it is myth taken on faith confused with fact, not that my opinion amounts to anything.

So, where is "judge not, that ye be not judged?" Again, and I stress for importance, the doing of the teaching is by far more important than what any sect or denomination teaches as doctrine or dogma!

If we, meaning Christianity as a whole, cannot ever get that straight, how can we ever hope to get along with anybody else in the world?

I'll climb down from my soapbox now. But I'm watching...

If you really want peace on earth and goodwill towards all men (humanity), then you must begin with yourself, each and every one. That's the way it is, and like the good Rabbi once said, "anything more is (just) commentary."

 

[Bandit]

OK, what I am beginning to see develop is another "knock down, drag out, who says--I says, oh yeah, take that!" Funny, how Christianity can't even get along amongst its own. And this, from a faith that preaches love!

If you believe in the fundamentals as I have seen here, fine. I happen to think most of it is myth taken on faith confused with fact, not that my opinion amounts to anything.

So, where is "judge not, that ye be not judged?" Again, and I stress for importance, the doing of the teaching is by far more important than what any sect or denomination teaches as doctrine or dogma!

If we, meaning Christianity as a whole, cannot ever get that straight, how can we ever hope to get along with anybody else in the world?

I'll climb down from my soapbox now. But I'm watching...

That is what I dont get. If the thread was started for those who DO believe these things, then why are people who dont believe them coming into it and starting division with those who do believe it.
I have no interest in challenging others on there beliefs to this extreme. So I would kindly expect the same.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Bandit!

May I gently remind that this is a forum dedicated to interfaith discussions? There is no genuinely dedicated thread to anybody here, and if any are treating threads in that manner, it is in my view inappropriate. But with this I must also gently remind, that when dealing with those of other faiths and beliefs, it is of great importance to be respectful, even (and perhaps most especially) if you disagree with their teachings. Which brings me back to the post above, if Christians cannot get along with each other, how can they possibly say they are seeking peace on earth and goodwill towards mankind? Doesn't it seem strange to you, that a teacher who sought out the lowliest people to bring them hope, regardless of their affiliations, would teach his followers to separate themselves from all others? The way that modern churches do, like some kind of exclusive country clubs or something? Do you really, in your heart of hearts, think Jesus wold approve of such discrimination?

 

[Sacredstar]

Dear Bandit

1) You have this mixed up.

2) If you leave the cross

3) and The death out of it, you have nothing.

4) Jesus was not only murdered he was also a scarifice for sin.

5) The death of the cross has nothing to do with the pain and suffering of the world.

6) The cross did indeed break the curse of death and bring forgiveness

7) IF, IF IF people accept it, you just do not understand it right and have not taken all the scripture. Jesus dying for our sin is very much so scripture it is NOT dogma.

8) You have repentance mixed up too Star. I am sorry but this an area that I will defend and I will always defend.

9) It is interesting. The fundalmentalists have a way of choking the Word of God, and the liberalsits have a way of throwing 90% of the Word of God in the garbage.

1) This is your perception

2) There is a big difference between the cross and the crucifix, the cross is fine, the crucifix is a negative affirmation of pain and suffering. There as been enough research on the power of negative TV viewing on the general public for one to appreciate the principles. Jesus would like to be remembered in dignity, fully clothed, smiling in joy surrounded by the children they he loved. That is his wish that I simply pass on to those that have the ears to hear.

3) Well I do not accept that your whole faith is based upon his death I feel your heart larger then that.

4) Let us shake hands, have a hug and agree to disagree. The GOD I know would not sacrifice anyone for 'Thou shalt nor kill"

5) Let us agree to disagree, I can only pass on what as been relayed to me by the man himself.

6) I cannot see this can you provide us with some evidence?

7) We all come to our own realisations, in our own time and space. In fact the director of the movie www.thebeastmovie.com is a reformed ex Christian Fundamenalist.

8) Fine

9) Disagree liberalists are open to others views, gnostics listen to GOD in preference to a book of words written, disorted, mistranslated, misconstrued and manipulated to control and dominate the masses into submission to the church. My personal experience of GOD is empowering, the complete opposite of the original churches agenda that produced the bible. It is clear from Jerome's letters the only intent for the bible was to show the birth, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. His teachings were not ever part their intent or agenda. I recommend that you read these letters about the compilation of the bible they are enlightening. To be honest I am pleased to say that there are some words of wisdom in the bible and thank GOD there are, otherwise it would be all doom and gloom and we know what that can do for us biologically.

Have fun Bandit GOD loves us all and smiles at us when we are happy!

Kim xx

 

[Bandit]

Kindest Regards, Bandit!

May I gently remind that this is a forum dedicated to interfaith discussions? There is no genuinely dedicated thread to anybody here, and if any are treating threads in that manner, it is in my view inappropriate. But with this I must also gently remind, that when dealing with those of other faiths and beliefs, it is of great importance to be respectful, even (and perhaps most especially) if you disagree with their teachings. Which brings me back to the post above, if Christians cannot get along with each other, how can they possibly say they are seeking peace on earth and goodwill towards mankind? Doesn't it seem strange to you, that a teacher who sought out the lowliest people to bring them hope, regardless of their affiliations, would teach his followers to separate themselves from all others? The way that modern churches do, like some kind of exclusive country clubs or something? Do you really, in your heart of hearts, think Jesus wold approve of such discrimination?

No problem Juanatoo3 You are the boss

In answer to your questions here the answer is No. It seems to me, it is the individuals (not congregations) who truly follow Jesus and the Bible to the best of there ability who are discriminated.

It is not that I cannot get along but I feel extremely attacked on the fundamentals that I believe in this thread. With all due respect Juan, I don't go into the other forums and threads and tell them what they believe is dogma and keep coming back with more issues that are contrary to what they believe.
This thread was started asking who believes these things and so I joined it. This time I found the latter of it to be quite offensive and disrespectful in the life, death, burial and resurrection of my Lord.
When I see that someone may be offended by something different than what I believe I stop or dont even begin.
The discord was sewn by something that the thread is not about. If your perception of that is different, I wont argue.

Thank You FaithfulServant for starting it and to the ones who jumped on the bandwagon without hesitation, for I know your intentions were good.
Seeing that what it started out as, has turned into something totally different, I have nothing else to add to this.

Peace and have good evening everyone.

 

[didymus]

The first Christians were the Apostles and you will never change that. I dont care who said or did what after the acts of the Apostles. If you dont like these fundamentals that were set forth by the Apostles then go make your own fundamentals and discuss them with other people who like to make up there own.

If you believe the bible is a 'good holy book' like you say, then concentrate on that instead of the hierarchy through History that came after the Acts of the Apostles.
The Book of Acts is written very CLEAR and very pure with no lies and no alterations. Stick that feather in your cap.

For the fifth time, I am very aware of the lies. But I dont focus on the lies like you do. You act as if you are the only one who has read any History.
Get a grip.

It is important to me when studying and believing aspects of christianity to know the whole story. That's just me though. I know this is a sore subject. When I first found these things out I felt betrayed. Then that betrayal led to anger then a surrender. When I was able to lay aside my preconceptions of who and what God was it freed me to really seek Him, which I am still doing. I'm not saying I couldn't seek Him before but it was a seeking that was approved by the church. Those nagging suspicions I had never went away. You know, those things you know can't be true but you remain quiet and " have faith in them."

I try not to focus on the lies and think that I am succeeding at that. I make a greater attempt to focus on the truth which is the opposite of the lies. You can't admit there are lies and deny the truth. I challenge you to look at the other side of the lies,which is the truth. One needs to be brutally honest with his/herself in this matter.

What amazed me was after all of the questioning and frustration my faith wasn't destroyed as I thought it might be. It grew, and grew in new ways. I'm able to think and pray and contemplate God outside of the box. Maybe it isn't a box to you, to me it was. And I still believe in Jesus and the Christ that filled him. I can't put my belief in Christ in a box for you. It's not something I can describe or explain. As you probably understand. He still amazes me and awes me with his mystery. Peace.