Bill Nye To Debate Creationist At Creation Museum February 4th (1 Viewer)

[Jayrok]

Nearly every English translation except the KJV interprets that verse to say "word about Christ" or "news of Christ".

That verse is also just Paul's opinion.

I happen to agree with what Paul said (given the "word about Christ" or "news of Christ" interpretation), but again it's just his opinion, and I share it too. Paul's opinion in his testimony is not holy, God breathed and inerrant words, of which religious people can then form a doctrine around one specific interpretation of his opinion, that would result in the belief that one can NOT know Jesus and/or salvation without the Bible, so people who disagree should be beaten into submission to such doctrine.

If you can't believe in Jesus and salvation without the Bible, then let it be your crutch if that's what it takes to believe. I however don't need it in order to believe, nor do others. The early church thrived without having a Bible.

It's interesting how the apostle's stories evolved to became the word of God and then regressed back to just opinions. I hear all the time now how the bible is the word of God, but, only as it testifies to Jesus. That is really convenient.

According to most Christians, I'm a heretic for saying the Bible is just testimonies and not the word of God.

Centuries ago I would be put to death for speaking such.

Ironically, that's what the Jews did to Jesus for similar reasons.

I get frustrated with the "either/or" nature of these discussions. It's quite easy to understand the difference between divine inspiration and God using the body to record his thoughts (as if he's taken over their bodies and they can't possibly be writing anything other than what was specifically meant to be written). I've never understood making it more complicated than it has to be.

I understand the difference... but why does there have to be a book of rules written from either divine inspiration, or God using the body to record His thoughts?

Jesus commanded the apostles to testify about Him to the ends of the earth. making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in His name. He said they would receive a "helper", not "helpers". If the "helper" is a book (either of devine inspiration or God using the body to record his thoughts) then no Holy Spirit came. If the Holy Spirit is the "helper" then Jesus made zero indication that we should expect a divinely inspired God authored book, or a book authored by God by any method.

In the early Church, there were no central authorities, no set rituals, no agreed canon of scripture, no Church hierarchy, and no established body of doctrine. After around 150 years of early Church, the Roman Christians grew to be the prominent voice of "Christians". Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, attempted to establish an orthodox body of teaching. He wrote a five volume work against "heresies", and it was he who compiled a cannon of the New Testament. He also claimed that there was only one proper Church, outside of which there could be no salvation. Other Christians were heretics and should be expelled, and if possible destroyed. Constantine agreed and issued the edict which announced the destruction of various "heretics".

As with any war, the victor defines the history of what happened. Christians are taught in Semniary that this process of establishing an orthodox body of teaching was the Holy Spirit leading the Church to such a result. Rome is very experienced at washing the blood from its hands.

The reformation was a HUGE step in the right direction, but there is still a ridiculous amount of paganism that early Roman Christians adopted into their new religion based on Christ. The letters they chose to assemble into a book, and deem holy, God breathed, and inerrant is used to keep the church members obidient to their religion's rules. Even after the reformation Christians are still suffering from the paganism and their book of rules.

The fact that Irenaeus felt compelled to write his Against Heresies is proof that there were multiple, divergent groups of Christians the first several decades of the faith. You mentioned that it is taught in seminary that the process of establishing an orthodox body of teaching was the Holy Spirit leading (the victors?) the church... at least Irenaeus' church.. resulting in an establishment of a canon of scripture.

How effective was the Holy Spirit in the first multiple groups of Christians that they could be so far apart on what they believed? These groups couldn't be united with a common belief system. So a book of testimonies was created to go along with a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. But only those testimonies that were selected by the one church (the victors?) were included. So in essence, what we have today is the result of the final belief system that won the day. All other faiths were deemed heresy.

How could believers in Christ, who have all been given the Holy Spirit as a guide, fall so far apart in their beliefs that a guy had to write volumes defending his chosen faith against the rest he called heresies? I wish we had (preserved) the writings and rebuttals of some of those heretics. Hell, if it wasn't for people like Irenaeus, we wouldn't even know there was opposition to his chosen faith.

History is recorded by the victors, indeed.

 

[Jayrok]

There doesn't HAVE to be. God chose to communicate with us via the Bible, HS and other Christians. One might severely question his judgment in taking the other Christian approach though.

Other than from "other Christians" what evidence is there that God ever meant for the Bible to share the stage with what the Holy Spirit was writing on our hearts? Half the point of Jesus' teachings was to get believers to stop looking at scripture (written and oral) for their faith.

But apparently the HS was writing different instructions on the various hearts of the first groups of believers. This resulted in the need for the new testament. Imagine for a moment that there were no HS. Would or could we expect a unified approach to faith and orthodoxy or is what unfolded (all faiths heresy except for one) what we could expect with a bunch of men coming up with their own rules/teachings?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Nearly every English translation except the KJV interprets that verse to say "word about Christ" or "news of Christ".

That verse is also just Paul's opinion.

I happen to agree with what Paul said (given the "word about Christ" or "news of Christ" interpretation), but again it's just his opinion, and I share it too. Paul's opinion in his testimony is not holy, God breathed and inerrant words, of which religious people can then form a doctrine around one specific interpretation of his opinion, that would result in the belief that one can NOT know Jesus and/or salvation without the Bible, so people who disagree should be beaten into submission to such doctrine.

If you can't believe in Jesus and salvation without the Bible, then let it be your crutch if that's what it takes to believe. I however don't need it in order to believe, nor do others. The early church thrived without having a Bible.

It's interesting how the apostle's stories evolved to became the word of God and then regressed back to just opinions. I hear all the time now how the bible is the word of God, but, only as it testifies to Jesus. That is really convenient.

According to most Christians, I'm a heretic for saying the Bible is just testimonies and not the word of God.

Centuries ago I would be put to death for speaking such.

Ironically, that's what the Jews did to Jesus for similar reasons.

I get frustrated with the "either/or" nature of these discussions. It's quite easy to understand the difference between divine inspiration and God using the body to record his thoughts (as if he's taken over their bodies and they can't possibly be writing anything other than what was specifically meant to be written). I've never understood making it more complicated than it has to be.

I understand the difference... but why does there have to be a book of rules written from either divine inspiration, or God using the body to record His thoughts?

Jesus commanded the apostles to testify about Him to the ends of the earth. making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in His name. He said they would receive a "helper", not "helpers". If the "helper" is a book (either of devine inspiration or God using the body to record his thoughts) then no Holy Spirit came. If the Holy Spirit is the "helper" then Jesus made zero indication that we should expect a divinely inspired God authored book, or a book authored by God by any method.

In the early Church, there were no central authorities, no set rituals, no agreed canon of scripture, no Church hierarchy, and no established body of doctrine. After around 150 years of early Church, the Roman Christians grew to be the prominent voice of "Christians". Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, attempted to establish an orthodox body of teaching. He wrote a five volume work against "heresies", and it was he who compiled a cannon of the New Testament. He also claimed that there was only one proper Church, outside of which there could be no salvation. Other Christians were heretics and should be expelled, and if possible destroyed. Constantine agreed and issued the edict which announced the destruction of various "heretics".

As with any war, the victor defines the history of what happened. Christians are taught in Semniary that this process of establishing an orthodox body of teaching was the Holy Spirit leading the Church to such a result. Rome is very experienced at washing the blood from its hands.

The reformation was a HUGE step in the right direction, but there is still a ridiculous amount of paganism that early Roman Christians adopted into their new religion based on Christ. The letters they chose to assemble into a book, and deem holy, God breathed, and inerrant is used to keep the church members obidient to their religion's rules. Even after the reformation Christians are still suffering from the paganism and their book of rules.

The fact that Irenaeus felt compelled to write his Against Heresies is proof that there were multiple, divergent groups of Christians the first several decades of the faith. You mentioned that it is taught in seminary that the process of establishing an orthodox body of teaching was the Holy Spirit leading (the victors?) the church... at least Irenaeus' church.. resulting in an establishment of a canon of scripture.

How effective was the Holy Spirit in the first multiple groups of Christians that they could be so far apart on what they believed? These groups couldn't be united with a common belief system. So a book of testimonies was created to go along with a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. But only those testimonies that were selected by the one church (the victors?) were included. So in essence, what we have today is the result of the final belief system that won the day. All other faiths were deemed heresy.

How could believers in Christ, who have all been given the Holy Spirit as a guide, fall so far apart in their beliefs that a guy had to write volumes defending his chosen faith against the rest he called heresies? I wish we had (preserved) the writings and rebuttals of some of those heretics. Hell, if it wasn't for people like Irenaeus, we wouldn't even know there was opposition to his chosen faith.

History is recorded by the victors, indeed.

Of course as a believer you are left wondering how could the victors' version not be the one God intended? Or, at least close?

Other than to assert that some of the rediscovered beliefs are beyond "weird", but maybe then again...

Time to disappear.

 

[The Commish]

There doesn't HAVE to be. God chose to communicate with us via the Bible, HS and other Christians. One might severely question his judgment in taking the other Christian approach though.

Other than from "other Christians" what evidence is there that God ever meant for the Bible to share the stage with what the Holy Spirit was writing on our hearts? Half the point of Jesus' teachings was to get believers to stop looking at scripture (written and oral) for their faith.

Do you include Jesus and the apostles in the "other Christians" qualification?

 

[Jayrok]

Nearly every English translation except the KJV interprets that verse to say "word about Christ" or "news of Christ".

That verse is also just Paul's opinion.

I happen to agree with what Paul said (given the "word about Christ" or "news of Christ" interpretation), but again it's just his opinion, and I share it too. Paul's opinion in his testimony is not holy, God breathed and inerrant words, of which religious people can then form a doctrine around one specific interpretation of his opinion, that would result in the belief that one can NOT know Jesus and/or salvation without the Bible, so people who disagree should be beaten into submission to such doctrine.

If you can't believe in Jesus and salvation without the Bible, then let it be your crutch if that's what it takes to believe. I however don't need it in order to believe, nor do others. The early church thrived without having a Bible.

It's interesting how the apostle's stories evolved to became the word of God and then regressed back to just opinions. I hear all the time now how the bible is the word of God, but, only as it testifies to Jesus. That is really convenient.

According to most Christians, I'm a heretic for saying the Bible is just testimonies and not the word of God.

Centuries ago I would be put to death for speaking such.

Ironically, that's what the Jews did to Jesus for similar reasons.

I get frustrated with the "either/or" nature of these discussions. It's quite easy to understand the difference between divine inspiration and God using the body to record his thoughts (as if he's taken over their bodies and they can't possibly be writing anything other than what was specifically meant to be written). I've never understood making it more complicated than it has to be.

I understand the difference... but why does there have to be a book of rules written from either divine inspiration, or God using the body to record His thoughts?

Jesus commanded the apostles to testify about Him to the ends of the earth. making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in His name. He said they would receive a "helper", not "helpers". If the "helper" is a book (either of devine inspiration or God using the body to record his thoughts) then no Holy Spirit came. If the Holy Spirit is the "helper" then Jesus made zero indication that we should expect a divinely inspired God authored book, or a book authored by God by any method.

In the early Church, there were no central authorities, no set rituals, no agreed canon of scripture, no Church hierarchy, and no established body of doctrine. After around 150 years of early Church, the Roman Christians grew to be the prominent voice of "Christians". Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, attempted to establish an orthodox body of teaching. He wrote a five volume work against "heresies", and it was he who compiled a cannon of the New Testament. He also claimed that there was only one proper Church, outside of which there could be no salvation. Other Christians were heretics and should be expelled, and if possible destroyed. Constantine agreed and issued the edict which announced the destruction of various "heretics".

As with any war, the victor defines the history of what happened. Christians are taught in Semniary that this process of establishing an orthodox body of teaching was the Holy Spirit leading the Church to such a result. Rome is very experienced at washing the blood from its hands.

The reformation was a HUGE step in the right direction, but there is still a ridiculous amount of paganism that early Roman Christians adopted into their new religion based on Christ. The letters they chose to assemble into a book, and deem holy, God breathed, and inerrant is used to keep the church members obidient to their religion's rules. Even after the reformation Christians are still suffering from the paganism and their book of rules.

The fact that Irenaeus felt compelled to write his Against Heresies is proof that there were multiple, divergent groups of Christians the first several decades of the faith. You mentioned that it is taught in seminary that the process of establishing an orthodox body of teaching was the Holy Spirit leading (the victors?) the church... at least Irenaeus' church.. resulting in an establishment of a canon of scripture.

How effective was the Holy Spirit in the first multiple groups of Christians that they could be so far apart on what they believed? These groups couldn't be united with a common belief system. So a book of testimonies was created to go along with a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. But only those testimonies that were selected by the one church (the victors?) were included. So in essence, what we have today is the result of the final belief system that won the day. All other faiths were deemed heresy.

How could believers in Christ, who have all been given the Holy Spirit as a guide, fall so far apart in their beliefs that a guy had to write volumes defending his chosen faith against the rest he called heresies? I wish we had (preserved) the writings and rebuttals of some of those heretics. Hell, if it wasn't for people like Irenaeus, we wouldn't even know there was opposition to his chosen faith.

History is recorded by the victors, indeed.

Of course as a believer you are left wondering how could the victors' version not be the one God intended? Or, at least close?

If the victors' version is the one God intended, then that means the Protestant Reformation is not of God and it went against what God intended... no?

Did Luther work for the anti-Christ?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

There doesn't HAVE to be. God chose to communicate with us via the Bible, HS and other Christians. One might severely question his judgment in taking the other Christian approach though.

Other than from "other Christians" what evidence is there that God ever meant for the Bible to share the stage with what the Holy Spirit was writing on our hearts? Half the point of Jesus' teachings was to get believers to stop looking at scripture (written and oral) for their faith.

But apparently the HS was writing different instructions on the various hearts of the first groups of believers. This resulted in the need for the new testament. Imagine for a moment that there were no HS. Would or could we expect a unified approach to faith and orthodoxy or is what unfolded (all faiths heresy except for one) what we could expect with a bunch of men coming up with their own rules/teachings?

Ok, I'll disappear after this one-

Why does their need to be a unified faith? The beliefs were different, but were the results? Were the rules beyond the rituals different? ( ) Were some christian groups less community oriented than the real Christians? ( )

Again if it all boils down to one rule - "love thy neighbor" (like I believe) does the stories that get you there matter? Does the doctrine? Or rituals?

If God wants us to show our love to him by taking care of his children and having the trust and faith that this is the best way to live life, why would any of the details matter? And since this is likely the best way to live life trying to box God into any one definition becomes just another one of those details.

 

[Jayrok]

Ok, I'll disappear after this one-

Why does their need to be a unified faith? The beliefs were different, but were the results? Were the rules beyond the rituals different? ( ) Were some christian groups less community oriented than the real Christians? ( )

Again if it all boils down to one rule - "love thy neighbor" (like I believe) does the stories that get you there matter? Does the doctrine? Or rituals?

If God wants us to show our love to him by taking care of his children and having the trust and faith that this is the best way to live life, why would any of the details matter? And since this is likely the best way to live life trying to box God into any one definition becomes just another one of those details.

I would bet that if the only gospel published was the book of Matthew, your belief system would be the correct one or at least the most popular one. "Love thy neighbor" sums up the law and commandments. The kingdom is established; the work is done. Care for one another, feed the hungry, care for the sick and elderly, and so forth, and wait for your reward.

But you also have the gospel of John and that pesky "you must be born again" clause. You can't just love your neighbor and live helping others. If that were the case, Mahatma Gandhi may be the greatest Christian in history.

No, loving neighbors and performing good deeds will not get you into heaven because your good deeds are as filthy rags.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

There doesn't HAVE to be. God chose to communicate with us via the Bible, HS and other Christians. One might severely question his judgment in taking the other Christian approach though.

Other than from "other Christians" what evidence is there that God ever meant for the Bible to share the stage with what the Holy Spirit was writing on our hearts? Half the point of Jesus' teachings was to get believers to stop looking at scripture (written and oral) for their faith.

Do you include Jesus and the apostles in the "other Christians" qualification?

Of course! (Except Jesus is a stretch to be called a "Christian".)

 

[Politician Spock]

I understand the difference... but why does there have to be a book of rules written from either divine inspiration, or God using the body to record His thoughts?

There doesn't HAVE to be. God chose to communicate with us via the Bible, HS and other Christians. One might severely question his judgment in taking the other Christian approach though.

Jesus commanded the apostles to testify about Him to the ends of the earth. making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in His name. He said they would receive a "helper", not "helpers". If the "helper" is a book (either of devine inspiration or God using the body to record his thoughts) then no Holy Spirit came. If the Holy Spirit is the "helper" then Jesus made zero indication that we should expect a divinely inspired God authored book, or a book authored by God by any method.

Because this one passage doesn't fully qualify all the sources of help we will receive doesn't mean the other areas of the Bible where we are taught the different tools are wrong. It means it wasn't addressed in that passage.

The coming arrival of a God authored book is pretty significant for Jesus to not address, no?

Especially given many Christians can't seem to believe in Jesus without believing the Bible is God authored first, thus their faith is based upon believing in the God authorship of the Bible first, and then belief in who Jesus is second. It makes their belief in Jesus contingent upon their belief of God authorship of the Bible. It would rock their entire belief in Jesus to accept that the Bible was not God authored.

 

[The Commish]

There doesn't HAVE to be. God chose to communicate with us via the Bible, HS and other Christians. One might severely question his judgment in taking the other Christian approach though.

Other than from "other Christians" what evidence is there that God ever meant for the Bible to share the stage with what the Holy Spirit was writing on our hearts? Half the point of Jesus' teachings was to get believers to stop looking at scripture (written and oral) for their faith.

Do you include Jesus and the apostles in the "other Christians" qualification?

Of course! (Except Jesus is a stretch to be called a "Christian".)

I am guessing with these sorts of handcuffs an answer like "the fact that the HS drives me to study the Bible...there has to be a reason, right?" isn't gonna fly

 

[tonydead]

But that's the whole point of this thread isn't it?


Suddenly it's not the word of God because so much of it has to be reconciled with science. Like I said, very convenient. You shouldn't have to reconcile your faith if even most of it was true.

Not sure of the point of the thread honestly I came in after all the and bad fishing trips were over. I don't know what went on the first 14ish pages. My point, however, is that those who are trying to justify a belief through science understand what a belief is as much as people claiming beliefs be proven through science. It's a loop that some choose to function in when it's not necessary. I don't know what you mean by the bold or what's convenient about it. As written, it seems the total opposite of convenient. Seems to be trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

It's convenient because it was easy to say it's the word of God when people really didn't know any better. And now that we know a lot of it doesn't reconcile to science they just say it's not literally the word of God, it's just apostle's opinions and people distance themselves away from the religions that have canonized these volumes. I find all that really interesting for a social evolution standpoint.

 

[The Commish]

I understand the difference... but why does there have to be a book of rules written from either divine inspiration, or God using the body to record His thoughts?

There doesn't HAVE to be. God chose to communicate with us via the Bible, HS and other Christians. One might severely question his judgment in taking the other Christian approach though.

Jesus commanded the apostles to testify about Him to the ends of the earth. making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in His name. He said they would receive a "helper", not "helpers". If the "helper" is a book (either of devine inspiration or God using the body to record his thoughts) then no Holy Spirit came. If the Holy Spirit is the "helper" then Jesus made zero indication that we should expect a divinely inspired God authored book, or a book authored by God by any method.

Because this one passage doesn't fully qualify all the sources of help we will receive doesn't mean the other areas of the Bible where we are taught the different tools are wrong. It means it wasn't addressed in that passage.

The coming arrival of a God authored book is pretty significant for Jesus to not address, no?

Especially given many Christians can't seem to believe in Jesus without believing the Bible is God authored first, thus their faith is based upon believing in the God authorship of the Bible first, and then belief in who Jesus is second. It makes their belief in Jesus contingent upon their belief of God authorship of the Bible. It would rock their entire belief in Jesus to accept that the Bible was not God authored.

I think I see your point. It's similar to the whole chicken/egg thing. Reality is the OT made prophecy of a chosen one to come and save us all from ourselves (sin). I think Jayrok's question might be if Jesus is that prophecy fulfilled. This is why it's a belief system. We have to make a leap that goes further than what the hard evidence suggests. I believe that leap is by design as it requires us to really examine ourselves and our relationship with God and that's what he desires most (personal relationship with him) followed by taking care of his creation.

 

[The Commish]

But that's the whole point of this thread isn't it?


Suddenly it's not the word of God because so much of it has to be reconciled with science. Like I said, very convenient. You shouldn't have to reconcile your faith if even most of it was true.

Not sure of the point of the thread honestly I came in after all the and bad fishing trips were over. I don't know what went on the first 14ish pages. My point, however, is that those who are trying to justify a belief through science understand what a belief is as much as people claiming beliefs be proven through science. It's a loop that some choose to function in when it's not necessary. I don't know what you mean by the bold or what's convenient about it. As written, it seems the total opposite of convenient. Seems to be trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

It's convenient because it was easy to say it's the word of God when people really didn't know any better. And now that we know a lot of it doesn't reconcile to science they just say it's not literally the word of God, it's just apostle's opinions and people distance themselves away from the religions that have canonized these volumes. I find all that really interesting for a social evolution standpoint.

If you believe there was a shift as you suggest, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. However, there have always been those who have been skeptical on the inerrancy of the Word and question what that inerrancy looks like. This isn't a new phenomena we are experiencing. It's a struggle that has lasted for a very long time.

 

[Politician Spock]

Nearly every English translation except the KJV interprets that verse to say "word about Christ" or "news of Christ".

That verse is also just Paul's opinion.

I happen to agree with what Paul said (given the "word about Christ" or "news of Christ" interpretation), but again it's just his opinion, and I share it too. Paul's opinion in his testimony is not holy, God breathed and inerrant words, of which religious people can then form a doctrine around one specific interpretation of his opinion, that would result in the belief that one can NOT know Jesus and/or salvation without the Bible, so people who disagree should be beaten into submission to such doctrine.

If you can't believe in Jesus and salvation without the Bible, then let it be your crutch if that's what it takes to believe. I however don't need it in order to believe, nor do others. The early church thrived without having a Bible.

It's interesting how the apostle's stories evolved to became the word of God and then regressed back to just opinions. I hear all the time now how the bible is the word of God, but, only as it testifies to Jesus. That is really convenient.

According to most Christians, I'm a heretic for saying the Bible is just testimonies and not the word of God.

Centuries ago I would be put to death for speaking such.

Ironically, that's what the Jews did to Jesus for similar reasons.

I get frustrated with the "either/or" nature of these discussions. It's quite easy to understand the difference between divine inspiration and God using the body to record his thoughts (as if he's taken over their bodies and they can't possibly be writing anything other than what was specifically meant to be written). I've never understood making it more complicated than it has to be.

I understand the difference... but why does there have to be a book of rules written from either divine inspiration, or God using the body to record His thoughts?

Jesus commanded the apostles to testify about Him to the ends of the earth. making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in His name. He said they would receive a "helper", not "helpers". If the "helper" is a book (either of devine inspiration or God using the body to record his thoughts) then no Holy Spirit came. If the Holy Spirit is the "helper" then Jesus made zero indication that we should expect a divinely inspired God authored book, or a book authored by God by any method.

In the early Church, there were no central authorities, no set rituals, no agreed canon of scripture, no Church hierarchy, and no established body of doctrine. After around 150 years of early Church, the Roman Christians grew to be the prominent voice of "Christians". Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, attempted to establish an orthodox body of teaching. He wrote a five volume work against "heresies", and it was he who compiled a cannon of the New Testament. He also claimed that there was only one proper Church, outside of which there could be no salvation. Other Christians were heretics and should be expelled, and if possible destroyed. Constantine agreed and issued the edict which announced the destruction of various "heretics".

As with any war, the victor defines the history of what happened. Christians are taught in Semniary that this process of establishing an orthodox body of teaching was the Holy Spirit leading the Church to such a result. Rome is very experienced at washing the blood from its hands.

The reformation was a HUGE step in the right direction, but there is still a ridiculous amount of paganism that early Roman Christians adopted into their new religion based on Christ. The letters they chose to assemble into a book, and deem holy, God breathed, and inerrant is used to keep the church members obidient to their religion's rules. Even after the reformation Christians are still suffering from the paganism and their book of rules.

The fact that Irenaeus felt compelled to write his Against Heresies is proof that there were multiple, divergent groups of Christians the first several decades of the faith. You mentioned that it is taught in seminary that the process of establishing an orthodox body of teaching was the Holy Spirit leading (the victors?) the church... at least Irenaeus' church.. resulting in an establishment of a canon of scripture.

How effective was the Holy Spirit in the first multiple groups of Christians that they could be so far apart on what they believed? These groups couldn't be united with a common belief system. So a book of testimonies was created to go along with a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. But only those testimonies that were selected by the one church (the victors?) were included. So in essence, what we have today is the result of the final belief system that won the day. All other faiths were deemed heresy.

How could believers in Christ, who have all been given the Holy Spirit as a guide, fall so far apart in their beliefs that a guy had to write volumes defending his chosen faith against the rest he called heresies? I wish we had (preserved) the writings and rebuttals of some of those heretics. Hell, if it wasn't for people like Irenaeus, we wouldn't even know there was opposition to his chosen faith.

History is recorded by the victors, indeed.

You are going off the premise that differences beyond the core belief that Jesus is the Saviour are a problem, and that it was man's burden to solve it.

 

[shader]

Nearly every English translation except the KJV interprets that verse to say "word about Christ" or "news of Christ".

That verse is also just Paul's opinion.

I happen to agree with what Paul said (given the "word about Christ" or "news of Christ" interpretation), but again it's just his opinion, and I share it too. Paul's opinion in his testimony is not holy, God breathed and inerrant words, of which religious people can then form a doctrine around one specific interpretation of his opinion, that would result in the belief that one can NOT know Jesus and/or salvation without the Bible, so people who disagree should be beaten into submission to such doctrine.

If you can't believe in Jesus and salvation without the Bible, then let it be your crutch if that's what it takes to believe. I however don't need it in order to believe, nor do others. The early church thrived without having a Bible.

It's interesting how the apostle's stories evolved to became the word of God and then regressed back to just opinions. I hear all the time now how the bible is the word of God, but, only as it testifies to Jesus. That is really convenient.

According to most Christians, I'm a heretic for saying the Bible is just testimonies and not the word of God.

Centuries ago I would be put to death for speaking such.

Ironically, that's what the Jews did to Jesus for similar reasons.

I get frustrated with the "either/or" nature of these discussions. It's quite easy to understand the difference between divine inspiration and God using the body to record his thoughts (as if he's taken over their bodies and they can't possibly be writing anything other than what was specifically meant to be written). I've never understood making it more complicated than it has to be.

I understand the difference... but why does there have to be a book of rules written from either divine inspiration, or God using the body to record His thoughts?

Jesus commanded the apostles to testify about Him to the ends of the earth. making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in His name. He said they would receive a "helper", not "helpers". If the "helper" is a book (either of devine inspiration or God using the body to record his thoughts) then no Holy Spirit came. If the Holy Spirit is the "helper" then Jesus made zero indication that we should expect a divinely inspired God authored book, or a book authored by God by any method.

In the early Church, there were no central authorities, no set rituals, no agreed canon of scripture, no Church hierarchy, and no established body of doctrine. After around 150 years of early Church, the Roman Christians grew to be the prominent voice of "Christians". Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, attempted to establish an orthodox body of teaching. He wrote a five volume work against "heresies", and it was he who compiled a cannon of the New Testament. He also claimed that there was only one proper Church, outside of which there could be no salvation. Other Christians were heretics and should be expelled, and if possible destroyed. Constantine agreed and issued the edict which announced the destruction of various "heretics".

As with any war, the victor defines the history of what happened. Christians are taught in Semniary that this process of establishing an orthodox body of teaching was the Holy Spirit leading the Church to such a result. Rome is very experienced at washing the blood from its hands.

The reformation was a HUGE step in the right direction, but there is still a ridiculous amount of paganism that early Roman Christians adopted into their new religion based on Christ. The letters they chose to assemble into a book, and deem holy, God breathed, and inerrant is used to keep the church members obidient to their religion's rules. Even after the reformation Christians are still suffering from the paganism and their book of rules.

The fact that Irenaeus felt compelled to write his Against Heresies is proof that there were multiple, divergent groups of Christians the first several decades of the faith. You mentioned that it is taught in seminary that the process of establishing an orthodox body of teaching was the Holy Spirit leading (the victors?) the church... at least Irenaeus' church.. resulting in an establishment of a canon of scripture.

How effective was the Holy Spirit in the first multiple groups of Christians that they could be so far apart on what they believed? These groups couldn't be united with a common belief system. So a book of testimonies was created to go along with a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. But only those testimonies that were selected by the one church (the victors?) were included. So in essence, what we have today is the result of the final belief system that won the day. All other faiths were deemed heresy.

How could believers in Christ, who have all been given the Holy Spirit as a guide, fall so far apart in their beliefs that a guy had to write volumes defending his chosen faith against the rest he called heresies? I wish we had (preserved) the writings and rebuttals of some of those heretics. Hell, if it wasn't for people like Irenaeus, we wouldn't even know there was opposition to his chosen faith.

History is recorded by the victors, indeed.

You are indeed assuming that the "victors" had it right.

What if they didn't? After all, would Jesus and his apostles been ok with the Crusades? Obviously not. Would they have been ok with the Church getting heavily involved in politics? Would Jesus have been ok with the Church making him equal to the Father as they began to do in the centuries after his death?

 

[Jayrok]

Nearly every English translation except the KJV interprets that verse to say "word about Christ" or "news of Christ".

That verse is also just Paul's opinion.

I happen to agree with what Paul said (given the "word about Christ" or "news of Christ" interpretation), but again it's just his opinion, and I share it too. Paul's opinion in his testimony is not holy, God breathed and inerrant words, of which religious people can then form a doctrine around one specific interpretation of his opinion, that would result in the belief that one can NOT know Jesus and/or salvation without the Bible, so people who disagree should be beaten into submission to such doctrine.

If you can't believe in Jesus and salvation without the Bible, then let it be your crutch if that's what it takes to believe. I however don't need it in order to believe, nor do others. The early church thrived without having a Bible.

It's interesting how the apostle's stories evolved to became the word of God and then regressed back to just opinions. I hear all the time now how the bible is the word of God, but, only as it testifies to Jesus. That is really convenient.

According to most Christians, I'm a heretic for saying the Bible is just testimonies and not the word of God.

Centuries ago I would be put to death for speaking such.

Ironically, that's what the Jews did to Jesus for similar reasons.

I get frustrated with the "either/or" nature of these discussions. It's quite easy to understand the difference between divine inspiration and God using the body to record his thoughts (as if he's taken over their bodies and they can't possibly be writing anything other than what was specifically meant to be written). I've never understood making it more complicated than it has to be.

I understand the difference... but why does there have to be a book of rules written from either divine inspiration, or God using the body to record His thoughts?

Jesus commanded the apostles to testify about Him to the ends of the earth. making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in His name. He said they would receive a "helper", not "helpers". If the "helper" is a book (either of devine inspiration or God using the body to record his thoughts) then no Holy Spirit came. If the Holy Spirit is the "helper" then Jesus made zero indication that we should expect a divinely inspired God authored book, or a book authored by God by any method.

In the early Church, there were no central authorities, no set rituals, no agreed canon of scripture, no Church hierarchy, and no established body of doctrine. After around 150 years of early Church, the Roman Christians grew to be the prominent voice of "Christians". Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, attempted to establish an orthodox body of teaching. He wrote a five volume work against "heresies", and it was he who compiled a cannon of the New Testament. He also claimed that there was only one proper Church, outside of which there could be no salvation. Other Christians were heretics and should be expelled, and if possible destroyed. Constantine agreed and issued the edict which announced the destruction of various "heretics".

As with any war, the victor defines the history of what happened. Christians are taught in Semniary that this process of establishing an orthodox body of teaching was the Holy Spirit leading the Church to such a result. Rome is very experienced at washing the blood from its hands.

The reformation was a HUGE step in the right direction, but there is still a ridiculous amount of paganism that early Roman Christians adopted into their new religion based on Christ. The letters they chose to assemble into a book, and deem holy, God breathed, and inerrant is used to keep the church members obidient to their religion's rules. Even after the reformation Christians are still suffering from the paganism and their book of rules.

The fact that Irenaeus felt compelled to write his Against Heresies is proof that there were multiple, divergent groups of Christians the first several decades of the faith. You mentioned that it is taught in seminary that the process of establishing an orthodox body of teaching was the Holy Spirit leading (the victors?) the church... at least Irenaeus' church.. resulting in an establishment of a canon of scripture.

How effective was the Holy Spirit in the first multiple groups of Christians that they could be so far apart on what they believed? These groups couldn't be united with a common belief system. So a book of testimonies was created to go along with a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. But only those testimonies that were selected by the one church (the victors?) were included. So in essence, what we have today is the result of the final belief system that won the day. All other faiths were deemed heresy.

How could believers in Christ, who have all been given the Holy Spirit as a guide, fall so far apart in their beliefs that a guy had to write volumes defending his chosen faith against the rest he called heresies? I wish we had (preserved) the writings and rebuttals of some of those heretics. Hell, if it wasn't for people like Irenaeus, we wouldn't even know there was opposition to his chosen faith.

History is recorded by the victors, indeed.

You are indeed assuming that the "victors" had it right.

What if they didn't? After all, would Jesus and his apostles been ok with the Crusades? Obviously not. Would they have been ok with the Church getting heavily involved in politics? Would Jesus have been ok with the Church making him equal to the Father as they began to do in the centuries after his death?

I assume no such thing. I'm just saying the victors write history. Whether they got it right or wrong is beside the point.

 

[tonydead]

But that's the whole point of this thread isn't it?


Suddenly it's not the word of God because so much of it has to be reconciled with science. Like I said, very convenient. You shouldn't have to reconcile your faith if even most of it was true.

Not sure of the point of the thread honestly I came in after all the and bad fishing trips were over. I don't know what went on the first 14ish pages. My point, however, is that those who are trying to justify a belief through science understand what a belief is as much as people claiming beliefs be proven through science. It's a loop that some choose to function in when it's not necessary. I don't know what you mean by the bold or what's convenient about it. As written, it seems the total opposite of convenient. Seems to be trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

It's convenient because it was easy to say it's the word of God when people really didn't know any better. And now that we know a lot of it doesn't reconcile to science they just say it's not literally the word of God, it's just apostle's opinions and people distance themselves away from the religions that have canonized these volumes. I find all that really interesting for a social evolution standpoint.

If you believe there was a shift as you suggest, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. However, there have always been those who have been skeptical on the inerrancy of the Word and question what that inerrancy looks like. This isn't a new phenomena we are experiencing. It's a struggle that has lasted for a very long time.

I'm not talking about simple inerrancy, I'm talking about reconciling with science. The Age of Enlightenment started in the late 17th Century.

 

[The Commish]

But that's the whole point of this thread isn't it?


Suddenly it's not the word of God because so much of it has to be reconciled with science. Like I said, very convenient. You shouldn't have to reconcile your faith if even most of it was true.

Not sure of the point of the thread honestly I came in after all the and bad fishing trips were over. I don't know what went on the first 14ish pages. My point, however, is that those who are trying to justify a belief through science understand what a belief is as much as people claiming beliefs be proven through science. It's a loop that some choose to function in when it's not necessary. I don't know what you mean by the bold or what's convenient about it. As written, it seems the total opposite of convenient. Seems to be trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

It's convenient because it was easy to say it's the word of God when people really didn't know any better. And now that we know a lot of it doesn't reconcile to science they just say it's not literally the word of God, it's just apostle's opinions and people distance themselves away from the religions that have canonized these volumes. I find all that really interesting for a social evolution standpoint.

If you believe there was a shift as you suggest, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. However, there have always been those who have been skeptical on the inerrancy of the Word and question what that inerrancy looks like. This isn't a new phenomena we are experiencing. It's a struggle that has lasted for a very long time.

I'm not talking about simple inerrancy, I'm talking about reconciling with science. The Age of Enlightenment started in the late 17th Century.

Fair enough....I can't explain why someone would try to reconcile the Bible with science. Bible wasn't written with science in mind and I don't think the two have anything to do with one another given the reality that the Bible deals in belief and science deals in what we know about the universe. Science isn't in the belief business and the Bible isn't there to explain every aspect of the universe.

 

[Jayrok]

Reality is the OT made prophecy of a chosen one to come and save us all from ourselves (sin). I think Jayrok's question might be if Jesus is that prophecy fulfilled.

Well, not exactly. I don't question whether or not Jesus is claimed to be fulfilled prophecy. I question the very idea that the OT actually prophesied about a chosen one to come and save us all from our sins.

I know the OT prophesied a messiah to come, yes, but the role of that messiah being the savior of the world and the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of mankind is a New Testament concept. The messiah isn't prophesied to be the literal son of God and/or some type of sin sacrifice in Judaism.

 

[The Commish]

Reality is the OT made prophecy of a chosen one to come and save us all from ourselves (sin). I think Jayrok's question might be if Jesus is that prophecy fulfilled.

Well, not exactly. I don't question whether or not Jesus is claimed to be fulfilled prophecy. I question the very idea that the OT actually prophesied about a chosen one to come and save us all from our sins.

I know the OT prophesied a messiah to come, yes, but the role of that messiah being the savior of the world and the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of mankind is a New Testament concept. The messiah isn't prophesied to be the literal son of God and/or some type of sin sacrifice in Judaism.

Not sure I follow. The very meaning of messiah deals with a savior. I can understand that it might be a question of how the salvation would take form and what exactly the messiah was saving us from. That what you mean?

 

[Jayrok]

Reality is the OT made prophecy of a chosen one to come and save us all from ourselves (sin). I think Jayrok's question might be if Jesus is that prophecy fulfilled.

Well, not exactly. I don't question whether or not Jesus is claimed to be fulfilled prophecy. I question the very idea that the OT actually prophesied about a chosen one to come and save us all from our sins.

I know the OT prophesied a messiah to come, yes, but the role of that messiah being the savior of the world and the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of mankind is a New Testament concept. The messiah isn't prophesied to be the literal son of God and/or some type of sin sacrifice in Judaism.

Not sure I follow. The very meaning of messiah deals with a savior. I can understand that it might be a question of how the salvation would take form and what exactly the messiah was saving us from. That what you mean?

Messiah means anointed one of God. It was the Jewish prophecy that their messiah (Mashiach) would save them from their oppressors and gather them back to the land of Israel and back to the Torah (they were conquered and exiled). He had nothing to do with saving anyone from their sins in Judaism.

 

[shader]

Nearly every English translation except the KJV interprets that verse to say "word about Christ" or "news of Christ".

That verse is also just Paul's opinion.

I happen to agree with what Paul said (given the "word about Christ" or "news of Christ" interpretation), but again it's just his opinion, and I share it too. Paul's opinion in his testimony is not holy, God breathed and inerrant words, of which religious people can then form a doctrine around one specific interpretation of his opinion, that would result in the belief that one can NOT know Jesus and/or salvation without the Bible, so people who disagree should be beaten into submission to such doctrine.

If you can't believe in Jesus and salvation without the Bible, then let it be your crutch if that's what it takes to believe. I however don't need it in order to believe, nor do others. The early church thrived without having a Bible.

It's interesting how the apostle's stories evolved to became the word of God and then regressed back to just opinions. I hear all the time now how the bible is the word of God, but, only as it testifies to Jesus. That is really convenient.

According to most Christians, I'm a heretic for saying the Bible is just testimonies and not the word of God.

Centuries ago I would be put to death for speaking such.

Ironically, that's what the Jews did to Jesus for similar reasons.

I get frustrated with the "either/or" nature of these discussions. It's quite easy to understand the difference between divine inspiration and God using the body to record his thoughts (as if he's taken over their bodies and they can't possibly be writing anything other than what was specifically meant to be written). I've never understood making it more complicated than it has to be.

I understand the difference... but why does there have to be a book of rules written from either divine inspiration, or God using the body to record His thoughts?

Jesus commanded the apostles to testify about Him to the ends of the earth. making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in His name. He said they would receive a "helper", not "helpers". If the "helper" is a book (either of devine inspiration or God using the body to record his thoughts) then no Holy Spirit came. If the Holy Spirit is the "helper" then Jesus made zero indication that we should expect a divinely inspired God authored book, or a book authored by God by any method.

In the early Church, there were no central authorities, no set rituals, no agreed canon of scripture, no Church hierarchy, and no established body of doctrine. After around 150 years of early Church, the Roman Christians grew to be the prominent voice of "Christians". Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, attempted to establish an orthodox body of teaching. He wrote a five volume work against "heresies", and it was he who compiled a cannon of the New Testament. He also claimed that there was only one proper Church, outside of which there could be no salvation. Other Christians were heretics and should be expelled, and if possible destroyed. Constantine agreed and issued the edict which announced the destruction of various "heretics".

As with any war, the victor defines the history of what happened. Christians are taught in Semniary that this process of establishing an orthodox body of teaching was the Holy Spirit leading the Church to such a result. Rome is very experienced at washing the blood from its hands.

The reformation was a HUGE step in the right direction, but there is still a ridiculous amount of paganism that early Roman Christians adopted into their new religion based on Christ. The letters they chose to assemble into a book, and deem holy, God breathed, and inerrant is used to keep the church members obidient to their religion's rules. Even after the reformation Christians are still suffering from the paganism and their book of rules.

The fact that Irenaeus felt compelled to write his Against Heresies is proof that there were multiple, divergent groups of Christians the first several decades of the faith. You mentioned that it is taught in seminary that the process of establishing an orthodox body of teaching was the Holy Spirit leading (the victors?) the church... at least Irenaeus' church.. resulting in an establishment of a canon of scripture.

How effective was the Holy Spirit in the first multiple groups of Christians that they could be so far apart on what they believed? These groups couldn't be united with a common belief system. So a book of testimonies was created to go along with a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. But only those testimonies that were selected by the one church (the victors?) were included. So in essence, what we have today is the result of the final belief system that won the day. All other faiths were deemed heresy.

How could believers in Christ, who have all been given the Holy Spirit as a guide, fall so far apart in their beliefs that a guy had to write volumes defending his chosen faith against the rest he called heresies? I wish we had (preserved) the writings and rebuttals of some of those heretics. Hell, if it wasn't for people like Irenaeus, we wouldn't even know there was opposition to his chosen faith.

History is recorded by the victors, indeed.

You are indeed assuming that the "victors" had it right.

What if they didn't? After all, would Jesus and his apostles been ok with the Crusades? Obviously not. Would they have been ok with the Church getting heavily involved in politics? Would Jesus have been ok with the Church making him equal to the Father as they began to do in the centuries after his death?

I assume no such thing. I'm just saying the victors write history. Whether they got it right or wrong is beside the point.

Actually...that is a great point Jayrok. I stand corrected. If the Arians had won at the Council of Nicea, 98% of Christians wouldn't call the trinity the "backbone of the christian faith".

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

There doesn't HAVE to be. God chose to communicate with us via the Bible, HS and other Christians. One might severely question his judgment in taking the other Christian approach though.

Other than from "other Christians" what evidence is there that God ever meant for the Bible to share the stage with what the Holy Spirit was writing on our hearts? Half the point of Jesus' teachings was to get believers to stop looking at scripture (written and oral) for their faith.

Do you include Jesus and the apostles in the "other Christians" qualification?

Of course! (Except Jesus is a stretch to be called a "Christian".)

I am guessing with these sorts of handcuffs an answer like "the fact that the HS drives me to study the Bible...there has to be a reason, right?" isn't gonna fly

Why wouldn't that fly? Saying that we find Christ in our hearts doesn't mean that we don't find anything in the Bible, or even that the Bible might not be more important to some than others. That is maybe some will only find Jesus through reading the Bible, but as has been shown through the years here in the FFA it seems that really reading the Bible can be detrimental to the faith of those that have elevated to be infallible.

I think we should remember that the vast majority of Christians until relatively recently* never read a single passage from the Bible nor had a passage read to them in a language they understood. So if one doesn't think that they could know Jesus without the Bible, it is good thing they were born to the post reformation era.

So all of this disjointed gibberish is saying that the Bible can surely be important to individuals and a tool for the Holy Spirit, but it is the acceptance of Holy Spirit that ultimately matters. Now I have to tell Jayrok that no one in their right mind reads John literally.

(*I guess population explosions might make this statement false without the qualifier.)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Ok, I'll disappear after this one-

Why does their need to be a unified faith? The beliefs were different, but were the results? Were the rules beyond the rituals different? ( ) Were some christian groups less community oriented than the real Christians? ( )

Again if it all boils down to one rule - "love thy neighbor" (like I believe) does the stories that get you there matter? Does the doctrine? Or rituals?

If God wants us to show our love to him by taking care of his children and having the trust and faith that this is the best way to live life, why would any of the details matter? And since this is likely the best way to live life trying to box God into any one definition becomes just another one of those details.

I would bet that if the only gospel published was the book of Matthew, your belief system would be the correct one or at least the most popular one. "Love thy neighbor" sums up the law and commandments. The kingdom is established; the work is done. Care for one another, feed the hungry, care for the sick and elderly, and so forth, and wait for your reward.

But you also have the gospel of John and that pesky "you must be born again" clause. You can't just love your neighbor and live helping others. If that were the case, Mahatma Gandhi may be the greatest Christian in history.

No, loving neighbors and performing good deeds will not get you into heaven because your good deeds are as filthy rags.

Aren't you describing the first few hundred years of Christianity? And except for maybe the "non believer" stuff around verse 18 I think that chapter 3 stuff all falls very much in line with my beliefs when you don't take it too literally (like the nicotine sounding named Pharisee questioning Jesus).

Oh and I don't think that "love thy neighbor" is "good deeds" or "righteous acts" either. Sure it will hopefully result in such, but doing good things for others for "brownie points" with God isn't what I think this is supposed to mean. I think we are supposed to live selfless lives and when we do are the happiest. The world we find ourselves in results in us giving into selfishness for a great variety of reasons. The New Testament, in my opinion largely but not exclusively when dealing with challenges from the Pharisees tells us that fear of breaking "the Law" of the Old Testament should not be one of those reasons.

And no I do not live up in any way, shape, or form to this ideal that I believe in, Which is thwarting my ability to really see the kingdom of God right before my eyes.

 

[Rove!]

Not going to read 17 pages of this crap, but why Bill Nye instead of a real scientist?

 

[Bonzai]

Not going to read 17 pages of this crap, but why Bill Nye instead of a real scientist?

 

[Jayrok]

Ok, I'll disappear after this one-

Why does their need to be a unified faith? The beliefs were different, but were the results? Were the rules beyond the rituals different? ( ) Were some christian groups less community oriented than the real Christians? ( )

Again if it all boils down to one rule - "love thy neighbor" (like I believe) does the stories that get you there matter? Does the doctrine? Or rituals?

If God wants us to show our love to him by taking care of his children and having the trust and faith that this is the best way to live life, why would any of the details matter? And since this is likely the best way to live life trying to box God into any one definition becomes just another one of those details.

I would bet that if the only gospel published was the book of Matthew, your belief system would be the correct one or at least the most popular one. "Love thy neighbor" sums up the law and commandments. The kingdom is established; the work is done. Care for one another, feed the hungry, care for the sick and elderly, and so forth, and wait for your reward.

But you also have the gospel of John and that pesky "you must be born again" clause. You can't just love your neighbor and live helping others. If that were the case, Mahatma Gandhi may be the greatest Christian in history.

No, loving neighbors and performing good deeds will not get you into heaven because your good deeds are as filthy rags.

Aren't you describing the first few hundred years of Christianity? And except for maybe the "non believer" stuff around verse 18 I think that chapter 3 stuff all falls very much in line with my beliefs when you don't take it too literally (like the nicotine sounding named Pharisee questioning Jesus).

Oh and I don't think that "love thy neighbor" is "good deeds" or "righteous acts" either. Sure it will hopefully result in such, but doing good things for others for "brownie points" with God isn't what I think this is supposed to mean. I think we are supposed to live selfless lives and when we do are the happiest. The world we find ourselves in results in us giving into selfishness for a great variety of reasons. The New Testament, in my opinion largely but not exclusively when dealing with challenges from the Pharisees tells us that fear of breaking "the Law" of the Old Testament should not be one of those reasons.

And no I do not live up in any way, shape, or form to this ideal that I believe in, Which is thwarting my ability to really see the kingdom of God right before my eyes.

For the first several decades of Christianity, I think it really depended on what community the believer lived in (i.e. what they were taught). And I didn't say "loving thy neighbor" is performing good deeds or righteous acts. I said loving neighbors and performing good deeds will not get you into heaven. Not good deeds for browny points but good deeds that naturally follow with caring for your neighbor... bearing good fruits, a primary theme in Matthew.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Ok, I'll disappear after this one-

Why does their need to be a unified faith? The beliefs were different, but were the results? Were the rules beyond the rituals different? ( ) Were some christian groups less community oriented than the real Christians? ( )

Again if it all boils down to one rule - "love thy neighbor" (like I believe) does the stories that get you there matter? Does the doctrine? Or rituals?

If God wants us to show our love to him by taking care of his children and having the trust and faith that this is the best way to live life, why would any of the details matter? And since this is likely the best way to live life trying to box God into any one definition becomes just another one of those details.

I would bet that if the only gospel published was the book of Matthew, your belief system would be the correct one or at least the most popular one. "Love thy neighbor" sums up the law and commandments. The kingdom is established; the work is done. Care for one another, feed the hungry, care for the sick and elderly, and so forth, and wait for your reward.

But you also have the gospel of John and that pesky "you must be born again" clause. You can't just love your neighbor and live helping others. If that were the case, Mahatma Gandhi may be the greatest Christian in history.

No, loving neighbors and performing good deeds will not get you into heaven because your good deeds are as filthy rags.

Aren't you describing the first few hundred years of Christianity? And except for maybe the "non believer" stuff around verse 18 I think that chapter 3 stuff all falls very much in line with my beliefs when you don't take it too literally (like the nicotine sounding named Pharisee questioning Jesus).

Oh and I don't think that "love thy neighbor" is "good deeds" or "righteous acts" either. Sure it will hopefully result in such, but doing good things for others for "brownie points" with God isn't what I think this is supposed to mean. I think we are supposed to live selfless lives and when we do are the happiest. The world we find ourselves in results in us giving into selfishness for a great variety of reasons. The New Testament, in my opinion largely but not exclusively when dealing with challenges from the Pharisees tells us that fear of breaking "the Law" of the Old Testament should not be one of those reasons.

And no I do not live up in any way, shape, or form to this ideal that I believe in, Which is thwarting my ability to really see the kingdom of God right before my eyes.

For the first several decades of Christianity, I think it really depended on what community the believer lived in (i.e. what they were taught). And I didn't say "loving thy neighbor" is performing good deeds or righteous acts. I said loving neighbors and performing good deeds will not get you into heaven. Not good deeds for browny points but good deeds that naturally follow with caring for your neighbor... bearing good fruits, a primary theme in Matthew.

I don't think what the early christians discussed over the communal meals is as relevant to the creation of communities themselves to the success of christianity and ultimately Christianity. If God cared more about what was said around the tables and thus believed by the community than anything else then oh well I'll catch up with you as well as most if not all of the believers in the FFA in hell, We'll all probably be better off for it.

 

[joffer]

http://www.elkharttruth.com/news/schools/concord-high-school/2014/03/07/Concord-answers-questions-on-creationism-teaching-in-email-exchange.html

Biology teacher shows Kent Hovind videos

 

[Scoresman]

Found some new ones.

http://imgur.com/3EF4PVR

http://i.imgur.com/pHr4nQm.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/v4F04Z7.gif

http://i.imgur.com/guxmEAx.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/7Fpzpyj.jpg

 

[ElGatoLoco]

Nearly every English translation except the KJV interprets that verse to say "word about Christ" or "news of Christ".

That verse is also just Paul's opinion.

I happen to agree with what Paul said (given the "word about Christ" or "news of Christ" interpretation), but again it's just his opinion, and I share it too. Paul's opinion in his testimony is not holy, God breathed and inerrant words, of which religious people can then form a doctrine around one specific interpretation of his opinion, that would result in the belief that one can NOT know Jesus and/or salvation without the Bible, so people who disagree should be beaten into submission to such doctrine.

If you can't believe in Jesus and salvation without the Bible, then let it be your crutch if that's what it takes to believe. I however don't need it in order to believe, nor do others. The early church thrived without having a Bible.

It's interesting how the apostle's stories evolved to became the word of God and then regressed back to just opinions. I hear all the time now how the bible is the word of God, but, only as it testifies to Jesus. That is really convenient.

According to most Christians, I'm a heretic for saying the Bible is just testimonies and not the word of God.

Centuries ago I would be put to death for speaking such.

Ironically, that's what the Jews did to Jesus for similar reasons.

Wait. Did you just equate yourself to Jesus?

 

[joffer]

latest poll from AP

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AP-GfK-March-2014-Poll-Topline-Final_SCIENCE.pdf

depressing, to say the least

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

latest poll from AP

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AP-GfK-March-2014-Poll-Topline-Final_SCIENCE.pdf

depressing, to say the least

####

 

[Dr Oadi]

latest poll from AP

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AP-GfK-March-2014-Poll-Topline-Final_SCIENCE.pdf

depressing, to say the least

####

4.5 billion. Is that the going age nowadays or is that a trick question?

 

[matuski]

latest poll from AP

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AP-GfK-March-2014-Poll-Topline-Final_SCIENCE.pdf

depressing, to say the least

####

4.5 billion. Is that the going age nowadays or is that a trick question?

Those big numbers are suspicious!

 

[fatness]

latest poll from AP

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AP-GfK-March-2014-Poll-Topline-Final_SCIENCE.pdf

depressing, to say the least

Does the census region (page 12 of the report) reflect current US population? And how are the regions defined? Thanks.

 

[proninja]

latest poll from AP

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AP-GfK-March-2014-Poll-Topline-Final_SCIENCE.pdf

depressing, to say the least

Oof

 

[Todd Andrews]

F*** the Doomed!!

 

[Dr Oadi]

latest poll from AP

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AP-GfK-March-2014-Poll-Topline-Final_SCIENCE.pdf

depressing, to say the least

Oof

Temperatures are rising..mostly because of man made heat trapping gasses....hilarious.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

latest poll from AP

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AP-GfK-March-2014-Poll-Topline-Final_SCIENCE.pdf

depressing, to say the least

Oof

Temperatures are rising..mostly because of man made heat trapping gasses....hilarious.

Yes you are.