How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (2 Viewers)

[Zow]

We are valuable to God because we are created by God

"Your ability to reason and question God's existence..." Oh, wait, no, that gets you eternal damnation in a pit of fire.

The notion expressed in just the first few minutes of the video that we are only good because of God is such a cop out because it completely ignores the other dogma that God allegedly made us in his image and, in doing so, gave us the ability to critically think and engage in free will. It perpetuates the hateful myth that non-believers simply cannot be good people and I yearn for this sort of hateful speech to be drowned out in the future by others vocally dispelling this notion. Heck, not too long ago I had a very Christian judge (Liberty grad, likely future Trump appointee if Trump wins) tell me that he would never support me for judge because an atheist cannot be trusted to do the "right thing" due to a lack of any sort of moral code and threat of consequence if such a code is not followed. I was dumbfounded as my career demonstrates nothing but ethical advocacy and respect for the law. But, as is obvious with the linked video, this remains a popular dogmatic principle for Christians and they will illogically and blindly judge others in accordance with it (despite that perhaps not falling in line with some of Jesus's more inclusive teachings). This needs to stop. It's as irrational as somebody like me refusing to hire an associate attorney because he or she is Christian because I unwisely assume he or she will not follow my state's laws as closely as he or she should because religious dogma will permeate and overly taint the legal principles.

In addition to the above, the mental gymnastics and logical fallacies in the video are just abound. I very much appreciate these videos being linked because they do, in my opinion, correctly flesh out the accurate dogmas of the Christian faith - but I think it's also important for believers to understand that when we see and hear guys like the ones in the video they comes across as the equivalent of a snake oil salesman. To be clear, I don't think the guys in the video are inherently evil or anything and they are learned on the topics they discuss, I just think it's important to explain a different perspective - in essence, that two, well-meaning people can genuinely perceive something so differently (as clearly BobbyLayne champions these guys as some sort of experts and I look at them in the same light as some ******** celebrity medium) and that's okay.

 

[Joe Bryant]

We are valuable to God because we are created by God

"Your ability to reason and question God's existence..." Oh, wait, no, that gets you eternal damnation in a pit of fire.

The notion expressed in just the first few minutes of the video that we are only good because of God is such a cop out because it completely ignores the other dogma that God allegedly made us in his image and, in doing so, gave us the ability to critically think and engage in free will. It perpetuates the hateful myth that non-believers simply cannot be good people and I yearn for this sort of hateful speech to be drowned out in the future by others vocally dispelling this notion. Heck, not too long ago I had a very Christian judge (Liberty grad, likely future Trump appointee if Trump wins) tell me that he would never support me for judge because an atheist cannot be trusted to do the "right thing" due to a lack of any sort of moral code and threat of consequence if such a code is not followed. I was dumbfounded as my career demonstrates nothing but ethical advocacy and respect for the law. But, as is obvious with the linked video, this remains a popular dogmatic principle for Christians and they will illogically and blindly judge others in accordance with it (despite that perhaps not falling in line with some of Jesus's more inclusive teachings).

In addition to the above, the mental gymnastics and logical fallacies in the video are just abound. I very much appreciate these videos being linked because they do, in my opinion, correctly flesh out the accurate dogmas of the Christian faith - but I think it's also important for believers to understand that when we see and hear guys like the ones in the video they comes across as the equivalent of a snake oil salesman. To be clear, I don't think the guys in the video are inherently evil or anything and they are learned on the topics they discuss, I just think it's important to explain a different perspective - in essence, that two, well-meaning people can genuinely perceive something so differently (as clearly BobbyLayne champions these guys as some sort of savants and I look at them in the same light as some ******** celebrity medium) and that's okay.

I don't speak for @BobbyLayne but I know I don't see anyone on the videos as some sort of "savant".

I know these things often turn into "I think my guy is great" vs "I think your guy is terrible". I don't have much interest in that.

 

[Zow]

We are valuable to God because we are created by God

"Your ability to reason and question God's existence..." Oh, wait, no, that gets you eternal damnation in a pit of fire.

The notion expressed in just the first few minutes of the video that we are only good because of God is such a cop out because it completely ignores the other dogma that God allegedly made us in his image and, in doing so, gave us the ability to critically think and engage in free will. It perpetuates the hateful myth that non-believers simply cannot be good people and I yearn for this sort of hateful speech to be drowned out in the future by others vocally dispelling this notion. Heck, not too long ago I had a very Christian judge (Liberty grad, likely future Trump appointee if Trump wins) tell me that he would never support me for judge because an atheist cannot be trusted to do the "right thing" due to a lack of any sort of moral code and threat of consequence if such a code is not followed. I was dumbfounded as my career demonstrates nothing but ethical advocacy and respect for the law. But, as is obvious with the linked video, this remains a popular dogmatic principle for Christians and they will illogically and blindly judge others in accordance with it (despite that perhaps not falling in line with some of Jesus's more inclusive teachings).

In addition to the above, the mental gymnastics and logical fallacies in the video are just abound. I very much appreciate these videos being linked because they do, in my opinion, correctly flesh out the accurate dogmas of the Christian faith - but I think it's also important for believers to understand that when we see and hear guys like the ones in the video they comes across as the equivalent of a snake oil salesman. To be clear, I don't think the guys in the video are inherently evil or anything and they are learned on the topics they discuss, I just think it's important to explain a different perspective - in essence, that two, well-meaning people can genuinely perceive something so differently (as clearly BobbyLayne champions these guys as some sort of savants and I look at them in the same light as some ******** celebrity medium) and that's okay.

I don't speak for @BobbyLayne but I know I don't see anyone on the videos as some sort of "savant".

I know these things often turn into "I think my guy is great" vs "I think your guy is terrible". I don't have much interest in that.

Perhaps savant was the wrong word. Also, as I stated, I don't think any of the speakers are "terrible." My focus was on perception.

Nonetheless, I don't know how to interpret a poster linking us to a video of somebody teaching other than to assume the poster believes the speaker in the video is correctly explaining something so well that just the link is adequate. I seem it as substantially similar to somebody in the Shark Pool in a thread about Sean Tucker simply linking to an article by, say Jason Wood, in sole support of whatever position the poster is championing. So, maybe, "expert" is the better word instead of "savant"?

I'm totally fine calling the guys in the videos experts on the issue of Christian dogma.

 

[BobbyLayne]

We are valuable to God because we are created by God

"Your ability to reason and question God's existence..." Oh, wait, no, that gets you eternal damnation in a pit of fire.

The notion expressed in just the first few minutes of the video that we are only good because of God is such a cop out because it completely ignores the other dogma that God allegedly made us in his image and, in doing so, gave us the ability to critically think and engage in free will. It perpetuates the hateful myth that non-believers simply cannot be good people and I yearn for this sort of hateful speech to be drowned out in the future by others vocally dispelling this notion. Heck, not too long ago I had a very Christian judge (Liberty grad, likely future Trump appointee if Trump wins) tell me that he would never support me for judge because an atheist cannot be trusted to do the "right thing" due to a lack of any sort of moral code and threat of consequence if such a code is not followed. I was dumbfounded as my career demonstrates nothing but ethical advocacy and respect for the law. But, as is obvious with the linked video, this remains a popular dogmatic principle for Christians and they will illogically and blindly judge others in accordance with it (despite that perhaps not falling in line with some of Jesus's more inclusive teachings). This needs to stop. It's as irrational as somebody like me refusing to hire an associate attorney because he or she is Christian because I unwisely assume he or she will not follow my state's laws as closely as he or she should because religious dogma will permeate and overly taint the legal principles.

In addition to the above, the mental gymnastics and logical fallacies in the video are just abound. I very much appreciate these videos being linked because they do, in my opinion, correctly flesh out the accurate dogmas of the Christian faith - but I think it's also important for believers to understand that when we see and hear guys like the ones in the video they comes across as the equivalent of a snake oil salesman. To be clear, I don't think the guys in the video are inherently evil or anything and they are learned on the topics they discuss, I just think it's important to explain a different perspective - in essence, that two, well-meaning people can genuinely perceive something so differently (as clearly BobbyLayne champions these guys as some sort of savants and I look at them in the same light as some ******** celebrity medium) and that's okay.

I know plenty of “non-believers” who are good people. I serve alongside a couple in a food pantry who are atheists; incredibly generous & selfless spirit within both of them.

The Bible says there is no such thing as good when it comes to man. On my best day, the best I can offer is seen as filthy rags by our holy creator God.

Good or bad is vainglory, it doesn’t amount to anything. No one can stand before God based on what they did or who all they helped in this life. We have all fallen short of the glory of God, we are all sinners.

But God does not see us in that light if we have accepted Jesus as Lord of our lives and believe in the finished work of the cross. You can’t add or subtract anything from what took place on Calvary.

Believe and you will be saved. That’s the gospel; that is the good news. You don’t have to do anything because Christ already paid your debt.

edit typo

 

[BobbyLayne]

We are valuable to God because we are created by God

"Your ability to reason and question God's existence..." Oh, wait, no, that gets you eternal damnation in a pit of fire.

The notion expressed in just the first few minutes of the video that we are only good because of God is such a cop out because it completely ignores the other dogma that God allegedly made us in his image and, in doing so, gave us the ability to critically think and engage in free will. It perpetuates the hateful myth that non-believers simply cannot be good people and I yearn for this sort of hateful speech to be drowned out in the future by others vocally dispelling this notion. Heck, not too long ago I had a very Christian judge (Liberty grad, likely future Trump appointee if Trump wins) tell me that he would never support me for judge because an atheist cannot be trusted to do the "right thing" due to a lack of any sort of moral code and threat of consequence if such a code is not followed. I was dumbfounded as my career demonstrates nothing but ethical advocacy and respect for the law. But, as is obvious with the linked video, this remains a popular dogmatic principle for Christians and they will illogically and blindly judge others in accordance with it (despite that perhaps not falling in line with some of Jesus's more inclusive teachings).

In addition to the above, the mental gymnastics and logical fallacies in the video are just abound. I very much appreciate these videos being linked because they do, in my opinion, correctly flesh out the accurate dogmas of the Christian faith - but I think it's also important for believers to understand that when we see and hear guys like the ones in the video they comes across as the equivalent of a snake oil salesman. To be clear, I don't think the guys in the video are inherently evil or anything and they are learned on the topics they discuss, I just think it's important to explain a different perspective - in essence, that two, well-meaning people can genuinely perceive something so differently (as clearly BobbyLayne champions these guys as some sort of savants and I look at them in the same light as some ******** celebrity medium) and that's okay.

I don't speak for @BobbyLayne but I know I don't see anyone on the videos as some sort of "savant".

I know these things often turn into "I think my guy is great" vs "I think your guy is terrible". I don't have much interest in that.

Perhaps savant was the wrong word. Also, as I stated, I don't think any of the speakers are "terrible." My focus was on perception.

Nonetheless, I don't know how to interpret a poster linking us to a video of somebody teaching other than to assume the poster believes the speaker in the video is correctly explaining something so well that just the link is adequate. I seem it as substantially similar to somebody in the Shark Pool in a thread about Sean Tucker simply linking to an article by, say Jason Wood, in sole support of whatever position the poster is championing. So, maybe, "expert" is the better word instead of "savant"?

I'm totally fine calling the guys in the videos experts on the issue of Christian dogma.

I don’t think of Cliffe (the older guy) or his son (younger man) as an experts or savants. They’re knowledgeable, in both biblical studies and other religions or cultures.

I have met Cliffe and he’s a pastor who has great empathy. Genuinely good guy who loves helping college students work through difficult questions. I posted it hoping it might help anyone wrestling with similar questions.

As I stated earlier, we should embrace doubt & uncertainty. If you don’t know what you believe or why it’s reliable, you might be open to believing anything. Even a work of fiction like The Da Vinci Code has clouded how people view the canon.

Anyway, if it’s not for you, no worries, you can always move along. Maybe someone behind you will appreciate it more.

 

[Zow]

We are valuable to God because we are created by God

"Your ability to reason and question God's existence..." Oh, wait, no, that gets you eternal damnation in a pit of fire.

The notion expressed in just the first few minutes of the video that we are only good because of God is such a cop out because it completely ignores the other dogma that God allegedly made us in his image and, in doing so, gave us the ability to critically think and engage in free will. It perpetuates the hateful myth that non-believers simply cannot be good people and I yearn for this sort of hateful speech to be drowned out in the future by others vocally dispelling this notion. Heck, not too long ago I had a very Christian judge (Liberty grad, likely future Trump appointee if Trump wins) tell me that he would never support me for judge because an atheist cannot be trusted to do the "right thing" due to a lack of any sort of moral code and threat of consequence if such a code is not followed. I was dumbfounded as my career demonstrates nothing but ethical advocacy and respect for the law. But, as is obvious with the linked video, this remains a popular dogmatic principle for Christians and they will illogically and blindly judge others in accordance with it (despite that perhaps not falling in line with some of Jesus's more inclusive teachings).

In addition to the above, the mental gymnastics and logical fallacies in the video are just abound. I very much appreciate these videos being linked because they do, in my opinion, correctly flesh out the accurate dogmas of the Christian faith - but I think it's also important for believers to understand that when we see and hear guys like the ones in the video they comes across as the equivalent of a snake oil salesman. To be clear, I don't think the guys in the video are inherently evil or anything and they are learned on the topics they discuss, I just think it's important to explain a different perspective - in essence, that two, well-meaning people can genuinely perceive something so differently (as clearly BobbyLayne champions these guys as some sort of savants and I look at them in the same light as some ******** celebrity medium) and that's okay.

I don't speak for @BobbyLayne but I know I don't see anyone on the videos as some sort of "savant".

I know these things often turn into "I think my guy is great" vs "I think your guy is terrible". I don't have much interest in that.

Perhaps savant was the wrong word. Also, as I stated, I don't think any of the speakers are "terrible." My focus was on perception.

Nonetheless, I don't know how to interpret a poster linking us to a video of somebody teaching other than to assume the poster believes the speaker in the video is correctly explaining something so well that just the link is adequate. I seem it as substantially similar to somebody in the Shark Pool in a thread about Sean Tucker simply linking to an article by, say Jason Wood, in sole support of whatever position the poster is championing. So, maybe, "expert" is the better word instead of "savant"?

I'm totally fine calling the guys in the videos experts on the issue of Christian dogma.

I don’t think of Cliffe (the older guy) or his son (younger man) as an experts or savants. They’re knowledgeable, in both biblical studies and other religions or cultures.

I have met Cliffe and he’s a pastor who has great empathy. Genuinely good guy who loves helping college students work through difficult questions. I posted it hoping it might help anyone wrestling with similar questions.

As I stated earlier, we should embrace doubt & uncertainty. If you don’t know what you believe or why it’s reliable, you might be open to believing anything. Even a work of fiction like The Da Vinci Code has clouded how people view the canon.

Anyway, if it’s not for you, no worries, you can always move along. Maybe someone behind you will appreciate it more.

I believe it's very much for me because it enriches our discussion in this thread and, similar to our prior conversation, permits us to at least agree as to what specifically the Christian dogmatic belief is on a particular topic or issue - which allows us to analyze such a principle and discuss how we interpret it and identify points where we have strong disagreement and, through such identification, can understand each other better.

In other words, thanks for posting it and I hope you can similarly take the time to read my reflections, thoughts, and my criticisms of it as well as seeing different viewpoints is ultimately how we grow and understand.

 

[BobbyLayne]

@Zow

I found this from Merriam-Webster to be interesting. Just want to make sure we both mean the same thing when using dogmatic (which I tend to never use as most think it’s a pejorative.)

Some common synonyms of dogmatic are dictatorial, doctrinaire, magisterial, and oracular. While all these words mean "imposing one's will or opinions on others," dogmatic implies being unduly and offensively positive in laying down principles and expressing opinions.

But maybe you’re using it exactly the way you intended. Do you feel
like I’m trying to impose my will/opinions on others?

Hopefully folks can see my chief aim is to bring clarity to the reliability of scripture and presenting the gospel in an undistilled & simple manner. Hard to convey in written form than when we’re sitting across from one another.

 

[Scoresman]

We are valuable to God because we are created by God

"Your ability to reason and question God's existence..." Oh, wait, no, that gets you eternal damnation in a pit of fire.

The notion expressed in just the first few minutes of the video that we are only good because of God is such a cop out because it completely ignores the other dogma that God allegedly made us in his image and, in doing so, gave us the ability to critically think and engage in free will. It perpetuates the hateful myth that non-believers simply cannot be good people and I yearn for this sort of hateful speech to be drowned out in the future by others vocally dispelling this notion. Heck, not too long ago I had a very Christian judge (Liberty grad, likely future Trump appointee if Trump wins) tell me that he would never support me for judge because an atheist cannot be trusted to do the "right thing" due to a lack of any sort of moral code and threat of consequence if such a code is not followed. I was dumbfounded as my career demonstrates nothing but ethical advocacy and respect for the law. But, as is obvious with the linked video, this remains a popular dogmatic principle for Christians and they will illogically and blindly judge others in accordance with it (despite that perhaps not falling in line with some of Jesus's more inclusive teachings).

In addition to the above, the mental gymnastics and logical fallacies in the video are just abound. I very much appreciate these videos being linked because they do, in my opinion, correctly flesh out the accurate dogmas of the Christian faith - but I think it's also important for believers to understand that when we see and hear guys like the ones in the video they comes across as the equivalent of a snake oil salesman. To be clear, I don't think the guys in the video are inherently evil or anything and they are learned on the topics they discuss, I just think it's important to explain a different perspective - in essence, that two, well-meaning people can genuinely perceive something so differently (as clearly BobbyLayne champions these guys as some sort of savants and I look at them in the same light as some ******** celebrity medium) and that's okay.

I don't speak for @BobbyLayne but I know I don't see anyone on the videos as some sort of "savant".

I know these things often turn into "I think my guy is great" vs "I think your guy is terrible". I don't have much interest in that.

Perhaps savant was the wrong word. Also, as I stated, I don't think any of the speakers are "terrible." My focus was on perception.

Nonetheless, I don't know how to interpret a poster linking us to a video of somebody teaching other than to assume the poster believes the speaker in the video is correctly explaining something so well that just the link is adequate. I seem it as substantially similar to somebody in the Shark Pool in a thread about Sean Tucker simply linking to an article by, say Jason Wood, in sole support of whatever position the poster is championing. So, maybe, "expert" is the better word instead of "savant"?

I'm totally fine calling the guys in the videos experts on the issue of Christian dogma.

I don’t think of Cliffe (the older guy) or his son (younger man) as an experts or savants. They’re knowledgeable, in both biblical studies and other religions or cultures.

I have met Cliffe and he’s a pastor who has great empathy. Genuinely good guy who loves helping college students work through difficult questions. I posted it hoping it might help anyone wrestling with similar questions.

As I stated earlier, we should embrace doubt & uncertainty. If you don’t know what you believe or why it’s reliable, you might be open to believing anything. Even a work of fiction like The Da Vinci Code has clouded how people view the canon.

Anyway, if it’s not for you, no worries, you can always move along. Maybe someone behind you will appreciate it more.

In regards to the bolded, why is it such a threat to the church for Jesus to have been in a relationship with someone, re:Mary Magdalene? The church instead branded her a prostitute of which there is no evidence for biblical or historical.

In Jewish culture at the time, it would have been very, very odd for a man to remain celibate. While things such as Da Vinci Code are certainly fiction, there is some evidence out there that the two were in a relationship more than just follower/disciple.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

We are valuable to God because we are created by God

"Your ability to reason and question God's existence..." Oh, wait, no, that gets you eternal damnation in a pit of fire.

The notion expressed in just the first few minutes of the video that we are only good because of God is such a cop out because it completely ignores the other dogma that God allegedly made us in his image and, in doing so, gave us the ability to critically think and engage in free will. It perpetuates the hateful myth that non-believers simply cannot be good people and I yearn for this sort of hateful speech to be drowned out in the future by others vocally dispelling this notion. Heck, not too long ago I had a very Christian judge (Liberty grad, likely future Trump appointee if Trump wins) tell me that he would never support me for judge because an atheist cannot be trusted to do the "right thing" due to a lack of any sort of moral code and threat of consequence if such a code is not followed. I was dumbfounded as my career demonstrates nothing but ethical advocacy and respect for the law. But, as is obvious with the linked video, this remains a popular dogmatic principle for Christians and they will illogically and blindly judge others in accordance with it (despite that perhaps not falling in line with some of Jesus's more inclusive teachings). This needs to stop. It's as irrational as somebody like me refusing to hire an associate attorney because he or she is Christian because I unwisely assume he or she will not follow my state's laws as closely as he or she should because religious dogma will permeate and overly taint the legal principles.

In addition to the above, the mental gymnastics and logical fallacies in the video are just abound. I very much appreciate these videos being linked because they do, in my opinion, correctly flesh out the accurate dogmas of the Christian faith - but I think it's also important for believers to understand that when we see and hear guys like the ones in the video they comes across as the equivalent of a snake oil salesman. To be clear, I don't think the guys in the video are inherently evil or anything and they are learned on the topics they discuss, I just think it's important to explain a different perspective - in essence, that two, well-meaning people can genuinely perceive something so differently (as clearly BobbyLayne champions these guys as some sort of experts and I look at them in the same light as some ******** celebrity medium) and that's okay.

Isn't he making the opposite of that argument? I'm thinking specifically of the section from 2:15 to 3:00 or so. That doesn't sound like someone who's saying not use your critical thinking or free will, and it certainly doesn't sound like somebody who thinks that you have to check a bunch of specific theological boxes.

(For full disclosure, I don't know anything about either of these gentlemen -- all I know about them is what I just learned from having this video on in the background).

 

[Zow]

Hmmm @BobbyLayne that's certainly not my intended use of the word "dogma" or "dogmatic." I googled "dogma definition" and it spit it the following:

dog·ma
/ˈdôɡmə/
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
"the rejection of political dogma"

That's per Oxford. Per Brittanica the definition proffered is: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.

Both above definitions are consistent with my intended use. In other words, I am not trying to use the term in any sort of pejorative or inflammatory sense. I really just am trying to lock down Christian beliefs in like a rule sense so we can then discuss said rule. Other terms I suppose would be a principle/tenant/religious belief. Those seem interchangeable to me so I'd be happy to use those as well.

 

[Zow]

But maybe you’re using it exactly the way you intended. Do you feel
like I’m trying to impose my will/opinions on others?

Hopefully folks can see my chief aim is to bring clarity to the reliability of scripture and presenting the gospel in an undistilled & simple manner. Hard to convey in written form than when we’re sitting across from one another.

To specifically answer your questions:

1. No, I don't feel at all like you are trying to impose your will on others. The OP, yes (which is fine and is his right to do so), but no not at all with you.
2. Your chief aim matches mine - I think we are both just trying to confirm the same definitions for a significant Christian religious principle/tenant/dogma/belief/rule/etc. so that we can then discuss the same.

 

[Zow]

Isn't he making the opposite of that argument? I'm thinking specifically of the section from 2:15 to 3:00 or so. That doesn't sound like someone who's saying not use your critical thinking or free will, and it certainly doesn't sound like somebody who thinks that you have to check a bunch of specific theological boxes.

(For full disclosure, I don't know anything about either of these gentlemen -- all I know about them is what I just learned from having this video on in the background).

I'll give that section a re-watch as soon as I can. I certainly don't want to be misinterpreting what they're saying.

My initial statement which was sarcastic was based on the opening clip (I mimicked the speaker talking about abilities) and not the conversation with the two guys and the college students.

 

[BobbyLayne]

While things such as Da Vinci Code are certainly fiction, there is some evidence out there that the two were in a relationship more than just follower/disciple.

There is? Dont be coy. The vast majority of scholars would disagree but feel free to share your reliable source.

The early church rejected the gnostic teachings because they were inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus and the accounts written by eyewitnesses.

Mary Magdalene is mentioned 12 times in the 4 gospels. That seems significant; it’s more than any woman outside of his immediate family.

What we know about Mary Magdalene from the Bible is the the New Testament tells us Mary had been 1) freed from seven demons by Jesus, and 2) that she supported Jesus with her wealth. She was friends with another wealthy supporter, Joanna. We can surmise she had some sphere of influence in first century Palestine.

---

Joanna is an interesting minor character of the NT gospels.

Joanna was one of several women in the Bible healed of “evil spirits and diseases” by Jesus Christ (Luke 8:2). After being healed, Joanna accompanied Jesus and the twelve disciples on their travels from town to town and helped support the Lord’s ministry. As the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod Antipas’ household estate, Joanna was a woman of means and influence. Along with Mary Magdalene, Susanna, and others, Joanna helped provide food and supplies for the missionary troupe from her own wealth (Luke 8:1–3).

Whether Joanna had been set free from a demon or healed of some mental or physical disability, we are not told. But we do know that Joanna remained wholly devoted to Jesus until the end. She traveled with Him on His final journey from Galilee to Jerusalem. She was present at Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Later, Joanna returned with other women who had prepared spices and burial ointments to anoint Jesus’ body others ran to report the news to the apostles (Luke 24:10).

Joanna is mentioned in the Bible only in the Gospel of Luke. The Herod that Joanna’s husband was steward for was the tetrarch of Galilee, so Joanna herself must have lived in Tiberias, the capital of Galilee. Scholars believe Joanna may have been a key source of much of the detailed information Luke included in his writings about the life of Jesus.

By welcoming women like Joanna into His inner circle, Jesus broke with Jewish tradition and the strict social divisions of His day. And Joanna, no doubt, stepped down from her aristocratic social position when she chose to follow Jesus and associate with His disciples. After her conversion, Joanna traveled with Jesus, served Him, learned from Him, and financially supported His ministry. In first-century Judaism, such conduct was considered scandalous for women, and especially a married woman. Joanna’s life is an example of how the gospel demolishes class barriers and social prejudices. The fact that she was the wife of a man in Herod’s employ is ironic, given the general Herodian hatred for Jesus.

---

Back to Mary Magdalene. You asked

why is it such a threat to the church for Jesus to have been in a relationship with someone, re:Mary Magdalene? The church instead branded her a prostitute of which there is no evidence for biblical or historical.

The church is not a monolith, so not sure what you are referring to there, but if she’s a threat to any church leaders outside of Dan Brown’s novel, that’s news to me. I think any scholar would object to supposition with no basis.

WRT “branded her as a prostitute”, the sex worker myth got started in 591 CE when Pope Gregory I gave a sermon in which he mixed up Mary Magdalene with both Mary of Bethany and the unnamed sinful woman in Luke 7:36–50 who anoints Jesus’ feet. There is no evidence that those three women were the same person in the New Testament.

What else can we surmise? Her name indicates she is from Magdala, a small fishing village in Galilee. Like Jesus, her first language would have been Aramaic.

She her own income – either an inheritance, a divorce settlement, from marriage, or from her labor. She and other women fed and otherwise sustained Jesus and the twelve.

No husband is mentioned, so she was probably widowed, divorced, or never married.

She travelled with Jesus, along with the twelve, other disciples, and other women. She was present at the crucifixion, and was among the first to encounter the empty tomb after Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Woz, thank you so much for your thoughtful responses. Not just today, throughout this thread. It keeps things centered/grounded in reason and I genuinely appreciate what you have to share.

 

[Zow]

Woz, thank you so much for your thoughtful responses. Not just today, throughout this thread. It keeps things centered/grounded in reason and I genuinely appreciate what you have to share.

For sure. While tense at times (I blame that more on the difficulty in getting sentiment across in a forum whereas if we would be talking in person my body language would presumably show genuine interest and acceptance) this has been a good discussion.

I firmly believe no one person should be judged overall by his belief or lack thereof as I can see a good, reasonable person arriving at a totally different conclusion than another. Even our cuddly OP bear who engages in perhaps the largest self-aggrandization that I can imagine (essentially telling others he knows the secret to eternal life and anybody else is wrong when the secret to eternal life is far from obvious) because, if he believes he truly holds said secret, it is only kind of him to share the same with others and not be selfish about it.

 

[TennesseeJed]

The early church rejected the gnostic teachings because they were inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus and the accounts written by eyewitnesses.

What are the eyewitness accounts of Jesus' teachings in the Bible?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

While things such as Da Vinci Code are certainly fiction, there is some evidence out there that the two were in a relationship more than just follower/disciple.

There is? Dont be coy. The vast majority of scholars would disagree but feel free to share your reliable source.

The early church rejected the gnostic teachings because they were inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus and the accounts written by eyewitnesses.

Mary Magdalene is mentioned 12 times in the 4 gospels. That seems significant; it’s more than any woman outside of his immediate family.

What we know about Mary Magdalene from the Bible is the the New Testament tells us Mary had been 1) freed from seven demons by Jesus, and 2) that she supported Jesus with her wealth. She was friends with another wealthy supporter, Joanna. We can surmise she had some sphere of influence in first century Palestine.

---

Joanna is an interesting minor character of the NT gospels.

Joanna was one of several women in the Bible healed of “evil spirits and diseases” by Jesus Christ (Luke 8:2). After being healed, Joanna accompanied Jesus and the twelve disciples on their travels from town to town and helped support the Lord’s ministry. As the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod Antipas’ household estate, Joanna was a woman of means and influence. Along with Mary Magdalene, Susanna, and others, Joanna helped provide food and supplies for the missionary troupe from her own wealth (Luke 8:1–3).

Whether Joanna had been set free from a demon or healed of some mental or physical disability, we are not told. But we do know that Joanna remained wholly devoted to Jesus until the end. She traveled with Him on His final journey from Galilee to Jerusalem. She was present at Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. Later, Joanna returned with other women who had prepared spices and burial ointments to anoint Jesus’ body others ran to report the news to the apostles (Luke 24:10).

Joanna is mentioned in the Bible only in the Gospel of Luke. The Herod that Joanna’s husband was steward for was the tetrarch of Galilee, so Joanna herself must have lived in Tiberias, the capital of Galilee. Scholars believe Joanna may have been a key source of much of the detailed information Luke included in his writings about the life of Jesus.

By welcoming women like Joanna into His inner circle, Jesus broke with Jewish tradition and the strict social divisions of His day. And Joanna, no doubt, stepped down from her aristocratic social position when she chose to follow Jesus and associate with His disciples. After her conversion, Joanna traveled with Jesus, served Him, learned from Him, and financially supported His ministry. In first-century Judaism, such conduct was considered scandalous for women, and especially a married woman. Joanna’s life is an example of how the gospel demolishes class barriers and social prejudices. The fact that she was the wife of a man in Herod’s employ is ironic, given the general Herodian hatred for Jesus.

---

Back to Mary Magdalene. You asked

why is it such a threat to the church for Jesus to have been in a relationship with someone, re:Mary Magdalene? The church instead branded her a prostitute of which there is no evidence for biblical or historical.

The church is not a monolith, so not sure what you are referring to there, but if she’s a threat to any church leaders outside of Dan Brown’s novel, that’s news to me. I think any scholar would object to supposition with no basis.

WRT “branded her as a prostitute”, the sex worker myth got started in 591 CE when Pope Gregory I gave a sermon in which he mixed up Mary Magdalene with both Mary of Bethany and the unnamed sinful woman in Luke 7:36–50 who anoints Jesus’ feet. There is no evidence that those three women were the same person in the New Testament.

What else can we surmise? Her name indicates she is from Magdala, a small fishing village in Galilee. Like Jesus, her first language would have been Aramaic.

She her own income – either an inheritance, a divorce settlement, from marriage, or from her labor. She and other women fed and otherwise sustained Jesus and the twelve.

No husband is mentioned, so she was probably widowed, divorced, or never married.

She travelled with Jesus, along with the twelve, other disciples, and other women. She was present at the crucifixion, and was among the first to encounter the empty tomb after Jesus rose from the dead.

We "know" that Jesus wasn't married, because if he was, they would have just said that. Marriage is a big deal in Christianity. It turns up in the first chapter of Genesis, and it comes up over and over again. God likes marriage, and he wants us to get married and have kids. It would not have been in any way scandalous (for any reason I know of, anyway) if Jesus had been married.

In that respect, it's kind of similar to the way that we "know" that Jesus had a brother. That's not a secret and nobody considers it a big deal. He got his own book in the Bible, even.

I don't know if Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, but so what if she was? Jesus famously hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors. Matthew was a tax collector, so what would be the big deal if Mary Magdalene was a prostitute?

 

[Scoresman]

While things such as Da Vinci Code are certainly fiction, there is some evidence out there that the two were in a relationship more than just follower/disciple.

There is? Dont be coy. The vast majority of scholars would disagree but feel free to share your reliable source.

The early church rejected the gnostic teachings because they were inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus and the accounts written by eyewitnesses.

Mary Magdalene is mentioned 12 times in the 4 gospels. That seems significant; it’s more than any woman outside of his immediate family.

What we know about Mary Magdalene from the Bible is the the New Testament tells us Mary had been 1) freed from seven demons by Jesus, and 2) that she supported Jesus with her wealth. She was friends with another wealthy supporter, Joanna. We can surmise she had some sphere of influence in first century Palestine.

Why would the gnostic gospels be any more or less credible than any other gospel? Who determines whether one man's writings are divine inspired and whose aren't? That's a legitimate question. I dont know if any of these texts are particularly reliable as a historical source, but why would one be over another? The only thing I can think of is that they were written a little later, but weren't all of the gospels written 70-100 years or more after Jesus was around? Not much of a difference to 30-50 years after that when the gnostics were written, especially considering the time period.

The gnostic gospels suggest a much more intimate relationship between the two. I think it's the gospel of Thomas that mentions that the two "kissed on the _______" The last word apparently not legible, but considered to be "mouth".

I probably shouldn't use the term "evidence" because none of these texts are going to be considered reliable as historical evidence.

 

[Joe Bryant]

@Zow

I found this from Merriam-Webster to be interesting. Just want to make sure we both mean the same thing when using dogmatic (which I tend to never use as most think it’s a pejorative.)

Some common synonyms of dogmatic are dictatorial, doctrinaire, magisterial, and oracular. While all these words mean "imposing one's will or opinions on others," dogmatic implies being unduly and offensively positive in laying down principles and expressing opinions.

But maybe you’re using it exactly the way you intended. Do you feel
like I’m trying to impose my will/opinions on others?

Hopefully folks can see my chief aim is to bring clarity to the reliability of scripture and presenting the gospel in an undistilled & simple manner. Hard to convey in written form than when we’re sitting across from one another.

FWIW, I always associate "dogma" negatively. Seems like some others do as well.

Not a huge deal but as someone who pays close attention to words, thought it was interesting.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

While things such as Da Vinci Code are certainly fiction, there is some evidence out there that the two were in a relationship more than just follower/disciple.

There is? Dont be coy. The vast majority of scholars would disagree but feel free to share your reliable source.

The early church rejected the gnostic teachings because they were inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus and the accounts written by eyewitnesses.

Mary Magdalene is mentioned 12 times in the 4 gospels. That seems significant; it’s more than any woman outside of his immediate family.

What we know about Mary Magdalene from the Bible is the the New Testament tells us Mary had been 1) freed from seven demons by Jesus, and 2) that she supported Jesus with her wealth. She was friends with another wealthy supporter, Joanna. We can surmise she had some sphere of influence in first century Palestine.

Why would the gnostic gospels be any more or less credible than any other gospel? Who determines whether one man's writings are divine inspired and whose aren't? That's a legitimate question. I dont know if any of these texts are particularly reliable as a historical source, but why would one be over another? The only thing I can think of is that they were written a little later, but weren't all of the gospels written 70-100 years or more after Jesus was around? Not much of a difference to 30-50 years after that when the gnostics were written, especially considering the time period.

The gnostic gospels suggest a much more intimate relationship between the two. I think it's the gospel of Thomas that mentions that the two "kissed on the _______" The last word apparently not legible, but considered to be "mouth".

I probably shouldn't use the term "evidence" because none of these texts are going to be considered reliable as historical evidence.

The reason why the Gnostic gospels and similar writing were rejected is because Gnosticism is incompatible with Judaism and therefore doesn't fit with Christianity either. They're not "credible" because they don't fit. When I use the word "credible," I don't mean as historical documents -- I mean they don't be appear to be written by people who belonged to what we today recognize as the early church. A better way to think of it is that they belonged to another, competing church that professed a somewhat different religion.

To use an admittedly strained analogy, suppose somebody today discovered a new book that purports to have been written by a heretofore unknown member of the Constitutional Convention. The book explains that the founders were big fans of the monarchy and wanted the new country to be run by a king. But the whole "let's have a king" thing lost out because James Madison lost an arm-wrestling contest to Alexander Hamilton, and so we got stuck with liberal democracy instead. I mean, I guess that book could be legit. But it's completely dissonant with everything else we know about the founders from that time. And the arm wrestling thing is just kind of bizarre. Most of us would not to see any carbon-dating or textual analysis to know that we could safely dismiss it, because it just doesn't fit anything else in the record at all. The Gnostic gospels are basically like that, only for Christianity.

To your last point, all of those documents are reliable historical evidence for something. The Gnostic gospels are excellent, rock-solid evidence for the existence of Gnostics, for example. We know this controversy existed in the early church because people wrote about it, and we can see how those ideas intersect with other schools of thought that existed at the time. None of this stuff is covered up or hidden in any way. It's all just sitting right there in the historical record, and Paul writes about some of these issues in his letters.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Why would the gnostic gospels be any more or less credible than any other gospel? Who determines whether one man's writings are divine inspired and whose aren't? That's a legitimate question.

I guess it starts with the an important foundational view of the world and how we relate to it. Gnostics / Gnosticism believed that the human spirit was naturally good and trapped in an evil physical body. Their goal was to free the spirit from the body. Gnosticism is a centuries-old philosophy that separates the physical world from the spirit, and teaches that the physical body is evil while the spirit is good.

Christ followers, also called people of The Way in the first century, believe God created the heavens and the earth.

It's my understanding they deny the Trinity. Gnostics believed that a lesser god created matter, while the supreme God was pure spirit. They also taught that the world was created by a satanic power, and that there was total opposition between this world and God. Some early Gnostics pursued extreme asceticism, while others were highly permissive of hedonistic indulgence.

Gnostics rejected the Christian belief that God became man. They also believed that Jesus was a spiritual being who only pretended to be human. Christians believe Jesus was God incarnate; he put on humanity and felt all of the same things we do. He got hungry, and needed to eat. He felt cold and needed to be clothed. He was sad, and cried when he was told his friend Lazarus was dead. He knew anger. He overturned the tables in the outer courts of the Temple of Jerusalem. He also was fully God: he was able to stop a storm, he healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, cast out demons. Fully God, and fully human.

As for Gnostic gospels, probably the biggest difference is the Gnostics Gospels saw no connection between Jesus and the nation of Israel and the acts of God in the Old Testament. The New Testament teaches - confirmed by the words of Jesus quoting them - the Jewish sacred text was the inspired word of God. The gospel of Matthew in particular emphasizes the Kingship of Jesus, that he was the coming Messiah Jews had hoped would come for centuries to restore their place in the world as God's chosen people. First century Jews of Palestine, or at least many, believed that Messiah would have great political power, and rule them just as God himself had ruled the nation of Israel during the Exodus and before God established the earthly kings found in the Old Testament.

The Bible's canon, or list of books, was determined by a combination of factors, including:

• God's inspiration: According to Christian theology, God inspired the human authors of the Bible and decided which books should be included.
• Jewish rabbis and scholars: Jewish rabbis and scholars in first century Palestine were the first to determine the canon.
• Early Christians: Early Christians continued the process of determining the canon. The canon confirmed centuries later was accepted by the church near the end of the first century.
• Church leaders: Church leaders needed to know which books to copy and consolidate into a single volume.
• Church councils: Church councils gradually accepted the list of books that believers recognized as inspired.

The process of determining the canon took place over centuries. The earliest known complete list of the New Testament books was compiled by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, in 367 AD. The New Testament was formally canonized at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). Those formal declarations reflected which books were being used by the early church.

Aside - Dan Brown claims that Constantine invented Jesus' divinity and imposed it through a relatively close vote at the Council of Nicea, which was convened in 325 AD. The Nicene Creed is still used today in some churches.

further reading: How and When was the canon of the Bible put together?

 

[BobbyLayne]

@Zow

I found this from Merriam-Webster to be interesting. Just want to make sure we both mean the same thing when using dogmatic (which I tend to never use as most think it’s a pejorative.)

Some common synonyms of dogmatic are dictatorial, doctrinaire, magisterial, and oracular. While all these words mean "imposing one's will or opinions on others," dogmatic implies being unduly and offensively positive in laying down principles and expressing opinions.

But maybe you’re using it exactly the way you intended. Do you feel
like I’m trying to impose my will/opinions on others?

Hopefully folks can see my chief aim is to bring clarity to the reliability of scripture and presenting the gospel in an undistilled & simple manner. Hard to convey in written form than when we’re sitting across from one another.

FWIW, I always associate "dogma" negatively. Seems like some others do as well.

Not a huge deal but as someone who pays close attention to words, thought it was interesting.

Yeah, that's why I brought it up, thought Woz clarified his reason for using dogmatic.

 

[Zow]

@Zow

I found this from Merriam-Webster to be interesting. Just want to make sure we both mean the same thing when using dogmatic (which I tend to never use as most think it’s a pejorative.)

Some common synonyms of dogmatic are dictatorial, doctrinaire, magisterial, and oracular. While all these words mean "imposing one's will or opinions on others," dogmatic implies being unduly and offensively positive in laying down principles and expressing opinions.

But maybe you’re using it exactly the way you intended. Do you feel
like I’m trying to impose my will/opinions on others?

Hopefully folks can see my chief aim is to bring clarity to the reliability of scripture and presenting the gospel in an undistilled & simple manner. Hard to convey in written form than when we’re sitting across from one another.

FWIW, I always associate "dogma" negatively. Seems like some others do as well.

Not a huge deal but as someone who pays close attention to words, thought it was interesting.

I avow that I did not know that. I’ll use a different term going forward. I genuinely thought I was using the appropriate term (as I’m also somebody who pays close attention to words and believes a word’s actual definition is important).

As an aside, did this come about because of the Kevin Smith movie or something?

 

[Scoresman]

The Bible's canon, or list of books, was determined by a combination of factors, including:

• God's inspiration: According to Christian theology, God inspired the human authors of the Bible and decided which books should be included.
• Jewish rabbis and scholars: Jewish rabbis and scholars in first century Palestine were the first to determine the canon.
• Early Christians: Early Christians continued the process of determining the canon. The canon confirmed centuries later was accepted by the church near the end of the first century.
• Church leaders: Church leaders needed to know which books to copy and consolidate into a single volume.
• Church councils: Church councils gradually accepted the list of books that believers recognized as inspired.

Thanks for the replies. This has been informative.

This bulleted list is a good way to show why I will probably never have faith. To give you a glimpse of how I read this, I look at this and see all these decisions made mostly by men of the ruling class hundreds or thousands of years ago and immediately get suspicious and question their intentions. How do I know they were god inspired? Were these “church leaders” and “scholars” in a seat of power or in league with people in power? Someone in power telling the masses that they need to fall in line or they will go to hell sounds like an awfully good way for the ruling class to make sure they stay in power.

I don’t mean to suggest that everything and everyone ever associated with Christianity was corrupt, but enough time and enough people have had their hands stirring the pot and adding stuff to it, that I just can’t shake the suspicions and questions that I have.

My bottom line with religion is that if I’m going to believe something it has to be made evident to me that it’s really a higher power I’m putting my faith into and not a bunch of guidelines written thousands of years ago by men with questionable motivation. To me, it makes no sense to blindly follow that kind of thing. I think it’s why I look very poorly on organized religion/dogma and people following it to the letter, but have no problem with people simply being spiritual and defining their own relationship with the higher power they believe in.

I know that such an evidence based approach is a me problem and you either have faith or you don’t. I clearly don’t.

 

[BobbyLayne]

The Bible's canon, or list of books, was determined by a combination of factors, including:

• God's inspiration: According to Christian theology, God inspired the human authors of the Bible and decided which books should be included.
• Jewish rabbis and scholars: Jewish rabbis and scholars in first century Palestine were the first to determine the canon.
• Early Christians: Early Christians continued the process of determining the canon. The canon confirmed centuries later was accepted by the church near the end of the first century.
• Church leaders: Church leaders needed to know which books to copy and consolidate into a single volume.
• Church councils: Church councils gradually accepted the list of books that believers recognized as inspired.

Thanks for the replies. This has been informative.

This bulleted list is a good way to show why I will probably never have faith. To give you a glimpse of how I read this, I look at this and see all these decisions made mostly by men of the ruling class hundreds or thousands of years ago and immediately get suspicious and question their intentions. How do I know they were god inspired? Were these “church leaders” and “scholars” in a seat of power or in league with people in power? Someone in power telling the masses that they need to fall in line or they will go to hell sounds like an awfully good way for the ruling class to make sure they stay in power.

I don’t mean to suggest that everything and everyone ever associated with Christianity was corrupt, but enough time and enough people have had their hands stirring the pot and adding stuff to it, that I just can’t shake the suspicions and questions that I have.

My bottom line with religion is that if I’m going to believe something it has to be made evident to me that it’s really a higher power I’m putting my faith into and not a bunch of guidelines written thousands of years ago by men with questionable motivation. To me, it makes no sense to blindly follow that kind of thing. I think it’s why I look very poorly on organized religion/dogma and people following it to the letter, but have no problem with people simply being spiritual and defining their own relationship with the higher power they believe in.

I know that such an evidence based approach is a me problem and you either have faith or you don’t. I clearly don’t.

I want to focus on this part of your post:

To give you a glimpse of how I read this, I look at this and see all these decisions made mostly by men of the ruling class hundreds or thousands of years ago and immediately get suspicious and question their intentions. How do I know they were god inspired? Were these “church leaders” and “scholars” in a seat of power or in league with people in power? Someone in power telling the masses that they need to fall in line or they will go to hell sounds like an awfully good way for the ruling class to make sure they stay in power.

That's not really the early church history, though. For that matter, nation-states didn't really emerge until the 15th century, and the modern nation-state is traditionally thought of as after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.

But let's go to the 4th century and Roman Empire. Constantine decriminalized Christianity (Edict of Milan), but there is considerable debate if he did because of his conversion (his mother was a Christian) or political convenience. He continued pagan worship and did not immediately call for combining church and state, or make Christianity the official religion. We could probably think of him as theist in his early reign rather specifically being a Christ follower. y

He had been in power 19 years when he convoked the Council of Nicea. He was the host and acted as a mediator - and excelled in those roles - but wasn't given to philosophical discussion. That was the role of the Bishops and priests. There was a heretic in Alexandria who was erroneously teaching Jesus was merely a man, albeit one with God like powers.
The Council of Nicea took place in AD 325 by order of the Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine. Nicea was located in Asia Minor, east of Constantinople. The council formally defined the nature of God for all of Christianity and eliminating confusion, controversy, and contention within the church. The Council of Nicea overwhelmingly affirmed the deity and eternality of Jesus Christ and defined the relationship between the Father and the Son as “of one substance.” It also affirmed the Trinity—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were listed as three co-equal and co-eternal Persons.

These were by no means radical conceptions or anything new. They weren't "deciding" anything. They were affirming practices and beliefs which were consistent with the Jerusalem church centered around the Second Temple (early Christians met in synagogues....home church, outside the temple, did not begin until after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, when the 2nd Temple was destroyed.

Christians and the church had little to no influence in 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries. This was a time of great persecution. Every one of the Twelve (save Judas) died a martyr, in the most horrific ways imaginable. To be a believer in Christ was to risk one's life, they were being fed to Lions in stadiums for sport. Home church, often in secret, continued as a practice until the late third century, when the first purpose built churches came into existence.

I'm kind of with you on distrusting governments and organized religion. To be honest I don't think religion is helpful at all. I don't self-identify as religious, or Presbyterian, I tell people i'm a Jesus follower. If it's another believer I might say I'm reformed as that's a shorthand way of stating your belief system.

Organized religions and specifically both the Roman Catholic Church + mainline denominations were manipulative behemoths. Religion truly was an opiate to the masses, a means to control the general population. It's really abhorrent, and in one sense I am grateful we no longer reside in Christendom. There was a time when businessmen and politicians knew they had to belong to a church in order to succeed, and going to church was normative. These days we are a little more authentic and genuine, there is (my perception, could be way off base) less of folks going through the motions of being a Christian in order to curry favor. Seems to me that folks who attend services nowadays are going for the right reasons. At least I can say that seems to be true for Gen Z and Millenials IME.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Forgot to post the most important thing about the Council of Nicea - the Nicene Creed.

Other than the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed is likely the most universally accepted and recognized statements of the Christian faith. IOW, what do we believe?

"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

“And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

The Nicene Creed continues to be recited in corporate worship - with slight variance to modernize the verbiage - to this day.

 

[BobbyLayne]

The early church rejected the gnostic teachings because they were inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus and the accounts written by eyewitnesses.

What are the eyewitness accounts of Jesus' teachings in the Bible?

Sorry Jed, think I missed this earlier?

The five historical narratives of the New Testament - the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, plus Luke’s Acts of the Apostles, are either written by apostles, written for the apostles, or based on interviews with eyewitnesses.

Jesus was crucified in CE 30 or 33 (don’t think we have consensus.) In the course of my lifetime the dating of the gospels has shifted slightly….used to Mark was around 57-58, John in 90, Matthew & Luke in between, usually closer to Mark (who travelled with Paul and likely was writing Peter’s account for him.)

Modern scholarship tends to date Mark's Gospel around A.D. 70-75, Matthew around 75, Luke around 80-90, and John around 90-100. Not sure why the dates have been fluid but I imagine it has to do with either the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (CE 70) or recent archeological finds.

The larger point is they were written within the same lifetime of the Twelve and other followers who knew Jesus.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The early church rejected the gnostic teachings because they were inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus and the accounts written by eyewitnesses.

What are the eyewitness accounts of Jesus' teachings in the Bible?

Sorry Jed, think I missed this earlier?

The five historical narratives of the New Testament - the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, plus Luke’s Acts of the Apostles, are either written by apostles, written for the apostles, or based on interviews with eyewitnesses.

Jesus was crucified in CE 30 or 33 (don’t think we have consensus.) In the course of my lifetime the dating of the gospels has shifted slightly….used to Mark was around 57-58, John in 90, Matthew & Luke in between, usually closer to Mark (who travelled with Paul and likely was writing Peter’s account for him.)

Modern scholarship tends to date Mark's Gospel around A.D. 70-75, Matthew around 75, Luke around 80-90, and John around 90-100. Not sure why the dates have been fluid but I imagine it has to do with either the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (CE 70) or recent archeological finds.

The larger point is they were written within the same lifetime of the Twelve and other followers who knew Jesus.

Also, Paul's letters are indisputably early. While Paul never met Jesus (ignoring the road to Damascus, of course), his letters would have circulated among people who did, including some of the apostles. Granted, Romans is not the same kind of book as Matthew or Acts, but it helps us to establish that certain parts of Christian theology -- like the resurrection and salvation by grace -- were already present in the very, very early church.

To tie this to @Scoresman 's point about the Council of Nicaea, this also explains why I think that the Council probably wasn't just making stuff up to consolidate political power. Thanks to Paul's letters, we know for sure that something really weird happened sometime around 30-50 AD. Out of nowhere, some group of random Jews suddenly started going on about how God appeared incarnate on earth to forgive sins, and how he set aside ancient food and purity laws that had been central to the Israelites all this time. All of the sudden, the Gentiles are a part of this, and a ton of ink is spilled in the epistles about what people can eat and whether Gentile converts to Christianity need to be given the proverbial chop. And this movement exploded across the ancient world.

If the councilors at Nicaea just wanted political power, they probably could have cooked up something better than a strange hybrid religion that sprang into existence several hundred years earlier. It's a lot more likely that they were doing what they said they were doing -- codifying and standardizing that strange hybrid religion which we now know as Christianity.

 

[BobbyLayne]

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I'd also like to talk about how the Bible is filled with miracles performed by prophets and by Jesus, but why you don't see anything like this happening in recent history?

Where is my water to wine sink faucet attachment?

- YouTube

Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.

youtu.be

 

[Scoresman]

The early church rejected the gnostic teachings because they were inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus and the accounts written by eyewitnesses.

What are the eyewitness accounts of Jesus' teachings in the Bible?

Sorry Jed, think I missed this earlier?

The five historical narratives of the New Testament - the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, plus Luke’s Acts of the Apostles, are either written by apostles, written for the apostles, or based on interviews with eyewitnesses.

Jesus was crucified in CE 30 or 33 (don’t think we have consensus.) In the course of my lifetime the dating of the gospels has shifted slightly….used to Mark was around 57-58, John in 90, Matthew & Luke in between, usually closer to Mark (who travelled with Paul and likely was writing Peter’s account for him.)

Modern scholarship tends to date Mark's Gospel around A.D. 70-75, Matthew around 75, Luke around 80-90, and John around 90-100. Not sure why the dates have been fluid but I imagine it has to do with either the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (CE 70) or recent archeological finds.

The larger point is they were written within the same lifetime of the Twelve and other followers who knew Jesus.

Also, Paul's letters are indisputably early. While Paul never met Jesus (ignoring the road to Damascus, of course), his letters would have circulated among people who did, including some of the apostles. Granted, Romans is not the same kind of book as Matthew or Acts, but it helps us to establish that certain parts of Christian theology -- like the resurrection and salvation by grace -- were already present in the very, very early church.

To tie this to @Scoresman 's point about the Council of Nicaea, this also explains why I think that the Council probably wasn't just making stuff up to consolidate political power. Thanks to Paul's letters, we know for sure that something really weird happened sometime around 30-50 AD. Out of nowhere, some group of random Jews suddenly started going on about how God appeared incarnate on earth to forgive sins, and how he set aside ancient food and purity laws that had been central to the Israelites all this time. All of the sudden, the Gentiles are a part of this, and a ton of ink is spilled in the epistles about what people can eat and whether Gentile converts to Christianity need to be given the proverbial chop. And this movement exploded across the ancient world.

If the councilors at Nicaea just wanted political power, they probably could have cooked up something better than a strange hybrid religion that sprang into existence several hundred years earlier. It's a lot more likely that they were doing what they said they were doing -- codifying and standardizing that strange hybrid religion which we now know as Christianity.

Truth may be somewhere in the middle and I think it could be a little of both. Truth is we can never know for sure. If I ever found faith, I think it would be based on something more personal between myself and a higher power and not based on something decreed 1,500 years ago.

 

[dgreen]

The early church rejected the gnostic teachings because they were inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus and the accounts written by eyewitnesses.

What are the eyewitness accounts of Jesus' teachings in the Bible?

Sorry Jed, think I missed this earlier?

The five historical narratives of the New Testament - the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, plus Luke’s Acts of the Apostles, are either written by apostles, written for the apostles, or based on interviews with eyewitnesses.

Jesus was crucified in CE 30 or 33 (don’t think we have consensus.) In the course of my lifetime the dating of the gospels has shifted slightly….used to Mark was around 57-58, John in 90, Matthew & Luke in between, usually closer to Mark (who travelled with Paul and likely was writing Peter’s account for him.)

Modern scholarship tends to date Mark's Gospel around A.D. 70-75, Matthew around 75, Luke around 80-90, and John around 90-100. Not sure why the dates have been fluid but I imagine it has to do with either the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (CE 70) or recent archeological finds.

The larger point is they were written within the same lifetime of the Twelve and other followers who knew Jesus.

Also, Paul's letters are indisputably early. While Paul never met Jesus (ignoring the road to Damascus, of course), his letters would have circulated among people who did, including some of the apostles. Granted, Romans is not the same kind of book as Matthew or Acts, but it helps us to establish that certain parts of Christian theology -- like the resurrection and salvation by grace -- were already present in the very, very early church.

To tie this to @Scoresman 's point about the Council of Nicaea, this also explains why I think that the Council probably wasn't just making stuff up to consolidate political power. Thanks to Paul's letters, we know for sure that something really weird happened sometime around 30-50 AD. Out of nowhere, some group of random Jews suddenly started going on about how God appeared incarnate on earth to forgive sins, and how he set aside ancient food and purity laws that had been central to the Israelites all this time. All of the sudden, the Gentiles are a part of this, and a ton of ink is spilled in the epistles about what people can eat and whether Gentile converts to Christianity need to be given the proverbial chop. And this movement exploded across the ancient world.

If the councilors at Nicaea just wanted political power, they probably could have cooked up something better than a strange hybrid religion that sprang into existence several hundred years earlier. It's a lot more likely that they were doing what they said they were doing -- codifying and standardizing that strange hybrid religion which we now know as Christianity.

I'll also add that when we ask, "When was Matthew written?", we are interested in the autograph (that original in its final form). However, just about everyone is going to agree that the autograph isn't 100% original to Matthew. The Gospel writers used traditions (whether they were oral or written) to patch together what became what we'd call their autograph. These traditions almost certainly date well before our best-guess dates for each autograph.

As you say, much of Paul's stuff is considered to be the earliest writings. And, since he's writing letters and not working in the same Gospel genre as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, a lot of his writings will be original to him and not patching together traditions into a larger story. Still, though, scholars see evidence in Paul's letters of preliterary traditions where he weaves in what was likely an existing creed or hymn that expressed things they commonly believed (like the resurrection). So, even in the earliest writings, we have evidence of even earlier traditions.

 

[Zow]

The early church rejected the gnostic teachings because they were inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus and the accounts written by eyewitnesses.

What are the eyewitness accounts of Jesus' teachings in the Bible?

Sorry Jed, think I missed this earlier?

The five historical narratives of the New Testament - the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, plus Luke’s Acts of the Apostles, are either written by apostles, written for the apostles, or based on interviews with eyewitnesses.

Jesus was crucified in CE 30 or 33 (don’t think we have consensus.) In the course of my lifetime the dating of the gospels has shifted slightly….used to Mark was around 57-58, John in 90, Matthew & Luke in between, usually closer to Mark (who travelled with Paul and likely was writing Peter’s account for him.)

Modern scholarship tends to date Mark's Gospel around A.D. 70-75, Matthew around 75, Luke around 80-90, and John around 90-100. Not sure why the dates have been fluid but I imagine it has to do with either the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (CE 70) or recent archeological finds.

The larger point is they were written within the same lifetime of the Twelve and other followers who knew Jesus.

Also, Paul's letters are indisputably early. While Paul never met Jesus (ignoring the road to Damascus, of course), his letters would have circulated among people who did, including some of the apostles. Granted, Romans is not the same kind of book as Matthew or Acts, but it helps us to establish that certain parts of Christian theology -- like the resurrection and salvation by grace -- were already present in the very, very early church.

To tie this to @Scoresman 's point about the Council of Nicaea, this also explains why I think that the Council probably wasn't just making stuff up to consolidate political power. Thanks to Paul's letters, we know for sure that something really weird happened sometime around 30-50 AD. Out of nowhere, some group of random Jews suddenly started going on about how God appeared incarnate on earth to forgive sins, and how he set aside ancient food and purity laws that had been central to the Israelites all this time. All of the sudden, the Gentiles are a part of this, and a ton of ink is spilled in the epistles about what people can eat and whether Gentile converts to Christianity need to be given the proverbial chop. And this movement exploded across the ancient world.

If the councilors at Nicaea just wanted political power, they probably could have cooked up something better than a strange hybrid religion that sprang into existence several hundred years earlier. It's a lot more likely that they were doing what they said they were doing -- codifying and standardizing that strange hybrid religion which we now know as Christianity.

I'll also add that when we ask, "When was Matthew written?", we are interested in the autograph (that original in its final form). However, just about everyone is going to agree that the autograph isn't 100% original to Matthew. The Gospel writers used traditions (whether they were oral or written) to patch together what became what we'd call their autograph. These traditions almost certainly date well before our best-guess dates for each autograph.

As you say, much of Paul's stuff is considered to be the earliest writings. And, since he's writing letters and not working in the same Gospel genre as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, a lot of his writings will be original to him and not patching together traditions into a larger story. Still, though, scholars see evidence in Paul's letters of preliterary traditions where he weaves in what was likely an existing creed or hymn that expressed things they commonly believed (like the resurrection). So, even in the earliest writings, we have evidence of even earlier traditions.

My recollection of what I was taught (this was 20 years ago at least now though) is that is was widely accepted that the apostle Mark actually wrote the Gospel of Mark and, as @BobbyLayne described above, the written record suggests Mark was written in like 60 AD/CE which theoretically could have been in Mark's expected lifetime because the apostles were probably just teenagers at the time Jesus allegedly existed (with his birth likely being in the summer of 4 BC/BCE and death around 30 CE/AD). I recall something about Mark being the faster runner than Peter when running to Jesus's open tomb on Easter and the conclusion drawn is that only Mark could have known this. In contrast, the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John were probably not written by a primary source.

Is this still commonly accepted?

 

[dgreen]

The early church rejected the gnostic teachings because they were inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus and the accounts written by eyewitnesses.

What are the eyewitness accounts of Jesus' teachings in the Bible?

Sorry Jed, think I missed this earlier?

The five historical narratives of the New Testament - the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, plus Luke’s Acts of the Apostles, are either written by apostles, written for the apostles, or based on interviews with eyewitnesses.

Jesus was crucified in CE 30 or 33 (don’t think we have consensus.) In the course of my lifetime the dating of the gospels has shifted slightly….used to Mark was around 57-58, John in 90, Matthew & Luke in between, usually closer to Mark (who travelled with Paul and likely was writing Peter’s account for him.)

Modern scholarship tends to date Mark's Gospel around A.D. 70-75, Matthew around 75, Luke around 80-90, and John around 90-100. Not sure why the dates have been fluid but I imagine it has to do with either the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (CE 70) or recent archeological finds.

The larger point is they were written within the same lifetime of the Twelve and other followers who knew Jesus.

Also, Paul's letters are indisputably early. While Paul never met Jesus (ignoring the road to Damascus, of course), his letters would have circulated among people who did, including some of the apostles. Granted, Romans is not the same kind of book as Matthew or Acts, but it helps us to establish that certain parts of Christian theology -- like the resurrection and salvation by grace -- were already present in the very, very early church.

To tie this to @Scoresman 's point about the Council of Nicaea, this also explains why I think that the Council probably wasn't just making stuff up to consolidate political power. Thanks to Paul's letters, we know for sure that something really weird happened sometime around 30-50 AD. Out of nowhere, some group of random Jews suddenly started going on about how God appeared incarnate on earth to forgive sins, and how he set aside ancient food and purity laws that had been central to the Israelites all this time. All of the sudden, the Gentiles are a part of this, and a ton of ink is spilled in the epistles about what people can eat and whether Gentile converts to Christianity need to be given the proverbial chop. And this movement exploded across the ancient world.

If the councilors at Nicaea just wanted political power, they probably could have cooked up something better than a strange hybrid religion that sprang into existence several hundred years earlier. It's a lot more likely that they were doing what they said they were doing -- codifying and standardizing that strange hybrid religion which we now know as Christianity.

I'll also add that when we ask, "When was Matthew written?", we are interested in the autograph (that original in its final form). However, just about everyone is going to agree that the autograph isn't 100% original to Matthew. The Gospel writers used traditions (whether they were oral or written) to patch together what became what we'd call their autograph. These traditions almost certainly date well before our best-guess dates for each autograph.

As you say, much of Paul's stuff is considered to be the earliest writings. And, since he's writing letters and not working in the same Gospel genre as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, a lot of his writings will be original to him and not patching together traditions into a larger story. Still, though, scholars see evidence in Paul's letters of preliterary traditions where he weaves in what was likely an existing creed or hymn that expressed things they commonly believed (like the resurrection). So, even in the earliest writings, we have evidence of even earlier traditions.

My recollection of what I was taught (this was 20 years ago at least now though) is that is was widely accepted that the apostle Mark actually wrote the Gospel of Mark and, as @BobbyLayne described above, the written record suggests Mark was written in like 60 AD/CE which theoretically could have been in Mark's expected lifetime because the apostles were probably just teenagers at the time Jesus allegedly existed (with his birth likely being in the summer of 4 BC/BCE and death around 30 CE/AD). I recall something about Mark being the faster runner than Peter when running to Jesus's open tomb on Easter and the conclusion drawn is that only Mark could have known this. In contrast, the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John were probably not written by a primary source.

Is this still commonly accepted?

The race to the empty tomb is in John and the unnamed winner is assumed to be John. Mark has unnamed naked man in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus was arrested and some think that was Mark.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The early church rejected the gnostic teachings because they were inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus and the accounts written by eyewitnesses.

What are the eyewitness accounts of Jesus' teachings in the Bible?

Sorry Jed, think I missed this earlier?

The five historical narratives of the New Testament - the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, plus Luke’s Acts of the Apostles, are either written by apostles, written for the apostles, or based on interviews with eyewitnesses.

Jesus was crucified in CE 30 or 33 (don’t think we have consensus.) In the course of my lifetime the dating of the gospels has shifted slightly….used to Mark was around 57-58, John in 90, Matthew & Luke in between, usually closer to Mark (who travelled with Paul and likely was writing Peter’s account for him.)

Modern scholarship tends to date Mark's Gospel around A.D. 70-75, Matthew around 75, Luke around 80-90, and John around 90-100. Not sure why the dates have been fluid but I imagine it has to do with either the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (CE 70) or recent archeological finds.

The larger point is they were written within the same lifetime of the Twelve and other followers who knew Jesus.

Also, Paul's letters are indisputably early. While Paul never met Jesus (ignoring the road to Damascus, of course), his letters would have circulated among people who did, including some of the apostles. Granted, Romans is not the same kind of book as Matthew or Acts, but it helps us to establish that certain parts of Christian theology -- like the resurrection and salvation by grace -- were already present in the very, very early church.

To tie this to @Scoresman 's point about the Council of Nicaea, this also explains why I think that the Council probably wasn't just making stuff up to consolidate political power. Thanks to Paul's letters, we know for sure that something really weird happened sometime around 30-50 AD. Out of nowhere, some group of random Jews suddenly started going on about how God appeared incarnate on earth to forgive sins, and how he set aside ancient food and purity laws that had been central to the Israelites all this time. All of the sudden, the Gentiles are a part of this, and a ton of ink is spilled in the epistles about what people can eat and whether Gentile converts to Christianity need to be given the proverbial chop. And this movement exploded across the ancient world.

If the councilors at Nicaea just wanted political power, they probably could have cooked up something better than a strange hybrid religion that sprang into existence several hundred years earlier. It's a lot more likely that they were doing what they said they were doing -- codifying and standardizing that strange hybrid religion which we now know as Christianity.

I'll also add that when we ask, "When was Matthew written?", we are interested in the autograph (that original in its final form). However, just about everyone is going to agree that the autograph isn't 100% original to Matthew. The Gospel writers used traditions (whether they were oral or written) to patch together what became what we'd call their autograph. These traditions almost certainly date well before our best-guess dates for each autograph.

As you say, much of Paul's stuff is considered to be the earliest writings. And, since he's writing letters and not working in the same Gospel genre as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, a lot of his writings will be original to him and not patching together traditions into a larger story. Still, though, scholars see evidence in Paul's letters of preliterary traditions where he weaves in what was likely an existing creed or hymn that expressed things they commonly believed (like the resurrection). So, even in the earliest writings, we have evidence of even earlier traditions.

My recollection of what I was taught (this was 20 years ago at least now though) is that is was widely accepted that the apostle Mark actually wrote the Gospel of Mark and, as @BobbyLayne described above, the written record suggests Mark was written in like 60 AD/CE which theoretically could have been in Mark's expected lifetime because the apostles were probably just teenagers at the time Jesus allegedly existed (with his birth likely being in the summer of 4 BC/BCE and death around 30 CE/AD). I recall something about Mark being the faster runner than Peter when running to Jesus's open tomb on Easter and the conclusion drawn is that only Mark could have known this. In contrast, the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John were probably not written by a primary source.

Is this still commonly accepted?

I'm pretty sure it's widely accepted that Mark is the earliest of the gospels. I read a bit about the scholarship of how these manuscripts are dated a while back, but I haven't made any effort to keep up on that. I do know that the dates of all the gospels tend to be disputed. When we're talking about stuff that was written 2000 years ago, a disagreement over 20-30 years (e.g. 50 AD vs. 80 AD) doesn't seem like anything significant, but it matters a lot if I'm debating a guy like Scoresman, because those 30 years represent another generation between the life of Jesus and somebody writing his life story. I can see why that matters.

That's why I like to reference Paul instead. I know a few of the Pauline letters have hotly disputed authorship (Ephesians), but nobody questions the validity or dating of 1 Corinthians and Romans, for example.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

My recollection of what I was taught (this was 20 years ago at least now though) is that is was widely accepted that the apostle Mark actually wrote the Gospel of Mark and, as @BobbyLayne described above, the written record suggests Mark was written in like 60 AD/CE which theoretically could have been in Mark's expected lifetime because the apostles were probably just teenagers at the time Jesus allegedly existed (with his birth likely being in the summer of 4 BC/BCE and death around 30 CE/AD). I recall something about Mark being the faster runner than Peter when running to Jesus's open tomb on Easter and the conclusion drawn is that only Mark could have known this. In contrast, the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John were probably not written by a primary source.

Is this still commonly accepted?

I'm not going to claim what is "commonly believed", but my understanding is the author of Mark is responding to, writing within the context of the crack down by Rome in the aftermath of the Jewish uprising in 66AD. Which pushes it in the 70AD, fall of the second temple timetable. It also ends abruptly and even then some suggest that the original ended even more abruptly.

Mathew comes first in the gospels because until the 19th century or so it was "commonly" believed to be the first gospel, but now I think it is relatively universally accepted to "borrow from" Mark and must come later. That being said there seems to be some early mentions (50's?) of Matthew gospel, in Hebrew. So maybe there were earlier versions that didn't survive .

Luke/Acts seems to be a commissioned research project sometime between 80AD and 110AD, but still getting revisions (whether on purpose or not) well into the 2nd century. The author of Luke historically was supposed to be a follower of Paul, but I think today this has fallen out of favor as the author contradicts Paul in too many cases. However, there are the so called "we passages" in Acts which suggests that at least a source was travel companion creating a travel diary.

For John, I believe that there are early versions or maybe snippets of what it becomes floating around in the 70s but I think the general idea is that it is 90 to 110 AD.

I think that Paul mentions gospels at some point, but I'm not sure he is referencing something already written down or just the "Good News".

This is all from memory so forgive me if I whiffed and again "commonly believed" is a bit loaded to suggest that the above fits.

 

[Paddington]

Forgot to post the most important thing about the Council of Nicea - the Nicene Creed.

Other than the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed is likely the most universally accepted and recognized statements of the Christian faith. IOW, what do we believe?

"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

“And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

The Nicene Creed continues to be recited in corporate worship - with slight variance to modernize the verbiage - to this day.

While as long as they are Biblical, Creeds are nice, but they should never take the place of Scripture.

 

[Paddington]

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet.

 

[Paddington]

Question: The story of the Rich man and Lazarus, Parable or true story?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

It doesn't matter. The purpose/meaning of the story is the same whether real or not

 

[Zow]

Must resist making a joke about the capitalization of “Rich”…

 

[dgreen]

Question: The story of the Rich man and Lazarus, Parable or true story?

Parable.

Why do you ask?

 

[Paddington]

The Rich man and Lazarus was not a Parable. It uses proper names, Abraham is a real person. Not a Parable.

 

[dgreen]

The Rich man and Lazarus was not a Parable. It uses proper names, Abraham is a real person. Not a Parable.

Ok, now what? Is this just a discussion for the fun of it (which, of course, is perfectly fine) or do you think it’s important that people see it is as a real story? I’m not sure where you are coming from on this, so I’m not sure where to go next.

 

[Scoresman]

The Rich man and Lazarus was not a Parable. It uses proper names, Abraham is a real person. Not a Parable.

The Easter Bunny is capitalized too.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The Rich man and Lazarus was not a Parable. It uses proper names, Abraham is a real person. Not a Parable.

The definition of a parable is "a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson." The rich man and Lazarus story was definitely a parable.

Maybe those were actually real people too. We don't know, and it doesn't matter. The important part is the moral lesson. Jesus was a religious teacher, not a census worker.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I would say recognizing the literary form you are reading is a basic fundamental starting point to understanding the Bible.

The gospels and book of Acts are historical narrative. As are many of the Old Testament books: the first five books, the Pentateuch. Roughly 800 years of the history of Israel is told in Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther.

In the middle of the OT we find books of poetry, songs, wisdom (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon.)

Aw forget it

The Rich man and Lazarus was not a Parable. It uses proper names, Abraham is a real person. Not a Parable.

This is amazing.

I’ll be elsewhere from this day forward.

Speechless

 

[Zow]

The Rich man and Lazarus was not a Parable. It uses proper names, Abraham is a real person. Not a Parable.

You errantly capitalize like 1/2 your names. Ever think maybe Moses,* or those translating him, made the same grammatical egregious error you regularly make?


*I'm assuming you take the common belief that Moses is the Deuteronomy author that wrote the Pentateuch.

 

[dkp993]

I would say recognizing the literary form you are reading is a basic fundamental starting point to understanding the Bible.

The gospels and book of Acts are historical narrative. As are many of the Old Testament books: the first five books, the Pentateuch. Roughly 800 years of the history of Israel is told in Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther.

In the middle of the OT we find books of poetry, songs, wisdom (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon.)

Aw forget it

The Rich man and Lazarus was not a Parable. It uses proper names, Abraham is a real person. Not a Parable.

This is amazing.

I’ll be elsewhere from this day forward.

Speechless

This is exactly my issue with organized religion and the Bible. 2 well studied, dedicated believers have massive fundamental differences with what to believe. Why would an all knowing God use the Bible as our main(only) source of knowledge when it can so easily be misinterpreted and misunderstood (or frankly never taught at all, think of Amazon tribes isolated). Especially thousands of years later when our very souls and our eternity hang in the balance. There isn’t a hint of sense in that.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Hell is any place God is not.