Erroneous views of Christianity: Want to learn more?

[hellas1]

Hello all,

I've read Wayyyyy to many posts here on Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

My point is simply this:
When we look at the New Testament and early sources such as Josephus, Pliny in a letter to Trajan, the Toldoth Yeshu, etc. as our sources of early christianity it DOES NOT match up with today's fragmented and opposing groups which are splinters from early christianity.

Incidentally, early buddhism sufferred the same fate: 18 different "buddhist" schools by the time of the 3rd buddhist council (it might be 4th, if I'm not mistaken.) which was approx. 200 yrs after the buddha died!

If one approaches christianity through the New Testament and studies church history or christian history, one will indeed find out how and where schisms, doctrines and official dogmas came from, per se.

Ex.I: Early church had men elders and men deacons along with female deaconnesses (it can be argued through looking at the written sources). The term elder is used in the N.T. along with bishop and overseer in an interesting way: Elders are those who are "seasoned" christians meeting certain criterion, Overseers are those who give literally in greek OVERsight on how things as a whole are progressing, Bishops have been translated in a peculiar way in different bibles. Needless to say, if one looks at the greek and ancient sources as the mainstream church progressed, one can see how the clergy/laity schema occurred!
Ex.II: Biblical christianity advocates ALL christians participating in a gathering, NOT a sole pastor giving a lecture/sermon every week out of duty!
Paul, the apostle, said in I Corinthians: "When you gather, certain ones have a song, a teaching, a prophetic word, etc. let all things be done in order."
This is not what christianity is today folks.

Bottom Line: Do your homework intensively before criticizing ANY religion.

Why? A lot of you who particularly post in this sub forum bash the bible and christianity. Christianity today IS NOT the same as biblical christianity.

A great sourcebook to check out is a guy by the name of Frank Viola who published a book called "Pagan Christianity?." Read that, or borrow it from the local library if your too cheap or jaded to christianity and come back and post here. Prove me wrong about what I'm particularly stating in this post!

hellas1

[nce_wht_guy]

So, if christianity today is not the same as biblical christianity... how is it really christianity?

[roy34543]

All you need to do for "christianity" is believe in jesus.
Check? Your a christian!
(Obviously it can get more complicated, but today that seems to be the main idea....)

[whhyy]

All you need to do for "christianity" is believe in jesus.
Check? Your a christian!
(Obviously it can get more complicated, but today that seems to be the main idea....)

Yeah, that's what I was told all through junior school.

[nce_wht_guy]

Every christian I've ever talked to would disagree with you. That would mean Protestants, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox christians, oriental orthodox christians, mormons, and Muslims all are and should consider each other christians. clearly, they do not.

[roy34543]

Theres a fair few that tried to convert me by telling me to believe in jesus's divinity.
But thats not the point anyway. I wasnt being serious. I just think its wierd how simplistic christianity has gotten sometimes for the sake of quick conversion.

[Chaigidel]

good post hellas ; sadly I have nothing to add :i

[Sephynos]

Jesus never sais he was G*d, he never said he was the messiah, he only preach important things to human value

[Justus]

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1.)
“Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord, and my God” (John 20:28).
“Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am” (John 8:58).
“For a child is born to us, a son is given to us: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace." (Isaias 9:6)
“But the author of life you killed…” (Acts 3:15)
“And in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, one like to the Son of man… And when I had seen him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying: Fear not. I am the First and the Last, and behold I am living forever and ever…” (Apoc. 1)
“I the Lord, I am the first and the last” (Isaias 41:4).

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1.)
“Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord, and my God” (John 20:28).
“Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am” (John 8:58).

Interesting that none of your quotes are from the earliest gospels - the synoptics Mark, Matthew and Luke - but only from the latest one, John. Plenty of time for the idea that Jesus was God to have evolved between the time of his death and the time John was written.

“For a child is born to us, a son is given to us: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace." (Isaias 9:6)

That's a nice Christian translation of this text. But the Jewish Study Bible translates the same passage like this:

For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named “The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler”

Note the difference? But hey, what would mere Jews know about Hebrew?

“But the author of life you killed…” (Acts 3:15)
“And in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, one like to the Son of man… And when I had seen him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying: Fear not. I am the First and the Last, and behold I am living forever and ever…” (Apoc. 1)

More later texts. Where are the passages in Mark where Jesus claims to be God? Isn't it odd that they don't exist?

[chriscase]

Bottom Line: Do your homework intensively before criticizing ANY religion.

Why? A lot of you who particularly post in this sub forum bash the bible and christianity. Christianity today IS NOT the same as biblical christianity.

One does not need to be a Biblical scholar to criticize the policies, opinions, and actions of contemporary Christians.

The hook in your argument is that Christian dogma generally claims a basis in the authority of scripture. The fact that virtually every denomination disagrees as to some specifics of the interpretation need not disqualify us from criticizing the lot of them.

Of course, anyone who wants to criticize a denomination on a scriptural basis must obviously do some homework. But I haven't seen too many posts that make claims under the authority of scripture and then fail to have done any homework. Sadly, the tendency I see here among the faithful is to do the wrong kind of homework, i.e., the introspective, mystical kind, as opposed to the scholarly, well researched kind.

[The Good]

Early Christianity (circa 30s AD - 400s AD) is definately the closest we have to what Jesus taught. I know this, but here's a question, what exactly sets modern Christianity apart from Early Christianity in general? Actually, come to think of it, the term "modern Christianity" is way too broad. There is the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Protestant churches....

All you need to do for "christianity" is believe in jesus.
Check? Your a christian!
(Obviously it can get more complicated, but today that seems to be the main idea....)

You are a Christian if you believe in Jesus Christ, but He also calls for us to live a lifestyle much like his. In other words, restrain from sin and live a godly lifestyle.

[basics]

ThuidareiksGunthigg,

Mathew 12 v18,

" Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight ; I will put my Spirit on Him, and He will proclaim justice to the nations."

v21,

" In His name the nations will put their hope."

The command to love the Lord thy God with all your heart and all else hardly seems to be in accordance with the above unless the person mentioned is God.

But,

Mathew 13 v13,

" This is why I speak to them in parables : Though seeing, they do not see ; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

v14,

" In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah : You will be ever hearing but never understanding ; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving."

v15,

" For this people's heart has become calloused ; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them."

Again the words the Father put into the mouth of Isaiah long past yet resurrected by the One sent as a sign of who He was.

Again,

v35,

" ....I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world."

Note the " I " here for the prophet exorts exactly what Jesus did as the Son sent proving Himself and the Father to be the One true God. And why not since John writes of Him having created all things or as he puts it, there was nothing created that was not created by Him.

And then there is Peter's confession about Jesus being the Son of God wherein only the Father could have revealed this to him. Upon that rock, that is the confession, Jesus would build His church. Surprising since the commandments ask that you give your all to God that God would let some of that all go elsewhere unless of course Jesus and God are One.

There are so many examples that should follow but this will have to do for now.

Mathew 26 v28,

" This is my blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

The Covenant He speaks of is one still to come and is dependent on the one who made it dying so that a new one could replace the old. As God is the maker of the Old Covenant when so does He die that a New one be made to replace it? The Father cannot die but the Son who is also God could die in the body of a man fulfilling the need that someone outside of humanity must die for a New Covenant to be introduced.

But then the blind cannot see these things, nor do they want to. It is a question of believing, the right for that being a gift from God, the result of which is faith. But the blind cannot see and will not see until the Spirit of God reveals that which will be seen and by faith believed. That is not something that ordinary man can do for it is God's gift to them that He has chosen for the Son to be His body.

To say that Jesus says nothing about Himself being God is not true for each and every book of the Gospels infers the very fact or they place Jesus Christ at odds with Him who sent Him. Indeed there has never been another with the authenticity of Jesus Christ in whom all Scripture refers or who can offer salvation from the works of the Law that condemns every being to death.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

ThuidareiksGunthigg,

Mathew 12 v18,

" Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight ; I will put my Spirit on Him, and He will proclaim justice to the nations."

v21,

" In His name the nations will put their hope."

That means he was the Messiah. "Messiah" does not equal "God".

The command to love the Lord thy God with all your heart and all else hardly seems to be in accordance with the above unless the person mentioned is God.

How does that follow?

But,

Mathew 13 v13,

" This is why I speak to them in parables : Though seeing, they do not see ; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

v14,

" In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah : You will be ever hearing but never understanding ; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving."

You're really having to stretch things now. That is pretty feeble.

v15,

" For this people's heart has become calloused ; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them."

Again the words the Father put into the mouth of Isaiah long past yet resurrected by the One sent as a sign of who He was.

Again - feeble.

" ....I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world."

Note the " I " here for the prophet exorts exactly what Jesus did as the Son sent proving Himself and the Father to be the One true God. And why not since John writes of Him having created all things or as he puts it, there was nothing created that was not created by Him.

Feeble.

Is this really the best you can come up with?

And then there is Peter's confession about Jesus being the Son of God wherein only the Father could have revealed this to him. Upon that rock, that is the confession, Jesus would build His church. Surprising since the commandments ask that you give your all to God that God would let some of that all go elsewhere unless of course Jesus and God are One.

Have you bothered to understand what "Son of God" meant in the Judaism of the time? Hint - it didn't mean "God the Son". Peter is simply saying Jesus is the Messiah. But "Messiah" does not equal "God".

There are so many examples that should follow but this will have to do for now.

None of them indicate that they considered Jesus to be God.

[Garnier]

You are a Christian if you believe in Jesus Christ, but He also calls for us to live a lifestyle much like his. In other words, restrain from sin and live a godly lifestyle.

Where does Jesus say that?

Jesus did not come to invent a new religion. Jesus hated the religion He encountered, as can be seen through the way He talks to the religious leaders.

[Turbo]

Hello all,

I've read Wayyyyy to many posts here on Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

My point is simply this:
When we look at the New Testament and early sources such as Josephus, Pliny in a letter to Trajan, the Toldoth Yeshu, etc. as our sources of early christianity it DOES NOT match up with today's fragmented and opposing groups which are splinters from early christianity.

Incidentally, early buddhism sufferred the same fate: 18 different "buddhist" schools by the time of the 3rd buddhist council (it might be 4th, if I'm not mistaken.) which was approx. 200 yrs after the buddha died!

If one approaches christianity through the New Testament and studies church history or christian history, one will indeed find out how and where schisms, doctrines and official dogmas came from, per se.

Ex.I: Early church had men elders and men deacons along with female deaconnesses (it can be argued through looking at the written sources). The term elder is used in the N.T. along with bishop and overseer in an interesting way: Elders are those who are "seasoned" christians meeting certain criterion, Overseers are those who give literally in greek OVERsight on how things as a whole are progressing, Bishops have been translated in a peculiar way in different bibles. Needless to say, if one looks at the greek and ancient sources as the mainstream church progressed, one can see how the clergy/laity schema occurred!
Ex.II: Biblical christianity advocates ALL christians participating in a gathering, NOT a sole pastor giving a lecture/sermon every week out of duty!
Paul, the apostle, said in I Corinthians: "When you gather, certain ones have a song, a teaching, a prophetic word, etc. let all things be done in order."
This is not what christianity is today folks.

Bottom Line: Do your homework intensively before criticizing ANY religion.

Why? A lot of you who particularly post in this sub forum bash the bible and christianity. Christianity today IS NOT the same as biblical christianity.

A great sourcebook to check out is a guy by the name of Frank Viola who published a book called "Pagan Christianity?." Read that, or borrow it from the local library if your too cheap or jaded to christianity and come back and post here. Prove me wrong about what I'm particularly stating in this post!

hellas1

I wouldn't refer to early christianity as "biblical christianity" as there were a great many versions of scripture. Some were gnostic in nature, even greek and aramaic versions. Then there were the writings of the early church fathers such as Clement that many considered at the time as inspired writings. In fact, there isn't any 'biblical christianity' you can historically point to.

The catholic church was in fact the only Christian church and the bible did not actually originate until about 300 years later at the council of Nicea. It was the catholic church that presided over the council of nicea although there were many different heresies that were also around. The purpose of the council was to establish order, common belief, and it did so through compromise.

The purpose of the bible is spiritual enlightenment and spiritual living. It is not a practical guide on how you should keep your lifestyle. The culture and lifestyle envoked in the bible has been used to justify slavery and the lower status of women. There is nothing inspired about that, rather it is a reflect of the times and has to be taken as such. Christians evolve with the changing world in terms of lifestyle as the world is ever changing but our spirtuality must remain constant.

[QUOTE=ThiudareiksGunthigg;3312825]Interesting that none of your quotes are from the earliest gospels - the synoptics Mark, Matthew and Luke - but only from the latest one, John. Plenty of time for the idea that Jesus was God to have evolved between the time of his death and the time John was written.[QUOTE]

I'll agree with you that all the synoptics have to be taken into account and that cherry-picking verses (which protestants love to do) is not a correct way of analyzing or proving anything. Finding a verse to prove a pre-conceived notion is a fallacy. The true justification of any theological concept is one that has been time-tested by the church fathers and is also consistent with the holy scriptures. The scriptures are not just the synoptics but all the writings including those of Paul.

[AqD]

Bottom Line: Do your homework intensively before criticizing ANY religion.

Why? A lot of you who particularly post in this sub forum bash the bible and christianity. Christianity today IS NOT the same as biblical christianity.

It doesn't matter. Christianity today is as proof-less as biblical christianity or all other religions.

It's wrong to believe something can be 100% true.
And it's more wrong to submit...
________
VAPORIZERS""

[removeduser_487563287433]

Ex.I: Early church had men elders and men deacons along with female deaconnesses (it can be argued through looking at the written sources).

Specifically Pliny the Elder's correspondence with the Emperor Trajan concerning the trials of Christians (he sought advice since he had never done so before) during his governorship of Bithynia. He casually reports the interrogation of two female slaves who were deaconesses.

Very relevent to now, since the Anglican leadership is finally bringing back Christianity to how Christ intended it with female clergy. The Catholics are continuing their borderline paganism, however.

But frankly Hellas Hellas you are making a bit too much out of it. Our written sources for Christians before 100AD are exceptionally limited and some are only debatably about Christians. We can fit them on about two or three pages of A4 paper.

[rathelios]

Whitnail is right. However:

Very relevent to now, since the Anglican leadership is finally bringing back Christianity to how Christ intended it with female clergy.

Think so? There is no evidence of sexually active gay clergy two thousand years ago. Seriously doubt it gets a mention in the New Testament either.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I didn't mention homosexuality whatsoever.