Christian Discussion Thread V

[Gim]

Revelation, like Genesis, is not supposed to be taken as a history. It's obviously metaphorical.

Moreover, you'll perhaps have noticed - some random dude saying something in the Revelation text is not even crediting Jesus or god with the comment. It's just some commentator.

And yes, god lied. And the serpent called him on it. The serpent said that they would be like god (true), knowing good and evil (true) and that they would not - as god had fraudulently claimed in an attempt to scare them straight - 'certainly die' (true).

Er, they did die. Just because they didn't die right that second doesn't change that.

So, what he means on the quote he made is that we shouldn't take Revelations literally, but Genesis literally?

[Morr]

That means without Jesus there wasn't a whole.

The Mormons don't preach a post-Christ covenant, I don't think. I also believe they preach that all Christians were wrong for 1900 years, and that they are the actual Church disappeared during this time. While Christianity says there were heresies among the Jews directly before Christ, they still thought that the Jews were the administrators of God's One religion.
I don't know enough about the Bahai to discuss this point, you'd have to elaborate on their theology here for me to elaborate on my objections.

Mormons think Joseph Priestley or some so-called prophet was given instructions by God or Jesus to make his own bible or something, which I think is downright ridiculous.

Yeah, well I know that much, though I'm not in the habit of saying rude things about the religions of others unless it involves some debate with then or they are making bold statements to me about their religion's superiority.

[Gim]

Mormons think Joseph Priestley or some so-called prophet was given instructions by God or Jesus to make his own bible or something, which I think is downright ridiculous.

Yeah, well I know that much, though I'm not in the habit of saying rude things about the religions of others unless it involves some debate with then or they are making bold statements to me about their religion's superiority.

What I mean is, the existence of Jesus and the fundamental core of their story seems to conflict. If Jesus is the Messiah, why is there a true prophet?

[Morr]

Er, they did die. Just because they didn't die right that second doesn't change that.

So, what he means on the quote he made is that we shouldn't take Revelations literally, but Genesis literally?

I don't know, I'm guessing we'll find out. He seems extremely antagonist toward Christ, so I'd rather settle what his beefs so as to confront his perspective, as opposed to making assumptions.

[Gim]

So, what he means on the quote he made is that we shouldn't take Revelations literally, but Genesis literally?

I don't know, I'm guessing we'll find out. He seems extremely antagonist toward Christ, so I'd rather settle what his beefs so as to confront his perspective, as opposed to making assumptions.

Also, it baffles me how a Christian can think the Devil is not the absolute evil in the Bible. That one caught me by a shock.

[Morr]

I don't know, I'm guessing we'll find out. He seems extremely antagonist toward Christ, so I'd rather settle what his beefs so as to confront his perspective, as opposed to making assumptions.

Also, it baffles me how a Christian can think the Devil is not the absolute evil in the Bible. That one caught me by a shock.

Theological liberalism has been a growing heresy in the Church since the 1960's. "Postheism" is even an idea that's becoming more common.

[Gim]

Also, it baffles me how a Christian can think the Devil is not the absolute evil in the Bible. That one caught me by a shock.

Theological liberalism has been a growing heresy in the Church since the 1960's. "Postheism" is even an idea that's becoming more common.

Maybe, prayer is the only way we can resolve this issue, because being liberal with the Bible is basically rewriting it the way you want, thus it not being the actual scriptures.

[Morr]

Theological liberalism has been a growing heresy in the Church since the 1960's. "Postheism" is even an idea that's becoming more common.

Maybe, prayer is the only way we can resolve this issue, because being liberal with the Bible is basically rewriting it the way you want, thus it not being the actual scriptures.

The increasing liberalism of my Church (Anglican) is why I'm looking into converting to the Orthodox Church, which I'm beginning to see more and more as the original Church. I still attach considerable legitimacy to the Roman Catholic Church, despite a few things I disagree with them on, but I fear they might become greatly warped in this century as well by trying to appeal to secularism, and if that goes too far then it will dash my hopes of a reconciliation of East and West.

[Gim]

Maybe, prayer is the only way we can resolve this issue, because being liberal with the Bible is basically rewriting it the way you want, thus it not being the actual scriptures.

The increasing liberalism of my Church (Anglican) is why I'm looking into converting to the Orthodox Church, which I'm beginning to see more and more as the original Church. I still attach considerable legitimacy to the Roman Catholic Church, despite a few things I disagree with them on, but I fear they might become greatly warped in this century as well by trying to appeal to secularism, and if that goes too far then it will dash my hopes of a reconciliation of East and West.

I have no enmity towards the Orthodox as well as Catholics. Remember always to ask for God's opinion, before you switch denominations. Respect God's plan first is what I'm trying to say.

[Morr]

The increasing liberalism of my Church (Anglican) is why I'm looking into converting to the Orthodox Church, which I'm beginning to see more and more as the original Church. I still attach considerable legitimacy to the Roman Catholic Church, despite a few things I disagree with them on, but I fear they might become greatly warped in this century as well by trying to appeal to secularism, and if that goes too far then it will dash my hopes of a reconciliation of East and West.

I have no enmity towards the Orthodox as well as Catholics. Remember always to ask for God's opinion, before you switch denominations. Respect God's plan first is what I'm trying to say.

God is kind of what it's all about, it's not a job, after all.

[Belhorizon]

Maybe, prayer is the only way we can resolve this issue, because being liberal with the Bible is basically rewriting it the way you want, thus it not being the actual scriptures.

The increasing liberalism of my Church (Anglican) is why I'm looking into converting to the Orthodox Church, which I'm beginning to see more and more as the original Church. I still attach considerable legitimacy to the Roman Catholic Church, despite a few things I disagree with them on, but I fear they might become greatly warped in this century as well by trying to appeal to secularism, and if that goes too far then it will dash my hopes of a reconciliation of East and West.

If Scripture is to be believed; The Catholic Church isn't going anywhere. I'm sticking with what Benedict said way before he became Pope.
We're going to go back to being a small church. Less quantity, more quality.

[Mahdistan]

You claim that Jesus needed to fulfill something, that means without Jesus there was a whole.
The Mormons say the same thing.
As doe the Bahai.

Well to be fair, there was a whole messianic concept that Christians believe Jesus fulfilled. The problem with Mohammod and Joseph Smith is that after Christ there are no more prophets, only false prophets

Kind of randomly popping in here, but I recall reading John 16, which in my mind, does seem to indicate the appearance of a prophet after Jesus (Isa, PBUH)

7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father."

While I am not a Christian, I feel this at least implies the appearance of another prophet. He doesn't seem to be referring to himself either, which might imply he would deliver the knowledge in his second coming, but rather it seems to make direct mention of another person delivering God's word, therefore, a prophet.

[Morr]

The increasing liberalism of my Church (Anglican) is why I'm looking into converting to the Orthodox Church, which I'm beginning to see more and more as the original Church. I still attach considerable legitimacy to the Roman Catholic Church, despite a few things I disagree with them on, but I fear they might become greatly warped in this century as well by trying to appeal to secularism, and if that goes too far then it will dash my hopes of a reconciliation of East and West.

If Scripture is to be believed; The Catholic Church isn't going anywhere. I'm sticking with what Benedict said way before he became Pope.
We're going to go back to being a small church. Less quantity, more quality.

Well, has a lot to do with what being a rock entails. The powers he gave Peter were the same as he gave all Apostles (Matthew 18:18), and Revelations has the Church being build on twelve pillars, with Christ as the cornerstone; so Peter is a rock, but is he the only rock? That's debatable--though I did find many compelling arguments for Papal supremacy, in the end I was more drawn to the Orthodox Church for one reason: they virtually haven't changed at all over time, whereas the Catholic Church has.

[Salus Maior]

Well to be fair, there was a whole messianic concept that Christians believe Jesus fulfilled. The problem with Mohammod and Joseph Smith is that after Christ there are no more prophets, only false prophets

Kind of randomly popping in here, but I recall reading John 16, which in my mind, does seem to indicate the appearance of a prophet after Jesus (Isa, PBUH)

7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father."

While I am not a Christian, I feel this at least implies the appearance of another prophet. He doesn't seem to be referring to himself either, which might imply he would deliver the knowledge in his second coming, but rather it seems to make direct mention of another person delivering God's word, therefore, a prophet.

I believe that Jesus is referring to the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Also, I doubt that Muslims would really think that this would refer to Muhammad, as it suggests Christ's divinity as HE is sending the alleged prophet, not God the Father. Not to mention other things about this string of verses that would suggest such very non-Islamic concepts, such as belief in and glorification of Christ being fairly central. It couldn't refer to Muhammad without some twisting.

[Herskerstad]

Well to be fair, there was a whole messianic concept that Christians believe Jesus fulfilled. The problem with Mohammod and Joseph Smith is that after Christ there are no more prophets, only false prophets

Kind of randomly popping in here, but I recall reading John 16, which in my mind, does seem to indicate the appearance of a prophet after Jesus (Isa, PBUH)

7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father."

While I am not a Christian, I feel this at least implies the appearance of another prophet. He doesn't seem to be referring to himself either, which might imply he would deliver the knowledge in his second coming, but rather it seems to make direct mention of another person delivering God's word, therefore, a prophet.

Not sure which translation you're using there, but the NIV certainly is fairly accurate as to the message.

17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you.

Now, nobody believes that Muhammad is in anyone. Nor do anyone believes him to be invisible. Arabia certainly eventually accepted him given that he conquered it. There is no place to fit Muhammad within the Christian scriptures that even predate him.

However, we invite you to consider a passage that comes shortly after.

23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching.

In the Quran we notice a fairly 2-dimensional Jesus who's more of an argument than a person. In the new testament his full fruit, works and teachings come to fruition which we can have confidence in given our ancient manuscript collections and Patristic sources which would correspond with the Torah and the Engil that would have been around during Muhammad's time, the ones that he himself testified to the validity of. So get your bible and discover this Jesus. I have little doubt that if good reside in you that his teachings, and indeed, his person will make sense particularly if you take it into the realm of systematics.

Peace and Grace.

[Belhorizon]

If Scripture is to be believed; The Catholic Church isn't going anywhere. I'm sticking with what Benedict said way before he became Pope.
We're going to go back to being a small church. Less quantity, more quality.

Well, has a lot to do with what being a rock entails. The powers he gave Peter were the same as he gave all Apostles (Matthew 18:18), and Revelations has the Church being build on twelve pillars, with Christ as the cornerstone; so Peter is a rock, but is he the only rock? That's debatable--though I did find many compelling arguments for Papal supremacy, in the end I was more drawn to the Orthodox Church for one reason: they virtually haven't changed at all over time, whereas the Catholic Church has.

I was actually referring to;
'the gates of hell shall not prevail'; in Matthew 16:18; right next to it.

As for the Orthodox; I'd say the split isn't really an act of disobedience, since it really was justified given what the Bishop of Rome did.
But change is good. If the Church decided not to change and develop, as scripture asks; and the Church did,
The immaculate conception of Mary; her assumption, and her appointment as Mediatrix of all graces would've never been adopted as doctrine.
Is there a heresy in the upper ranks of the Catholic Church right now? Yes, yes there is.

But I point to Matthew 16:18.
The murderous Borgia Popes didn't corrupt the doctrine; these cardinals will sure as fleck not corrupt it now.

[Menassa]

You seem to have smuggled the conclusion into your argument. Where do you see Jesus at all from that verse? Without first believing in Jesus.

I see Jesus as the means that all people become blessed through Abraham, as opposed to just his progeny. Christ is a fulfillment of this promise to Abraham.

That's very nice that you 'see' Jesus that way. But you haven't provided any evidence for your conclusion that Jesus IS that way.

Thank you.

1. You can't simply say 'from a Christian perspective, you have to prove these things. If you want to show my why something is true you have to actually show me.

I am trying to phrase it as inoffensively as possible.

We're dealing with matters of eternal life and death... I think formalities have gone out the window.

2 & 3. Jeremiah clearly was not talking about the time of Jesus, first off, not 'all of Israel new the Lord.' There were plenty of pagans among the people of Israel.

But they knew of Christianity soon enough.

Perhaps when Jesus and Paul died they knew of Judaism soon enough.

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... testament/

The fact that Jeremiah 31:31-34 begins with the prophet addressing both the “House of Israel and the House of Judah” clearly indicates that Jeremiah is speaking to the Jewish people, following the reunification and restoration of the ten lost tribes. No restoration occurred at the time when Christians claim the new covenant was fulfilled in Jesus’ death. Quite the contrary, during the Christian century the House of Israel did not exist – Assyria exiled the Kingdom of Israel more than seven centuries earlier (approx. 732 B.C.E.). Moreover, during the first century, the Jewish people were spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. Thus, the vast bulk of “House of Judah” did not reside in the Promised Land during Jesus’ lifetime.

In short, the era of the new covenant has not yet arrived. Rather, Jeremiah’s prophecy addresses a future messianic age when the entire Jewish people – both Judah and Israel – will be restored, reunited, in the land of Israel (Ezekiel 37:15-22). On the contrary, there had been no time in history when the Jewish people were more fractured and dispersed than the first century C.E. when, the author of the Book of Hebrews claims that Jeremiah’s prophecy of a new covenant was fulfilled. Moreover, a cursory reading of verse 31:34, further confirms that Jeremiah’s prophecy is not speaking of a Christian cross 2,000 years ago but rather a restored Jewish people in the future messianic era. Missionaries often overlook verse 34 and emphasize only 31:31-33 when quoting Jeremiah’s declaration of a new covenant. This oversight shatters their interpretation of this prophecy, because clearly this passage speaks of the future new covenant era. Jeremiah states:

No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.

(Jeremiah 31:34)

The above verse clearly speaks of an age that will be realized during an epoch of the universal knowledge of God. It will occur when no one will have to teach his neighbor about God, “for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them…” Did this epic event occur during the first century C.E., or at any time since? Does every human being “know the Lord”? This is hardly the case.

The Church is spending many hundreds of millions of dollars annually in order to convert masses worldwide to Christianity. There are roughly one billion Moslems and Hindus in the world today who, according to Christian teachings, do not know the Lord; and there are an untold number of atheists throughout the globe who certainly do not know any Lord.

Has Jeremiah’s prophecy of a “new covenant” as yet been fulfilled by anyone’s standards? Are we living in a time when each and every person “knows the Lord”?

https://outreachjudaism.org/god-divorce-israel/

[Menassa]

You claim that Jesus needed to fulfill something, that means without Jesus there was a whole.
The Mormons say the same thing.
As doe the Bahai.

Well to be fair, there was a whole messianic concept that Christians believe Jesus fulfilled. The problem with Mohammod and Joseph Smith is that after Christ there are no more prophets, only false prophets

There is the whole prophetic concept that Mormons believe Joseph smith fulfilled. The Jews believe prophecy ended with Malachi.

[Mahdistan]

Kind of randomly popping in here, but I recall reading John 16, which in my mind, does seem to indicate the appearance of a prophet after Jesus (Isa, PBUH)

7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father."

While I am not a Christian, I feel this at least implies the appearance of another prophet. He doesn't seem to be referring to himself either, which might imply he would deliver the knowledge in his second coming, but rather it seems to make direct mention of another person delivering God's word, therefore, a prophet.

I believe that Jesus is referring to the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Also, I doubt that Muslims would really think that this would refer to Muhammad, as it suggests Christ's divinity as HE is sending the alleged prophet, not God the Father. Not to mention other things about this string of verses that would suggest such very non-Islamic concepts, such as belief in and glorification of Christ being fairly central. It couldn't refer to Muhammad without some twisting.

This was my first thought while reading, but I don't think that fits in with verse 9, "Of sin, because they believe not on me". The apostles onto whom the one referred to as the Holy Spirit descended upon were already believers of Jesus.

Since Muslims don't generally agree with the Bible as a whole anyway, we would already be doing some twisting in the first place. In my own view, I believe that these verses were spoken by Isa (PBUH) and referring to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), but that collectively through numerous re-translations and shifts, the wording may have been changed to move attention more towards Jesus, to fit in with the tone of the rest of the Bible.

[Herskerstad]

Since Muslims don't generally agree with the Bible as a whole anyway, we would already be doing some twisting in the first place. In my own view, I believe that these verses were spoken by Isa (PBUH) and referring to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), but that collectively through numerous re-translations and shifts, the wording may have been changed to move attention more towards Jesus, to fit in with the tone of the rest of the Bible.

Codus Sinaiticus is over 1600 years old which was in a time of an already established church, albeit one with divisions which utilized the same texts to argue different points on a near universal level. The only way that the Christians could twist a text that referenced Muhammad 'a distinctly to be later issue' would be if they had built a time machine, collected all the manuscripts which various groups would have guarded with their lives. 'See the handing over the gospel controversies' Ensured that posterity would have a universal consent in the alteration of the sources which simply would not be doable and then somehow overshadow the very earliest collective debates we have on Christ's divinity and humanity.

Since that is an unlikely scenario that not even Dan Brown or Assassins creed would touch with a ten foot pole, I am going to go with Muhammad not being a great reference model to early Christianity. Heck, even the quran mistakes the trinity as the Father, Jesus and Mary. Which makes it hard to really use as a reference sheet for historical Christian debates.

[Gim]

Theological liberalism has been a growing heresy in the Church since the 1960's. "Postheism" is even an idea that's becoming more common.

I don't know of many theological liberals who think of the devil as good. Plenty who don't believe in the devil at all...

Well, they say, at least, the devil should be sympathized and is not the ultimate source of evilness.

[Gim]

Well, they say, at least, the devil should be sympathized and is not the ultimate source of evilness.

Who says the devil should be sympathized with? Theological liberals? No, not to any significant extent they don't. I mean, I've heard atheists say that. But where are you getting your information on liberal theology from? Wherever it is, it doesn't appear to be accurate.
I mean, I guess most theological liberals would say that man is the ultimate source of evil, but so would most conservatives, except Calvinists.

Man being the ultimate source of evil means the Devil is not.

[Gim]

Man being the ultimate source of evil means the Devil is not.

I... uh...
Okay, are we talking about evil in the sense of moral evil? Like, the fact that people are evil?

People are evil, but the source is the Devil. That is what I'm saying.

[Gim]

People are evil, but the source is the Devil. That is what I'm saying.

So you don't believe in free will then? That's fine, but like, the free will Baptists are a thing. Pensacola university is explicitly anti-Calvinist. This isn't a liberal-conservative thing, it's a separate thing.

Yes, people have free will, and they are bound to be forgiven by Jesus Christ, if they repent; however, the original sin, ironically, comes from the sin that has been made by the "crafty servant" in the beginning of Genesis.

[Menassa]

I... uh...
Okay, are we talking about evil in the sense of moral evil? Like, the fact that people are evil?

People are evil, but the source is the Devil. That is what I'm saying.

I create evil (Isaiah 45:7)