How Does Believing In God Give Us Purpose?

[Ouroboros]

I never said that professing Christians didn't arrive at different interpretations - what I maintain is that many people (Christain and non-Christian) have been lazy in their Bible study - and have not done sufficient in-depth study with a proper hermeneutic to determine the correct interpretation. And scholars will have some variations in their conclusions on certain matters - but re: the essentials of Christianity (Triune Nature of God, Deity of Christ, salvation by God's grace thru faith in Jesus' death/resurrection, etc) there will be agreement.

There were congregations and version of the early Christians who did not believe in the trinity, and I think "salvation by grace" was Luther's contribution after thousand years of Catholic rule. Does the Christians in the Catholic Church believe the grace salvation? How about Calvinists? How about Russian Orthodox? Are you excluding all other version of Christianity and only keep your favorite version as the "true" one?

 

Have you ever seen an example of baptizing babies in the Bible? Does the Bible anywhere teach us to baptize babies? Answer to both >> NO. Why do some people do this? Because they have generated rules to their own liking - and have disregarded what the Bible teaches. Christians are not faultless in their Bible studies or lives >> but some (and the Catholic Church in particular - following the example of the Pharisees in the time of Jesus) have taught many things simply to extract money from its followers.

Have you ever read the word "trinity" or "triune" in the Bible? >> NO. So be consistent.

 

We now live in the times of the New Covenant, instituted by the ministry of Jesus the Messiah - so many Old Covenant rules are no longer binding on believers. No sin to work on Sundays - though it's highly advisable to have "off time" for our own rest, our own sanity, our family life, and to devote time to commune with God.

There were over 200 different sects of Christianity the first 300 years of its existence, don't tell me that your version (the Protestant/Pentecostal) is the "True" one just because you happen to be part of it.

 

I do live a fairly Spartan lifestyle in order to maximize my donations to take the Gospel all over the world; but I have not sold everything. But you must remember who Jesus was addressing in this passage - one who loved his possessions - and that was the bigger issue. Did he love God more? Or his possessions more? You cannot serve God & money.

Did Jesus address you or the Jews with John 3:16? Why one verse, but not the other? You can't serve one verse and not the other. Be consistent.

 

I believe - as do a multitude of conservative Bible scholars - that the Jesus Seminar is populated by quacks. I would put no confidence in anything they say. There is no objective evidience for the existence of Q - it's just a construct of their own subjective theories. Literary/historical (and some textual) criticism is based on certain assumptions not shown to be true.

The Jesus seminar was populated by very educated scholars, the same ones you claim know the correct interpretation of the Bible. Be consistent.

 

 

As I said - there can be some level of disagreement on some passages of Scripture - I believe that getting to know God better thru studying His revealed writings is an adventure. Much like any love relationship - where you are captivated by someone - and you want nothing more than to find out more about them - all with an eye to pleasing them and solidifying the relationship further. But there's no presence of blatantly opposite interpretations when sufficient study has occurred.

How can it be an adventure if the interpretation is fixed, set, and well defined? Isn't it more a matter of just reading the right books from the right scholars to get to the right understanding, rather than reading it on your own and have subjective and arbitrary understandings? You basically are saying that You know how to interpret the Bible right, and the scholars need to follow you. Doesn't jive with your earlier statements. Be consistent.

 

The oldest complete Hebrew OT is the Masoretic Text in St. Petersburg, Russia dated about 900AD. But there are Dead Sea scrolls which contain large portions of the OT - like the entire book of Isaiah, and these are dated 100- 150 BC.

So those are the originals? No. That means that the original "Hebrew" isn't that one. How can you claim a 900 AD book is the one with the correct Hebrew text to a book written more than 1,000 years before it?

 

I also find joy in my wife, kids, family, friends, golf, weightlifting, studies and work - but the greatest source of joy is God.

Your God is you. Because somehow, magically, your God agrees with everything you believe... He tells you how to interpret the Bible the way you think it should be interpreted. Isn't it amazing. God is led by you.

[centauri]

We now live in the times of the New Covenant, instituted by the ministry of Jesus the Messiah - so many Old Covenant rules are no longer binding on believers.

 

I don't recall anything in the Hebrew scriptures that says an expected messiah would usher in a new covenant where many of the rules would no longer be binding on believers.

If Jesus was actually an expected king messiah, one would think that he would have sat on the throne of David, rather than getting himself killed.

[Abiyoyo]

I don't recall anything in the Hebrew scriptures that says an expected messiah would usher in a new covenant where many of the rules would no longer be binding on believers.

If Jesus was actually an expected king messiah, one would think that he would have sat on the throne of David, rather than getting himself killed.

 

Actually. God to Isaiah, He said He was tried of the sacrifices. That would mean the whole Levitical Law would change.

[florduh]

Your God is you. Because somehow, magically, your God agrees with everything you believe...

 

That is brilliant and succinct.

[mwc]

Actually. God to Isaiah, He said He was tried of the sacrifices. That would mean the whole Levitical Law would change.

Then why bother to have Cyrus, the Messiah of Isaiah, build the temple?

 

And then have the Maccabees cleanse and rededicate the temple?

 

And allow Herod to totally rebuild the temple once again?

 

You're going to have to do better than this (I didn't even mention the reforms of Ezra and all the other things that happened).

 

I'd love to be able to agree with you but it's the actual events in history that make statements like yours rather short sighted. The temple was gone. The statement was made (not just in Isaiah, BTW) and so the requirement to build any temple at this moment in time, much less to cleanse then rebuild it again, is just silly. But yet it happens. To say something like "Well, the timing wasn't right" is nonsense. There was no better time as the temple was gone and no sacrifice or temple services whatsoever was taking place. Now was the time to usher in the new era.

 

To have people continue in error. Doing something that is not necessary is nonsense. They had a named Messiah and he did what he was supposed to do. The people even had to send embassy later to complete the entire temple project. This must have been something that was desired if it was under the watchful eye of a god because the whole lesson of Babylon was this god acts swiftly to correct the wrong actions of his people. He allowed them to complete the task and continue in this Law for another ~600 years.

 

mwc

[centauri]

I don't recall anything in the Hebrew scriptures that says an expected messiah would usher in a new covenant where many of the rules would no longer be binding on believers.

If Jesus was actually an expected king messiah, one would think that he would have sat on the throne of David, rather than getting himself killed.

 

Actually. God to Isaiah, He said He was tried of the sacrifices.

 

I believe you're referring to God's rant against vain, backslidden people that made sacrifices without contrite intent.

Isa 1:4,11-13

Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.

When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?

Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.

 

In Isa 56, God gives instructions on how gentiles can come into the fold of God.

They are to adopt the same covenant as the Israelites and their sacrifices would be accepted.

Isa 56:6-7

Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

 

That would mean the whole Levitical Law would change.

 

If that's true I would think the new covenant, as defined by the Hebrew scriptures in Jer 31, would indicate it.

It doesn't say anything about any laws being changed or done away with.

The law is supposed to be eternal per Psa 119:152,160.

In the messianic era, the Levitical priesthood would always be in place to service the law.

Jer 33:18

Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.

 

The king messiah would lead people into great compliance with the law.

Ezek 37:24

And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

 

I don't see anything about the Levitical laws being changed.

[agnosticator]

HanSolo:

Maybe I ask, are you supposed to sell all your belongings and give to the poor, and then follow Jesus? Or do you have a different view on this particular idea in the Bible?

Is it a sin to work on Sunday, or is it Saturday? Is cooking considered work?

 

Rayskidude:

We now live in the times of the New Covenant, instituted by the ministry of Jesus the Messiah - so many Old Covenant rules are no longer binding on believers. No sin to work on Sundays - though it's highly advisable to have "off time" for our own rest, our own sanity, our family life, and to devote time to commune with God.

I do live a fairly Spartan lifestyle in order to maximize my donations to take the Gospel all over the world; but I have not sold everything. But you must remember who Jesus was addressing in this passage - one who loved his possessions - and that was the bigger issue. Did he love God more? Or his possessions more? You cannot serve God & money.

 

If you believed that loving god and your neighbor were the only commandments, and replacement for all the law and prophets, I'd understand. But I don't seem to be getting that from all your posts.

 

Do you believe the ten commandments are moral guides for christians today? Sunday is "the lord's day" for celebration of his rising. Saturday is the sabbath of the ten commandments. Modern christians choose this set of ten comm. to follow (even though they don't). Do you?

 

You depart from christian communal living. Maybe the cults are closer to biblical christianity, as they follow the blueprint more closely. Either you see the bible as allegory as you do in the quote above, or you whitewash the literal parts to fit your personal feelings.

[rayskidude]

I never said that professing Christians didn't arrive at different interpretations - what I maintain is that many people (Christain and non-Christian) have been lazy in their Bible study - and have not done sufficient in-depth study with a proper hermeneutic to determine the correct interpretation. And scholars will have some variations in their conclusions on certain matters - but re: the essentials of Christianity (Triune Nature of God, Deity of Christ, salvation by God's grace thru faith in Jesus' death/resurrection, etc) there will be agreement.

There were congregations and version of the early Christians who did not believe in the trinity, and I think "salvation by grace" was Luther's contribution after thousand years of Catholic rule. Does the Christians in the Catholic Church believe the grace salvation? How about Calvinists? How about Russian Orthodox? Are you excluding all other version of Christianity and only keep your favorite version as the "true" one?

 

Have you ever seen an example of baptizing babies in the Bible? Does the Bible anywhere teach us to baptize babies? Answer to both >> NO. Why do some people do this? Because they have generated rules to their own liking - and have disregarded what the Bible teaches. Christians are not faultless in their Bible studies or lives >> but some (and the Catholic Church in particular - following the example of the Pharisees in the time of Jesus) have taught many things simply to extract money from its followers.

Have you ever read the word "trinity" or "triune" in the Bible? >> NO. So be consistent.

 

We now live in the times of the New Covenant, instituted by the ministry of Jesus the Messiah - so many Old Covenant rules are no longer binding on believers. No sin to work on Sundays - though it's highly advisable to have "off time" for our own rest, our own sanity, our family life, and to devote time to commune with God.

There were over 200 different sects of Christianity the first 300 years of its existence, don't tell me that your version (the Protestant/Pentecostal) is the "True" one just because you happen to be part of it.

 

I do live a fairly Spartan lifestyle in order to maximize my donations to take the Gospel all over the world; but I have not sold everything. But you must remember who Jesus was addressing in this passage - one who loved his possessions - and that was the bigger issue. Did he love God more? Or his possessions more? You cannot serve God & money.

Did Jesus address you or the Jews with John 3:16? Why one verse, but not the other? You can't serve one verse and not the other. Be consistent.

 

I believe - as do a multitude of conservative Bible scholars - that the Jesus Seminar is populated by quacks. I would put no confidence in anything they say. There is no objective evidience for the existence of Q - it's just a construct of their own subjective theories. Literary/historical (and some textual) criticism is based on certain assumptions not shown to be true.

The Jesus seminar was populated by very educated scholars, the same ones you claim know the correct interpretation of the Bible. Be consistent.

 

 

As I said - there can be some level of disagreement on some passages of Scripture - I believe that getting to know God better thru studying His revealed writings is an adventure. Much like any love relationship - where you are captivated by someone - and you want nothing more than to find out more about them - all with an eye to pleasing them and solidifying the relationship further. But there's no presence of blatantly opposite interpretations when sufficient study has occurred.

How can it be an adventure if the interpretation is fixed, set, and well defined? Isn't it more a matter of just reading the right books from the right scholars to get to the right understanding, rather than reading it on your own and have subjective and arbitrary understandings? You basically are saying that You know how to interpret the Bible right, and the scholars need to follow you. Doesn't jive with your earlier statements. Be consistent.

 

The oldest complete Hebrew OT is the Masoretic Text in St. Petersburg, Russia dated about 900AD. But there are Dead Sea scrolls which contain large portions of the OT - like the entire book of Isaiah, and these are dated 100- 150 BC.

So those are the originals? No. That means that the original "Hebrew" isn't that one. How can you claim a 900 AD book is the one with the correct Hebrew text to a book written more than 1,000 years before it?

 

I also find joy in my wife, kids, family, friends, golf, weightlifting, studies and work - but the greatest source of joy is God.

Your God is you. Because somehow, magically, your God agrees with everything you believe... He tells you how to interpret the Bible the way you think it should be interpreted. Isn't it amazing. God is led by you.

 

Sorry it's been awhile - computer issues.

 

But I don't have a consistency problem - but rather you have a problem seeing context. A group cannot be Christian - by definition - if they deny the Deity of Jesus Christ - and its corollary, the Triune Nature of God. They are simply a cult - not a version of Christianity. So Mormonism is a cult, as are the Jehovah'w Witnesses. You cannot deny central tenets of a belief-system and also claim to be an adherent to that religion. So there were many cults that arose from Christianity - and this is not surprising. Jesus predicted many false Christs would arise and lead many people astray in Matthew Chap 24,; and John stated that "even now many anti-christs have appeared..." in I John 2:18-22; because they denied the Father and the Son.

 

And comparing the baptism of infants to the Trinity is an "apples to oranges" argument. There are no examples or teaching in the Bible re: this paedo-baptism; but rather baptism is limited as a church ordinance for professing Christians. But the Trinity is taught throughout the Scriptures. From the presence of the 3 Persons of the Godhead at Jesus' baptism, to the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19,20; to the benediction in II Corinthians 13:14; to the doctrine of salvation in I Peter 1:1,2 >> and several others in the NT. And there are several lines of evidence for the Trinity in the OT. SO, though there was departure from this teaching by some - the debates have always confirmed the Biblical teaching on the true triune Nature of God.

 

Re: the teaching about giving all away - again the context was a conversation with a young man who owned much and who was grieved when Jesus told him to give it away to build treasure in heaven - and he didn't love God or others more than his stuff because he walked away from Jesus - Matthew 19:16-26. But the fact that "the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil" was taught by Paul in I Timothy 6:10, and James condemned the unrighteous rich who withheld payment to others - James 5:1-6. So this truth of "You cannot serve God & money" applies to all - but the specific command to sell all and give to the poor applied to that young man. And though Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus in John 3 - there is nothing in the passage that would limit this teaching to only Nicodemus.

 

I follow conservative Biblical scholars such as; DA Carson, Doug Moo, Greg Beale, John Piper, Jonathan Edwards, Scott Hafemann, Robert Dick Wilson, GT Shedd, BB Warfield, Charles Hodge, Norman Geisler, Al Mohler, Wayne Grudem, and others from seminaries of Dallas, San Francisco, Denver, The Master's Sem in LA, Trinity north of Chicago, Southern in Louisville, Covenant in St. Louis >> so I learn proper methodology for hermeneutics from these guys. I follow them.

 

And though it is valuable to read the scholarly and devotional writings of these men - yet Christians are taught to read, search, study, meditate and the Scriptures themselves >> Act 17:11, Psalm 119:18, Ezra 7:10, Col 4:16. Study the Bible yourself - and then check your conclusions with the conclusions of faithful Christians who have gone before you.

 

But I have never stated that the people populating the Jesus Seminar are Bible scholars - I think that they're largely unbelievers, and I consider their theories as nonsense.

 

And when you compare the Isaiah of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Masoretic text in Russia - we find just a few slight variations. SO 1,000 of transcription shows remanrkable accuracy. Then we extrapolate from 150BC back to 1500BC - and we would expext to find the same level of consistency between the texts.

 

I worship and follow the Triune God of the Bible - to deem myself God is a contradiction, and would be absolute foolishness. Thus the Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."' Those who are atheists are the ones who set themselves up as their own god - and as a result they live lives of foolishness, and they experience an eternity of their own foolishness.

 

"As I live!" declares the Lord GOD, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why will you die...?" Ezekiel 33:11

[Ouroboros]

But I don't have a consistency problem - but rather you have a problem seeing context. A group cannot be Christian - by definition - if they deny the Deity of Jesus Christ - and its corollary, the Triune Nature of God. They are simply a cult - not a version of Christianity. So Mormonism is a cult, as are the Jehovah'w Witnesses. You cannot deny central tenets of a belief-system and also claim to be an adherent to that religion. So there were many cults that arose from Christianity - and this is not surprising. Jesus predicted many false Christs would arise and lead many people astray in Matthew Chap 24,; and John stated that "even now many anti-christs have appeared..." in I John 2:18-22; because they denied the Father and the Son.

So these guys:

What is Oneness Pentecostal theology?

 

Oneness Pentecostal theology affirms that there exists only one God in all the universe. It affirms the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. However, Oneness theology denies the Trinity. The Trinity is the doctrine that there is one God who manifests Himself as three distinct, simultaneous persons. The Trinity does not assert that there are three gods, but only one. This is important because many groups who oppose orthodoxy, will accuse Trinitarians of believing in three gods. But this is not so. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there is one God in three persons.

 

Oneness theology denies the Trinity and teaches that God is a single person who was "manifested as Father in creation and as the Father of the Son, in the Son for our redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in our regeneration."1 Another way of looking at it is that God revealed himself as Father in the Old Testament, as the Son in Jesus during Christ’s ministry on earth, and now as the Holy Spirit after Christ’s ascension.

Are not Christians? (Quoted from CARM)

[rayskidude]

Re: people claiming to hear from God. I would not follow anyone who claims to have literally 'heard' from God, because God communicates to us primarily thru the Bible. But if someone says "I pray to God about my decisions, and study to see what the Bible teaches on a certain matter." then I would follow that individual. God does answer our prayers and gives us wisdom to guide our thought processes and our decison-making process; but those are not infallible.

 

That's a very interesting position to take.

The character "Paul", whose writings comprise a large portion of the New Testament Bible, claimed just such a thing.

Paul wrote that he was personally instructed by a celestial being that he assumed was the character called "Jesus".

As I'm sure you're aware, Paul never met Jesus other than in visions or dreams.

If you accept Paul's musings as being the very Word of God, you're following someone that claimed to have channeled a higher being, much as new agers do today.

 

I was answering a question about which modern day people I would follow. Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the prophets, the Apostles, Paul, etc > these were men of God who wrote as directed by the Holy Spirit of God during periods of revelation, and their visions were confirmed by miraculous powers. But there have been no Biblical books composed since about 90AD. SO regarding people today who claim conversations with or visions of God, heaven, hell, etc. or who claim to have received some sort of special message from God - I wouldn't follow them for a moment - and I would warn others to avoid these guys.

 

This is a completely airtight system you operate in.

If a writer made it into the Bible, then they are official mouthpieces of God, and "God" closed off all official transmissions to humanity after ~90AD.

 

Nothing else matters because the assorted stories in the Bible are all true and accurate because they are found in the Bible.

There are no inconsistencies or contradictions in the Bible, only misinterpretation of scripture.

If the Bible wasn't perfect, then it couldn't be called the Holy Bible, which must be perfect by definition.

The only thing that exists in the way of official communications from God is represented by the Bible, which you know is perfect because your tradition says it is.

You rely on the early Christian fathers to have properly handed down a perfect Bible, via the clerics and operatives of the Catholic Church, which you recognize as being properly divinely inspired when it came to voting the canon of the Bible into existence.

However, the Catholic Church was not divinely inspired in other areas, being that you(in another thread) advocated Martin Luther as a proper teacher when the Catholic Church classified him as heretical.

You know that you've got the "truth" because you've determined what the truth is, based on you theological preferences.

 

Although this system has a superficial appearance of certainty, its foundation rests on subjective assertions, strung together like beads, to conform with whatever a believer prefers to be true.

 

If a writing by a recognized authority (prophet, Apostle, close associate of, etc) passed through the process to determine which books should be considered Scripture, then "Yes" that book is recognized as an OFFICIAL communication for God; the Bible = God's word.

But we don't say nothing else matters - many other things in life matter. But re: written communication from God Himself - there is nothing else, only the Bible >> Not the Quran, not the Book of Mormon, not the writings of the Ba'hai's or Moonies, or the Hare Krishnas, etc.

 

And there are certainly inconsistencies in the Bible - but we believe that further study in the original languages, archeology, ancient history, etc. will harmonize these issues.

 

We certainly appreciate the spiritual maturity, of their being called into Christian leadership, the discernment, the critical thinking, the wisdom, etc of the Early Church Fathers. And history shows that there was a lively debate about the antilegomena (James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Revelation) - and the fact that these books were incorporated with other books shows that there was a rigorous process - things were not accepted blindly, but they must have been proven through various criteria to be considered as God's Word. And we also believe that God the Holy Spirit led these men in this process.

 

History also shows that though the Catholic Church had an honorable beginning - but the sinfulness of unprincipled men sought political power through the Church - something that was not taught in Scripture. So that the Church became corrupted from its original teachings and mission. Such that by the Dark Ages, many essentials of true Christianity were nearly unrecognizable within Roman Catholicism - and false doctrines had crept into Catholic dogma.

 

And many aspects of Biblical Christianity were re-gained during the Reformation.

 

I know I have the truth - only by God's grace - in believing the Bible as His revealed will, His revelations about His Person, His purposes, His commandments, etc. And I interpret the Scriptures naturally - because the Bible contains history, doctrine, hyperbole, allegory, poetry, argument, etc. >> so we interpret consistent with the genre in which a passage is written.

 

Don'cha just love an airtight system?

[Abiyoyo]

So these guys:

What is Oneness Pentecostal theology?

 

I was gonna say something similar. I myself tend to see Jesus as having the 'spirit on him without measure' more than I do the trinity. I believe Christians can have the Holy Spirit by measure only, where as Jesus had no measure. This is kinda like the OSAS doctrine except this had been argued since day one. I think it shows Rays lack of Christian history to make that statement. Even if that is the case, I wouldn't constitute that as not being a Christian. In that logic, I then am not a Christian. Just a one man cult, out to deceive the nations

[Ouroboros]

And what about all the Catholics from 400 CE up to now? All of them baptized as babies, in the traditional belief that salvation comes through tradition, church, and scripture, and not just Lutheran protestantism. What about Arianism, and all these other kinds. Here's the Wiki with all the major denominations: link. Anyone of them that doesn't fit "mr-I-know-it-all-and-true-Christianity-is-my-kind" is of course doomed to Hell.

 

Yoyo, I'm glad you can see these things. I just wish there were more who did.

[Abiyoyo]

link. Anyone of them that doesn't fit "mr-I-know-it-all-and-true-Christianity-is-my-kind" is of course doomed to Hell.

 

Yoyo, I'm glad you can see these things. I just wish there were more who did.

 

Wow. Thats alot of sects.

[Ouroboros]

Wow. Thats alot of sects.

So which one is the real/true/correct one? I really don't know. So imagine if I, here I am, an outsider, deciding to become Christian because the argument from LNC was so convincing. Which one should I pick to be certain that I don't go to Hell? The wager really never covered that part... Just imagine the frustration!

[Abiyoyo]

Wow. Thats alot of sects.

So which one is the real/true/correct one? I really don't know. So imagine if I, here I am, an outsider, deciding to become Christian because the argument from LNC was so convincing. Which one should I pick to be certain that I don't go to Hell? The wager really never covered that part... Just imagine the frustration!

 

Maybe none. Thats usually my route. Every one that I have been to/apart of has a different 'agenda', that can be wrong or not exactly as the Bible implies. I think alot of church doctrine is the melting pot of one thought, by one person; then it creates the mango apple lovers extreme loving church of Jesus/Jehovah/messianic/prophetic/majesties. It's goofy. I used to not be religious, much longer than I have been; so to me, it's all craziness. Then, I also think God wants unity in church, which also becomes a problem. Churchy people don't like different.

 

Also, I think its funny that most all churches, pastors, preachers, evangos etc. say that 'you need to find a good, solid, Bible based church like ours' . Then.... , after you have read, studied, reference not only the Bible, but most of the Bibles; you ask a question. One question. Oh, that's not how what we believe But keep reading, and let the holy spirit guide you......... I....did..... You just stuck in doctrine land

[rayskidude]

But I don't have a consistency problem - but rather you have a problem seeing context. A group cannot be Christian - by definition - if they deny the Deity of Jesus Christ - and its corollary, the Triune Nature of God. They are simply a cult - not a version of Christianity. So Mormonism is a cult, as are the Jehovah'w Witnesses. You cannot deny central tenets of a belief-system and also claim to be an adherent to that religion. So there were many cults that arose from Christianity - and this is not surprising. Jesus predicted many false Christs would arise and lead many people astray in Matthew Chap 24,; and John stated that "even now many anti-christs have appeared..." in I John 2:18-22; because they denied the Father and the Son.

So these guys:

What is Oneness Pentecostal theology?

 

Oneness Pentecostal theology affirms that there exists only one God in all the universe. It affirms the deity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. However, Oneness theology denies the Trinity. The Trinity is the doctrine that there is one God who manifests Himself as three distinct, simultaneous persons. The Trinity does not assert that there are three gods, but only one. This is important because many groups who oppose orthodoxy, will accuse Trinitarians of believing in three gods. But this is not so. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there is one God in three persons.

 

Oneness theology denies the Trinity and teaches that God is a single person who was "manifested as Father in creation and as the Father of the Son, in the Son for our redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in our regeneration."1 Another way of looking at it is that God revealed himself as Father in the Old Testament, as the Son in Jesus during Christ’s ministry on earth, and now as the Holy Spirit after Christ’s ascension.

Are not Christians? (Quoted from CARM)

 

Yes - those who are Oneness Pentecostals are not Christians; they simply do not worship and follow the God of the Bible, but a god of their own making. And Yes, Arians (currently represented by Jehovah's Witnesses) are also not Christians. Arianism was denounced as a heresy around 350AD.

 

But many Pentecostals, all stripes of Baptists, Presbyterians (esp PCA and RPC), independents, Bible Church, Southern Methodists, Plymouth Brethren, Anglican/Episcopal, Lutheran (esp Missouri Synod), Congregationalists, Assemblies of God - in short, any who hold to the essential beliefs of Historic Orthodox Christianity - are most definitely Christians. So you can see there is a wide variety & diversity within Christendom. We celebrate our diversity and liberty on secondary Christian issues.

 

But Christian essentials include: God as Trinity, Jesus as the God-Man who came to die a vicarious death to satisfy the wrath of God against sin, Jesus rises from the dead to proclaim His Deity, men are sinners by nature who need salvation from their sins to be reconciled to our infinitely holy God, the Holy Spirit reveals spiritual truth to men and He indwells & transforms believers to become Christlike in their character, salvation is by God's grace alone thru faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.

 

This means no worship of Mary, no reliance on good works for salvation (they are an evidence that salvation is already present), no prayer to saints, no consideration of Jesus Christ as a created being, no baptism (this is a commitment to Christian discipleship), no church membership, no Holy Grail, etc are required to know God and receive His free salvation in Jesus Christ.

 

Are you unaware that Jesus warned us that there would be false prophets, raveneous wolves in sheep's clothing, who would prey upon people? Read Matthew 7:12-29.

[Ouroboros]

Maybe none. Thats usually my route. Every one that I have been to/apart of has a different 'agenda', that can be wrong or not exactly as the Bible implies. I think alot of church doctrine is the melting pot of one thought, by one person; then it creates the mango apple lovers extreme loving church of Jesus/Jehovah/messianic/prophetic/majesties. It's goofy. I used to not be religious, much longer than I have been; so to me, it's all craziness. Then, I also think God wants unity in church, which also becomes a problem. Churchy people don't like different.

Exactly. You earned another beer man!

 

Also, I think its funny that most all churches, pastors, preachers, evangos etc. say that 'you need to find a good, solid, Bible based church like ours' . Then.... , after you have read, studied, reference not only the Bible, but most of the Bibles; you ask a question. One question. Oh, that's not how what we believe But keep reading, and let the holy spirit guide you......... I....did..... You just stuck in doctrine land

Double points. You got it. I was a member in three different churches in my life. First a pentecostal, then a word of faith, then moved to USA and became a member of a Vineyard. Each one of them considered the other one to be heretic.

[Ouroboros]

Yes - those who are Oneness Pentecostals are not Christians; they simply do not worship and follow the God of the Bible, but a god of their own making. And Yes, Arians (currently represented by Jehovah's Witnesses) are also not Christians. Arianism was denounced as a heresy around 350AD.

Okay. At least now I know where you stand.

 

But many Pentecostals, all stripes of Baptists, Presbyterians (esp PCA and RPC), independents, Bible Church, Southern Methodists, Plymouth Brethren, Anglican/Episcopal, Lutheran (esp Missouri Synod), Congregationalists, Assemblies of God - in short, any who hold to the essential beliefs of Historic Orthodox Christianity - are most definitely Christians. So you can see there is a wide variety & diversity within Christendom. We celebrate our diversity and liberty on secondary Christian issues.

Right.

 

The Pentecostals believe in speaking in tongues, or at least they used to, while Lutherans do not. Who got it right? I remember as a Word of Faith-er guy, I tried to "convert" some Lutherans to the "true" faith, which of course was our faith. Very stupid, I know, but that' show the ropes goes in many churches. "My church is right, your church is wrong, and I will show you, because I have my own special kind of interpretation of this and that verse."

 

But Christian essentials include: God as Trinity, Jesus as the God-Man who came to die a vicarious death to satisfy the wrath of God against sin, Jesus rises from the dead to proclaim His Deity, men are sinners by nature who need salvation from their sins to be reconciled to our infinitely holy God, the Holy Spirit reveals spiritual truth to men and He indwells & transforms believers to become Christlike in their character, salvation is by God's grace alone thru faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.

Did Jesus go to Hell and wrestled the Devil to win the keys to Hell? Well, some Christians believe that, some don't, and some even say it is a heretic lie and will lead people away from the true faith in Jesus. Trust me. I've been on both sides of that fence.

 

This means no worship of Mary, no reliance on good works for salvation (they are an evidence that salvation is already present), no prayer to saints, no consideration of Jesus Christ as a created being, no baptism (this is a commitment to Christian discipleship), no church membership, no Holy Grail, etc are required to know God and receive His free salvation in Jesus Christ.

Remember who brought you Christianity. It wasn't the "True" Christians, but the Catholics. Luther broke out of it, and made up his own version. Like other Christian sects before him, and after.

 

Are you unaware that Jesus warned us that there would be false prophets, raveneous wolves in sheep's clothing, who would prey upon people? Read Matthew 7:12-29.

Very true. Paul was one of them.

[Abiyoyo]

Yes - those who are Oneness Pentecostals are not Christians; they simply do not worship and follow the God of the Bible, but a god of their own making. And Yes, Arians (currently represented by Jehovah's Witnesses) are also not Christians. Arianism was denounced as a heresy around 350AD.

 

And what god is that?

 

Are you unaware that Jesus warned us that there would be false prophets, raveneous wolves in sheep's clothing, who would prey upon people? Read Matthew 7:12-29.

 

Yes, that is correct Ray. False prophets. What does the OT say about false prophets? Prey upon people. False prophets, prey on people, sheep's clothing, inside they are wolves. Sounds.....very ....very.....familiar. ......I'll take, Most modern day church groups that have went out on their own for secular, self centered, little knowledge, have an idea, want cookies on Sunday morning instead of crumb cakes, for eternity Alex....That's my episode of Eternal Jeopardy

 

I have a question for you Ray? Do you pray alone, or with others?

[centauri]

This is a completely airtight system you operate in.

If a writer made it into the Bible, then they are official mouthpieces of God, and "God" closed off all official transmissions to humanity after ~90AD.

 

Nothing else matters because the assorted stories in the Bible are all true and accurate because they are found in the Bible.

There are no inconsistencies or contradictions in the Bible, only misinterpretation of scripture.

If the Bible wasn't perfect, then it couldn't be called the Holy Bible, which must be perfect by definition.

The only thing that exists in the way of official communications from God is represented by the Bible, which you know is perfect because your tradition says it is.

You rely on the early Christian fathers to have properly handed down a perfect Bible, via the clerics and operatives of the Catholic Church, which you recognize as being properly divinely inspired when it came to voting the canon of the Bible into existence.

However, the Catholic Church was not divinely inspired in other areas, being that you(in another thread) advocated Martin Luther as a proper teacher when the Catholic Church classified him as heretical.

You know that you've got the "truth" because you've determined what the truth is, based on you theological preferences.

 

Although this system has a superficial appearance of certainty, its foundation rests on subjective assertions, strung together like beads, to conform with whatever a believer prefers to be true.

 

If a writing by a recognized authority (prophet, Apostle, close associate of, etc) passed through the process to determine which books should be considered Scripture, then "Yes" that book is recognized as an OFFICIAL communication for God; the Bible = God's word.

But we don't say nothing else matters - many other things in life matter. But re: written communication from God Himself - there is nothing else, only the Bible >> Not the Quran, not the Book of Mormon, not the writings of the Ba'hai's or Moonies, or the Hare Krishnas, etc.

 

Which Bible = God's Word?

The Catholic version or the Protestant version?

 

We certainly appreciate the spiritual maturity, of their being called into Christian leadership, the discernment, the critical thinking, the wisdom, etc of the Early Church Fathers. And history shows that there was a lively debate about the antilegomena (James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Revelation) - and the fact that these books were incorporated with other books shows that there was a rigorous process - things were not accepted blindly, but they must have been proven through various criteria to be considered as God's Word. And we also believe that God the Holy Spirit led these men in this process.

 

That's what I was looking for.

You believe that the voting was just as inspired as the scripture.

 

History also shows that though the Catholic Church had an honorable beginning - but the sinfulness of unprincipled men sought political power through the Church - something that was not taught in Scripture. So that the Church became corrupted from its original teachings and mission. Such that by the Dark Ages, many essentials of true Christianity were nearly unrecognizable within Roman Catholicism - and false doctrines had crept into Catholic dogma.

 

I see.

God was careful to inspire the men of the Catholic Church to vote correctly regarding Bible canon, but decided to leave the Church to be corrupted by unprincipled men once that task was completed.

 

And many aspects of Biblical Christianity were re-gained during the Reformation.

 

So the Catholics are liars when it comes to evaluating reformers like Martin Luther.

 

I know I have the truth - only by God's grace - in believing the Bible as His revealed will, His revelations about His Person, His purposes, His commandments, etc.

 

But unless other believers agree with your personal theological perceptions, they risk being called cultists and corrupted.

 

And I interpret the Scriptures naturally - because the Bible contains history, doctrine, hyperbole, allegory, poetry, argument, etc. >> so we interpret consistent with the genre in which a passage is written.

 

Don'cha just love an airtight system?

 

Yes, it makes life easier because you don't have to think as much.

You've made numerous statements that are not in line with scripture but when someone knows they have the truth and are hotwired to God, the Bible will mean anything they want it to mean.

It's so flexible that just about anyone can claim to have the truth.

[centauri]

...But the Trinity is taught throughout the Scriptures. From the presence of the 3 Persons of the Godhead at Jesus' baptism, to the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19,20; to the benediction in II Corinthians 13:14; to the doctrine of salvation in I Peter 1:1,2 >> and several others in the NT.

 

You're coming to the conclusion that Jesus must be God from 1 Peter 1?

 

1 Peter 1:3

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

 

And there are several lines of evidence for the Trinity in the OT.

 

Those lines of evidence are rather strained.

 

SO, though there was departure from this teaching by some - the debates have always confirmed the Biblical teaching on the true triune Nature of God.

 

The debates have always confirmed the Triune nature of God?

Have you ever read Jewish explanations about what their own scriptures mean?

When did you conclude that debates between Jews and Trinitarian Christians have always confirmed that Christians were right in their speculations about the Hebrew deity and Jews were wrong?

 

...yet Christians are taught to read, search, study, meditate and the Scriptures themselves >> Act 17:11, Psalm 119:18, Ezra 7:10, Col 4:16. Study the Bible yourself - and then check your conclusions with the conclusions of faithful Christians who have gone before you.

 

Where do you see Psa 119 proclaiming that salvation through the law would be replaced by faith in a human sacrifice called Jesus?

 

I worship and follow the Triune God of the Bible - to deem myself God is a contradiction, and would be absolute foolishness. Thus the Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."' Those who are atheists are the ones who set themselves up as their own god - and as a result they live lives of foolishness, and they experience an eternity of their own foolishness.

 

There is no Triune God in The Hebrew scriptures.

You're worshipping a hybrid loosely based on the deity in those scriptures.

[rayskidude]

Yes - those who are Oneness Pentecostals are not Christians; they simply do not worship and follow the God of the Bible, but a god of their own making. And Yes, Arians (currently represented by Jehovah's Witnesses) are also not Christians. Arianism was denounced as a heresy around 350AD.

Okay. At least now I know where you stand.

 

But many Pentecostals, all stripes of Baptists, Presbyterians (esp PCA and RPC), independents, Bible Church, Southern Methodists, Plymouth Brethren, Anglican/Episcopal, Lutheran (esp Missouri Synod), Congregationalists, Assemblies of God - in short, any who hold to the essential beliefs of Historic Orthodox Christianity - are most definitely Christians. So you can see there is a wide variety & diversity within Christendom. We celebrate our diversity and liberty on secondary Christian issues.

Right.

 

The Pentecostals believe in speaking in tongues, or at least they used to, while Lutherans do not. Who got it right? I remember as a Word of Faith-er guy, I tried to "convert" some Lutherans to the "true" faith, which of course was our faith. Very stupid, I know, but that' show the ropes goes in many churches. "My church is right, your church is wrong, and I will show you, because I have my own special kind of interpretation of this and that verse."

 

But Christian essentials include: God as Trinity, Jesus as the God-Man who came to die a vicarious death to satisfy the wrath of God against sin, Jesus rises from the dead to proclaim His Deity, men are sinners by nature who need salvation from their sins to be reconciled to our infinitely holy God, the Holy Spirit reveals spiritual truth to men and He indwells & transforms believers to become Christlike in their character, salvation is by God's grace alone thru faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.

Did Jesus go to Hell and wrestled the Devil to win the keys to Hell? Well, some Christians believe that, some don't, and some even say it is a heretic lie and will lead people away from the true faith in Jesus. Trust me. I've been on both sides of that fence.

 

This means no worship of Mary, no reliance on good works for salvation (they are an evidence that salvation is already present), no prayer to saints, no consideration of Jesus Christ as a created being, no baptism (this is a commitment to Christian discipleship), no church membership, no Holy Grail, etc are required to know God and receive His free salvation in Jesus Christ.

Remember who brought you Christianity. It wasn't the "True" Christians, but the Catholics. Luther broke out of it, and made up his own version. Like other Christian sects before him, and after.

 

Are you unaware that Jesus warned us that there would be false prophets, raveneous wolves in sheep's clothing, who would prey upon people? Read Matthew 7:12-29.

Very true. Paul was one of them.

 

Where in the world would you go in Scripture to show that Jesus wrestled with the Devil in Hell to win the keys? Why does Jesus even want the keys to Hell?

 

I believe that "tongues" (glossalia in Greek) that has been practiced in the last 100 years does not fit the Biblical model. I don't necessarily want to start a new subject, but I'd be happy to briefly show several points of Biblical evidence for this assertion. Let me know if you're interested. And I would maintain that "slain in the Spirit", healings (though I believe God heals today - as He wills), claims of miracles, prophetic utterances, etc that we've seen, particularly in the West, are not in keeping with Biblical teachings on these subjects - but rather they are techniques of populists used to gain fame, favor, and $$$$. Some are just those wolves in sheep's clothing.

 

And if you know anything of Catholic history - then you know that this is true as well for them from about 400AD to the present. Remember that Dr. Eck required the use of extra-Biblical Catholic tradition to debate Luther - he acknowledged he couldn't beat Luther if he was limited to the Bible. SO Luther was true to Biblical Christianity. And witness the recent pedophilia practiced by many priests in the US and the subsequect attempts at cover-up. And it was as bad in Canada. The Canadian transgressions didn't get much play in US media outlets - too bad, it could have alerted lots of parents and altar boys of the dangers.

 

I know that may sound harsh, but unfortunately many people have been swept up by such shenanigans paraded under the guise of Christianity. And I have seen friends who were hurt and thoroughly disappointed and discouraged by their experience in those churches. However, any church is capable of disappointing its members - we're dealing with people in close relationships of trust and we're all just unable to meet everyone needs - it's an imperfect world polluted by sin. And this fact in itself is another reason to long for the eternal bliss of Heaven. Only then will there be no more sorrow, no more pain, no more crying - God will be our God and dwell with us - and we will be His people in perfect holy relations.

 

But until then, God enables us to persevere and grow in our love for Him & others.

 

Gotta go - tomorrow is the Lord's Day.

[Neon Genesis]

But Christian essentials include: God as Trinity, Jesus as the God-Man who came to die a vicarious death to satisfy the wrath of God against sin, Jesus rises from the dead to proclaim His Deity, men are sinners by nature who need salvation from their sins to be reconciled to our infinitely holy God, the Holy Spirit reveals spiritual truth to men and He indwells & transforms believers to become Christlike in their character, salvation is by God's grace alone thru faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.

Actually, according to Mark 16:17-18, the bible says you'll know who the true Christians are because they'll be able to drink poison and survive and handle snakes and heal people by the laying of hands.

And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

There's nothing here at all about believing in the trinity or the resurrection. So unless you can prove to us that you're a true Christian by drinking poison and surviving, I see no reason why I should believe any of your claims. So are you going to prove to us you can drink poison and survive?

 

And witness the recent pedophilia practiced by many priests in the US and the subsequect attempts at cover-up.

And witness the evangelical Christian pastors having gay affairs with male prostitues using crystal meth behind everyone's back and the Christians trying to cover it up. You think you evangelicals are so perfect and moral and just? Please, fundamentalist Christians are some of the most hypocritical and immoral people on Earth. What you need isn't Jesus. You need a reality check.

'

[Ouroboros]

Where in the world would you go in Scripture to show that Jesus wrestled with the Devil in Hell to win the keys? Why does Jesus even want the keys to Hell?

1 Peter 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

 

Matt.12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

 

Colossians 2:15 (NIV) And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

 

I believe that "tongues" (glossalia in Greek) that has been practiced in the last 100 years does not fit the Biblical model. I don't necessarily want to start a new subject, but I'd be happy to briefly show several points of Biblical evidence for this assertion. Let me know if you're interested. And I would maintain that "slain in the Spirit", healings (though I believe God heals today - as He wills), claims of miracles, prophetic utterances, etc that we've seen, particularly in the West, are not in keeping with Biblical teachings on these subjects - but rather they are techniques of populists used to gain fame, favor, and $$$$. Some are just those wolves in sheep's clothing.

Funny, but the "theologians" who brought the whole the glossolalia up, were theologians too, and... *gasp* that's how the Pentecostals started. So you're telling me the Pentecostals also got it wrong? So we have now, Catholics, the non Trinity believers, Pentecostals, should we go on? We could go into each and every denomination, and you find errors in each one, and you say they are united? No, United means, united.

 

And if you know anything of Catholic history - then you know that this is true as well for them from about 400AD to the present. Remember that Dr. Eck required the use of extra-Biblical Catholic tradition to debate Luther - he acknowledged he couldn't beat Luther if he was limited to the Bible. SO Luther was true to Biblical Christianity. And witness the recent pedophilia practiced by many priests in the US and the subsequect attempts at cover-up. And it was as bad in Canada. The Canadian transgressions didn't get much play in US media outlets - too bad, it could have alerted lots of parents and altar boys of the dangers.

And there are cases in non-Catholic churches too. So don't throw rocks...

 

I know that may sound harsh, but unfortunately many people have been swept up by such shenanigans paraded under the guise of Christianity. And I have seen friends who were hurt and thoroughly disappointed and discouraged by their experience in those churches. However, any church is capable of disappointing its members - we're dealing with people in close relationships of trust and we're all just unable to meet everyone needs - it's an imperfect world polluted by sin. And this fact in itself is another reason to long for the eternal bliss of Heaven. Only then will there be no more sorrow, no more pain, no more crying - God will be our God and dwell with us - and we will be His people in perfect holy relations.

Well, those all "many" people are those who make up a majority of "many" Christian denominations, those you claim all believe the same thing, but when we bring the differences to light, you actually confirm what I'm saying: there are multiple and conflicting beliefs in the churches. So don't tell me there are not, because there is. And you claim that your version is the true one, and theirs are not, but unfortunately, as an outside observer, they claim the EXACT SAME THING!

 

So for a outside person looking in, you look the same to me as the other ones. I don't see a difference between your delusion of grandeur, and their delusion of grandeur.

 

But until then, God enables us to persevere and grow in our love for Him & others.

 

Gotta go - tomorrow is the Lord's Day.

No, it was today. You missed it.

[Abiyoyo]

Where in the world would you go in Scripture to show that Jesus wrestled with the Devil in Hell to win the keys? Why does Jesus even want the keys to Hell?

 

Doesn't actually say 'wrestle, but it does say He has a set of keys. Couple sets actually.

 

 

Rev 1:17-18

17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

(KJV)

 

 

Matt 16:19

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

(KJV)