What Is Christian Orthodoxy?

December 21, 2011

Wow 2 pages of word salads and really not much of what is orthodox other than the creeds.

The research I did specifically dealt with the deification of jesus and the introduction of the holy spirit. There are oodles of texts that most xians follow (Pauline) that deal with the concept that back then, there was at best a binity frame of thought meaning folk surmised jesus was a son of god, some saw him as THE son of god aka only begotten etc.

The holy spirit that was "introduced" in the Nicene creed was a later frame of thought that evolved. leading to the trinity doctrine.

The issue here was that as paganism was being merged into the state religion, it was adapting those concepts and embellishing any story that may lend credence to the concept that jesus was actually god in the flesh.

You have to bounce back between the gospels and paul's crap (usually in his salutations) and see what did jesus allegedly say of himself and what later xians said of him. Jesus' sayings tend to acknowledge the father very strongly as the MMIC (main man in charge) and that he was one of many sons. Then he has statements of "I go to my father" inferring he acknowledges his deification as a man-god/son at minimum.

However our visitor really has more concerns with the doctrine of the bullpiteers of prosperity gospel and the obvious charlatans like Bentley and co that ess. make shit up as they see fit and interpret it to fit their own agendas.

All of the characters fall in the category of evangelicals and as such evangelicals have no central authority and can in fact make shit up as they feel "led" by the holy spirit. Thus we have varying doctrines within these groups usually focussed around the so called gifts of the hs, the idea you should tithe which will lead to non existent blessings by god, the laying on of hands which suggests that there is a transference of holy spook anointing etc.

The evangelical doctrines are a mish-mash of mostly pauline teachings lightly sprinkled with a tad of jesus. The whole pentecostal, charismatic and later movements have moved way beyond the Azuza street days and now fit more of a social/political agenda. The concept of salvation in these groups went from the simple being born again to the insistence that baptism in the hs was/is essential and from this the least of the 9 gifts, tongues is the "sign"

Now trying to find any exegesis or central doctrine to the evangelicals is impossible as they all have their own made up one loosely based on the apostles creed. For example when I was designing my last church's website, I had to ask the pastor what was the church's articles/statement of faith AoF/SoF and he got the one on file and simply edited it. At the time gay marriage had been made legal and he inserted a clause suggesting that marriage was between a man and woman only. This is nowhere to be seen in the original creeds.

So where are we in this discussion. Our visitor should at least publish her AoF she subscribes to and then we can pull it apart/compare to the originals.

So as far as orthodoxy, it seems only the RCC and EOC are ones that have a lineage dating back to when they split that appears to be long standing.

We are then faced with the other concepts of doctrine which most claim an oral tradition, forget the RCC name for it, which is used as a standard to interpret texts in a uniform manner. This of course flies in the face of evangelicals that suggest that being led by the hs, one can derive multiple interpretations of a single text; this is akin to an onion being peeled and as such multi-layered and still remains an onion as you pull away each layer yet previous interpretations stand as they are/were still part of the onion. The idea is to get to the sweet core for the real truth™ which never happens OR simply becomes what the pastor states it is. This approach the RCC call sola scriptura and they are dead against it.

99.99% of evangelicals have no clue what is in the bible, its origins or how the texts have been altered in translation. They are led to believe this process was hs inspired and this is also a myth. For example the KJV 1611 has over 40000 translation errors in it and this is the version the evangelicals swear on as god's inspired wurd.

Schoefield made marginal/foot notes to other texts to reaffirm the authenticity of the bible and many of these notes of his became evangelical doctrine and were simply his opinion. The same is for the cross references between revelation, daniel, ezekiel and psalms wrt eschatology.

Two of the constructs wrongly derived concern satan and the concept of hell. Nowhere in Hebrew texts is there a concept of a satanic being, there is no fall of lucifer (that being the biggest mistranslation) and the idea of a dantes inferno hell. Hebrew thought was simply adversary and realm of the dead/grave for satan and hell. Of course this is not a new concept and has been around since the early days. It simply shows that an agenda was there to introduce a fall guy for all the bad shit god allegedly does in the OT and selling a lovie dovie god has a drawing power but no staying power like fear of the unknown hence the fiery pits of hell. Evangelicals are hell bent on proving hell is real and also satan. Without them their doctrine ess has no oomph.

Even the best apologists have no knowledge of humanetics and ancient culture to put texts in perspective esp. from the OT, most use the strong's concordance and very little else.

What many do not know, most of the marginal notes found in the NT come from some prisoner that made and attempt to connect the dots that were not there. These are now revered as much as the texts themselves as it is a lazy way to cross reference. Nice way to be led by the nose as to what one should believe. When you start to really pull these xrefs apart, you see how thin they really are.

If you look at revelation and see how the dragon is compared to the talking snake in genesis and other OT texts, the Hebrew thought is not based on a literal snake or do they see the snake as a fallen angel. All of these dots are based on various pagan constructs that found their way into the christian faith as it was being developed.

The OT in itself is also based on earlier influences in their many diasporas where they were exposed to earlier pagan concepts and there are two distinct gods in the OT namely Elohim and Yahweh. These morphed into a single god after undergoing metamorphosis themselves. So making shit up has has a very long and colourful history leavings us with fields of meadow muffins.(thanks Florduh for that)

I notice our visitor ignores my posts which suggest to me that this level of discussion is way over her head. When I read this thread I was hoping to have seen a real intense presentation of at least her AoF but as it turns out in so many cases here, the folk have no clue really.

This post has taken over an hour to compile and write so let us see if we get a rebuttal to my offerings of equal effort. I am happy for you to pick anything mentioned above if you feel you have anything meaningful to contribute. We can then get into the details of textual criticism and really go down the rabbit hole for a guided tour. It is very deep mind you and you may not like what you find.

Hold on -- not everyone is in agreement here about that definition of evangelical. For me, evangelical means the same thing as how I have defined orthodoxy. At least that is what I understand the original definition of evangelical to mean. I admit that the word has evolved in meaning, and now it means completely different things to different people. Some see "political" and some see what you have just described. Also, not all people who identify as evangelical are KJV only. I don't use the KJV at all.

I guess theologically conservative Christians will have to find yet another term.

Also, there is going to be a differing view about whether or not Jesus called Himself God. I believe that He did. Yes, I see that Jesus talked about the Father as God a lot, but I also see Him talking a lot about Himself as God. I'm aware that at least you (and probably others) see it differently.

I do agree with you that many charismatic/Pentecostal churches seem to have become all about politics. That is largely due to their Latter Rain/Manifest Sons of God/Dominonism teachings. The Assemblies of God denomination declared all of these things to be heresies within their denomination. (Of course that doesn't mean that it's not occurring in some Assemblies of God churches.) Some theologically conservative churches would be in agreement that these teachings are heretical.

I am not part of the Assemblies of God denomination, so I don't know if their ruling holds up today.

If I could ask, would you please refrain from calling the Holy Spirit "the holy spook," in this thread. Thank you

The transfer of anointings (impartation) and the idea of modern day apostles are also part of the Latter Rain teaching.

You and I differ on the Bible and our beliefs about it.

December 21, 2011

Oh...someone asked me for my personal statement of faith....so here it is:

1. I believe in one God, and I believe that this one God is triune. I believe in the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. In other words, I believe that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. So I believe in the Trinity.

2. I believe that God is personal and loving, and that He created everything. (I will be using “He” and “Him” for God because that is the language that I feel comfortable using for God. This does not mean that I believe God is necessarily male or that God is only for males. I am using the language that is used for God in the Bible, and this is the language Jesus used too, and I am comfortable with it.)

3. I believe that God created humanity (both male and female, and both sexes as being equal in His sight) to have a loving relationship with Him – and that we were meant to be in fellowship with Him, and with this came the pleasure to worship Him and serve Him. However, I also believe that because God wanted us to be able to choose to love Him, or it would not be real love. He gave us the option not to love Him too. And I believe that the first human beings chose to turn away from God and to disobey Him.

4. I believe that because of this, that that relationship with God was broken between humanity and God and separated from God, and that now all of humanity inherited the tendency to sin. (So I believe in original sin.) I believe that sin is open rebellion against God, and that the punishment for sin is both spiritual and physical death.

5. I also believe that our rebellion did not keep God from loving us. I believe that God became human in the person of Jesus Christ so that He could do what we could not do – live a perfect life. I believe that Jesus is both fully God and fully human. I believe that He lived His human life without sin, and that He did many wonderful things during His life. I believe in His miracles.

6. I also believe that Jesus willingly suffered and died for everyone. I believe that He took everyone’s sins upon Himself and took the punishment that humanity deserved and paid the full price for us. Therefore I believe that He died in my place and that He died for me. His sacrificial death restored the broken relationship between humanity and God. I also believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I believe that whoever trusts in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior is completely forgiven of their sins and can have a personal relationship with God. I believe that this whole thing is a gift to us, and that it is undeserved. People cannot earn it. (I believe in grace).

7. I believe that this is the beginning of the relationship with God. We continue to grow in that relationship for the rest of our lives, and that the Holy Spirit continues to convict us of our sins, and that He is constantly leading us in closer relationship and perfecting us to be more like God.

8. I do believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but that they are not essential for salvation. However, I do think that the gifts edify individual believers as well as the church, and help the church carry out its mission, and help people grow in their faith. The gifts take our faith to another level. I believe that the ministry and mission of the church are basically the same. The church is to reach the lost for Christ, but at the same time to encourage believers to grow in their faith and support them. As far as sacraments are concerned, they are great ways of displaying faith and showing what that faith represents. They are constant reminders of what we believe.

9. I believe that Jesus is the full revelation of who God is, but I also believe that the Holy Spirit reveals truths to believers so that we can understand the Bible and as part of a growing relationship with God.

10. I believe that Jesus Christ will return, so I believe in the Second Coming of Christ. I have no definite opinion of exactly how that will come about, but I do believe Jesus will return and will fix all the rest of the problems (physical death and sickness and whatever is leftover as a result of sin.) I focus more on knowing what will happen to me as far as heaven and hell is concerned. I believe that whoever trusts in Jesus is saved and I believe that whoever rejects Him will go to hell.

December 21, 2011

The holy spirit that was "introduced" in the Nicene creed was a later frame of thought that evolved. leading to the trinity doctrine.

The issue here was that as paganism was being merged into the state religion, it was adapting those concepts and embellishing any story that may lend credence to the concept that jesus was actually god in the flesh.

Nicene creed and Rome using Christianity happened in the fourth century. So the when of orthodoxy is an issue.

You have to bounce back between the gospels and paul's crap (usually in his salutations) and see what did jesus allegedly say of himself and what later xians said of him. Jesus' sayings tend to acknowledge the father very strongly as the MMIC (main man in charge) and that he was one of many sons. Then he has statements of "I go to my father" inferring he acknowledges his deification as a man-god/son at minimum.

Authentic Paul (as opposed to forged Paul) predates the rest of the New Testament. So Paul's authentic works would be perhaps a decade or two after the fact. If you are going to quote Paul then we are talking about a time before the Roman-Jewish war and before Christianity. Paul might have been capitalizing on the popularity of an earlier rabbi or legend. Either way Jesus was Jewish and Paul's religion was an offshoot of Judaism.

If Christians are going to use Paul as a source then perhaps their orthodox is Judaism.

The OT in itself is also based on earlier influences in their many diasporas where they were exposed to earlier pagan concepts and there are two distinct gods in the OT namely Elohim and Yahweh.

It's hard to identify exactly when worship in the high places was banned in favor of the Jerusalem temple, or when worship of the wife of Yahweh was outlawed. But if we had that information then orthodox would be this pre-Judaism pantheism.

December 21, 2011

Wow 2 pages of word salads and really not much of what is orthodox other than the creeds.

The research I did specifically dealt with the deification of jesus and the introduction of the holy spirit. There are oodles of texts that most xians follow (Pauline) that deal with the concept that back then, there was at best a binity frame of thought meaning folk surmised jesus was a son of god, some saw him as THE son of god aka only begotten etc.

The holy spirit that was "introduced" in the Nicene creed was a later frame of thought that evolved. leading to the trinity doctrine.

The issue here was that as paganism was being merged into the state religion, it was adapting those concepts and embellishing any story that may lend credence to the concept that jesus was actually god in the flesh.

You have to bounce back between the gospels and paul's crap (usually in his salutations) and see what did jesus allegedly say of himself and what later xians said of him. Jesus' sayings tend to acknowledge the father very strongly as the MMIC (main man in charge) and that he was one of many sons. Then he has statements of "I go to my father" inferring he acknowledges his deification as a man-god/son at minimum.

However our visitor really has more concerns with the doctrine of the bullpiteers of prosperity gospel and the obvious charlatans like Bentley and co that ess. make shit up as they see fit and interpret it to fit their own agendas.

All of the characters fall in the category of evangelicals and as such evangelicals have no central authority and can in fact make shit up as they feel "led" by the holy spirit. Thus we have varying doctrines within these groups usually focussed around the so called gifts of the hs, the idea you should tithe which will lead to non existent blessings by god, the laying on of hands which suggests that there is a transference of holy spook anointing etc.

The evangelical doctrines are a mish-mash of mostly pauline teachings lightly sprinkled with a tad of jesus. The whole pentecostal, charismatic and later movements have moved way beyond the Azuza street days and now fit more of a social/political agenda. The concept of salvation in these groups went from the simple being born again to the insistence that baptism in the hs was/is essential and from this the least of the 9 gifts, tongues is the "sign"

Now trying to find any exegesis or central doctrine to the evangelicals is impossible as they all have their own made up one loosely based on the apostles creed. For example when I was designing my last church's website, I had to ask the pastor what was the church's articles/statement of faith AoF/SoF and he got the one on file and simply edited it. At the time gay marriage had been made legal and he inserted a clause suggesting that marriage was between a man and woman only. This is nowhere to be seen in the original creeds.

So where are we in this discussion. Our visitor should at least publish her AoF she subscribes to and then we can pull it apart/compare to the originals.

So as far as orthodoxy, it seems only the RCC and EOC are ones that have a lineage dating back to when they split that appears to be long standing.

We are then faced with the other concepts of doctrine which most claim an oral tradition, forget the RCC name for it, which is used as a standard to interpret texts in a uniform manner. This of course flies in the face of evangelicals that suggest that being led by the hs, one can derive multiple interpretations of a single text; this is akin to an onion being peeled and as such multi-layered and still remains an onion as you pull away each layer yet previous interpretations stand as they are/were still part of the onion. The idea is to get to the sweet core for the real truth™ which never happens OR simply becomes what the pastor states it is. This approach the RCC call sola scriptura and they are dead against it.

99.99% of evangelicals have no clue what is in the bible, its origins or how the texts have been altered in translation. They are led to believe this process was hs inspired and this is also a myth. For example the KJV 1611 has over 40000 translation errors in it and this is the version the evangelicals swear on as god's inspired wurd.

Schoefield made marginal/foot notes to other texts to reaffirm the authenticity of the bible and many of these notes of his became evangelical doctrine and were simply his opinion. The same is for the cross references between revelation, daniel, ezekiel and psalms wrt eschatology.

Two of the constructs wrongly derived concern satan and the concept of hell. Nowhere in Hebrew texts is there a concept of a satanic being, there is no fall of lucifer (that being the biggest mistranslation) and the idea of a dantes inferno hell. Hebrew thought was simply adversary and realm of the dead/grave for satan and hell. Of course this is not a new concept and has been around since the early days. It simply shows that an agenda was there to introduce a fall guy for all the bad shit god allegedly does in the OT and selling a lovie dovie god has a drawing power but no staying power like fear of the unknown hence the fiery pits of hell. Evangelicals are hell bent on proving hell is real and also satan. Without them their doctrine ess has no oomph.

Even the best apologists have no knowledge of humanetics and ancient culture to put texts in perspective esp. from the OT, most use the strong's concordance and very little else.

What many do not know, most of the marginal notes found in the NT come from some prisoner that made and attempt to connect the dots that were not there. These are now revered as much as the texts themselves as it is a lazy way to cross reference. Nice way to be led by the nose as to what one should believe. When you start to really pull these xrefs apart, you see how thin they really are.

If you look at revelation and see how the dragon is compared to the talking snake in genesis and other OT texts, the Hebrew thought is not based on a literal snake or do they see the snake as a fallen angel. All of these dots are based on various pagan constructs that found their way into the christian faith as it was being developed.

The OT in itself is also based on earlier influences in their many diasporas where they were exposed to earlier pagan concepts and there are two distinct gods in the OT namely Elohim and Yahweh. These morphed into a single god after undergoing metamorphosis themselves. So making shit up has has a very long and colourful history leavings us with fields of meadow muffins.(thanks Florduh for that)

I notice our visitor ignores my posts which suggest to me that this level of discussion is way over her head. When I read this thread I was hoping to have seen a real intense presentation of at least her AoF but as it turns out in so many cases here, the folk have no clue really.

This post has taken over an hour to compile and write so let us see if we get a rebuttal to my offerings of equal effort. I am happy for you to pick anything mentioned above if you feel you have anything meaningful to contribute. We can then get into the details of textual criticism and really go down the rabbit hole for a guided tour. It is very deep mind you and you may not like what you find.

I kind of think that each of the Bible things that you want discussed should be their own topics. I think that if I tried to address them in this this post that it would quickly lead us off topic. I don't know -- what do you think?

December 21, 2011

The holy spirit that was "introduced" in the Nicene creed was a later frame of thought that evolved. leading to the trinity doctrine.

The issue here was that as paganism was being merged into the state religion, it was adapting those concepts and embellishing any story that may lend credence to the concept that jesus was actually god in the flesh.

Nicene creed and Rome using Christianity happened in the fourth century. So the when of orthodoxy is an issue.

You have to bounce back between the gospels and paul's crap (usually in his salutations) and see what did jesus allegedly say of himself and what later xians said of him. Jesus' sayings tend to acknowledge the father very strongly as the MMIC (main man in charge) and that he was one of many sons. Then he has statements of "I go to my father" inferring he acknowledges his deification as a man-god/son at minimum.

Authentic Paul (as opposed to forged Paul) predates the rest of the New Testament. So Paul's authentic works would be perhaps a decade or two after the fact. If you are going to quote Paul then we are talking about a time before the Roman-Jewish war and before Christianity. Paul might have been capitalizing on the popularity of an earlier rabbi or legend. Either way Jesus was Jewish and Paul's religion was an offshoot of Judaism.

If Christians are going to use Paul as a source then perhaps their orthodox is Judaism.

The OT in itself is also based on earlier influences in their many diasporas where they were exposed to earlier pagan concepts and there are two distinct gods in the OT namely Elohim and Yahweh.

It's hard to identify exactly when worship in the high places was banned in favor of the Jerusalem temple, or when worship of the wife of Yahweh was outlawed. But if we had that information then orthodox would be this pre-Judaism pantheism.

I think we have to look at the content of what Paul wrote about in order to establish what is orthodox belief in Jesus and what isn't. In my opinion, it has to be based on Paul's words and the words of the people in the early church. Yes, Christianity originally was considered a sect of Judaism.

If you want to talk about Judaism, then shouldn't we look at what Orthodox Judaism is?

December 21, 2011

It's hard to identify exactly when worship in the high places was banned in favor of the Jerusalem temple, or when worship of the wife of Yahweh was outlawed. But if we had that information then orthodox would be this pre-Judaism pantheism.

Here is the statement of faith for Orthodox Judaism. Now, I know this was written after Jesus, but a lot of this would have been very similar to what the Jews in Jesus' day believed.

13 Principles of Faith:

I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, Blessed be His Name, is the Creator and Guide of everything that has been created; He alone has made, does make, and will make all things.
I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, Blessed be His Name, is One, and that there is no unity in any manner like His, and that He alone is our God, who was, and is, and will be.
I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, Blessed be His Name, has no body, and that He is free from all the properties of matter, and that there can be no (physical) comparison to Him whatsoever.
I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, Blessed be His Name, is the first and the last.
I believe with perfect faith that to the Creator, Blessed be His Name, and to Him alone, it is right to pray, and that it is not right to pray to any being besides Him.
I believe with perfect faith that all the words of the prophets are true.
I believe with perfect faith that the prophecy of Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, was true, and that he was the chief of the prophets, both those who preceded him and those who followed him.
I believe with perfect faith that the entire Torah that is now in our possession is the same that was given to Moses our teacher, peace be upon him.
I believe with perfect faith that this Torah will not be exchanged, and that there will never be any other Torah from the Creator, Blessed be His Name.
I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, Blessed be His Name, knows all the deeds of human beings and all their thoughts, as it is written, "Who fashioned the hearts of them all, Who comprehends all their actions" (Psalms 33:15).
I believe with perfect faith that the Creator, Blessed be His Name, rewards those who keep His commandments and punishes those that transgress them.
I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah; and even though he may tarry, nonetheless, I wait every day for his coming.
I believe with perfect faith that there will be a revival of the dead at the time when it shall please the Creator, Blessed be His name, and His mention shall be exalted for ever and ever.

December 21, 2011

I say that the Judaism in Paul's day would have been close because of how I see certain beliefs being affirmed in the New Testament:

1.) There was belief in a Messiah.

2.) There was a belief in the resurrection from the dead -- Paul wrote about this in 1 Corinthians 15, and Jesus referred to the resurrection. (I don't see these talking about just Jesus' resurrection, but rather the Jewish belief in the resurrection)

3.) The Jews at the time of the Bible seemed to believe that God created the whole world, and that only He was God.

4.) The writers of the NT talked about God being the first and the last, existing from all eternity, and existing forever with no end.

etc.

December 21, 2011

I think we have to look at the content of what Paul wrote about in order to establish what is orthodox belief in Jesus and what isn't.

So essentially you would make Paul the author of Christian orthodoxy.

In my opinion, it has to be based on Paul's words and the words of the people in the early church. Yes, Christianity originally was considered a sect of Judaism.

If you want to talk about Judaism, then shouldn't we look at what Orthodox Judaism is?

I'm really not that interested in Judaism and I do not know much about it. My point was that religion evolves over time. Heresy is simply diversity of religion. If each individual religion is a branch on a tree the orthodox source, the point where it shoots off if you will, of that religion was heresy of a previous religion. It's just a matter of perspective.

For Christianity that moment might have been when elders and rabbis declared that a person could not attend both Christian and Jewish worship. You had to pick. That was the moment when someone had to decide to stick to traditional Judaism or to be a Jewish heretic in order to be an orthodox Christian. I don't recall the exact date but I believe that cut off was made some time around 80-90 ce.

December 21, 2011

Hold on -- not everyone is in agreement here about that definition of evangelical. For me, evangelical means the same thing as how I have defined orthodoxy. At least that is what I understand the original definition of evangelical to mean. I admit that the word has evolved in meaning, and now it means completely different things to different people. Some see "political" and some see what you have just described. Also, not all people who identify as evangelical are KJV only. I don't use the KJV at all.

I am going with a broad brush here and is justified as it encapsulates the majority. Like I said, evangelical can mean anything you want it to mean. The basic tenets of faith are similar with slight changes. You are talking to an ex-charismatic evangelical who also had some exposure to pentecostals. Little differs between them. AoG is not big in SA so I have no opinion in that regard other than what I learned online about them, they too seem no different.

I guess theologically conservative Christians will have to find yet another term.

The orthodoxy here in SA is mainly Dutch Reformed which is maybe something you have not been exposed to. Briefly, they have catechism, no rebirth, no gifts and pretty much what the early reformation churches your side looked like. Much the same as the RCC w/o pomp and ceremony of incense burning, colourful robes and funny hats although historically they did have some of these dress codes that were phased out. Their AoF are essentially identical to the apostles creed, there are three main groups.

The Pentecostals and Charismatics are all US imports and link strongly back to the US evangelical and pentecostals there. They are seen as radical by the conservatives xian folk.

Also, there is going to be a differing view about whether or not Jesus called Himself God. I believe that He did. Yes, I see that Jesus talked about the Father as God a lot, but I also see Him talking a lot about Himself as God. I'm aware that at least you (and probably others) see it differently.

No not seeing stuff differently, you have to go through the texts and pull out the verses that show he calls himself god and where texts see him as merely a son. bear in mind you are working off plagiarized works so the argument will ess. be moot. We can pretend the NT bible is historically and chronologically correct for the exercise.

I defeated this and the trinity doctrine from a NKJV with a simple word search which shows overwhelmingly jesus was NOT considered god but a son of god. The pauline texts seem vacant of the hs in his salutations. I would suggest you do a study of this and then we can discuss the pros and cons as if I were defending my orthodoxy, I am not going to do the legwork.

I do agree with you that many charismatic/Pentecostal churches seem to have become all about politics. That is largely due to their Latter Rain/Manifest Sons of God/Dominonism teachings. The Assemblies of God denomination declared all of these things to be heresies within their denomination. (Of course that doesn't mean that it's not occurring in some Assemblies of God churches.) Some theologically conservative churches would be in agreement that these teachings are heretical.

This theologically conservatism seems to me just another offshoot of evangelicals, perhaps a bit more prudish? It is really hard to debate a US evangelical as their doctrines vary so much and most have no clue what the bible says.

I am not part of the Assemblies of God denomination, so I don't know if their ruling holds up today.

If I could ask, would you please refrain from calling the Holy Spirit "the holy spook," in this thread. Thank you

Our forum, our rules, you really do not expect me to pay reverence to that which I know to be BS do you? I will stick to hs but now at least you know what the s stands for.

The transfer of anointings (impartation) and the idea of modern day apostles are also part of the Latter Rain teaching.

Rubbish. This has been around for some time and is in the pentecostals and charismatics here which by inference means that hold true for the US. I will agree on the last part of latter day apostles as they only appear here in the old apostolic and new apostolic movements, each hating one another and hated by everyone else.

You and I differ on the Bible and our beliefs about it.

Obviously otherwise I would be a believer still.

Really this post simply illustrates what I inferred that folk are free to make shit up as they see fit. You really have not brought anything new to the table and nothing I have not already encountered in RL of at least read about.

You obviously believe what you do because you are in a situation where the group think gels with your take on what you perceive to be the truth. It is basically summarized in our favourite quip that "god tends hate everything you(I) do"

Perhaps later you can give us your take on gays, abortion and perhaps guns. These IMO are the 3 key doctrines evangelicals all have in common with obvious variances on what they think god says. Bear in mind slandering gays here is taboo.

December 21, 2011

Oh...someone asked me for my personal statement of faith....so here it is:

1. I believe in one God, and I believe that this one God is triune. I believe in the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. In other words, I believe that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. So I believe in the Trinity.

The concept of the trinity was a doctrine that evolved and based on the texts, all suggest the prevailing thought was at best a binity of sorts. The text trinitarians use come from the epistles of John 1Jn5 IIRC. However, this is a known add on and even the least qualified scholars agree that this text is not to be used. The other text used is I and the father are one inferring that jesus was claiming divinity. This too is incorrect. This text appears once so it hardly stands up to the oft espoused requirement for two witnesses. With 1Jn5 questioned, the only xref is to what jesus apparently said.

The other text offered is the I AM verse. This too is pretty weak in defence of the trinity. To understand this heresy, you would require knowledge of pagan triune gods and see just how similar the two concepts are.

2. I believe that God is personal and loving, and that He created everything. (I will be using “He” and “Him” for God because that is the language that I feel comfortable using for God. This does not mean that I believe God is necessarily male or that God is only for males. I am using the language that is used for God in the Bible, and this is the language Jesus used too, and I am comfortable with it.)

No comment

3. I believe that God created humanity (both male and female, and both sexes as being equal in His sight) to have a loving relationship with Him – and that we were meant to be in fellowship with Him, and with this came the pleasure to worship Him and serve Him. However, I also believe that because God wanted us to be able to choose to love Him, or it would not be real love. He gave us the option not to love Him too. And I believe that the first human beings chose to turn away from God and to disobey Him.

This would of course require a huge rebuttal on its own encompassing abiogenesis and evolution. I have to assume that you are of the YEC variety xian that hold to the earth is approx 6k years old? You are a creationist if you take the genesis account literally and that places you squarely in the evangelical camp. Even orthodoxy has evolved to make the genesis account allegorical. To go there you would have to have a relatively good scientific acumen but based on this a godunnit probably works for you?

4. I believe that because of this, that that relationship with God was broken between humanity and God and separated from God, and that now all of humanity inherited the tendency to sin. (So I believe in original sin.) I believe that sin is open rebellion against God, and that the punishment for sin is both spiritual and physical death.

Pretty odd belief considering that in the genesis account god comes looking for Adam. Pretending this is true, I could take you on a journey that makes this account very believable but I will refrain from that. To challenge this belief, there are numerous conflicting texts where god visits his wrath unto the 4th+ generation and other texts that infer the son is not responsible for his father's sin. Likewise, the allege king David cites in a psalm the whole ritual of animal sacrifice was not what god wanted and is cherry picked by James in the NT (hold that thought)

5. I also believe that our rebellion did not keep God from loving us. I believe that God became human in the person of Jesus Christ so that He could do what we could not do – live a perfect life.(1) I believe that Jesus is both fully God and fully human. I believe that He lived His human life without sin, and that He did many wonderful things during His life. I believe in His miracles.

(1)He cannot be both. At best he fulfils the mindset in that time of a demi-god and is no different to the pantheon of greco/roman gods that came down to mate with humans creating a demi-god offspring. Even the OT has this chronicled with the nephilim being the offspring of angels mating with humans so this pagan concept precedes xianity but many eons.

Let us take the alleged virgin birth which for all intents was BS as we all know how the birds and the bees work now, back then they did not. The female component of the reproduction process was only discovered in the 18th/19th century (look it up). Prior to that, then woman's menses was seen as a secret fountain and something unclean. The seed of man which would be visible to the naked eye via masturbation or a nocturnal ejaculation was seen as the only component of where babies came from women were merely incubators. The ovum was not discovered earlier as one needs a microscope to see it.

Now with the linage traced back via Joseph,who was allegedly the step dad you still have a problem with jesus. Mary.

Mary was also part of the OS defect so your jesus would only be 1/2 god and 1/2 man. Simple genetics disproves that OS lineage being broken. They will use "facts" like the blood of the mother does not mingle with that of the foetus and the father's contribution defines the blood group and sex (bad science). Furthermore, jewish lineage is matriarchal contrary to to popular belief it being patriarchal. This holds true even today. So where I wonder did the writers of the NT get that patriarchal concept from? Can you figure it out? Pagans.

Jesus was not sinless. He broke two commandments warranting a death penalty. Christianity was tacked onto the Hebrew texts to give some modicum of authenticity but they did a piss poor job of it. Your bible contradictions from here on are numerous. In one breath he upholds the law and in another overrides it contrary to Judaic thought and customs which he would have been trained in were he a real. person. No Jew would EVER claim to be god, them's stoning wurds.

6. I also believe that Jesus willingly suffered and died for everyone. I believe that He took everyone’s sins upon Himself and took the punishment that humanity deserved and paid the full price for us. Therefore I believe that He died in my place and that He died for me. His sacrificial death restored the broken relationship between humanity and God. I also believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I believe that whoever trusts in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior is completely forgiven of their sins and can have a personal relationship with God. I believe that this whole thing is a gift to us, and that it is undeserved. People cannot earn it. (I believe in grace).

But he did not die. Still have that thought held from earlier?

How can someone allegedly trained in the Torah claim himself to be a human sacrifice? That was outlawed eons before his time when he (god) allegedly criticized the folk for sacrificing children to worship baal (go on look it up) Now all of a sudden contrary to the decrees already issued to the Jews, he moves the goalposts. Kinda weird that and omnimax god is so human in that he changes his mind yet we are assured he remains the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Which is it? It cannot be both. Aah but if you study the pantheons, they had no problem offing their gods but of course one has to have a marginal knowledge of these pagan gods and practices to connect the real dots.

So he died then arose ess nullifying his dying for OS which by virtue of the way evangelicals "sin" kinda makes one wonder where is the restoration. Nothing changed with his alleged sacrifice.

You have a go to guy that is supposed to restore yet folk still sin. So the doctrine is changed to encompass future sins, penance is introduced and is still practiced by evangelicals although not in the form of hail Mary's. The text confess your sins to the father and peers and you're sure to be forgiven comes to mind. How convenient? So b/c the go to guy's magic does not work, they invent satan, now god is off the hook as he is the ruler of this world seeking who he can devour. I call him Stan. Stan now has omnimax powers equal to god in that he is able to influence everyone's decision making process while your man-god looks on helplessly and imparts forgiveness when you remember to confess them. Stan is now the man in charge but one day he will get his ass kicked. So what changed? Nothing. You are worse off than the Jews as they do not have a Stan they can default to, they pretty much are responsible for their own sins and now that temple 2.0 is destroyed, they are screwed as no more animal sacrifice which their alleged king David already decreed in the psalms was NOT what god wanted. I hope you can follow and at least have some inkling of the verses I am referring to. I hope you look them up.

7. I believe that this is the beginning of the relationship with God. We continue to grow in that relationship for the rest of our lives, and that the Holy Spirit continues to convict us of our sins, and that He is constantly leading us in closer relationship and perfecting us to be more like God.

This sadly is the doctrine of selfworthlessness. There is no relationship with this hs you think exists as it exists only in the constructs of your imagination. Probably this part of the indoctrination was the hardest for most of us to overcome. It seems so real does it not. I mean the goose bumps when the hs is moving the euphoria, how can it not be real? It is not real. It happens in your mind and you have been conditioned to believe this is the real deal. How do I know? Well I felt it too, I prophesied, was confirmed by two witnesses every frigging time and it was all cow turds. I believed it, they believed it but outside the church, reality kicks in and it all disappears. Tell me I am wrong.

Now the real crunch here is to actually ask your self what are these sins you are being convicted of. Other than gossiping which may be loosely covered under bearing false witness, are you a sexual deviant, do you think of killing folk or wishing them dead (other than me) do you find other men attractive etc. A few examples of thought crimes. Now do you actually act on these? Of course jesus said if you think of screwing your neighbour you have already committed adultery. I am male so I know we tend to think about sex way more than women do I am guessing women do too.

The one thing I noticed when I was wooish, is that there was/is a lot of pious righteous backstabbing going on in the form of gossip. But hey even secularists gossip but we don't pretend it is OK or that it is a sin.

If you adhere to the law of Moses that means you have to adhere to all 630 Mitzvot commandments, you cannot cherry pick them, even jesus' summary embraces all of them. Go look it up and see where the loving your neighbour comes from, it is in the Levitical laws not something jesus made up. No jesus did not abrogate the law, that was a pauline construct.

So what are you guilty of that needs you to succumb to a daily acknowledgement that you're not worthy? You are a prisoner of your own thoughts, nothing more. Ergo, you are human just like the rest of us.

8. I do believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but that they are not essential for salvation. However, I do think that the gifts edify individual believers as well as the church, and help the church carry out its mission, and help people grow in their faith. The gifts take our faith to another level. I believe that the ministry and mission of the church are basically the same. The church is to reach the lost for Christ, but at the same time to encourage believers to grow in their faith and support them. As far as sacraments are concerned, they are great ways of displaying faith and showing what that faith represents. They are constant reminders of what we believe.

No they do not take you to another level. This is merely and advanced form of group think and everything including tongues is a learned trait. I can still invoke tongues at will 7+ years later and it sounds exactly like it did back then. It is bullshit.

Of course the gifts are irrevocable as the bible says but how can I or rather why should I maintain this "gift"? For all intents and purposes I have rejected everything associated to god and jesus and the texts say i have returned to my own vomit like a dog and someone like me should be turned over to satan for the destruction of the flesh. See an apologetic for anything I say, I am saving you the trouble. Oh and that goose bump anointing, I get that when I have to hold my bladder and when I get the release, that same "anointing" identical to what I sensed as a woo, it is there. It is all in the mind.

The bible is very cleverly constructed to keep the gullible on the straight and narrow. Now jesus of course would or should come looking for me being the good shepherd he is, hmmm 7+ years and a no show, I guess I was not a sheep but a goat, a tare not a wheat? It is all so confusing to figure out what exactly jesus said or meant.

9. I believe that Jesus is the full revelation of who God is, but I also believe that the Holy Spirit reveals truths to believers so that we can understand the Bible and as part of a growing relationship with God.

This is an awesome belief but sadly as I have expressed already, an excuse to make crap up as you go along. The relationship you are having is with yourself, your own mind, your own thoughts, your own inner voice, call it what you will. I know for me it was there too and when I dissed it, the voices stopped, the confusion stopped, the questions stopped, the judgements (of myself and others) stopped. Was my will so strong I could evict the hs? Aaah we all know he is a gentleman right? He will not force himself on you right? Sound familiar? Well if it does, there are no texts to support it whatsoever. Now guess what? Jesus said that when the house is swept clean more demons come and infect the rebellious believer. Sorry luv, no demons came and odd that demons only seem to manifest in church settings no?

I still come into contact now and again with hs folk and their being filled with the hs, I should be writhing and manifesting these demons in their holy presence. Does it happen? No. Why? Are they not filled with the hs? Peter's shadow healed a leper and we are supposed to be able to do greater things but it does not happen. I have seen it happen in church settings but then we are told god does not dwell in temples made of hands. Why is it then that these apparent miracles ONLY happen in a church service? I will tell you, it is the power of mass mind control. As a P&W leader I knew how to compile and present a program that 100% guaranteed the manifestation of the gifts, folk bawling like babies, babbling in tongues etc. and was applauded b/c I was soooo sensitive to the hs. The truth is we were taught what works, and is part of a mass hypnosis tactic and it works. Hell even I believed I was being led by the hs but in retrospect, I now see it was all me and my musical talent. I am a bloody good musician.

10. I believe that Jesus Christ will return, so I believe in the Second Coming of Christ. I have no definite opinion of exactly how that will come about, but I do believe Jesus will return and will fix all the rest of the problems (physical death and sickness and whatever is leftover as a result of sin.) I focus more on knowing what will happen to me as far as heaven and hell is concerned. I believe that whoever trusts in Jesus is saved and I believe that whoever rejects Him will go to hell.

Why does he wait to fix things? Did he not say ask for anything in my name and I shall do it OR is this limited to parking spaces at walmart, your next job or promotion. How about putting jesus to the test, ask him to remove the AIDS epidemic in Africa, the starvation in many parts of Africa, these are unselfish prayers and should fall in the "anything" category.

The fact that you believe in hell shows you have bought into the pagan concepts of this doctrine. Jesus never taught it. Were you perhaps a universalist, I would go easier on you. They at least recognise the pagan origins of that part of their faith.

He is not coming back EVER. Your lot in life is the same as ours. You will die just like the millions before you who thought he was coming back. Obviously if your church taught this they would have no members very quickly.

This is about as polite I can be concerning your creed which is basically the same as all evangelicals, it definitely is NOT orthodox by any means.

My intention is NOT to offend but to make you think or at least see, this South African 7000 miles away has heard it all before and what you folk do state side, happens here too. That proves nothing as it was imported from there. The Roman/Dutch orthoxy here is still the largest amongst whites and is older than the American evangelical movements. Gandhi's run in with christians happened here in SA where his famous quote of liking jesus but not his followers comes from. He was denied entrance to an all white Dutch reformed church.

If you want we can discuss and look at the origins of the US side and how the evangelicals came to be but It would be only for your benefit. We are probably unique in that the reformed churches here are bigger than the evangelical ones.

We can discuss home churches, their origins and whatever aspect of xianity there is. I have extensive knowledge.

Had I not been exposed to the evangelical cult, I probably would still have been albeit a mediocre cafeteria believer. As it stands, tracing the roots back through the US opened a pandora's box that finally led me out of the madness known as christianity.

Sadly my dear, you like so many are Paulinists.

The doctrine of Paul claiming he was a Pharisee goes against all Jewish tradition. No man could be both a Pharisee and a Roman citizen.

I'll stop here as there is much for you to digest and look up.

December 21, 2011

I kind of think that each of the Bible things that you want discussed should be their own topics. I think that if I tried to address them in this this post that it would quickly lead us off topic. I don't know -- what do you think?

The stuff is interwoven so starting multiple threads is counter-productive. You are going to have to knuckle down and do some diligent research, my counter apologetics are intense and if you think mere textual criticism is the key, that is a very shallow approach as I do not take the bible as authoritative you have to dig deeper.

I am happy to summarize what I know but I am not going to provide links - I don't have them any more and many sites I had my "teachings" on have shut down and I have no back ups. I have 29 versions of the bible electronically with concordances but I have no interest in loading that nonsense on my PC again, I make use of bible gateway now and commentaries from the blue bible where necessary.

December 21, 2011

Regarding the early Christian creed, most people refer to 1st Corinthians 15, which agnosticator quoted.

Every Christian church and denomination wants to label themselves as the true "spiritual" descendants of those who wrote the NT. Those who wrote the NT epistles (and the church fathers who followed) can be labelled as the "proto-orthodox". They held orthodox beliefs before they became the dominant Christian sect. Therefore, to say that one is "orthodox" (as in the way you've defined it) one is saying that their beliefs match those of the proto-orthodox and the early "orthodox" believers. Christianity has evolved drastically and no church, not even the Catholic and Orthodox churches today who are the historical descendants are theologically in line with them. This is mainly because the theology was barely developed at that point in time. The understanding the Godhead, the method of Salvation, the Canon and many other things were in infant stages.

So, if we are to determine who is the closest and most theologically aligned with "orthodox" beliefs we need to decide something: When do we decide the cut off point is? Looking through my old Bible college writings we can see..

Ignatius was the first to call the church "catholic" and by his time the Catholic church hierarchy was already developing. Bishops and elders evolved into different roles.Cyprian said “He can no longer have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother”. In the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Cyprian we see a focus on submission to leadership and a distinction being made between the clergy and laity. Before the middle of the 3rd century Mary is being referred to as the Theotokos as a special title. Then of course there's a works emphasis that is also seen in the early centuries, especially with regards to Christians who recanted their faith during persecution. So, fundamentalists have lost it completely by the 3rd century at best and by the early 5th century what is now known as the Roman Catholic Church was completed. Pope Leo I is often considered the 1st Pope after a gradual rise in importance of the Roman Bishop's office.

December 21, 2011

6. I also believe that Jesus willingly suffered and died for everyone. I believe that He took everyone’s sins upon Himself and took the punishment that humanity deserved and paid the full price for us. Therefore I believe that He died in my place and that He died for me. His sacrificial death restored the broken relationship between humanity and God. I also believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I believe that whoever trusts in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior is completely forgiven of their sins and can have a personal relationship with God. I believe that this whole thing is a gift to us, and that it is undeserved. People cannot earn it. (I believe in grace).

A lot of people are commenting here so I imagine it'll be a bit hard to reply to everyone here but this is just an FYI. What you're espousing here is what's called the "Penal Substitution Theory". This was basically developed by Thomas Aquinas and brushed up by Calvin IIRC. Essentially the early church fathers believed in the Ransom Theory of Atonement where Christ's death was a debt paid to the Devil.

December 21, 2011

I think we have to look at the content of what Paul wrote about in order to establish what is orthodox belief in Jesus and what isn't. In my opinion, it has to be based on Paul's words and the words of the people in the early church. Yes, Christianity originally was considered a sect of Judaism.

You should read "Forged" by Bart Ehrman. What Paul wrote is less than you might think. Plainly Paul expected Jesus to come again in his lifetime. Paul didn't work out a coherent system or church hierarchy. There was no need for one when Jesus is coming back. Paul was mistaken, and others had to write stuff in his name later on to try to establish some guidelines (women shouldn't preach, etc..). 2,000 years later and we are still waiting, aren't we?

Did the people in the early church agree what the basic creed should be - no, and that is the problem. If it were not a continual problem, there would have been no need for all these later church councils.

December 21, 2011

The holy spirit that was "introduced" in the Nicene creed was a later frame of thought that evolved. leading to the trinity doctrine.

The issue here was that as paganism was being merged into the state religion, it was adapting those concepts and embellishing any story that may lend credence to the concept that jesus was actually god in the flesh.

Nicene creed and Rome using Christianity happened in the fourth century. So the when of orthodoxy is an issue.

You have to bounce back between the gospels and paul's crap (usually in his salutations) and see what did jesus allegedly say of himself and what later xians said of him. Jesus' sayings tend to acknowledge the father very strongly as the MMIC (main man in charge) and that he was one of many sons. Then he has statements of "I go to my father" inferring he acknowledges his deification as a man-god/son at minimum.

Authentic Paul (as opposed to forged Paul) predates the rest of the New Testament. So Paul's authentic works would be perhaps a decade or two after the fact. If you are going to quote Paul then we are talking about a time before the Roman-Jewish war and before Christianity. Paul might have been capitalizing on the popularity of an earlier rabbi or legend. Either way Jesus was Jewish and Paul's religion was an offshoot of Judaism.

If Christians are going to use Paul as a source then perhaps their orthodox is Judaism.

The OT in itself is also based on earlier influences in their many diasporas where they were exposed to earlier pagan concepts and there are two distinct gods in the OT namely Elohim and Yahweh.

It's hard to identify exactly when worship in the high places was banned in favor of the Jerusalem temple, or when worship of the wife of Yahweh was outlawed. But if we had that information then orthodox would be this pre-Judaism pantheism.

I tend to get my council names mixed up and I am not fact checking them at this stage. No arguments to your comments from me and I prefer if I do foot in mouth, you will correct the error. I am going purely on memory for the most part including scripture which oddly enough I somehow have committed to memory in my deconversion phase but was not able to do in my woo days.

My deevangelical vigour has long passed and now this is merely a hobby and interests me as I still learn new factoids I did not have in my arsenal back then.

December 21, 2011

I say that the Judaism in Paul's day would have been close because of how I see certain beliefs being affirmed in the New Testament:

1.) There was belief in a Messiah.

2.) There was a belief in the resurrection from the dead -- Paul wrote about this in 1 Corinthians 15, and Jesus referred to the resurrection. (I don't see these talking about just Jesus' resurrection, but rather the Jewish belief in the resurrection)

3.) The Jews at the time of the Bible seemed to believe that God created the whole world, and that only He was God.

4.) The writers of the NT talked about God being the first and the last, existing from all eternity, and existing forever with no end.

etc.

And the early (first) Christians are the ones who revered and saved the writings by Philo from Alexandria for us. Probably because they considered his writings important to them. They did this before the Gospels were even written. So what was Philo's view on the Creator? Did he read Genesis literal? Not quite. If any Original Orthodox Christian view can be found, we should look at what he said. There you have some homework to do.

December 21, 2011

So essentially you would make Paul the author of Christian orthodoxy.

I'm really not that interested in Judaism and I do not know much about it. My point was that religion evolves over time. Heresy is simply diversity of religion. If each individual religion is a branch on a tree the orthodox source, the point where it shoots off if you will, of that religion was heresy of a previous religion. It's just a matter of perspective.

For Christianity that moment might have been when elders and rabbis declared that a person could not attend both Christian and Jewish worship. You had to pick. That was the moment when someone had to decide to stick to traditional Judaism or to be a Jewish heretic in order to be an orthodox Christian. I don't recall the exact date but I believe that cut off was made some time around 80-90 ce.

Not just Paul...but Paul played a big role in the spread of Christianity, and the writing of much of the NT.

Okay, then let's not talk about Judaism.

And yes, that would have been the point at which Christianity and Judaism went their separate ways. Judaism decided that belief in Jesus was outside the realm of the Jewish faith. Therefore, belief in Jesus was thus viewed as a separate and distinct religion. Later, Christian leaders reinforced this by saying that someone couldn't be both Jewish and Christian.

I actually think that Christianity would have been better served had it not gotten rid of most things that were Jewish about it.

December 21, 2011

I actually think that Christianity would have been better served had it not gotten rid of most things that were Jewish about it.

But Judaism doesn't have Satan and Eternal Damnation - the funnest parts of Christianity!

December 21, 2011

I am going with a broad brush here and is justified as it encapsulates the majority. Like I said, evangelical can mean anything you want it to mean. The basic tenets of faith are similar with slight changes. You are talking to an ex-charismatic evangelical who also had some exposure to pentecostals. Little differs between them. AoG is not big in SA so I have no opinion in that regard other than what I learned online about them, they too seem no different.

The orthodoxy here in SA is mainly Dutch Reformed which is maybe something you have not been exposed to. Briefly, they have catechism, no rebirth, no gifts and pretty much what the early reformation churches your side looked like. Much the same as the RCC w/o pomp and ceremony of incense burning, colourful robes and funny hats although historically they did have some of these dress codes that were phased out. Their AoF are essentially identical to the apostles creed, there are three main groups.

The Pentecostals and Charismatics are all US imports and link strongly back to the US evangelical and pentecostals there. They are seen as radical by the conservatives xian folk.

if you go with a broad brush, then you run the risk of overgeneralizing, which might be talking about some evangelicals, but not all of them. In your experience, it may be the majority, but it may not be the majority, as a whole group.

This is especially true if you are talking about evangelicals in America. There is a lot of diversity about this. Maybe one or two types of evangelicals from America went over to South Africa to spread their beliefs, making it so that only the evangelical beliefs expressed by these people are what you see in South Africa.

December 21, 2011

if you go with a broad brush, then you run the risk of overgeneralizing, which might be talking about some evangelicals, but not all of them. In your experience, it may be the majority, but it may not be the majority, as a whole group.

This is especially true if you are talking about evangelicals in America. There is a lot of diversity about this. Maybe one or two types of evangelicals from America went over to South Africa to spread their beliefs, making it so that only the evangelical beliefs expressed by these people are what you see in South Africa.

No my dear, we had oodles of flavours and looking at the TBN crowd we had them all here one time or another. Their doctrines are all the same basically, the only thing possibly different was the influence/baggage the Dutch reformed folk brought with them converting to evangelical and merged into the revised US doctrines, yet they all remained charismatic and pentecostal and had creeds similar to what you posted.

The reformed churches they left and created new ones were more horrible in the way of architecture than the DR churches which were relatively humble. When your Jimmy Swaggarts and co started getting their fornications and underhand dealings exposed, the evangelicals took a serious knock and folk left in droves. Some reverted back to origins nut a fair number just quit altogether.

Churches here do not get tax breaks like in the US but they are good at placing stuff in trusts and screwing the tax man by essentially showing zero profit. I know I was on the financial committee. We also cannot get personal tax deductions for church tithes. A church cannot register as a charitable organisation unless it has an active charitable program. They are audited heavily if they do do this.

December 21, 2011

So essentially you would make Paul the author of Christian orthodoxy.

I'm really not that interested in Judaism and I do not know much about it. My point was that religion evolves over time. Heresy is simply diversity of religion. If each individual religion is a branch on a tree the orthodox source, the point where it shoots off if you will, of that religion was heresy of a previous religion. It's just a matter of perspective.

For Christianity that moment might have been when elders and rabbis declared that a person could not attend both Christian and Jewish worship. You had to pick. That was the moment when someone had to decide to stick to traditional Judaism or to be a Jewish heretic in order to be an orthodox Christian. I don't recall the exact date but I believe that cut off was made some time around 80-90 ce.

Not just Paul...but Paul played a big role in the spread of Christianity, and the writing of much of the NT.

Unfortunately the rest of if is anonymous or worse.

And yes, that would have been the point at which Christianity and Judaism went their separate ways.

Then Timothy 1 & 2, Titus, The gospel of John, Revelation and several other New Testament books are heresy.

Judaism decided that belief in Jesus was outside the realm of the Jewish faith. Therefore, belief in Jesus was thus viewed as a separate and distinct religion. Later, Christian leaders reinforced this by saying that someone couldn't be both Jewish and Christian.

It wasn't a whole lot later. The separation was more or less mutual. I would argue that it was Christians who started it while trying to survive the Roman-Jewish war. We see this in the anti-Jewish, pro-Roman comments in the gospels and New Testament.

I actually think that Christianity would have been better served had it not gotten rid of most things that were Jewish about it.

Are you ready to stop worshiping Jesus and recognize that he was just a human? Ready to see that "son of God" was a status that all men could have just like women could be "daughters of God"? Maybe the Jewish aspects were wider reaching then you realized.

December 21, 2011

No not seeing stuff differently, you have to go through the texts and pull out the verses that show he calls himself god and where texts see him as merely a son. bear in mind you are working off plagiarized works so the argument will ess. be moot. We can pretend the NT bible is historically and chronologically correct for the exercise.

I defeated this and the trinity doctrine from a NKJV with a simple word search which shows overwhelmingly jesus was NOT considered god but a son of god. The pauline texts seem vacant of the hs in his salutations. I would suggest you do a study of this and then we can discuss the pros and cons as if I were defending my orthodoxy, I am not going to do the legwork.

If we're not going to talk about this in a separate thread (which I still think that it should be another thread), then I need to at least break your post up and discuss each thing point by point.

This will be a Trinity post.

If I'm to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, then I'm going to have to use passages throughout the Bible.

Just for clarification, I think that I need to define what I mean by the Trinity -- so that everyone knows what I mean when I say "Trinity."

This is my understanding of how people come to believe in the Trinity:

1.) There is only one God

2.) The Father is identified as God

3.) Jesus is identified as God

4.) The Holy Spirit is identified as God

5.) Since there is only one God, then the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit all have to be Him. Thus, the one God is triune.

John 1:1-3; 14

¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ²^[^a^]He was in the beginning with God. ³ All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

¹⁴ And the Word became flesh, and ^[^k^]dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of ^[^l^]the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

To me this says that Jesus existed from the very beginning. Jesus was with God, but was also God Himself. In my understanding, this shows that at least two Persons are God.

John 8:56-59

⁵⁶ Your father Abraham rejoiced ^[^p^]to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” ⁵⁷ So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” ⁵⁸Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham ^[^q^]was born, I am.” ⁵⁹Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus ^[^r^]hid Himself and went out of the temple.

This passage seems to suggest that Jesus called Himself "I AM," and the Jews he was talking to understood Him to be saying this because they picked up stones to stone Him with. I think that they saw His words as being blasphemous because He was claiming to be God.

Isaiah 43:12-14

¹² “It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed,

And there was no strange god among you;

So you are My witnesses,” declares the LORD,

“And I am God.

¹³ “Even ^[^a^]from eternity I am He,

And there is none who can deliver out of My hand;

I act and who can reverse it?”

John 10:24-31

²⁴ The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long ^[^b^]will You keep us in suspense? If You are ^[^c^]the Christ, tell us plainly.” ²⁵ Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. ²⁶ But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. ²⁷ My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; ²⁸ and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. ²⁹ ^[^d^]My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. ³⁰ I and the Father are ^[^e^]one.”

³¹The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. ³² Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” ³³ The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”

It seems to me that Jesus was saying that what is true about the Father is also true about Himself. No one can snatch out of Jesus' hand, since no one can snatch out of the Father's hand, since Jesus and the Father are the same God. It seemed that the Jews understood what Jesus was claiming because they were going to stone Him for blasphemy because He claimed to be God.

John 8:23-25

²³ And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. ²⁴ Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that ^[^a^]I am He, you will die in your sins.” ²⁵ So they were saying to Him, “Who are You?” Jesus said to them, “^[^b^]What have I been saying to you from the beginning?

Matthew 14:26-28

²⁶ When the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” And they cried out ^[^a^]in fear. ²⁷ But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid.

Mark 6:49-50

⁴⁹ But when they saw Him walking on the sea, they supposed that it was a ghost, and cried out; ⁵⁰ for they all saw Him and were ^[^a^]terrified. But immediately He spoke with them and *said to them, “Take courage; it is I, do not be afraid.”

John 6:19-20

¹⁹ Then, when they had rowed about ^[^a^]three or four miles, they *saw Jesus walking on the sea and drawing near to the boat; and they were frightened. ²⁰ But He *said to them, “It is I; ^[^b^]do not be afraid.”

John 11:24-26

²⁴ Martha *said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” ²⁵ Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, ²⁶ and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”

John 10:7-10

⁷ So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. ⁸ All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. ⁹ I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. ¹⁰ The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and ^[^a^]have it abundantly.

John 10:11

¹¹ “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.

I see all of these passages as Jesus claiming to be the I AM.

Danial 7:13-14

¹³ “I kept looking in the night visions,

And behold, with the clouds of heaven

One like a Son of Man was coming,

And He came up to the Ancient of Days

And was presented before Him.

¹⁴ “And to Him was given dominion,

Glory and ^[^a^]a kingdom,

That all the peoples, nations and men of every ^[^b^]language

Might serve Him.

His dominion is an everlasting dominion

Which will not pass away;

And His kingdom is one

Which will not be destroyed.

Matthew 24:29-31

²⁹ “But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from ^[^a^]the sky, and the powers of ^[^b^]the heavens will be shaken. ³⁰ And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. ³¹ And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His ^[^c^]elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

Matthew 26:63-65

⁶³ But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I ^[^a^]adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are ^[^b^]the Christ, the Son of God.” ⁶⁴ Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, ^[^c^]hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.”

⁶⁵ Then the high priest tore his ^[^d^]robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy;

In my opinion, Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man that is spoken about in Daniel 7. It seemed that the Jews of Jesus' day saw this is a claim to deity, as they called His response blasphemy.

Matthew 10:37-38

³⁷ “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. ³⁸ And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

Matthew 22:36-38

³⁶ “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” ³⁷ And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’³⁸ This is the great and ^[^a^]foremost commandment.

Okay, if you take Matthew 10:37-38 and Matthew 22:36-38 together, it suggests to me that Jesus is including Himself in the "Love the Lord Your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." He seems to be saying that He should be the most important thing in a person's life -- a place that only God should occupy.

Jesus also accepted worship on several occasions. If He didn't believe Himself to be God, He shouldn't have accepted such worship.

Matthew 28:19

¹⁹^[^a^]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

2 Corinthians 1:21-22

²¹ Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, ²² who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a ^[^a^]pledge.

December 21, 2011

Very little here has anything to do with the trinity doctrine. At best like I said earlier it suggests a binity. You are wasting your time using OT texts as nowhere in Jewish doctrine was there a concept of a dualistic god. There was at a time a wife to yahwe and the OT has both yahwe and elohim. Of course your bible merely translates this as Lord so you would be unaware of this factoid. I already stated the I AM texts are pretty thin evidence and line up with I and the Father are one meaning he allegedly had a concept in his mind who god was (assuming these texts were true)

This is not what i was hoping you would do. There are plenty sites out there you can google to get these simplistic answers but you are not discussing this with xians who have little or no knowledge of exegesis and hermeneutics and early biblical history, you should have now figured out we know a heap more than these simple texts and they are not going to sway us.

This is a simple regurgitation of what you were taught which is fine in xian circles where warm fuzzies are the order of the day. I know you may find this hard to do or grasp, we need more than this. You have not even offered any history as to how the trinity doctrine evolved probably because you have never bothered to examine where it came from. For that you need to examine what the early church fathers thought as they ess set the orthodoxy of your faith in place. There are folk that don't hold to the trinity doctrine but are still believers.

What we have so far is your creed which I assume you got from your church, it does not match the orthodox creed but is a derivative.

We have a belief in the trinity which in itself is heretical as far as doctrine goes. In all of Paul's alleged letters, his salutations do not include any concept of a triune god. That was a doctrine that came later.

You are reading the NT as if that is the chronological order of how things happened, remember this canon came about ~360CE and that was long after jesus' alleged time frame. By then there were multiple doctrines around, the elders had to create order from the chaos so that a state religion could be enforced.

For most here this is common knowledge but you are going to have to dare to read better scholars than us and those are the like of Bart Ehrman and others who are likely no longer believers but have done the leg works and present their findings with oodles of proof. We are merely mentioning the tip of the iceberg or showing you where the rabbit hole starts.

To criticise any creed, you have to work back and see where it all started as like it or not that is where it all began. If you really are serious, we should see a max of two posts per day from you as you discover new things and revise your stance. I am in no hurry for your answers but this above was not really a sterling effort. All it is is cherry picking texts that affirm your beliefs which guess what? Makes you no different to all the others who come here with their own cherry picked version of the truth. Sooo Hint.

The answers are not in the bible or your corner apologetic store.

December 21, 2011

It seems to me that ex-Christians here definitely made a conscious choice not to believe in God, the Bible, and Jesus, and that they want nothing to do with Christianity because they see it all as garbage.

(I scraped this out of the Lion's Den thread and put it in here as I wish to narrow it to one thread in the Collesum for myself.)

This doesn't describe me. Christianity isn't all garbage. Like Ghandi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

I would love to go into an in depth discussion with you about this, but to be honest I have a hard time engaging in serious discussion when its locust storm of posts and response flying around in all directions. I usually lay low in these sorts of threads in the LD. What I would wish to discuss is that notion of orthodoxy in regards to WHO is calling it that. Put your mind around this for a moment. How things are understood are matters of perception. That perception if dependent on a huge number of variables that influence how a person perceives. If that person has no spiritual depth, and that person is an "expert Bible scholar", that person will not be able to see any spiritual depth, and therefore his idea of Jesus in this case, will reflect back his inexperience beyond his range. Then take that person who lacks depth in this area, and grant him the say so of what all these things mean.... well, you get the picture.

I left Christianity because it fails to rise above a literalist, childlike mindset. I will grant, and do recognize those in Christianity with true depth, but they are to say the least not your "orthodox" caliber. They ride that fine line between paying homage to their overseers in the church, and being branded a Heretic.

I'll start there with this for you, and hope you are willing to have a discussion with me.

December 21, 2011

Surely if you want an exclusive discussion you can do it via PM. This IMO is pretty selfish as we are already in the Colleseum

Gotta agree with Virgile take that sacred cows are being protected

What Is Christian Orthodoxy?

Recommended Posts

TenthDoctor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Realist

mymistake

Deva

Posted Images

TenthDoctor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mymistake

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TenthDoctor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TenthDoctor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TenthDoctor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TenthDoctor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mymistake

Link to comment

Share on other sites

LivingLife

Link to comment

Share on other sites

LivingLife

Link to comment

Share on other sites

LivingLife

Link to comment

Share on other sites

JadedAtheist

Link to comment

Share on other sites

JadedAtheist

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Deva

Link to comment

Share on other sites

LivingLife

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ouroboros

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TenthDoctor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

florduh

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TenthDoctor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

LivingLife

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mymistake

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TenthDoctor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

LivingLife

Link to comment

Share on other sites