What Is Christian Orthodoxy?

December 22, 2011

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.

What two commandments would you accuse Jesus of breaking?

The way I see it, when Jesus did claim to be God, they did try to stone Him for it.

December 22, 2011

From what I can see in this thread, it appears that--like beauty--orthodoxy is in the eye of the beholder. Or in the mind of the believer. From the perspective of scholarly religious studies, I think Christian orthodoxy normally is as stated in the creeds TenthDoctor posted on the first page of this thread. In a nutshell: Belief in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, Jesus born of a virgin, died and buried, risen the third day, sitting at the right hand of God to judge the quick and the dead.

Other variations of the theme of Christianity that I call less that orthodox are ideas that see the Jesus story as a parable for life, the Cosmic Christ, Jesus as myth, no afterlife, etc. And then there's the more blurred situations where people believe in hell as non-burning separation from God, that Christianity is not a religion--it's a relationship, the spiritualization of orthodoxy, i.e. orthodoxy is faithfulness and/or a spiritual quest--all of these people may hold the literal biblical narrative more or less but they have strayed from the "old time religion" as preached for fifteen to eighteen centuries.

Some posts in this thread also sought for the origins of the creeds. I was one of them. I don't think these are the normally accepted "orthodox Christian" doctrines that made it into the canon of the NT and theology texts accepted across the centuries and preached throughout the world until 1500 and well beyond. Unitarianism arose in the 17 or 1800s. Since then, so did many dozens (hundreds or thousands?) of other denominations world-wide, but especially in the United States.

At one time, Germany was the birthplace of new ideas. Splinter sects seem to have been around all the time--at least, since the Reformation beginning about 1500--when they found a way not to get themselves killed by the powerful State Churches.

The State Churches obviously thought they had the right belief and that it was their sacred duty to purify the land of heretics. On the other hand, splinter groups such as the Waldensians and Anabaptists felt so confident that they had the correct beliefs that they were willing to endure imprisonment, inhumane torture, and martyr deaths rather than compromise their beliefs.

Who, I ask, had orthodox beliefs? And who is qualified to judge if the Pope is not? I certainly don't trust a person who obviously wrote her own statement of faith in the absence of fellow-believers. That is about as unorthodox as it is possible to get. Sorry, TD, this is not an attack on you or your beliefs but my personal opinion on what is orthodox based on my knowledge of official church doctrine and NT teachings.

The New Testament and official church doctrine emphasize the absolute importance of Church, and the fellowship of like-minded believers. I likewise disagree that pastors who edit their faith statements without the endorsement of their congregations or fellow pastors are orthodox. Nothing should be done by private interpretation, the NT teaches.

So yeah, who is qualified to judge orthodox beliefs if the Pope & company is not? The people the Pope killed for their faith? But Catholics died, too, for their faith.

December 22, 2011

I didn't say that the Eastern Orthodox Christians were heretics. I was trying to talk about the distinction in definition between Orthodox and orthodox. "Orthodox" with a capital "O" is talking about a specific denomination.

I see. So basically, this discussion is about "orthodox", not "Orthodox."

"orthodox" as I'm using it and as it is used on most Christian apologetics is cross-denominational.

Ok. Then we have cleared up that it's only the specific use of the term "orthodox" and not "Orthodox" as it's used by the "Orthodox."

No, Orthodox Christians are not heretics. I posted the Eastern version of the Nicene creed when I was trying to show what orthodox Christianity is.

Right. And I pointed out that "Orthodox" creed had things in it that "orthodox" Christians like you don't like.

Eastern Orthodox Christians believe in the creeds, which makes them orthodox, just as the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestants are orthodox.

And the other group you considered "heretics" in another thread.

Stop trying to read stuff into my posts that I do not say. Thank you.

And stop trying to define what words are meant to mean according to you. Orthodox still means Orthodox. And this discussion is called "What Is Christian Orthodoxy?" (Literally from the topic header)

It's good that you have restricted your use to only one definition and use that in your arguments in this thread, but the word with uppercase "O" is a valid discussion topic in this specific topic just as much as the one with lower case.

Did YOU start this topic, or did someone else? If it wasn't you, then perhaps we can ask the person who started this thread if "Orthodox" falls within the parameters of this discussion, or if you're the one who decide if "orthodox" with lowercase is the only allowed definition for this discussion? Agreed?

---

... I went back to the first post in this thread. It was started by R.S. Martin (a friend of mine).

So i'm asking R.S. Martin, would you consider that this topic only covers "orthodox" Christianity, or does it cover "Orthodox" Christianity as well?

December 22, 2011

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.

According to how I see it, Jesus did physically die, and He physically came back to life.

I understand Jesus' claim to die for humans to be the only sacrifice that could really be sufficient for covering ours sins. A life for a life. I see this as being different from the human sacrifices that were banned because of the subject who would be the sacrifice -- fully God and fully man. This wasn't some random person offering up a child to be sacrificed in order to bring rain or whatever.

Why would rising from the dead nullify the death?

In order to talk about Jesus' resurrection, it is my opinion that talking about the Jewish idea of the resurrection from the dead is necessary. It seems that Jews had this idea that when the Messiah came, then everyone who had died at any time in the past would be resurrected. From what I gather from reading 1 Corinthians 15, Paul seemed to believe that in this resurrection, everyone would receive resurrected bodies. The resurrected bodies would not be subject to death or disease, etc. The bodies would be physical, yet the type of body would be different than what we've seen.

According to how I understand 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus was the first person to receive the resurrection and the resurrected bodies. In Matthew's Gospel it mentions that there were people who rose from the dead after Jesus rose from the dead. At His second coming, the rest will be resurrected.

Would dead people rising from the dead at the second coming of Jesus nullify these people's deaths? Would you say that they never died?

I understand Jesus' death on the cross as payment for sin to mean that Jesus satisfied justice. I understand it to mean that those who place faith in Jesus and accept what He has done to be declared righteous before God, forgiven of their sin. This doesn't mean that no one in the world sins, or that Christians never sin. I believe that we still live in a fallen world.

I do not go to a church that demands that I confess my sins to anyone specific. I confess my sins to God, and if I feel that I need to, to someone else. I would say that if I have wronged someone, I should confess my sin to the person I wronged...not because I am told to do so by the church, but because it is the right thing to do. If I do something wrong and it bothers me, I would want the freedom of discussing it or not discussing it with a trusted friend. This would be completely informal.

I never believed that Satan's powers were equal to God's powers, although I do believe that Satan is powerful.

Believing in Satan doesn't excuse personal responsibility for sin.

December 22, 2011

My personal opinion is that we need to decide which we want to talk about -- the Eastern Orthodox denomination or Christian orthodoxy.

If you want to just discuss the Eastern Orthodox denomination's beliefs, then I'm afraid I'll have to leave this topic because this wasn't the understood meaning that I had when this topic was started.

I don't personally think that it is possible to mix the definitions in this thread because people participating in the thread won't be talking about the same thing.

December 22, 2011

My personal opinion is that we need to decide which we want to talk about -- the Eastern Orthodox denomination or Christian orthodoxy.

If you want to just discuss the Eastern Orthodox denomination's beliefs, then I'm afraid I'll have to leave this topic because this wasn't the understood meaning that I had when this topic was started.

I don't personally think that it is possible to mix the definitions in this thread because people participating in the thread won't be talking about the same thing.

Doesn't that exactly show how confusing the term "Orthodox" or "orthodox" is?

Think about it. You called some other Christians to be "false prophets" in another thread because they're not "orthodox" like you. But in reality, they also believe in the same creeds as you. They just have some extra stuff that you disagree on. Just like you have some stuff they don't agree to. And the Orthodox don't agree with you either. And so on...

So in the end, "orthodox" is what "orthodox" does.

Btw, the word "orthodoxy" was first used by the Roman Church, not the first Christians.

Oh, here's a good site: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Introduction_to_Orthodox_Christianity

It's an orthodox Christian wiki (sorry, Orthodox Christian wiki).

December 22, 2011

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.

What two commandments would you accuse Jesus of breaking?

The way I see it, when Jesus did claim to be God, they did try to stone Him for it.

I think LivingLife has left this convo. However, if you carefully read his post, you will see that he tells you exactly which two commandments Jesus broke, according to Jewish law. They're in these two sentences:

In one breath he upholds the law and in another overrides it contrary to Judaic thought and customs
No Jew would EVER claim to be god

Those two items were absolute taboos in Jewish law.

That the NT, and consequently Christians, defend him for these actions does not change the fact that he did it.

December 22, 2011

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.

I'm sorry -- I don't know what you mean about goose bumps when the Holy Spirit is moving.

I don't prophesy, and, in general, prophesy isn't a big deal at the churches that I've gone to. Sometimes someone might have a word, but it's pretty rare. The gifts aren't the focus of the churches I go to.

What all disappears when you leave church?

Well, the sins that I'm referring to are things like thoughts that I have or actions that I've taken that weren't in the other person's best interest. I don't realize it at the time, but later when I think back on it, I know that something wasn't right. They also include things like putting something in my heart in the place that God alone should occupy. Some things aren't sins, but things that would make me a better person. And yes, one of the sins that probably everyone is guilty of from time to time is gossip.

I know that Jesus quoted from the OT.

I never said that I needed to daily confess how I'm not worthy. That's not what conviction of the Holy Spirit means to me. I also know that I'm human, just like everyone else. I'm not above anyone, or below anyone.

December 22, 2011

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.

Oh....I didn't realize I had said that in this statement of faith thing. I wrote it several years ago. I wouldn't have worded it that way anymore. I still believe in the gifts, but I no longer would say "take people to another level."

When I said it, I wasn't just referring to tongues, nor was I thinking of them specifically.

What is the goose bump anointing? I never heard of such a thing. I assume this was what you meant in your other goose bump comment that I asked you about before.

December 22, 2011

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.

I understood Jesus to be talking about the house swept clean in reference to people being delivered of demons, and then demons returning to that place. I'm not sure that we should assume that He was talking about the Holy Spirit as well.

I'm not a big fan of deliverance ministries, at least how they are taught in the NAR crowd.

I do believe that demons can possess people occasionally, and thus there is a legitimate need for some deliverance ministries. In the accounts that I've read in Walter Martin's book The Kingdom of the Occult and books similar to that, most of these deliverances took place outside of church.

I also don't believe that just because you are an ex-Christian that that means that you are possessed by demons. Also, I don't think that just because someone has a demon that they are necessarily going to writhe in the presence of the Holy Spirit all of the time.

I also believe in modern day miracles, but I think that they are a lot fewer than certain churches would like to make people think. There are miracles that happen outside of the church building as well.

See, I'm kind of against all the showiness that happens in many churches. I don't want to see people running after manifestations, signs, wonders, and the like. I believe that people can respond to the Holy Spirit differently, but I think it's a big problem if these things are encouraged. These things are not why people should be gathered together to worship God. I think it is wrong when a church tries to manipulate a congregation to give certain responses. I think that manifestations, signs, and wonders, can occur, but that they should be very rare. People should not be chasing after them.

As for tongues, I really think that many charismatic/Pentecostal congregations would be better served if they actually applied Paul's teachings about tongues. The way I see it, tongues are just one of many gifts, and not everyone will be given the gift of tongues. Nor is it even important whether or not someone has that gift. It doesn't make them any more spiritual or Christian than anyone else. I'm against the public use of tongues without an interpreter present. Paul said there should only be two or three people, and the rest should keep silent in public. I don't think that there should be a "tongues time" of corporate prayer, as I have witnessed in a charismatic Bible study that I went to a few times when I was in college.

December 22, 2011

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.

My understanding for why He waits to fix things is for the sake of those who do not yet believe in Him.

Sigh..I could give you verses in the Bible that show why I think that Jesus teaches hell, but I'm guessing that it would be a waste of my time.

That is your belief that Jesus is not coming back ever. My belief is that He is coming back. We clearly are not in agreement on this matter.

Show me how my personal beliefs directly conflict with the Christian creeds. Thank you.

I'm sorry that there was hate and racism in the churches in South Africa. It was wrong of them to deny Gandhi or anyone else access inside a church, just based on skin color.

December 22, 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

If you are addressing that to me, I did say that I originally posted that in the Lion's Den, then decided it's better to have here in the Colosseum. The meaning is I prefer discussions that aren't all over the place. This is on topic in here as it questions the validity of calling something Orthodox.

Ok I misunderstood, I thought you wanted to start another thread.

December 22, 2011

What you don't understand is that TBN is not representative of what I mean when I say evangelical Christian. I do not watch TBN, nor do I follow any of the TBN preachers. In fact, those are the very ones that I consider to be false.

I do not follow Jimmy Swaggart, nor is he representative of what it means to be an evangelical Christianity in America.

No I do understand. You are trying to redefine what evangelical means. All of the examples claim evangelism as their preferred method of indoctrination or spreading the word whereas reformed churches tend to have less of an affront and generally tends to stick to existing members that may change location as in towns and cater for their children.

The point you need to understand, this evangelical brand was imported from America and follows their approach of doing the Billy Graham styled crusades, preaching in the malls, tent revivals IOW everything that started in the US around the "Azuza street revival" That is the origins of the evangelical movement no matter how much you wish to deny it.

As a kid in Zambia in the 50's, there were American missionaries that we knew, their kids went to school with my older siblings, I was a latecomer. The cult my parents were caught up in started in Ireland by a dude that had multiple mistresses and many illegitimate children, we were taught in this cult, only the preacher had the divine revelation from god and we should pose all questions to them in writing and they claimed the church was a direct descendant from the early church in jesus' time. This cult is evangelical in that rebirth and immersion baptism is a requirement to be saved but there are no gifts as in the evangelical movements. This cult was/is loosely known as The Way and is worldwide and even in places like China.

Point is. when transatlantic flight became common, the Americans started bringing their evangelical doctrines to Africa. The South African influence was delayed as in the early apartheid days, the DR church played a big role in the government to the point it was almost a theocratic regime. The last white "president" of SA FW de Klerk was an ordained Dutch Reformed minister that went into politics but he never abandoned his faith and stuff like opening of parliament with a christian service was par for the course.

So as far as evangelical, what you folk practice in the US, the evangelicals do here, only difference is that the majority of pentecostals are Afrikaans speaking and still predominantly white. The evangelical influence transcends races but the races still tend to keep to their own kind while practising the same brands of faith, a legacy of apartheid. It appears to be similar in the US where the likes of TD Jakes congregation is predominantly black and the likes of Jesse du Plantis predominantly white (tell me I am wrong) BTW 95% of our TV is American and has been so due to sanctions by the Brits of their arts.

To claim that your version of evangelical christianity is "different" merely mirrors the multi denominational brands of evangelicals we have here in SA.

The point here is to determine whose orthodoxy is right and whose is wrong. Hey guess what? They all do exactly the same thing here. They accuse each other of being heretics based of really minor aspects of doctrine.

Our big evangelical guru Ray McAuley Rhema church, again tied to the US and he and his 1st wife studied there under the Kennith Hagan Rhema banner church in the US. His congregation was predominantly white. Then he had an affair, divorced and a mass exodus ensued, he remarried his lover, and he moved his ministry into Soweto a black city also from the apartheid days and his congregation went mainly black. He is in divorce proceedings with wife2.0 He has an obscene mansion and lives in the lap of luxury. He used to be a professional body builder.

Hatfield Family Church is another mega church here with early roots to the USA. They have broken that and now link to some group in Europe, possibly the Netherlands.

So really, your version of evangelical is just another in the long line of these splits and forming new churches. My last church was linked to the US direct for the xian schooling and to Hatfield Family church for covering, they too have changed their allegiance to another EU group.

This is the way of the evangelical until they achieve mega church status then they pretty much do what they damn well please.

I will say this of the pentecostals, they do appear to have some form of central authority, they use the same name in all towns and relate back to a governing body. As they are predominantly Afrikaans, this is a carry over from the Dutch Reformed style of governing body. The baptists do their own thing, the evangelicals do their own thing and by own thing, they call themselves whatever meets their fancy. Oh the last church I attended, when it was founded the then pastor was having eight simultaneous affairs with women from his church, I only found this out much later.

So if we are to really examine orthodoxy, the honest approach is to ask which group have a central governing body. Work backwards to see who still has a central governing body (that works) and use them as the default. I am sure this will be some brand of pentecostal and will date back to the 50's or so.

Then to really be honest, you need to trace back their origins and from where they split and this will take you back to the original reformed churches in Europe. Somewhere in the 16th century you will find the split from the RCC if the origins are not British. If British, the split came in the time of king Henry the 8th to the Church of England which is identical to the RCC except is allows divorce w/o excommunication (AFAIK)

You then need to trace back pre-reformed days which will bring you to around the 4th century when the christian faith essentially was invented. Going past that is very speculative as records become thin outside what the RCC want you to believe.

Any SoF that claims ascendency directly from the early church circa 1 CE is LYING.

IOW ALL the churches came from the RCC originally and as they still exist, whatever their creeds are must be the original. The Eastern Orthodox split happened in the 11th Century. The three main churches today that have apostolic succession is the RCC, EOC and the Church of England and all of them trace back to the 4th century and share that history between them before they split.

Back to the cult I grew up in.

We had no pastors or fathers or priests. They were/are called Workers and they follow the principle of poverty/servitude/celibacy. They give up everything they own, everything barring one dress or one suit when they enter into the ministry. They receive no salary and all their needs, clothing, transport is provided for by the members and usually anonymously. They own no house or cars and are accommodated in congregants homes. The congregants are called friends and there is no church building. Some homes are classified as open homes and they are free to simply make a call or pitch up and the home owner accommodates and feeds them. The workers go out in pairs. Should they need to go to foreign lands, someone foots the bill and when they get there, friends there will take care of them.

When they are not in your town, elders like my dad was, will conduct services which is more of moderator as each person is expected to share for the edification of the group. This would be akin to cell churches if you have ever been exposed to that. When the workers are in town, they conduct the service except now the various cells come together at someone who has a large house and the seating follows a pew arrangement instead of a typical circle format. No collection plate ever goes around. The need for funds handled by the senior workers usually very old guys in their late 70's got around by word of moth and you simply gave it to them in an unmarked envelope. There is no bank account for this and everything is done cash.

Should a Worker find themselves falling in love etc. they leave the Work (ministry) and can marry. Their pairing in the Work is two males or two females, never a mix as the pairs usually have to share a bedroom.

This cult IMO follows the early acts church to a tee almost and also follows the pauline principles of virginity in a very literal sense. So obviously as kids when we saw this happening in real life and read the bible (no kiddies bibles for us) you saw what was mentioned there happening in front of your eyes. What was there not to believe that this did not come from the time of Jesus. then someone went and actually traced the cult back to its origins in Ireland and published it to the Internet. Wow were we shocked.

In this cult, you were forced to attend church 3 times a week, twice on Sunday and on Wednesday night. Sunday mornings was for sharing anything pertinent with your walk with the lord and had no format per se, two hymns, open prayer session where all expected to participate (that were saved IOW had made a start and had been baptised) another hymn, sharing, communion, another hymn and closing prayer by elder or Worker if present. Sunday night and Wednesday night was akin to bible study, you were given a list once a year of what program to follow, one for Sunday evenings and one for Wednesday evenings.

At the age of 16, you are sat down by your parents if you had not yet made a start/commitment and given the choice to attend or not under your own free will. I chose not to. No abandonment, no admonition, it was now in the lord's hands.

The evangelical side, the Workers would go door-door and simply give a typed invite to what was known as a gospel meeting, there was no preaching as everyone else was not saved, ours was the only way. A hall would be hired for this and of course folk like me were also invited. These meetings happened on a Friday evening and followed for a period of 6 weeks. The last meeting, the invitation to make a start was given (alter call) and in absolute silence, with the congregants heads bowed, they simply had to stand to their feet.

My run in with the CoC in later years, if you did this you were immediately baptised.

Not so with us. You had to prove you were sincere and went on a type of probation to see how faithful you were in attending services. Once a year we all migrated to the capital city and had a four day session of meetings in a tent or a hired hall called a convention and that was three a day each lasting 2-1/2 hours. Stretchers and mattresses were provided and the men bunked together as did the women. Young/nursing mothers had separate quarters. Food was provided ina mess hall environment and 3 meals a day. On the Sunday which was the last day, there was a baptism service held very early in the morning. Not everyone needed to attend (did I mention this was in winter) and it was done outside, no preheated baptismal baths.

A smaller version of this happened six months later and was in a hall and limited to a district.

The reason I mention this, this is what I was indoctrinated with and even to this day remains the barometer whereby I gauge all other xian sects. Everyone I have shared this with says that sounds like the real deal but alas, it too is BS. If you think the "heavy" other sects place on you this was ten times worse.

No TV, no radio, no make up, no jewellery except wedding band and it had to be very plain, not even an engagement ring (diamonds taboo) women had to wear dresses, hair in buns, suits to church for the men, short back and sides (marine style) haircuts, not allowed to really mix with school friends, no movies, no alcohol, no smoking, kids given corporeal punishment for the slightest infraction (my dad had a custom made leather strap 2" x 15" and a laminated leather handle that one of the "friends" whose hobby it was to make these, he made a good living as all parents had one, well the one I knew), boys not allowed to sit next to girls unless own siblings, no dating till you were 18, no marriage ceremony or banquet (married at court and tea and cookies reception, no confetti, brides not allowed to wear worldly styled wedding dress, usually knee length dress and a hat, no veil) women at one time were forced to wear hats and that included little girls from about 9 onwards, boys 8 and over short pants and shirt with tie as you got older, shorts became longs, no jeans allowed EVER, no celebration of xmas or any religious holidays, easter Sunday was just another Sunday and probably a load of others I cannot remember. Although no hell fire and brimstone sermons were ever given, you were subtly made aware that was the default destination unless......

So when it come to false prophets, false teachers and false doctrines, I think I really have a solid understanding of what these are. I never once had a watered down Sunday school exposure so since I can remember, it has been the unabridged angry sky daddy most other xians only get to meet in their teens.

So obviously charismatic was a draw, live band, dress less formal, no real requirement to read the bible, just listen to the pastor but a question I had regarding hell at age 8 never left me and not even a PhD pastor could answer the questions I had so in the end I had to research for myself.

Apart from the gawd awful shit I had to endure which are blatantly obvious as man made doctrines (the text of jesus admonishing the scribes and Pharisees about the doctrines that no man could master comes to mind), whose creed more closely matches that of the Acts church, yours or mine (mine in the sense of what I grew up with)?

December 22, 2011

I'm sorry -- I just got really angry after reading the responses that you gave to me.

Okay -- let me finish up what I was saying about the Trinity.

2 Corinthians 13:14

¹⁴ The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

I don't see how this would make any sense if Paul wasn't saying that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are God.

Not trinity identifies each as three separate things the hs is within each one

Ephesians 2:17-18

¹⁷ AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; ¹⁸ for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

I also have trouble seeing how this verse makes any sense if Paul didn't believe that God was triune.

In one spirit, in one accord, just like the I AM verse, the same concept.

Ephesians 3:11-16

¹¹This was in accordance with the ^[^a^]eternal purpose which He ^[^b^]carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, ¹² in whom we have boldness and ^[^c^]confident access through faith ^[^d^]in Him. ¹³ Therefore I ask ^[^e^]you not to lose heart at my tribulations on your behalf, ^[^f^]for they are your glory.

¹⁴ For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, ¹⁵ from whom ^[^g^]every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, ¹⁶ that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man,

Yet again, I don't see how this makes any since if Paul didn't believe that God was triune.

Speaks of Jesus' spirit indwelling, IOW a common bond

Ephesians 5:18-20

¹⁸ And do not get drunk with wine, ^[^a^]for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, ¹⁹ speaking to ^[^b^]one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; ²⁰ always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to ^[^c^]God, even the Father;

Again -- the passage wouldn't make much sense unless Paul believed in a triune God.

Jesus and god still identified as separate, you are reading this with trinity glasses on, read it as it is written.

1 Thessalonians 1:1-5

¹ Paul and Silvanus and Timothy,

To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.

² We give thanks to God always for all of you, making mention of you in our prayers; ³ constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and ^[^a^]steadfastness of hope ^[^b^]in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father, ⁴ knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you; ⁵ for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we ^[^c^]proved to be among you for your sake.

Again, I have a hard time seeing how this would make sense if God wasn't triune.

Still two different entities

Zechariah 12:9-11

¹⁰ “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, ^[^b^]the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

This passage has God talking in both first person and third person. To me, this suggests that there are at least two persons who are God.

I see you have connected pierced with only son and first born, what is the context, who is this discussion about, OT verses do not work as I have already mentioned the Jews were monotheistic about god.

2 Peter 1:1

¹^[^a^]Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same ^[^b^]kind as ours, ^[^c^]by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

I understand this passage to be using the titles "God" and "Savior" to both be referring to Jesus Christ.

Wrong, that is NOT what the text says. At best a binity use of comma can change the meaning to suit, is this comma there in the Greek? take a squiz at other translations, the comma is not there.

Romans 9:5

⁵ whose are the fathers, and from whom is ^[^a^]the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed ^[^b^]forever. Amen.

This verse seems to say that Christ is over all and is God.

Nothing here to suggest trinity

Titus 2:13

¹³ looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of ^[^a^]our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,

Depends on translation and placement of comma, remove the comma? At best a binity use of comma can change the meaning to suit, is this comma there in the Greek? take a squiz at other translations, the comma is not there.

This verse seems to be saying that Jesus Christ is our great God and Savior.

Given what I believe about these passages and the previous ones that I listed, it is my personal belief that the Bible calls Jesus God. (There are other passages I could have used, but I think that is enough to show why I believe what I do.)

Now...for the Holy Spirit

No need, you have not provided any textual evidence that the trinity doctrine is a valid doctrine, you are simply reading into what you want the text to say and in a version where punctuation is altered to suit your bias. You really think I am this misinformed concerning textual criticism?

It is probably going to be pointless to address my other questions and simply highlights the fact that you can get the bible to confirm any bias you already hold to as truth. Of course the folk you have thrown your toys out the cot with can pretty much do exactly what you have just demonstrated here. You have been well trained to be a follower and allow other people to do your thinking for you. So we will simply say in the bigger scheme of things, your version/interpretation = 1/33000 =

0.003% on the relevancy scale.

Perhaps you should simply do what your jesus suggests and live and let live.

For us that have bothered to really research these doctrines, their origins, and church history coupled with hermeneutics and exegesis, we can see the meadow muffins clearly no matter how they are branded or prettied up.

Lastly, the trinity doctrine hardly constitutes a show stopper concerning belief. Many believers dismiss this yet believe everything else in the bible. Would you go so far as to say this is imperative? If not it should this not be in your creed (or church's creed) Realistically, this is probably the first time your trinitarian belief has been challenged. I have seen far better "proofs" and defences. It is the simple question of why do you believe what you believe? If you cannot answer that, how pray tell are you at all qualified to judge other peoples interpretations?

Instead of venting and ranting, why not go to their web site "contact us" and ask them all the same question regarding their "prosperity gospel" Be sincere and see what answers you get. I am confident, none of them will have the exact same reply. If that happens, the logical question to then ask is "How is it possible to have so many differing POV?" Following that you should start to question the indwelling of the alleged holy spirit because as far as I remember, the bible clearly states that "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

These folk all claim to be xian so by inference, one god, one jesus, one holy spirit (regardless how you want to join them up) there should be ONE and only ONE interpretation, ONE church, ONE denomination, ONE truth etc. If not, then how do you explain the differences? Is the holy spirit real?

How are we to reconcile the differences? According to Acts, at pentecost what was so significant? They were all in ONE place in ONE accord with each other. Can you honestly say that is true of the church today?

December 22, 2011

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)

What does God coming looking for Adam have to do with the statement that I made?

You said separation yet the account clearly shows he had no qualms. The odd thing is why did he call out to Adam? An omnimax god should have walked straight to the place where he was hiding. Then the tale goes as if god is surprised at what Adam did and then kicks him out of the garden. Obviously the Jewish take on this is entirely different.

I don't think the passages where God visited His wrath unto the 4th+ generation has anything to do with the fact that Adam and Eve fell. Original sin is different from the sins people commit every day. I believe that original sin changed what it meant to be human.

Convenience of omission? Let us examine your premise, you say man sins every day and how did man get this ability to sin? Adam and Eve were sinless before the fall so yes it has everything to do with the fall. However what you probably do not know the Judaic faith underwent many revisions itself with a complete rewrite, I forget the details but Ezra is alleged to have invented the Judaic faith and rewrote the Hebrew bible (I am not an expert on OT so don't quote me)

The concept of OS is not a Jewish but an xian doctrine. Yet the NT is tacked onto the OT and horribly misrepresented in the xian version of it. What you read as English is at best a 4th hand translation, these are the factoids you have no knowledge of. The whole concept of OS links back to the GoE fall, we have a literal flood and as a creationist typically they ignore the overwhelming evidence against this and say it was a global or local flood yet the inerrant word of god the bible clearly indicates a global deluge. Even Jesus mentions the flood.

From 8 survivors we repopulate the planet in a matter of 4500 or so years to 7Bn folk. That aside, the creation 2.0 or continuation1.0 still did not fix anything according to the myth.

Laws are given to Moses allegedly and this is really the first time man can really be held accountable for sin.

I don't know of the exact Psalm you were referring to because you didn't give a citation. But if it's the passage I'm thinking of, then I think it was talking more about the heart towards God. Offering sacrifices without meaning is pointless. God wanted peoples hearts.

David comes to the realisation that animal sacrifice is not what god intended and David is a key figure in both Jewish and xian folklore so much so his psalm is cited in James. The heart issue is always key throughout the OT

Fall, OS, get out --------> god interacts with Cain and Able so seems there is no cutting off as you inferred -------->God fades into background, folk go mad, flood IOW Alt Ctrl Del reboot----------> nothing changes, selects Hebrews as chosen race, issues commandments1.0 and later 2.0 which do not match and make up 17 in total------> nothing changes, laws of Moses aka levitical laws come into play with animal sacrifice-------> nothing changes---->time of the judges then kings followed by prophets or c/w prophets------> nothing changes, god allows diasporas, genocides saves remnant to reboot again and again------> nothing changes, FF to 0CE or 4BCE to be 100% accurate, jesus pitches up, confuses everyone, dies and is resurrected, allegedly pays for the sins of all mankind ---->NOTHING CHANGES

Based on the accounts leading up to and including jesus, this god still cannot get it right, now all of a sudden he is really pissed off and we now have a devil and a hell to look forward to, still nothing changes

So the concept of OS and the various ways to rectify it including jesus have all failed, man still sins according to the ten killing, pillaging even if they become xian and in fact as xian, they tend to be a bit more brutal than the heathen. Nothing changes.

Devil is now god's goto guy for all the shit that happens he is not able to prevent or influence, devil is now the main man and based on performance is doing a splendid job screwing up gods creation. All the while god now with his son at his right hand side powerless to stop paedophile priests, his representatives on earth and no not just the RCC, ALL OF THEM are guilty of this, powerless to stop wars, powerless to stop the holocaust of his "chosen" people, powerless to answer prayers as promised, powerless to heal folk of disease, powerless to intervene in corrupt governments (we are told to pray for our leaders instead) powerless to stop a new faith called islam, powerless to protect his followers from all of the above.

The solution? BRB. I iz coming again to fix it all (one day)

So really, a god that plants a tree and says don't, cannot fix anything up to now, we are supposed to believe because of the set up to fail, one man and one woman's mistake has damned all of creation for all time? Who is to blame, man or god?

Yes it all makes perfect sense.

December 22, 2011

You say that Jesus can't be both.

The creeds and I say otherwise.

I don't see how Jesus could have been seen by the writers of the NT as a demi-god. Otherwise, there would be two gods.

A demi god is earth bound it is only half god and half human

I don't think that Christianity teaches that the Father mated with Mary. That is a Mormon belief.

Hmmm I thought you were a trinitarian, how convenient to now defend this copulation. So was it magic or was Mary just a little slut that lied to her parents. You missed the point entirely. We know now what makes up a foetus, a sperm and an ovum. Back then only the sperm (well millions of them) was visible so a tale like that was plausible. They did not know about the woman's contribution. So god had to do the dirty deed, was it the father, the holy spirit or jesus himself? Well based on the trinity all of them or one of them. So it really does not matter what the mormons think, the idea is ludicrous and what I have shown you is that the OS would have been present in Jesus by simple known 21st century genetics. The creeds infer that the bloodline curse is broken as god now fathers himself. Even if you ascribe a divine parthenogenesis, the ovum of Mary was tainted thus jesus was 1/2 OS

Yes, I know how the birds and the bees work, but I also happen to believe that God is God, and that He could make it so that a virgin was pregnant...all without any sexual intercourse. I believe in the miracles that are in the Bible.

Belief does not constitute proof, you are after all going after another sect who missed the bus no?

It appears to me as though the people in the Bible had a pretty good idea that it was through sexual intercourse that babies are usually conceived. They didn't need to know all of the details to associate intercourse with babies.

No they did not know the details and this is why the virgin birth myth stuck fro so long.

There are those who would argue that the genealogy that is listed in Luke's Gospel was through Mary, while the genealogy that is listed in Matthew was Joseph's line.

The only reason they say that is because the two do not match which is irrelevant, the lineage of Jews is via the mother NOT the father. A man is never sure if the baby his wife has is his but the wife does know it is her baby, 9 months of carrying and a swollen belly left no doubt who was the mother. This is why the Jews trace lineage via the mother. Pagans and the Romans on the other hand, trace lineage via the father. Hard to see why you cannot see the obvious error here. Of course you need to understand that culture. Today we have paternal testing that is irrefutable in the way of DNA should the need arise to determine paternity. We also know how the father's and mother's DNA "mix" to derive an offspring that is half father and half mother. We know the father determines the sex of the child and the blood group.

All of the assumptions of bloodlines back then were wrong. They did not know any better.

But Mary got to be the only teen in history to come up with a godunnit for her pregnancy out of wedlock

December 22, 2011

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.

What two commandments would you accuse Jesus of breaking?

The way I see it, when Jesus did claim to be God, they did try to stone Him for it.

No other gods before me commandment 1 and working on the sabbath. His temple tantrum would have lost him some brownie points.

However in some passages he upholds the law and acknowledges the role of the high priest and in others he condemns the law.

Under Roman occupation, bringing civilisation to the region, the Romans probably put a stop to their ritual killings and toned down the temple sacrifices. Whatever allegedly happened, they would need to accuse jesus of treason so that the romans would kill him and this is how the story reads.

The story is embellished to make the Jews the scapegoat for his death and as a result they were persecuted for this right up to the holocaust. The justification text, "let his blood be on our heads and the heads of our children" so the Roman empire with their new religion have relegated blame to the bad Jews.

You have mentioned that the xian faith was an offshoot of Judaism but it is not.

The writers made the mistake of tracing lineage via Joseph instead of Mary. We now know that the Jews trace via the mother and the lineage of Mary is unknown - whoopsie

The RCC venerates Mary as a perpetual virgin so how did Jesus get siblings - whoopsie (forgot to edit that part out) And Joseph must have been really special to not "know" his wife when all these other critters came about later according to the RCC.

Notwithstanding, the story is silly in that we all know pregnant women usually do not get pregnant again. Based on what we know of genetics and reproduction, this pregnancy within a pregnancy is extremely rare. Men are naturally horny it is our nature.

What also makes this story ludicrous is that why would a god who literally snapped his fingers to create everything not simply take on the form of man and come down as an adult. It seems demons are able to possess a human yet god is powerless to do like wise.

He would not have needed to do all the growing up risk a miscarriage or still birth as 14 years old for a girl seems risky as the skeleton has not properly formed for child bearing or birth. When my daughter was 14, she was still a girl, just with small boobs and having menses. She is 6'1" now at 19 going on 20, back then she was much shorter and her hips narrower. Oh the 14 years old is a claim I have heard made which if true would put god on a par with mohammed for paedophilia. Looking at Jews today, they are not really tall people so imagine at 14 a Jewish lass would have been less of a "woman" than my daughter was. Maybe there is some nephilim ancestry in my heritage

A simple 101 chat with the high priest and say nope that is not what I meant, here is fix3.0 lets try that, and snap the Romans are swallowed up like in the OT and snap, there is no more sin, everyone loves everyone, snap and this is fixed and the move on back to heaven.

This whole xianity god thing is like a journey from NY to LA. In a straight line a journey of some 10 hours (guessing) and the journey xian's god takes via the back roads and dirt roads not even in an SUV 4X4 but in a rent a wreck. Really for someone so omni everything his methods really seem backassward.

December 22, 2011

From what I can see in this thread, it appears that--like beauty--orthodoxy is in the eye of the beholder. Or in the mind of the believer. From the perspective of scholarly religious studies, I think Christian orthodoxy normally is as stated in the creeds TenthDoctor posted on the first page of this thread. In a nutshell: Belief in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, Jesus born of a virgin, died and buried, risen the third day, sitting at the right hand of God to judge the quick and the dead.

Other variations of the theme of Christianity that I call less that orthodox are ideas that see the Jesus story as a parable for life, the Cosmic Christ, Jesus as myth, no afterlife, etc. And then there's the more blurred situations where people believe in hell as non-burning separation from God, that Christianity is not a religion--it's a relationship, the spiritualization of orthodoxy, i.e. orthodoxy is faithfulness and/or a spiritual quest--all of these people may hold the literal biblical narrative more or less but they have strayed from the "old time religion" as preached for fifteen to eighteen centuries.

Some posts in this thread also sought for the origins of the creeds. I was one of them. I don't think these are the normally accepted "orthodox Christian" doctrines that made it into the canon of the NT and theology texts accepted across the centuries and preached throughout the world until 1500 and well beyond. Unitarianism arose in the 17 or 1800s. Since then, so did many dozens (hundreds or thousands?) of other denominations world-wide, but especially in the United States.

At one time, Germany was the birthplace of new ideas. Splinter sects seem to have been around all the time--at least, since the Reformation beginning about 1500--when they found a way not to get themselves killed by the powerful State Churches.

The State Churches obviously thought they had the right belief and that it was their sacred duty to purify the land of heretics. On the other hand, splinter groups such as the Waldensians and Anabaptists felt so confident that they had the correct beliefs that they were willing to endure imprisonment, inhumane torture, and martyr deaths rather than compromise their beliefs.

Who, I ask, had orthodox beliefs? And who is qualified to judge if the Pope is not? I certainly don't trust a person who obviously wrote her own statement of faith in the absence of fellow-believers. That is about as unorthodox as it is possible to get. Sorry, TD, this is not an attack on you or your beliefs but my personal opinion on what is orthodox based on my knowledge of official church doctrine and NT teachings.

The New Testament and official church doctrine emphasize the absolute importance of Church, and the fellowship of like-minded believers. I likewise disagree that pastors who edit their faith statements without the endorsement of their congregations or fellow pastors are orthodox. Nothing should be done by private interpretation, the NT teaches.

So yeah, who is qualified to judge orthodox beliefs if the Pope & company is not? The people the Pope killed for their faith? But Catholics died, too, for their faith.

This whole post is very well stated. I've put in bold what I feel was the original point I was hoping to see get fleshed out in such a discussion. Orthodoxy is the truth to those from a certain perspective. There is not only one perspective on anything. The scholar says the Bible means this, the mystic says it means this. Who is right? Why not both? If someone is standing on a ladder and they look at the world from rung number 12 and describe what they are seeing, it is a valid take on reality from their altitude. Another person on that same ladder is at run 62. He describes the world he sees from up there and it differs from the gentleman on rung 12. Is he wrong?

Here comes the point. To the man on rung 62 he can hear the description of the world from the man on rung 12 and say, 'yes, that's true from someone looking at the world on rung 12. He can remember that himself as he had to step onto rung 12 before he got to rung 62. The man on rung 12 however has never climbed to rung 62 yet and seen the world from that altitude, and when he hears the description from someone at that rung he imagines them to be crazy, "woo-woo", a sinner, or a heretic, rejecting all rung 12'ism truths!

My point is that for any one committee of humans to make proclamations about a non-linear reality from their perspectives on what they are observing and interpreting, and then make judgments that this is truth and this is error for all others is in fact incredibly short-sighted. And, that short-sightedness comes from what I would say is simply a lack of altitude or depth of experience. They don't see a rung above them because that reality is outside their experience. The world needs to look and feel and be believed in accord with their perspectives. They are therefore busy making themselves the arbiters of truth for others. They are placing themselves in the position of God in some ultimate judgement, from their perspective and that place on the ladder.

Orthodox really means what is acceptable for that group's perspective. No group can claim the perspective of God, and judge for others truth from that altitude unless they themselves have adapted to that level of seeing the world, not in little glimpses, but in a full positional shift of perspective. And I'll dare say that at that point, you would have sufficient enough altitude to say that all these 'orthodoxies' are truths to those on the lower rungs, partial perspectives, reality's truths suited to them on their rung on that ladder. Ultimate Truth embraces all truths. Orthodoxy is relative.

This was what my original point I was driving at.

December 22, 2011

According to how I see it, Jesus did physically die, and He physically came back to life.

I understand Jesus' claim to die for humans to be the only sacrifice that could really be sufficient for covering ours sins. A life for a life. I see this as being different from the human sacrifices that were banned because of the subject who would be the sacrifice -- fully God and fully man. This wasn't some random person offering up a child to be sacrificed in order to bring rain or whatever.

And human sacrifice was not a Jewish concept and was outlawed. How then does he change the rules and now make human sacrifice kosher? If you look at the pagan rituals, human sacrifice was a no biggie. When the Jews sacrificed to baal that was a pagan concept. Yet here you have no qualm whatsoever accepting this?

Why would rising from the dead nullify the death?

Because he is not dead. Sacrifice involves permanent death not a hiatus in hell for 3 days. The pagan man-gods all got done in and came back, it was the theme of the times. The stories are almost identical even down to the number of disciples.

In order to talk about Jesus' resurrection, it is my opinion that talking about the Jewish idea of the resurrection from the dead is necessary. It seems that Jews had this idea that when the Messiah came, then everyone who had died at any time in the past would be resurrected. From what I gather from reading 1 Corinthians 15, Paul seemed to believe that in this resurrection, everyone would receive resurrected bodies. The resurrected bodies would not be subject to death or disease, etc. The bodies would be physical, yet the type of body would be different than what we've seen.

The Jewish Moshesh is predicted to die and stay dead, you are not going to hear this from xian apologists, you have to talk to Jewish scholars. I am not sure of others who have gone on before but you had Matthew's walking zombies, what happened to them? Could they die twice?

According to how I understand 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus was the first person to receive the resurrection and the resurrected bodies. In Matthew's Gospel it mentions that there were people who rose from the dead after Jesus rose from the dead. At His second coming, the rest will be resurrected.

So where are these zombies now?

Would dead people rising from the dead at the second coming of Jesus nullify these people's deaths? Would you say that they never died?

He ain't coming back sister, he was and is a myth. You are now moving into soul sleep doctrine which is a cute concept but has no bearing on reality. When you die, that is it, finito, kaput, game over (to the sounds of pacman)

I understand Jesus' death on the cross as payment for sin to mean that Jesus satisfied justice. I understand it to mean that those who place faith in Jesus and accept what He has done to be declared righteous before God, forgiven of their sin. This doesn't mean that no one in the world sins, or that Christians never sin. I believe that we still live in a fallen world.

So the fix did not work then? You still have to suck up and pay homage and work for your salvation. Of course it did not work, we all know that, no rocket PhD required, nothings changed so jesus failed. We await a second coming 'cause he did not quite get it right last time around. I will not discuss revelation here as that is my favourite book to shoot down but covers the return and the great battle.

I do not go to a church that demands that I confess my sins to anyone specific. I confess my sins to God, and if I feel that I need to, to someone else. I would say that if I have wronged someone, I should confess my sin to the person I wronged...not because I am told to do so by the church, but because it is the right thing to do. If I do something wrong and it bothers me, I would want the freedom of discussing it or not discussing it with a trusted friend. This would be completely informal.

But other than possibly hurting someone's feelings and making reparations by apology, why or how is this now something you still have to burden yourself with. This is why I asked are you a sexual deviant, do you wish people dead (fantasize) Even if you do, unless you act upon them have you committed a crime? Even the RCC offers absolution with their doctrine of confession and sometimes penance. It would seem as you really have no one that can absolve you, you continue with the guilt of selfworthlessness, The scripture on this is very clear. If you confess your sins you are forgiven

If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all.

¹⁶ Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.

Yet why do this? He has already paid the price. Making reparations between humans is natural and needs no god, it is the right thing to do. Of course there is another script that deals with an unrepentant member being brought before a church council which could be applied here if one is not received forgiveness from the offendee when apologies have been given plus it is said that if you do not forgive them that trespass against you neither will your father in heave forgive you your trespasses which is kind of ironic in this thread. You have issues for whatever reason with other churches, I am guessing this is not your fight and possibly your pastor's so by default, the more and the longer you take umbrage to their doings, the longer you hold a curse over yourself (shit I would have made a good pastor)

I reiterate, NOTHING HAS CHANGED Jesus died in vain, jesus himself said these words so one must ask where exactly did this human sacrifice concept come in? When he said it, he was very much still alive and no mediator was required. But then he changed his mind so much we really have no idea where we stand. Seem like we are screwed either way.

I never believed that Satan's powers were equal to God's powers, although I do believe that Satan is powerful.

Believing in Satan doesn't excuse personal responsibility for sin.

No Stan is far more powerful, he is after all the ruler of this world, it says so right there in your bible. Based on what we perceive, were any of this not myth, Stan is the man that weilds the power and because he is responsible for all the shit that now happens, he is more omnimax than god, he can infiltrate your thoughts and mine 7000 miles apart so that makes him omniscient and omnipresent and based on observable outcomes looking at just how much xians sin (according to their standards) taking divorce as an example, the devil sure manages to be able to override a marriage ritual of "whatsoever god hath joined together, let no man put asunder" all it takes is a divorce attorney.

So given the statement you made of being responsible for your own sins thus nullifies the sacrifice of Jesus, you still have to confess them and ask forgiveness.

In the heathen realm, we have no sin list. We obey the law, if we piss someone off or do bad by them we apologize and if they refuse apology, screw them, you are off the hook, karma is reset. If you break the law, you pay the fine or go to jail which is no different to the xian as we are all bound by secular and usually fairer laws where you are innocent till proven guilty which is diametrically opposed to christianity where you are guilty even if you committed no crime.

So here is my sin list

Speeding fines, paid

Sexual encounters of the premarital kind (about 30) - no guilt just fond memories

Adultery - faithful for 27 years plus 2 years shacking up

Divorce - Only married once but I guess in god's eyes this is my 31st (or so) wife.

Murder - nope

Rape - nope

Theft - as a kid I stole money from mom's purse for cigarettes,, I guess I am doomed

Coveting neighbours wife even desire - nope, I have all I need with wife 1.0 (31.0)

Coveting neighbours BMW - nope I have a Benz and a Camry

Neighbour's house - mine is paid for.

Paid tithes - $300,000 over 8 years Still waiting for payback

Even as a woo, this was no different, I smoke, I drink (all in moderation) but that is not on the sin list of god.

So according to you, what have I done wrong?

December 22, 2011

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.

I'm sorry -- I don't know what you mean about goose bumps when the Holy Spirit is moving.

I am sure most folk that were in evangelical/charismatic circles experienced this I assumed you being in these circles this was par for the course. All evangelical churches I attended had this and folk saying how wonderful it is.

I don't prophesy, and, in general, prophesy isn't a big deal at the churches that I've gone to. Sometimes someone might have a word, but it's pretty rare. The gifts aren't the focus of the churches I go to.

OK

What all disappears when you leave church?

Warm fuzzies

Well, the sins that I'm referring to are things like thoughts that I have or actions that I've taken that weren't in the other person's best interest. I don't realize it at the time, but later when I think back on it, I know that something wasn't right. They also include things like putting something in my heart in the place that God alone should occupy. Some things aren't sins, but things that would make me a better person. And yes, one of the sins that probably everyone is guilty of from time to time is gossip.

So you are not an Ogre, good to know.

I know that Jesus quoted from the OT.

Anyone can including mohammed. The point here is jesus as a Jew based on rather flimsy evidence that his family was somehow attached to temple stuff (not in the bible but espoused by many as fact) he would have been schooled in rabbinical law and teachings. With that all the oral traditions too. He would have been fully aware of their history taking into account the idea he spent most of his gifted youth studying (inferred from his disappearing from his parents at age 12) So he would have known that human sacrifice was taboo. Here again we have conflicts in logic. Why would god need to learn the laws he decreed in the first place?

I never said that I needed to daily confess how I'm not worthy. That's not what conviction of the Holy Spirit means to me. I also know that I'm human, just like everyone else. I'm not above anyone, or below anyone.

This is the underlying message we "read into" when one talks about conviction of the hs. The reality is that you are probably a good person, brought up well, privileged in some respects, and probably no different to me in general. You have what we call an inner moral compass and the conviction you think is the hs is merely you.

The church knows folk are not inherently bad, folk follow the secular laws, we make mistakes learn form them etc.

The church is selling you real estate in the sky or hereafter and to get it you have to be demeaned to a mere worm in your own eyes not worthy and thus when they have you mind they have a tithing member (hopefully for life)

I am being very open with you to show you that little differentiates us except you believe I am going to hell. I OTOH believe you and I will end up in the same place taking a dirt nap forever. There will be no resurrection, no seeing lost loved ones, no golden mansions no streets of gold. As dead people we will not care as we will have no cognitive abilities. By the time your great grand children come around to being adults, they will not even know who you were or care for that matter. You may be lucky to adorn a pic in a dusty album somewhere or be immortalized on facebook or photobucket but that I am afraid is as good as it gets.

Oh and I am going to hell. It is called the grave, Gehenna is a grassy park in Jerusalem now, so I am left with Hades and Sheol which are the same as grave. Tartarus is only for the devil and his angels and the Lake of fire, well that is just something some dude on hallucinogen mushrooms made up in his psychedelic trips on the island of Patmos. No theologian in history has been able to interpret that book in its entirety. Go and ask your pastor to explain it to you. Hint Hal Lindsey and Jack van Impe are loons and do not know anything. they just want to sell books.

December 22, 2011

LivingLife,

I think our discussion is going way off topic. This is supposed to be a discussion about what Christian orthodoxy is. You asked me what my statement of faith was, which was a legitimate question for the subject matter being discussed. I think it's good to check to see whether or not my beliefs match up with the creeds.

However, this isn't what you wanted to do with this topic. Instead, you wanted to use my beliefs as a means of tearing them apart and disproving them. I didn't want to launch into a discussion about this because I felt it was taking the thread off topic. Yet, you asked that we discuss it, so I attempted to state why I believed the way that I did. You asked me to defend the Trinity with Scripture. I gave you verses for why I believe in it. You dismissed everything that I said. You also dismissed every other point that I tried to make defending why I believe the way that I do. When responding to me, you speak in absolutes, yet I have consciously tried not to speak in absolutes because the original post asked me not to. Therefore, I'm really at an extreme disadvantage.

The only thing that I will say is that I forgot to give you a full definition of what I believe the Trinity to be. I forgot to say that the Father isn't Jesus, the Holy Spirit isn't the Father, Jesus isn't the Father, Jesus isn't the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit isn't the Father, the Holy Spirit isn't Jesus.

Yes, the Father is a Person, Jesus is a Person, the Holy Spirit is a Person, yet I believe that they are all Yahweh (God). Each person can be talked about as a distinct Person, yet there is only one God. The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are the same God, but not the same Person.

I really have no desire to keep trying to defend my beliefs in this thread because (1) I didn't understand that to be the point of this thread and (2) because I feel like whatever I say is automatically dismissed as being invalid, and that you don't think that it is a legitimate viewpoint for someone to hold.

This conversation isn't going anywhere.

I'm not backing out of defending my beliefs because I can't defend them. I believe that I can, but I don't think think that my defense will be accepted in this thread....thus it is an utter waste of my time to argue for my beliefs.

Can we please go back to talking about orthodoxy instead of a discussion about ripping apart my beliefs?

December 22, 2011

Now, if others in this thread say that what LivingLife and I have been talking about isn't off topic, I will address more points.

So what do other people reading this thread think?

December 22, 2011

I understood Jesus to be talking about the house swept clean in reference to people being delivered of demons, and then demons returning to that place. I'm not sure that we should assume that He was talking about the Holy Spirit as well.

It is by inference teaching that if delivered, you know have to be baptised with the hs or else the vacant place is found clean and more come in the concept being that again by inference, once you reject the faith the hs vacates and hence a clean house (I made a lot of assumptions of you based on your SoF but will still dialogue)

I'm not a big fan of deliverance ministries, at least how they are taught in the NAR crowd.

I do believe that demons can possess people occasionally, and thus there is a legitimate need for some deliverance ministries. In the accounts that I've read in Walter Martin's book The Kingdom of the Occult and books similar to that, most of these deliverances took place outside of church.

The church ones are manifestations and it is all role playing if you will, pople see it and then shit happens in their life, it must be a demon of lust, nicotene, alcohol whatever and the sense that deliverance is you have to know the name of the demon. The demon deliverance of jesus used as proof, he cast out legion as there were so many - poor bugger probably only had epilepsy, as for the pigs that is a whole other spin story. As you can see I was a woo extrodinair.

As far as the occult goes, that is also make believe, most atheists do not believe in the supernatural realm.

I also don't believe that just because you are an ex-Christian that that means that you are possessed by demons. Also, I don't think that just because someone has a demon that they are necessarily going to writhe in the presence of the Holy Spirit all of the time.

Many do believe this and it is preached from very high pulpits like the TBN loons.

I also believe in modern day miracles, but I think that they are a lot fewer than certain churches would like to make people think. There are miracles that happen outside of the church building as well.

There are no miracles, coincidences attributed to miracles yes. Most testimonies of healings, the patient also receives medication so who is doing the healing, science or god? They will tell you god as the doctors are god ordained never mind the eight years of study and internship and frigging awful hours.

See, I'm kind of against all the showiness that happens in many churches. I don't want to see people running after manifestations, signs, wonders, and the like. I believe that people can respond to the Holy Spirit differently, but I think it's a big problem if these things are encouraged. These things are not why people should be gathered together to worship God. I think it is wrong when a church tries to manipulate a congregation to give certain responses. I think that manifestations, signs, and wonders, can occur, but that they should be very rare. People should not be chasing after them.

Agreed, the signs and wonders should follow the believer yet the US evangelicals have managed to flip it around 180. Now the woos fall for any snake oil salesman.

As for tongues, I really think that many charismatic/Pentecostal congregations would be better served if they actually applied Paul's teachings about tongues. The way I see it, tongues are just one of many gifts, and not everyone will be given the gift of tongues. Nor is it even important whether or not someone has that gift. It doesn't make them any more spiritual or Christian than anyone else. I'm against the public use of tongues without an interpreter present. Paul said there should only be two or three people, and the rest should keep silent in public. I don't think that there should be a "tongues time" of corporate prayer, as I have witnessed in a charismatic Bible study that I went to a few times when I was in college.

The tongues with interpreter is what they call prophesy. The idea that god cannot speak plain English, needs someone to babble cow patties and then someone to interpret is ludicrous, no matter how you wish to frame it. If it were real, the tongues at pentacost were in known languages but paul's rendition is the language of angels hence the babble, therefore ALWAYS give an incoherent drunk a ride home, you never know if you may be entertaining an angel. Taking Paul's teaching literally.

See this is where we fall off the bus as far as orthodoxy is concerned. Everything I have shared I could back up with scripture, I was a good bullshitter. Even the cult I shared about earlier, a script for all the do nots and in effect a creed in itself.

Thus christianity based on the bible you can pretty much make a cookie cutter doctrine and cherry pick whatever you want. Believe me I searched high and low for the truth and the truth is NOT in the bible nor in ANY church.

Bluntly put, Truth is whatever you want it to be. The only churches that have truth are those that have apostolic succession and there are only three. All the rest are derivatives and like the derivatives of the stock exchange, they will be the final undoing of the xian faith. The internet has made it easy to fact check - yay Google - anything and any claim, the bullpiteers have a limited lifespan and kids nowadays really have no need for church, the church is dying in the western world.

So we sit in one of two realities, it is all BS or satan has taken over the internet and deceived many. If it is the later, then kudos to him as he again outperforms god.

December 22, 2011

LivingLife,

I've thought about it some more, and I'm willing to continue discussing my personal beliefs with you if you at least acknowledge that my beliefs are a legitimate viewpoint (that I have a right to hold to my own viewpoint.)

I do believe that you have a right and a reason for holding to the viewpoint that you do.

Can we do this? If so, I'll continue the line of discussion we've been talking about.

December 22, 2011

Now, if others in this thread say that what LivingLife and I have been talking about isn't off topic, I will address more points.

So what do other people reading this thread think?

Getting into side debates should be with an eye to bring it back to the main topic of the thread. It's easy to loose sight of that and derail the whole thread into a debate about the merits of the Trinity doctrine, "yes it is, no it's not". If a side discussion comes in, it should be stated how it does relate to the main topic, otherwise it should be a separate discussion.

Any point to it that I can see would be to show how there are legitimate alternative understandings, and how that itself challenges any claim of "right thinking" or "orthodox" teachings as somehow authoritative over others. But it should not turn into a "No, I'm right and you're wrong about the Trinity" discussion.

What I would like personally is some response to what I posted this morning that goes right to that. Here's the link to that post: http://www.ex-christ...post__p__712385 The underlying question is on what basis do we grant authority to others as to tell someone what is "right thinking" in light of those factors most people don't even consider?

Keep on topic.

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

R. S. Martin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ouroboros

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TenthDoctor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TenthDoctor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ouroboros

Link to comment

Share on other sites

R. S. Martin

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

LivingLife

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

LivingLife

Link to comment

Share on other sites

LivingLife

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

LivingLife

Link to comment

Share on other sites

LivingLife

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TenthDoctor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TenthDoctor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

LivingLife

Link to comment

Share on other sites