Real Christians

[Muffled]

That is a good answer to my original question and I agree because the different denominations and even within the same denomination Churches and people have their own interpretation. There is nothing wrong with your believing what you think is right regardless of any Church teachings. But I would not argue with someone who has a different interpretation. It is foolish imo to try and persuade someone to change their belief. If they ask, then I would explain and answer question. If they want to debate, great, but argue, no.

I find very few willing to debate or even to try to prove their position. There is nothing I would like better than to find someone who could prove the validity of the Doctrine of the Trinity to me but I have found no one who can do that. If you don't debate how will you know whether you are on track or following some bizarre notion?

 

[Muffled]

I mostly agree. But it is debatable as to whether Jesus said He had divinity. Jesus had greater powers than just about anyone who ever lived. But there were others in the OT like Moses who did great things. I have my own, long sought after and studied beliefs re: both OT and NT people etc. I had to change my beliefs along the way because of what I learned/found. And may again. There is always other possibilities.

I have a thread for that "Did Jesus say He was God." It is over 175 pages now but the OP presents most of the evidence and the following posts try to debate the evidence.

 

[Spiritone]

I find very few willing to debate or even to try to prove their position. There is nothing I would like better than to find someone who could prove the validity of the Doctrine of the Trinity to me but I have found no one who can do that. If you don't debate how will you know whether you are on track or following some bizarre notion?

Exactly right.
There are some things that can not be proven, like the Trinity. My take on it is, God, Jesus and the spirit of faith that inspires to do what is right.
When i question something that starts to make me feel guilty I just realize that Jesus would not judge me for that even if I came to the wrong conclusion.
Being told to take every word in the Bible as the direct words of God is a form of manipulation/conditioning imo. The more I learned about the historical Jesus and the history of the Church especially when it was being formed, the more I realize they were all human and did what they thought best at the time. Decisions had to be made, so they took votes to decide--that in itself tells us something significant.

 

[Muffled]

Exactly right.
There are some things that can not be proven, like the Trinity. My take on it is, God, Jesus and the spirit of faith that inspires to do what is right.
When i question something that starts to make me feel guilty I just realize that Jesus would not judge me for that even if I came to the wrong conclusion.
Being told to take every word in the Bible as the direct words of God is a form of manipulation/conditioning imo. The more I learned about the historical Jesus and the history of the Church especially when it was being formed, the more I realize they were all human and did what they thought best at the time. Decisions had to be made, so they took votes to decide--that in itself tells us something significant.

Some people use this as an excuse for believing something that isn't true. They simply say that it is a mystery. If someone tells you the moon is really made of green cheese and the fact that astonausts didn't find any is just a mystery so they will continue to believe, does saying their belief is a mystery make it any more valid?

That is the Trinity not the Doctrine of the Trinity. I believe in the Trinity because it is evidential from the Biblical record but the Doctrine of the Trinity is not. Actually the third member of the Trinity, The Paraclete is more than an inspiring spirit, He is the spirit of God in us.

God always judges but that doesn't mean that He condemns. The Doctrine of the Trinity does not please Him as can be said for any sin. However He has not said that He hates it as He said about divorce.

It can be but the truth is that it just isn't good exegesis. The Bible says that it is inspired which does not necessarily mean the direct word of God.

I suppose they were hoping that a majority of people would get it right. That isn't always the case. I am reminded of when I do genealogy. People often do research by internet. They simply copy the information from someone else who has better resource materials. If the resource person makes a mistake it is repeated through everyone else's chart and that mistake is the majority. That is the case with Athanasius. He made a mistake that became the Doctrine of the Trinity and everyone just lined up behind his mistake.

 

[sojourner]

I could not say without a long explanation whether I can consider myself Christian.

Maybe what should be considered is whether Jesus would consider you to be a Christian.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Maybe what should be considered is whether Jesus would consider you to be a Christian.

Right!

Like YOU are in a position to make that judgment but neither he nor - and by implication at least - anyone else IS.

 

[sojourner]

Right!

Like YOU are in a position to make that judgment but neither he nor - and by implication at least - anyone else IS.

I am, actually, in a position to suggest that as a possibility (which is all it is). However, that doesn't either express or imply that anyone else is or is not.

BTW, what authority puts you in any position to judge what kind of position I'm in? Or is this a double-standard?
Or simply vapid provocation?

 

[McBell]

wow.
The subjectivity of this thread is rather staggering...

 

[Spiritone]

Maybe what should be considered is whether Jesus would consider you to be a Christian.

That is what I was getting at. The church would not consider me Christian even though someone said something about, "Once a Christian always a Christian" which I think can not be. If you become evil what are you then?

If I was to judge myself (which I do all the time) I would ask 'What would Jesus say' even though I have become a skeptic, as in realizing that all we have been taught could be all wrong. The fact is 'We don't know' period.

 

[Spiritone]

Some people use this as an excuse for believing something that isn't true. They simply say that it is a mystery. If someone tells you the moon is really made of green cheese and the fact that astonausts didn't find any is just a mystery so they will continue to believe, does saying their belief is a mystery make it any more valid?

That is the Trinity not the Doctrine of the Trinity. I believe in the Trinity because it is evidential from the Biblical record but the Doctrine of the Trinity is not. Actually the third member of the Trinity, The Paraclete is more than an inspiring spirit, He is the spirit of God in us.

God always judges but that doesn't mean that He condemns. The Doctrine of the Trinity does not please Him as can be said for any sin. However He has not said that He hates it as He said about divorce.

It can be but the truth is that it just isn't good exegesis. The Bible says that it is inspired which does not necessarily mean the direct word of God.

I suppose they were hoping that a majority of people would get it right. That isn't always the case. I am reminded of when I do genealogy. People often do research by internet. They simply copy the information from someone else who has better resource materials. If the resource person makes a mistake it is repeated through everyone else's chart and that mistake is the majority. That is the case with Athanasius. He made a mistake that became the Doctrine of the Trinity and everyone just lined up behind his mistake.

The idea of discussing is to learn and we learn more from those who differ from us the most.
A lot if not all the Bible can be interpreted in many ways and imo. it is a waste of time 'sweating the small stuff.'
The Trinity? I'm curious. Since you made a distinction between the Trinity and the Doctrine of the Trinity what is your definition of the Doctrine.

 

[McBell]

That is what I was getting at. The church would not consider me Christian even though someone said something about, "Once a Christian always a Christian" which I think can not be. If you become evil what are you then?

The typical reply to this is that they were never really a Christian to begin with.

Which is asinine, when you actually take a few moments and think it through.
I mean, if once you are Christian you cannot become a non-Christian, then you do not have free will once you become a Christian....

But then, there are really far to many people who do not think things through.

If I was to judge myself (which I do all the time) I would ask 'What would Jesus say' even though I have become a skeptic, as in realizing that all we have been taught could be all wrong. The fact is 'We don't know' period.

Although I agree, there are plenty of people who claim to not only know what Jesus would say, but also think that they speak with the same authority they give Jesus.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Although I agree, there are plenty of people who claim to not only know what Jesus would say, but also think that they speak with the same authority they give Jesus."

Indeed there are. And that was my point earlier which was (deliberately?) missed.

We have NO IDEA what JC thinks or thought about anything. He left not one word of his own. Everything it that is attributed to him comes from others and was written decades after his death. We know something about what his alleged followers claim he said. We know absolutely nothing about he actually did say or think or believe.

Nonetheless many among us feel fully justified in announcing with certainty what he would understand a Christian to be. They don't know. They only know what THEY think he would say.

 

[sojourner]

Maybe what should be considered is whether Jesus would consider you to be a Christian.

Right!

Like YOU are in a position to make that judgment but neither he nor - and by implication at least - anyone else IS.

That is what I was getting at.

Omar:
He shoots...he scores!

 

[sojourner]

"Although I agree, there are plenty of people who claim to not only know what Jesus would say, but also think that they speak with the same authority they give Jesus."

Indeed there are. And that was my point earlier which was (deliberately?) missed.

We have NO IDEA what JC thinks or thought about anything. He left not one word of his own. Everything it that is attributed to him comes from others and was written decades after his death. We know something about what his alleged followers claim he said. We know absolutely nothing about he actually did say or think or believe.

Nonetheless many among us feel fully justified in announcing with certainty what he would understand a Christian to be. They don't know. They only know what THEY think he would say.

That's not quite true. We can determine with some certainty which quotations ascribed to Jesus in the gospels (canonical and non-canonical) are authentic.
Those whom his Body (the Church) have identified as set apart to speak for him do carry authority, although not as much as Jesus, himself.

 

[sojourner]

The typical reply to this is that they were never really a Christian to begin with.

Which is asinine, when you actually take a few moments and think it through.
I mean, if once you are Christian you cannot become a non-Christian, then you do not have free will once you become a Christian....

But then, there are really far to many people who do not think things through.


Although I agree, there are plenty of people who claim to not only know what Jesus would say, but also think that they speak with the same authority they give Jesus.

I understand what you're saying, but that line of thinking has always been too legalistic for me. Notice that Jesus treated all humanity as sisters and brothers -- not just the disciples. In fact, if anything, he held them to a higher standard than he did non-believers.

Jesus probably doesn't gatekeep as closely as most churches do.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

That's not quite true. We can determine with some certainty which quotations ascribed to Jesus in the gospels (canonical and non-canonical) are authentic.
Those whom his Body (the Church) have identified as set apart to speak for him do carry authority, although not as much as Jesus, himself.

Hair splitting rationalization. Sinful error prone lustful flawed humans (according to your mythology) are here raised to the level of speaking with authority for god.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Maybe what should be considered is whether Jesus would consider you to be a Christian.

Fantastic point! Game, Set, Match.

 

[McBell]

Game, Set, Match.

pfffft!
far from it.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The typical reply to this is that they were never really a Christian to begin with.

Which is asinine, when you actually take a few moments and think it through.
I mean, if once you are Christian you cannot become a non-Christian, then you do not have free will once you become a Christian....

But then, there are really far to many people who do not think things through.


Although I agree, there are plenty of people who claim to not only know what Jesus would say, but also think that they speak with the same authority they give Jesus.

Which is their God given right as an American. Freedom of religion means all religions and beliefs.

Correct me if I am wrong, what you are basically saying is these people are messed up and have the wrong beliefs. They would be better off thinking as you do. Right?

 

[sojourner]

Hair splitting rationalization. Sinful error prone lustful flawed humans (according to your mythology) are here raised to the level of speaking with authority for god.

God has always used the dirtiest, most flawed human beings to do God's work. Today's clergy are no better, nor any different. Stop trying to make them into paragons of virtue, just so you can tear them back down.