You're no Christian

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The original says what is meant. They have never changed or been changed by men.

Except for all the changes... like the Comma Johanneum and the long ending of Mark.

 

[allfoak]

That's a really good question. When we have issues or questions that are that difficult to settle we always go back to the original languages the Bible was written in (Hebrew=Old Testament; Greek=New Testament w/some Arabic and something else- but only a few words of each of last two). The Bible translators did their best, no doubt, but there are some words that aren't easy to translate or transliterate (find a word that closely resembles/means the same in the language its being translated into). The original says what is meant. They have never changed or been changed by men.

It is still interpretation.
and who has the last say?
You?

 

[Sonny]

Can you run away from the attitude that the Bible is as good as Christ?

Please. It is written that Jesus said, "the Father is greater than I am."

With that in mind, how can anyone in their right mind consider the Bible the way they do?

Jesus not equal to God but the work of MAN equal to Christ Jesus the way, the truth and the life????????????????????

Jesus, while in the flesh, was not as great as God who is in the Spirit. Clearly, Jesus had to lay down d when He became man. For ex.- He couldn't be everywhere at the same time due to the restrictions of the flesh. He felt cold, hunger, pain and so forth. But Colossians tell us (chap. 1/2) that Jesus is God. So, we are doing the work of God through the man of Jesus. He is called both the Son of God and the son of man for right reasons.

Even if what they say is true that Almighty God had it written perfectly and protected it all these years perfectly, it is still the work of men.

Men were inspired to write the Bible, for sure. And, I've found a couple mistakes. Nothing that alters or changes either the meaning or the message of the Bible. It certainly isn't so corrupt and mistranslated, as one cult teaches, that it can't be trusted at all. In fact, that church goes on and accepts the Bible as written. That is confusing- but most haven't done the research I have so they don't know about the contradictory teachings.

 

[Sonny]

Except for all the changes... like the Comma Johanneum and the long ending of Mark.

There are a few mistakes made, I admit. But nothing that alters or changes the meaning or the message of the Bible. The Bible we have today is 98%. We all agree with that (who know of them). Paul spoke of a war in the OT. He was wrong on the number killed by 1,000. He said 23,000, the OT said 24,000. Does that really make a difference? He made a simple mistake. But none alter anything thus a non-issue. Its like GM added an extra bolt to my car. It has no place and shouldn't be there but it doesn't hurt my car or make it dangerous.

 

[allfoak]

He was wrong on the number killed by 1,000. He said 23,000, the OT said 24,000. Does that really make a difference?

When you claim it to be infallible, one mistake negates the entire book.

 

[Sonny]

It is still interpretation.
and who has the last say?
You?

Not me. But, words mean things. That is what we go by. If I said someone was 'ignorant' it would be taken as an insult and I'd be banned. But the word 'ignorant' is not offensive when properly used. It has a definite meaning, like all words, and there is a time and place for it. One would still be offended by it even if they knew the right meaning. But, they'd know I said it in reply to their words/actions. Without proper meanings of words we'd all be in deep do-do. If I asked for a hammer but received a lawn chair we'd have issues. Words were defined long ago. Their meanings are as they were then, by and large- discounting slang. That is how we understand language and define words.

 

[Sonny]

When you claim it to be infallible, one mistake negates the entire book.

I'm sorry. I take it that others know where we are coming from. Most people understand the two and still say words like infallible, inspired, complete. When God is speaking there are no mistakes in the Bible. When men speak, it is a given, there may be some. But any mistakes made have never affected the meaning or message of the Gospels

 

[allfoak]

Not me. But, words mean things. That is what we go by. If I said someone was 'ignorant' it would be taken as an insult and I'd be banned. But the word 'ignorant' is not offensive when properly used. It has a definite meaning, like all words, and there is a time and place for it. One would still be offended by it even if they knew the right meaning. But, they'd know I said it in reply to their words/actions. Without proper meanings of words we'd all be in deep do-do. If I asked for a hammer but received a lawn chair we'd have issues. Words were defined long ago. Their meanings are as they were then, by and large- discounting slang. That is how we understand language and define words.

Your reasoning skills need some work..
What you just said makes no sense.

 

[allfoak]

I'm sorry. I take it that others know where we are coming from. Most people understand the two and still say words like infallible, inspired, complete. When God is speaking there are no mistakes in the Bible. When men speak, it is a given, there may be some. But any mistakes made have never affected the meaning or message of the Gospels

So the 2000yr old dispute over the proper interpretation is over nothing?

 

[Sonny]

You still have not made any comments about what Jesus advocated.
Look, Jesus is the central focus for Christianity but you seem to skirt around him?

I thot I had summed the Bible/Jesus up nicely. What are you asking? Is Jesus God? Yes. Why did He come? To save us.
Jesus is God incarnate. he came to earth with one specific message, to save the lost- which was most folks. He taught us everything we need to know for salvation. He predicted many things we have today. His birth, life, death and resurrection is Christianity. We can't pick and choose what parts of His life and message we want (that is a cult).
What have I missed that you are looking for?

 

[BilliardsBall]

But all the thousands of different Christian sects all point to the others and say they are not Christian, but all will say they follow the bible (which in reality they all simply cherry pick parts to follow)

You simplified the question while leaving out a key simplification metric:

Of the thousands of sects, we can neatly divide any and all into following the Bible as actually the Word of God or as tradition and guesswork of people.

Those who follow it as the Word of God can honestly say they are following Christ. Aka, "Christian".

Those who "follow it" as myth, spurious history, I-don't-know-what-it-says-but-I-follow-it have a problem: How can they follow the key figure of a book they believe is fiction, not fact? I can admire Captain Kirk as a fictional character but I cannot interact with him. I can interact with and follow William Shatner.

 

[Skwim]

I'm sorry. I take it that others know where we are coming from. Most people understand the two and still say words like infallible, inspired, complete. When God is speaking there are no mistakes in the Bible. When men speak, it is a given, there may be some. But any mistakes made have never affected the meaning or message of the Gospels

So, isn't the entire Bible the word of god?

Seems to me that if one is going to claim god is speaking through the Bible, there's the implication that everything that's said in the book is correct. I mean, didn't he direct or inspire men to write down his exact message? So what should we make of the errors? If what was written contained errors why wouldn't god have seen that they were corrected? Or did he simply walk away from the project and leave the writers on their own?


.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How would that make things easier? Everyone from Catholics to Baptists to Pentecostals to Quakers to Mormons sincerely believe that they're "following the Christ who is explained in the Bible." Many of them believe the other denominations aren't doing this.

The label "Christian" has never been used to signify doctrinal correctness.

The label Christian means follower of Christ. If you believe Christ is real, not fictitious, is divine and master, and author of a book, follow it. Follow it closely. If you don't follow it closely, you are following your church leadership but not the Christ. A Christian follows Christ. They call them "Mormons" because they adhere to teachings of the angel Moroni et al!

 

[BilliardsBall]

If Jesus has to be there for a church to be Christian, then an atheist like me is going to conclude that Christian churches don't actually exist.

Prove you exist and I'll prove Jesus and Christian churches exist. Deal?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Let's make a practical, real life, example.

In my native country, Sweden, the few Christians left have quite a few female pastors, whose job requires not to be silent in church obviously, and happily marry gays and Atheist/Christian couples.

Are they really Christian?

If not, what Christian tenet do they violate?

Ciao

- viole

You can answer this to your own satisfaction via reasoning.

1. If Jesus is real, He has communicated in the scriptures as He claimed.

2. If you take actions that are not biblical, you are making up your own playbook of "communications with God".

3. If Jesus is not real, marry whom you wish as an ordained "minister".

4. It logically follows, and is so, that churches that sanction atheist/Christian unions and gay unions are also those sects that say the Bible isn't to be believed literally . . . all the way down to the scale of "Jesus is ahistorical and we believe what we think is right".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Here is the Article (from a book, actually- title unknown) on truth. I hope you enjoy and learn as much from it as I did when I first heard it.
It is kinda humorous but spot on. I hope you'll think about it.

Absolute truth.
That is an interesting concept.
Let's examine 'absolute truth'. (This may take a bit but it’s worth it, right?)

Absolute truth is the law of non-contradiction. That means it's true for all people in all places for all times (forever true).

There are, of course, objections to that law. People say such things as,
A- "What's true for you is not true for me"

I would have to ask,
"Is that true"?

Some say,
B. "You can't know truth" (heard that lately?).

Or,
C. "Its true for you but not for me"

So I say, "Is that true for everybody"?
See the problem? I mean it can't be true for you and not for me if it’s absolute truth. Someone is wrong.

Or,
D. "No one has truth"

Or,
E. "You ought not judge"

But, isn't that a judgment? If you tell me I'm judging then you are judging by saying I am. Goes both ways. So, why can you but not me?

Each of the above statements (A-E) contradicts the law of non-contradiction.

We can have contrary beliefs but we can't have contrary truths. And, we can believe everything is true but everything can't really be true.

An objective truth can't be denied without being affirmed. But, is 'that' an objective truth? It defeats itself if it is an objective truth by stating one, which is, 'There are no objective truths'. And, if it isn't, then it becomes mere opinions. Why should anyone believe someone else's opinions if they are not true? Shouldn't they, then, believe my opinions? See that Rabbit's Hole?

Truth by definition is narrow-
There is truth and we can know it.

See, no matter what we say we do believe in absolute truth (some just deny it when it fits their interests or beliefs). We all believe in absolute truth. In fact, everyone of us cares very much about absolute truth.

A few examples:
Finances-
You work 40 hours and your boss pays you for 10. You say, "Hey! Wait just a cotton-picking minute now, I worked 40 hours and you only paid me for 10. That's not right." He says, "Well, that may be true for you but not me." What then? How do you 'prove' your point?

Safety-
You see a drunk pilot about to fly you somewhere. You say, "Hey, man! You're drunk." He says, "You ought not judge. And, you know what else, that may be true for you but not for me." Do you say, "Oh, you're right" and get on board?

Relationships (spouse)-
Your wife/husband says, "Oh, honey, I love you more than anything and I will be 'relatively' faithful to you 364 days a year." You say, "Wait a minute! There's 365 days in a year!" She says, "Oh, honey, you can't know truth, it’s all so relative"

Advertising-

A man says buy this car it gets 30 mpg's. You buy it and it gets 10. You go back and say, "Man, you lied to me." He says, "There is no truth, man! And, if there was you can't know it. What's wrong with you?"

Transportation-

You are traveling across country and the sign says Denver this way and you take it and end up at the Mexican border. Is that ok? Do you feel like, "Well, you can't know truth because there is no truth", I guess? I don't think so.

Medicine-

You see your doc and he says, "You need surgery real bad." You say, "Why, what's wrong with me?" He says, "Oh, I dunno, since we can't know truth, I just want to see what's in there. I might find something that needs removing." Or, what if he cuts off the wrong arm or leg (it has happened, you know.) Do you let him off because he says, "You can't know truth, Bud." Or, "That may have been truth for you but not for me." Or, "You ought not judge because no one has truth."

Is this outrageous or what? Yes, we all believe in absolute truth. Yet, folks are doing this same thing with religion and not even noticing how backwards it all is. This just shows that all of us are very concerned about absolute truth. But, when truth is shown to some people they make excuses for it not being true- never realizing they are the ones wrong. What's true for one is true for all. If the evidence is there to support it then it’s the truth. One can certainly 'believe' it’s not true but that isn't the truth. Feelings and beliefs have never determined the truth of anything (ever) in the History of the world. And, it doesn't now, either.

I'm pretty sure when they built the Golden Gate Bridge the Architectural team didn't say, "I feel this is the best way to build it." On the Space Shuttles, either. Then followed it up by, "Well, since we can't know truth we'll just wing it and see what happens."

THE truth may never impact you fully in this life but please don't make the mistake of thinking that it will become true because you 'feel' it is or because you 'believe' it is. One day you will face the God that many so-called churches hate and denigrates daily. He will make it crystal clear that there is 'absolute truth' and you never had it. The Devil's greatest victory was in convincing folks God didn't exist. Look at all of the crimes folks commit. Satan did a very good job! But, he did more than that. He also convinced folks truth was 'relative' and that every road leads to God. It isn't and they certainly do not!

Einstein said, "Relativity is for physics, not ethics."
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (Jn. 14:6). Truth is very narrow (and knowable) in everything but especially so in religion. The Bible (God's only Word) is the only true religion. All others- the nay-sayers, unbelievers, those who distort, oppose and reject the Bible and those who join non-biblical churches will be eternally lost. It’s that simple but its very profound. And, it is the truth.

God never contradicts what He has already told us. If He said there is one God, then there is only one God. I may not comprehend that but that's all right because I know God doesn't change. So I know I can always trust what He is saying to be spot on, every time.

AMEN!

Truth is absolute. Absolutes exist. We can go from there to quickly summing that God exists. We can go from there to the Bible making 100% sense and being salvific. We can go from there to trust Jesus for life eternal.

The problem is that the atheists and other skeptics are stuck on "truth is absolute".

 

[metis]

...following the Bible as actually the Word of God

Fortunately, many Christian denominations are not into idolatry. The Bible is not God or the "Word of God", nor is God the Bible.

 

[Katzpur]

The label Christian means follower of Christ. If you believe Christ is real, not fictitious, is divine and master, and author of a book, follow it. Follow it closely. If you don't follow it closely, you are following your church leadership but not the Christ. A Christian follows Christ. They call them "Mormons" because they adhere to teachings of the angel Moroni et al!

Mormons follow Christ. We adhere to His teachings. We look to Him for salvation. We revere and honor Him. Therefore, Mormons are Christians. Get over it.

 

[oldbadger]

I thot I had summed the Bible/Jesus up nicely. What are you asking? Is Jesus God? Yes. Why did He come? To save us.
Jesus is God incarnate. he came to earth with one specific message, to save the lost- which was most folks. He taught us everything we need to know for salvation. He predicted many things we have today. His birth, life, death and resurrection is Christianity. We can't pick and choose what parts of His life and message we want (that is a cult).
What have I missed that you are looking for?

Obviously you did not read about the true mission of Yeshua BarYosef? He was only interested in fair treatment, fair protection and fair support for his own, theworking classes of the Jews. He was also turned hard against the dishonest, corrupt and mean process of remmission of sins through sacrifice, temple fees, priesthood fees, the Temple exchange rates et all. He followed John the Baptrist in this.

Matthew {10:5} These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not: {10:6} But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
{9:13} But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice:

 

[Valerian]

Ok. But what is a person/group of persons is doing all of that but believe and teach doctrines go against what the Bible teaches? Say, their church teaches, and they believe, there are Trillions of Gods or men live on the sun and moon, or men can become Gods, or they teach Jesus (God, who created every person) had sexual relations with earth women (again, His creation=Heavenly incest) and had children by them. What then? Are they Christians for teaching, believing and practicing such aberrant and blasphemous doctrines when the Bible clearly says otherwise?

No, they are not Christians based on what the error they are teaching about history or about who God really is. But they may be called Christians for teaching some heavenly truths, such as humility, chastity, kindess to strangers, charity, etc. They may also be Christians for being extremely charitable and caring of their fellow man. So they will be judged just like you and I, that is, what did we know and what did we do about what we knew. And what did we do that was good and what did we do wrong, or fail to do, that clearly violated our consciences.

Because you are a Bible believing Christian and I am a Catholic guided Christian our answers are sure to disagree on matters such as this. More prominent than any other differences, imo, is our belief in purgatory, whereas, I assume you believe when one dies they will quickly find themselves in heaven or in hell. Is that true?