• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is a person a Christian if...

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
When they saw that he was not going to deliver them at that time, they schemed to have him put to death. Many scriptural accounts show this, and that the High Priest Caiphas and the other priests of the Sanhedrin were "looking for false witness against Jesus in order to put him to death", as Matthew 26:59 tells us.
We have to remember that all scriptures in all religions are largely subjective in nature, so the above doesn't go over well with me if taken literally because it defies what else is being said about the Pharisees especially.

If the Pharisees were overly concerned about the Law, which the gospels do claim, then why would they attempt to kill Jesus, which would violate the Law in such a way whereas they also could be executed under Jewish Law? See, the two positions simply don't add up.

Instead, what I propose is that there's a pattern in the gospels, especially John's, to portray Jews that didn't convert to the Way as being evil, thus blaming them for Jesus' crucifixion instead of Pilate. However,Roman historians tell us that it was Pilate who was especially brutal. Thus, by giving Pilate a free pass, the authors put the blame on "the Jews". Why? By demonizing "the Jews", they probably hoped to gain more converts.

But I feel that the rest of the teachings may in fact be very foreign to you, and not a thing that you would accept.
I was brought up in a fundamentalist Protestant church and even had thoughts of going into the ministry. However, the church's position on evolution I found repulsive, along with the racism there, so I left. Besides taking Christian theology classes during my undergrad years, I also began about a decade later studying theology in detail, eventually teaching Christian theology for 14 years and a comparative religions course for two additional years.

I really don't like "patting myself on the back" like this (hurts my arm:(), but I just want to make it clear that I'm hardly a novice when it comes to Christian theology.

Now, I'll soon continue to type right after my arm heals. ;)

Thanks for allowing me to share my thoughts on the matter.

take good care
Ditto on both, and have a most blessed weekend.
 

Daisies4me

Active Member
We have to remember that all scriptures in all religions are largely subjective in nature, so the above doesn't go over well with me if taken literally because it defies what else is being said about the Pharisees especially.

If the Pharisees were overly concerned about the Law, which the gospels do claim, then why would they attempt to kill Jesus, which would violate the Law in such a way whereas they also could be executed under Jewish Law? See, the two positions simply don't add up.

Instead, what I propose is that there's a pattern in the gospels, especially John's, to portray Jews that didn't convert to the Way as being evil, thus blaming them for Jesus' crucifixion instead of Pilate. However,Roman historians tell us that it was Pilate who was especially brutal. Thus, by giving Pilate a free pass, the authors put the blame on "the Jews". Why? By demonizing "the Jews", they probably hoped to gain more converts.

I was brought up in a fundamentalist Protestant church and even had thoughts of going into the ministry. However, the church's position on evolution I found repulsive, along with the racism there, so I left. Besides taking Christian theology classes during my undergrad years, I also began about a decade later studying theology in detail, eventually teaching Christian theology for 14 years and a comparative religions course for two additional years.

I really don't like "patting myself on the back" like this (hurts my arm:(), but I just want to make it clear that I'm hardly a novice when it comes to Christian theology.

Now, I'll soon continue to type right after my arm heals. ;)

Ditto on both, and have a most blessed weekend.

(quote)

Hi Metis
LOLOL I very much enjoy your humor.
Thanks for sharing your information. It is always interesting to me as to the backgrounds of people who have a sincere interest in the Scriptures, which I believe you have. Searching leads us down many avenues, and we learn somethings from every examination, don't we?

Interesting how at different stages in our lives, we followed varying degrees of beliefs, strengthening some, and either proving or disproving to ourselves what we have at one time rejected or accepted on many points. A continual learning process, to be sure.
Your point as to the actions of the Priests toward Jesus, was one that I at one time questioned, also.
You may not agree with the reasonings that I have come to believe, but if you will allow me, I would like to mention a couple of things for your consideration on the matter.
John 11: 47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the Sanʹhe·drin together and said: “What are we to do, for this man performs many signs? 48 If we let him go on this way, they will all put faith in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”
49 But one of them, Caʹia·phas, who was high priest that year, said to them: “You do not know anything at all, 50 and you have not reasoned that it is to your benefit for one man to die in behalf of the people rather than for the whole nation to be destroyed.”
51 He did not say this, however, of his own originality, but because he was high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was to die for the nation, 52 and not only for the nation but also to gather together into one the children of God who were scattered about. 53 So from that day on they conspired to kill him.
----
We see that the Pharisees and Scribes had already overreached the commandments of the Law, and implemented their own 'oral traditions' such as the ritual of 'handwashing' , up to the elbow, and considered it a serious offense not to follow their additions to the commandments. Matthew and Mark relate their attacks on Jesus and his disciples, claiming that they were willfully breaking God's law. Jesus returned the comment to the religious leaders, and in fact, THEY had 'overstepped the commandment of God with their tradition'.

Look at Matthew 15:3-6, and compare it with Exodu20:12,; & 21:17. Just one of many examples of how the Religious leaders were continually attacking Jesus, looking for ways to be rid of him, and keep the power over the people for themselves.
Mind you, Jesus was not discouraging normal hygiene--nor was he arguing that a person need not wash his hands before preparing food or eating a meal. He was condemning the hypocrisy of religious leaders who try to bypass God's righteous laws by resorting to human tradiitions. He also said that what went into a man's mouth didn't defile him, but what came out of his mouth, did. Fact is, wicked deeds originating in the heart are what defiles a man.
We can probably agree on that, can't we?

Thanks for listening
 

Daisies4me

Active Member
We have to remember that all scriptures in all religions are largely subjective in nature, so the above doesn't go over well with me if taken literally because it defies what else is being said about the Pharisees especially.

If the Pharisees were overly concerned about the Law, which the gospels do claim, then why would they attempt to kill Jesus, which would violate the Law in such a way whereas they also could be executed under Jewish Law? See, the two positions simply don't add up.

Instead, what I propose is that there's a pattern in the gospels, especially John's, to portray Jews that didn't convert to the Way as being evil, thus blaming them for Jesus' crucifixion instead of Pilate. However,Roman historians tell us that it was Pilate who was especially brutal. Thus, by giving Pilate a free pass, the authors put the blame on "the Jews". Why? By demonizing "the Jews", they probably hoped to gain more converts.

I was brought up in a fundamentalist Protestant church and even had thoughts of going into the ministry. However, the church's position on evolution I found repulsive, along with the racism there, so I left. Besides taking Christian theology classes during my undergrad years, I also began about a decade later studying theology in detail, eventually teaching Christian theology for 14 years and a comparative religions course for two additional years.

I really don't like "patting myself on the back" like this (hurts my arm:(), but I just want to make it clear that I'm hardly a novice when it comes to Christian theology.

Now, I'll soon continue to type right after my arm heals. ;)

Ditto on both, and have a most blessed weekend.
(quote)
Hi again, Metis
If we could , I would like to address your concerns about Pilate, and his role in the death of Christ. Many scriptures show points of interest.

John 8:29 So Pilate came outside to them and said: “What accusation do you bring against this man?” 30 They answered him: “If this man were not a wrongdoer, we would not have handed him over to you.” 31 So Pilate said to them: “Take him yourselves and judge him according to your law.” The Jews said to him: “It is not lawful for us to kill anyone.”

(Actually, if they kill Jesus during the Passover festival, it will likely cause a public uproar. Yet if they can get the Romans to execute Jesus on a political charge, which the Romans are authorized to do, it will tend to absolve these Jews of responsibility before the people.)

Luke 23:2 Then they began to accuse him, saying: “We found this man subverting our nation, forbidding the paying of taxes to Caesar, and saying he himself is Christ a king.”
4 Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds: “I find no crime in this man.” 5 But they insisted, saying: “He stirs up the people by teaching throughout all Ju·deʹa, starting from Galʹi·lee even to here.”
8 When Herod saw Jesus, he rejoiced greatly. For a considerable time he had been wanting to see Jesus because he had heard much about him, and he was hoping to see some sign performed by him.

John 18:33 So Pilate entered the governor’s residence again and called Jesus and said to him: “Are you the King of the Jews?”34 Jesus answered: “Are you asking this of your own originality, or did others tell you about me?” 35 Pilate replied: “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests handed you over to me. What did you do?”

Neither of the Roman rulers, Herod nor Pilate wanted to have Jesus put to death. So why did they come to agree to it?
When Jesus would not perform for Herod, not even answering his questions, Herod's pride was angered. Then he participated in cruel treatment of Jesus, and sent him back to Pilate.
Luke 23:14 and said to them: “You brought this man to me as one inciting the people to revolt. Now look! I examined him in front of you but found in this man no grounds for the charges you are bringing against him.15 In fact, neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us, and look! he has done nothing deserving of death. 16 I will therefore punish him and release him.”
The entire 23rd chapter of Luke gives the account, for all who would like to read it and reason on it.
I am of the opinion that the Scriptures are accurate, and the Inspired written words of God that He wanted us to know.
It bears repeating , however, that each one of us must choose what we will accept or reject.

Is there a specific part of the 'Gospels' that you find difficulty believing, or is it the Christian Greek scriptures in general?

Thanks for your insight and opinions.
peace to you
 

Daisies4me

Active Member
I don't think there is a "winner" in a debate. A good debate is where we cooperatively test our ideas to try to arrive at truth.

Frankly I am more concerned with the validity of your statements then your feelings about them so a debate is preferable for me.

(quote)

Hi CP

I am not convinced that debate is my cup of tea... I prefer discussion.
I realize that today's combative and hedonistic society , more often than not, there is the tendency to be more focused on 'debating' than discussing.
A debate is a contest of argumentation between two individuals or teams. Debate is competitive and/or oppositional; two (or more) opposing sides try to prove each other wrong; one listens to find flaws, to spot differences, and to counter arguments, correct?
In dialogue, one listens to understand, to make meaning, share thoughts and ideas, and to find common ground. A good conversation creates an open-minded attitude; an openness to possibly being wrong and an openness to hearing others ideas and opinions and accepting that others may not agree with ours, nor we with them, but we are open to listening and learning what others may think and why they have come to such conclusions.
Contentiousness is what I hope to avoid, very difficult to do, isn't it? I am still a work in progress, and do not enjoy being put on the defensive, or accused, and hope to avoid putting others in that position, as well. I would prefer that we could agree to disagree as we discuss topics and ideas, etc.

Have a great weekend
 

Daisies4me

Active Member
You lost me here.

The vast majority of the past is far more like this than the present.
(quote)

Hi CP
It is good to be optimistic, and many young people today don't know the difference and haven't witnessed the changes over the decades.

Personally, the time when we used to not lock our doors, trusted everyone, would pick up hitch hikers on the hiway with no hesitation, sent the kids to school with no worries, thinking that the teachers would protect them from harm, etc. have been gone for a long time. Now everyone is depending on security cameras and alarms to protect them from 'criminals' and people don't even know their neighbors more often than not, and are suspicious of everyone. I used to enjoy just taking off and walking several miles all alone. Or riding a bicycle, enjoying the scenery and fresh air.
Now, i wouldn't recommend it.
 

RESOLUTION

Active Member
(quote)

Hello Revolution
You asked this question-----

R:How can an infant go to heaven if they do not believe?
----

Why do you think that when an infant dies, it 'goes to heaven'?

Everyone living, (as all humans are born in sin) when they die, go to the common grave of mankind, or "hell". Sheol, or Hades, in other languages. All mean the same thing. Where the dead go. The place on nonexistence, no pain, no thinking ability, the opposite of being alive.
"the Memorial Tombs".

Please note Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10.
Act 2:24-27 also. Even Jesus 'went to hell' and God resurrected him back to life right here on earth.
Everyone who dies, goes to the grave to await the promised resurrection in the last day.
John 5:28-29.
something to think about...:)

You need to re-read the post you quoted because it was you who wrote

Daisies4me said:
D: How can an infant "believe" anything? none of those scriptures mention baptising infants, do they? A person has to be old enough to mentally grasp what they are choosing in order to be baptised. All water baptism is, in reality, is a public declaration of the hope within. The person first has to make the dedication to do the will of God prior to being immersed in water. simply sprinkling water on a baby does nothing for the eternal 'salvation' of the infant. But it makes money for the Priest who does the sprinkling, doesn't it?
The minor children are 'saved' through the demonstration of faith and obedience to God of the parents. That is what those Scriptures are saying. We all have to be able to reason in order to make a determination as to whom we choose to obey, or follow, as it were.

You are replying to your own post if my post is in reply to you
 

CogentPhilosopher

Philosophy Student
(quote)

Hi CP
It is good to be optimistic, and many young people today don't know the difference and haven't witnessed the changes over the decades.

Personally, the time when we used to not lock our doors, trusted everyone, would pick up hitch hikers on the hiway with no hesitation, sent the kids to school with no worries, thinking that the teachers would protect them from harm, etc. have been gone for a long time. Now everyone is depending on security cameras and alarms to protect them from 'criminals' and people don't even know their neighbors more often than not, and are suspicious of everyone. I used to enjoy just taking off and walking several miles all alone. Or riding a bicycle, enjoying the scenery and fresh air.
Now, i wouldn't recommend it.

Sounds nice.

How was the wars?
How where interracial couples treated in the U.S?
How where same-sex couples treated in the U.S?
How where non-Christians treated in the U.S?
How where communists treated in the U.S?

How was the state of the world as a whole in this time, outside of your community?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
We see that the Pharisees and Scribes had already overreached the commandments of the Law, and implemented their own 'oral traditions' such as the ritual of 'handwashing' , up to the elbow, and considered it a serious offense not to follow their additions to the commandments. Matthew and Mark relate their attacks on Jesus and his disciples, claiming that they were willfully breaking God's law. Jesus returned the comment to the religious leaders, and in fact, THEY had 'overstepped the commandment of God with their tradition'.

He was condemning the hypocrisy of religious leaders who try to bypass God's righteous laws by resorting to human tradiitions.
These "human traditions" actually didn't violate the Law and, as a matter of fact, they were put there to try and safeguard the Law.

IOW, the "oral law", as it's called in Judaism, was based on traditions passed down from Sinai, court decisions that occurred later, and to try and prevent "fudging" on the Law. In Exodus, God tells Moses to create courts because there's going to be the need for making decisions in regards to the application of the Law, and the main purposes of the oral law was to both clarify and protect the Law, and also to provide judgments when it comes to applications of the Law.

He also said that what went into a man's mouth didn't defile him, but what came out of his mouth, did.
The kosher Laws are part of the 613 Commandments found in Torah that Jews have an obligation to follow but non-Jews don't. So, it would make no sense for someone to say they observe the Law if they only follow the first 10 but ignore the remaining 603.

We can probably agree on that, can't we?
Partially.

Thanks for listening
Ditto. :)
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
If we could , I would like to address your concerns about Pilate, and his role in the death of Christ. Many scriptures show points of interest.
I did cover this earlier in that the scriptures should really be viewed, imo, as being highly subjective accounts.

Notice that in the gospels that the terminology "the Jews" is used in a rather negative way, and yet the Twelve were all Jews. So, why would they use "the Jews" as somehow being separate from them if they're Jews?

The answer, imo, is that the gospels were written decades after Jesus was crucified whereas "the Way" was already in the process as seeing itself different than "the Jews", thus "the Jews" began to be used in an insulting manner. This is especially magnified in John's gospel, which has a very late writing, whereas he says "the Jews" were from the devil. Obviously what the author is doing is verbally attacking "the Jews" that didn't convert to "the Way".

Is there a specific part of the 'Gospels' that you find difficulty believing, or is it the Christian Greek scriptures in general?
My approach to the gospels and all other scriptures found in any religion is to try and learn what's being taught and then utilize those teachings that I might find useful today. Therefore, along with the subjectivity of all scriptures, I don't really spend much time on whether "X" is historically accurate or not.

Thanks for your insight and opinions.
peace to you
Ditto, and I hope you have a great weekend.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
(quote)

Now, what qualifications do you have to make that assessment?
Can we look at a couple of scriptures pertaining to the word "Christian", and where and when it originated?

Acts 11:26 After he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year they assembled with them in the congregation and taught quite a crowd, and it was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians.

"By Divine Providence"

Acts 26:28 But A·gripʹpa said to Paul: “In a short time you would persuade me to become a Christian.”

1 Peter 4:13 On the contrary, go on rejoicing over the extent to which you are sharers in the sufferings of the Christ, so that you may rejoice and be overjoyed also during the revelation of his glory. 14 If you are being reproached* for the name of Christ, you are happy,+because the spirit of glory, yes, the spirit of God, is resting upon you.15 However, let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or a wrongdoer or a busybody in other people’s matters.
16 But if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but let him keep on glorifying God while bearing this name.

So, can we really say that your opinion of who is or is not a Christian is just that--- YOUR opinion?

Thanks for listening

Its my opinion, and as someone who has never identified as a Christian, I am sure that i prefer the stricter definition.

. Some groups dont use the title anyway, but are labeled as such as a general description.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
I did cover this earlier in that the scriptures should really be viewed, imo, as being highly subjective accounts.

Notice that in the gospels that the terminology "the Jews" is used in a rather negative way, and yet the Twelve were all Jews. So, why would they use "the Jews" as somehow being separate from them if they're Jews?

The answer, imo, is that the gospels were written decades after Jesus was crucified whereas "the Way" was already in the process as seeing itself different than "the Jews", thus "the Jews" began to be used in an insulting manner. This is especially magnified in John's gospel, which has a very late writing, whereas he says "the Jews" were from the devil. Obviously what the author is doing is verbally attacking "the Jews" that didn't convert to "the Way".

My approach to the gospels and all other scriptures found in any religion is to try and learn what's being taught and then utilize those teachings that I might find useful today. Therefore, along with the subjectivity of all scriptures, I don't really spend much time on whether "X" is historically accurate or not.

Ditto, and I hope you have a great weekend.
This is almost bizarrely different from your claims that i had to be baptized, in order to be a Jesus adherent.
 

Daisies4me

Active Member
You need to re-read the post you quoted because it was you who wrote



You are replying to your own post if my post is in reply to you

(quote)

Res, I asked you a specific question. Nowhere did I say that infants 'go to heaven'. I don't believe that to be true. You did, however, raise that question, to which I have responded.

Do you still believe that when an infant dies, they 'go to heaven'?

That is my question to you. If you prefer not to answer, no worries.
Although I would like to hear why you would believe that to be true, since it is not taught anywhere in the Bible, that I have seen.
May you have peace
,
 

Daisies4me

Active Member
Sounds nice.

How was the wars?
How where interracial couples treated in the U.S?
How where same-sex couples treated in the U.S?
How where non-Christians treated in the U.S?
How where communists treated in the U.S?

How was the state of the world as a whole in this time, outside of your community?

(quote)

Hi Cp

interesting thoughts. At first blush, it may appear on the surface to be a better world due to some advancements in so-called 'individual rights'.

And yet, our prisons are over crowded, violence is at an all time high, and the number killed or maimed in wars continues to rise, as does hunger, poverty, unstable governments and oppression.
Everyone is being surveilled all of the time, homelessness is an increasing severe issue, and medical care is unavailable to many. Wages do not equal the cost of living for the average person. What people hear on the daily 'news' is mostly fabricated, sanitized, and read off of a teleprompter word for word all around the nation, and repeated ad nauseum, when many times, it is nothing more than spin, propaganda, or attempts to control the masses or prepare them for something the rulers want to convince them is 'good for them', so that they don't rebel, imo.
Never before in history has there been so much turmoil and unrest in all nations around the globe at the same time.
This should not be a surprise to those who study Biblical accounts and prophesy. It was foretold long ago to be this way during the 'ride of the four horsemen', the time that we are now living in.
Better times are ahead, however, but the global prophetic events must complete their fulfillment, and then, global peace will be a reality, imo.
Psalm 37:29 will become a reality.

at that time, there will be 'true peace and security' on the earth.
Everyone living will be honest, workers of what is good, obedient to the True God, and pollution and all other things we face today that cause misery will be gone, oppressive rulers will be gone, everyone will build houses and plant vineyards, and sit under their own fig tree, (Bible speak) and will all worship the only True God in unity and in peace.
Sound good? me, too. I live the sound of that! Maybe I will see you there?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
This is almost bizarrely different from your claims that i had to be baptized, in order to be a Jesus adherent.
I think you are confusing me with someone else. Heck, I'm not even a Christian, so it would be illogical for me to make such a claim.
 

Daisies4me

Active Member
These "human traditions" actually didn't violate the Law and, as a matter of fact, they were put there to try and safeguard the Law.

IOW, the "oral law", as it's called in Judaism, was based on traditions passed down from Sinai, court decisions that occurred later, and to try and prevent "fudging" on the Law. In Exodus, God tells Moses to create courts because there's going to be the need for making decisions in regards to the application of the Law, and the main purposes of the oral law was to both clarify and protect the Law, and also to provide judgments when it comes to applications of the Law.

The kosher Laws are part of the 613 Commandments found in Torah that Jews have an obligation to follow but non-Jews don't. So, it would make no sense for someone to say they observe the Law if they only follow the first 10 but ignore the remaining 603.

Partially.

Ditto. :)[/QUOT

Hiya Metis

Interesting point about the Law. While it was fully in effect when Jesus was on earth, It was Jesus who actually pointed out the overstepping by the Priests, and that they "made the word of God invalid', because of their burdensome 'oral traditions' of men, rather than sticking to the actual law as presented to them by God.
The law was perfect. It didn't need 'tweaking' or 'adding to'. But the Pharisees and Sadducees let their pride and desire to exercise power over others, lead them to become greedy, arrogant, and overstep the Law of Moses as it was given. The people needed a Savior to deliver them from the burdensome yoke of the wicked priests that had veered away from the teachings of the Law, and substituted their own. Those who followed Jesus , you know, became enemies of the priests, outcasts, and many were fed to lions for entertainment in the Roman arenas. It was very dangerous to step away from the Pharisees and follow Jesus.
Notice, that because of the wicked priests, the people were burdened down and it made their worship burdensome. We aren't talking about individual Jews, we are talking about the 'clergy' class.
(At last count, there were 27 congregations of JW's in the political nation of Israel that exists today.) This topic is about the Religious leaders who didn't want Jesus , because he went strictly by God's law, and not the ones that the Priests made up for their own benefit and power over the congregation.
Interesting to note also, is the fact that those 'Jews' were born into Judaism, it was not anything that they had to make a personal decision about, or a dedication to, as Christians have to do. The difference between Judaism then and Christianity, is that a person must choose to devote themselves to following the Christ, and doing the will of God, and then symbolize that dedication by water baptism. Big difference. A matter of the heart. Not a birthright.
The example of how they were 'making the house of God a den of thieves, as Jesus stated, when He cleansed His Father's House, by overturning the tables of the money changers, and forming a rope and driving the animals out of the temple. They were taking advantage of poor people, charging them outrageous amounts for livestock that was blemished, that they could offer up as a sacrifice for their sins. Much can be said about that, but not enough space here. haha suffice it to say, that Jesus was not a happy camper, and they all scattered. But after his death, ofcourse, they came right back with a vengeance. Right back to scamming the people.
The religious leaders are the ones that made Judaism look bad, not Christ. He simply showed them up for what they were. And Jesus fulfilled the Law Covenant by his own shed blood, and instituted the New Covenant with those who came out of the clutches of the wicked priests. The New congregation of Dedicated ones that ate the last meal with Christ, became "Spiritual Israel", as part of the New Covenant implemented that very night of His death. These same ones, in the upper room, a week or so later, became 'filled with holy spirit', and given the gift of speaking and having all who heard them, hear what they were saying 'in his own language', so that the message got heard by all of the varying language groups that had come into Jerusalem to for the Festival of Pentecost, and they took the message back with them to their own homes, and the word about the Christ spread quickly throughout 'the world' that existed at that time.
What do you think about this? I could show the scriptures if need be, but it sure does take up a lot of space, and you may already know how to find them for your research. :)
wonderful day today, hope you are enjoying the nice weather.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Water baptism was always considered essential, which is why Mark's gospel has it that one must "believe and be baptized" in order to be saved.

BTW, as a non-Christian, I don't believe in that theology.
^

No, as baptism is an introductory initiation into Christianity as a whole. IOW, it's simply has never been viewed as a do-your-own-thingy.
^

I think you are confusing me with someone else. Heck, I'm not even a Christian, so it would be illogical for me to make such a claim.
^



You clearly told me that baptism was essential,
 

Daisies4me

Active Member
I did cover this earlier in that the scriptures should really be viewed, imo, as being highly subjective accounts.

Notice that in the gospels that the terminology "the Jews" is used in a rather negative way, and yet the Twelve were all Jews. So, why would they use "the Jews" as somehow being separate from them if they're Jews?

The answer, imo, is that the gospels were written decades after Jesus was crucified whereas "the Way" was already in the process as seeing itself different than "the Jews", thus "the Jews" began to be used in an insulting manner. This is especially magnified in John's gospel, which has a very late writing, whereas he says "the Jews" were from the devil. Obviously what the author is doing is verbally attacking "the Jews" that didn't convert to "the Way".

My approach to the gospels and all other scriptures found in any religion is to try and learn what's being taught and then utilize those teachings that I might find useful today. Therefore, along with the subjectivity of all scriptures, I don't really spend much time on whether "X" is historically accurate or not.

Ditto, and I hope you have a great weekend.

(quote)
Hi again
while I was out and about just now, I was mulling over the things that you have said. I feel that perhaps the biggest differences that exist between us, is the concern about the historical correctness is important to me. For example, concerning the writing of the Gospels, One of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ but also, ‘As you yourselves also know’ (Acts 2:22).
Luke, the writer of the Books of Luke and Acts, were both completed between 56 CE, and 61 CE. He was an eye witness of the death and resurrection of Christ. Luke written in Caesarea , and Acts, written in Rome.
Matthew was written first in Hebrew, then translated into Koine Greek by Matthew, in Palestine, and was completed in 41 CE. Only about 8 years after the death and resurrection of Christ, the complete book of Matthew was finished.
Mark wrote his account in Rome, and it was completed c.60-65 CE. The Scriptures place Mark at the scene when Jesus was arrested at Gethsemane. He is described in Acts, as "John who was surnamed Mark". His mother, Mary, was also a Christian and the early congregation used her home as a meeting place. He was also a cousin of the missionary Barnabas, a levite from Cyprus. All of these facts, I find very important as to the 'correctness' of the Books of the Bible.
Does this matter to you at all?

The Mosaic Law is no longer in effect. Jesus' death fulfilled the Covenant of Laws. Aside from the fact that it is impossible to follow today, as there is no Temple where animal sacrifices can be offered up as a sin offering. As it stands, an Islamic Mosque sits on the spot previously held by the Temple. There is no Temple for worship of Jehovah there any longer, It was totally destroyed by the Romans, in 70 CE, as prophesied. Never to be rebuilt.

The ones Jesus called 'hypocrites' were not the average adherent of Judaism, if you recall-- it was the conniving wicked priests at the temple, whom Jesus came to deliver God's loyal ones FROM. Check it out at Matthew 23. He made some serious charges against the Clergy.(and they were the ones seeking to kill him, and eventually got it carried out, so his accusations were not without merit, were they?)

Any Jews who put faith in the Son of God and His Ransom for their sins, followed Him. And they became objects of hatred by the priests, and many were in fear of what the priests would do, so they allowed that fear to prevent them from openly showing support for the Christ and His Disciples. They were a dangerous, deadly lot, those priests.

As to the term "Jew", this definition is better for me to understand what is meant by the use of the word. It does not belong solely to a religious group of people, or a nationality, I have come to understand; JEW is a term used for a person of the tribe of Judah after the fall of the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel. (2Kings 16:6)
After the Babylonian exile, it was used with regard to Israelites from various tribes who returned to Israel. (Ezra 4:12)
Later, it was used throughout the world to distinguish Israelites from those of the Gentile nations. (Esther 3:6)
The term is also used figuratively by the apostle Paul when reasoning that nationality is of no consequence in the Christian congregation.—Romans 2:28, 29; Galatians 3:28.
In your years of Bible study and research, have you thought of it in these terms? I found in my studies, that few denominations ever dared to attempt to discuss, let alone explain, such Bible teachings. I am very happy to have kept searching and studying and comparing until I could make some meaning out of it that satisfies my 'thirst' , and fits in with other teachings in the Scriptures.
beautiful day today. Hope yours is the same. :)
 

Daisies4me

Active Member
Its my opinion, and as someone who has never identified as a Christian, I am sure that i prefer the stricter definition.

. Some groups dont use the title anyway, but are labeled as such as a general description.

(quote)
Hi syncretic
You are correct in that not all use the title 'Christian' in their Religious name by which they are identified.
JW's are a prime example. Known as 'Jehovah's Witnesses', as was Jesus, our Head and Leader, many don't consider us to be 'Christians', although that is what we are. Not to be confused with 'trinitarian, hell-fire, immortal human soul, etc," organizations that call themselves 'Christian'.
We follow the Christ, as the Head of the Congregation of God, as our Leader. Jesus leads and directs the Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses on earth. 1 Peter 2:21.
Jesus told us to pick up our torture stake and follow him. That is what we do. Matthew 28:18-20.
But, as you have rightly stated, most do not identify us as Christians.

may you have peace
 
Top