1. 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!

Christians only: Did Christ found a religion...

Discussion in 'Same Faith Debates' started by lunamoth, May 22, 2006.

  1. Aqualung

    Aqualung Tasty

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Messages:
    8,762
    Ratings:
    +604
    Peter had prophecy. :p
     
  2. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    And consider that during their last conversation in the Book of John, Jesus asked Peter THREE times if he "truly loved" (Godly Love) him. All Peter would admit to was merely loving (brotherly love) Jesus.
     
  3. lunamoth

    lunamoth Will to love

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,871
    Ratings:
    +1,630
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Sizzle! NetDoc you are hot tonight!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. lunamoth

    lunamoth Will to love

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,871
    Ratings:
    +1,630
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Quite right! :D

    luna
     
  5. ΩRôghênΩ

    ΩRôghênΩ Disciple of Light

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2005
    Messages:
    937
    Ratings:
    +42
    Christianity is just a continuation of Messianic Judaism. Cgrist came to fullfill prophecy in Judaism
     
  6. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    32,276
    Ratings:
    +3,896
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    I agree. Jesus was a Jew. What he did was to point us to the fact that the Law is fulfilled in love. The Law is to point us to God...not to become God itself...as it had for the Pharisees. How is the fulfillment of the Law in love to take place? By the example of Jesus as fully human, the complete human being, creating a group of people who function in like manner: On the foundation of love for God and love for neighbor.
     
  7. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,626
    Ratings:
    +1,275
    Religion:
    Catholic
    How far would I have to distance myself to depart from the family?
     
  8. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    32,276
    Ratings:
    +3,896
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Jesus said, "What is written in the Law?" the lawyer answered, "Love God and love your neighbor." Jesus said, "Do this and you will have eternal life." And the lawyer asked, "And who is my neighbor?" Jesus responds with the "Good Samaritan" story, finishing with, "Who proved to be the better neighbor?"

    This is the same legalistic line of questioning: How far do I have to go? And Jesus answers by extending acceptance and hospitality. While the prodigal may have considered himself "not part of the family," his father waited for his son until he returned.
     
  9. lunamoth

    lunamoth Will to love

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,871
    Ratings:
    +1,630
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Family is forever I think Victor.

    luna
     
  10. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,626
    Ratings:
    +1,275
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I was trying to avoid from this turning into a soteriological type of dialogue. Nonetheless is happened.

    Sourjourner and Luna, I would have thought both of you did not hold to a OSAS (Once-Saved-Always-Saved) stance in regards to the family of God. No?
     
  11. lunamoth

    lunamoth Will to love

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,871
    Ratings:
    +1,630
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Once-saved-always-saved? Not part of my lexicon. Does not fit my paradigm.

    I have to say that I have had a small insight lately that makes me back off a bit from my "everyone is 'saved' at all times and under all circumstances.' I realized that this was me trying to take something that does not belong to me, trying to say that God 'can't' do something just because that's the way I think it is. In another forum someone put it this way and attributed it to a Jesuit view: that we can imagine that there is a hell but we don't have to imagine anyone being in it.

    I think Christ did found the Church, and He did bring reconciliation to all the world, and we can participate in this any time we choose in this life. Being a baptized Christian indoctrinates you into His Church and this is part of His grace, but I also think that all others are included in His Salvation too, edit: although they may choose to not accept this during this earthly life. Salvation is important in this life; it's not reserved for the afterlife. I think the invitation is always extended, even after death. But, I don't know. I don't see any reason Biblical or tradition-wise that says I can't believe that way. Yes, I know about Origen, but he had quite a few other unorthodox ideas as well.

    Can we lose our salvation? Sure, we drop the ball all the time, and then we turn and find Christ holding it out to us again and again. He never takes it away.

    From another thread: Wisdom is knowledge that unifies. Oh how I like that. You could also say it that wisdom is knowledge with love, because love is what unifies. I know there has been discussion elsewhere about defining and protecting the borders of one's church, and I'm not going to argue against that. But I would say that what that really is is defining and defending community and ideals, which are worth defending. I think the Church is something more than that, though.

    I don't mind that this drifts a bit off topic. I think many of these ideas are so closely connected it's difficult to stay on topic. I hope we don't argue over it all. I have the greatest respect for you, and the RCC, Victor.

    peace,
    luna
     
  12. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,547
    Ratings:
    +5,486
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    Yes, I would agree that this is also a valid definition. We have both the visible Church and the invisible Church.

    Hmmm. I disagree. According to Ephesians 4:11-14, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive…"

    This passage is talking about what Jesus did, not what Peter or any of the other Apostles did. Obviously, they called individuals to serve after Christ's ascension into Heaven, but He did, in fact, formulate the initial organization of His Church which, presumably, was to remain in place until we all came into the unity of faith in and knowledge of Christ.

    Sure! Why not? God has never required perfection of His prophets. Look at Moses and a lot of the other Old Testament propehts. Peter was just an infallible human being like the rest of us. But the fact that he alone recognized Christ as "the Christ, the Son of the living God," was significant. Christ knew that He could ultimately depend on Peter to lead His Church in the same way in which He himself would have led it had He not been crucified. Peter was someone that Jesus knew would always be in tune with the promptings of the spirit. I believe that's why He picked Him. The fact that Peter held the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven meant that He was authorized to perform sacred ordinances (i.e. sacraments) that would be eternally binding. In other words, what he would do here on earth would have eternal significance; what he would bind here would also be bound in heaven.
     
  13. lunamoth

    lunamoth Will to love

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,871
    Ratings:
    +1,630
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Hi Katzpur,

    OK.

    Here's the Ephesians 4 passage from NIV:
    Well, I see Christ giving us gifts to help us grow in faith and support each other in community. I see places elsewhere in the Epistles where the apostles work out what they think will work best in setting up deacons and priests etc., and I believe that they were guided by the Holy Spirit in this, although my take on it that it is not a perfect procedure, but one in which we miss to the right and then overcorrect to the left, but all in all remain on course.

    And yes, the Church has remained in place and will continue to do so until we all come into unity of faith and knolwedge of Christ. Now, if you want to say that the visible Church can only be found in apostolic succession with one true visible Church then there's a bit of a problem with the LDS (sorry--I don't really want to go there, but it's where logic takes me on this). The Orthodox Church put together the same Biblical cannon the LDS uses and that canon is part and parcel of Tradition. Like love and marriage and the horse and carriage, you can't have one without the other. There can't be an apostacy unless Christ was unable to keep His promise. Now, I happen to think things are a bit messier than that, which is why I don't have a problem with the many flavors of Chirstianity including LDS. Gives the Spirit some elbow room for grace. And it's why I believe that Christ showed us the Way and established a Church, but not a religion. Having said all of that I think that with respect to things metaphyscial, the Orthodox/Catholic Church is the one with the most rationally established doctrinal authority. :eek: But, when it comes to things political, that is things that do not pertain to the Church, I think it has overstepped its bounds in some cases (yikes, am I gonna get it now!).

    Ah yes, this is what I was saying. We are fallible, including Peter, the rock upon which the Church was built. I guess I wasn't clear. That's why I love Peter, he's so human, which give me so much hope. The message that the Holy Spirit accomplishes her work in spite of us!

    I think Peter's recognition of Christ is significant, but I think it's a lot of conjecture to think that Christ thought that Peter would be able to 'lead His Church in the same manner as Christ.' Frankly, although Christ may not have known He would be crucified, He was in a hurry yet He did not rush to put some kind of organization in place. These were all outcomes/instruments that made sense to the early community leaders given the time and place. That was the way it evolved so the Tradition would be perpetuated and it was in this crucible of Tradition that today's cannon was put together.
    Sounds good. :)

    peace,
    luna
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    32,276
    Ratings:
    +3,896
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    I don't hold to a once-saved-always-saved doctrine. I hold to a "Christ saved all humanity for ever" stance.
     
  15. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,626
    Ratings:
    +1,275
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Forgive me sojorner but that can mean anything and everything. So I hate to become a detail natzi but that is exactly what causes you from not becoming a catholic and me not being a protestant. The details do matter, for they mirror who God is and isn't.

    Peace be with you,
    ~Victor
     
  16. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    32,276
    Ratings:
    +3,896
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    And who is God? A worldwide, compassionate Father who searches for his lost children until he finds them -- who saved all humanity by his gift of grace? Or a parochial, judgmental God who allows human frailty to thwart his will -- whose suffering and death was largely for naught?

    Both the Catholic arm of the Faith, as well as the Protestant arm of the Faith is capable of portraying God in all God's mercy and lovingkindness, or God as a callous, jealous deity. Both confess that Jesus is the Son, is Lord and Savior. Both view the Holy Spirit as efficacious in baptism. Both celebrate the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Both profess the priesthood of all believers. In what way do differences of praxis and detail of belief matter, if one is building a relationship with God through Jesus, in the company of the Faithful?
     
  17. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,626
    Ratings:
    +1,275
    Religion:
    Catholic
    He needs not to do any searching. That is done by those who have needs and are incomplete. That is done by us and wired in us.
    Why Christ of course! :)
    It is for those who will it.
    Simply in the knowability and awareness of the individual. And how they respond to Grace. That makes the world of difference. It doesn't matter if I believe in those things and yet commit atrocious sins. I am not in the Church if that so. Otherwise, one could claim that Satan is in the Church. Does he doubt the power of what you speak of?
     
  18. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    32,276
    Ratings:
    +3,896
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Wait a minute! Didn't Christ say, "I came to seek and save those who were lost?" Did he not compare himself to a good shepherd, who seeks the lost sheep until he finds it?

    Is Christ not God, according to the Nicene Creed?

    One could argue that, if one commits atrocities that would separate one from the Church, then one does not truly believe, in the first place. The response to grace is that we believe in him and keep his commandments (Love God, love neighbor.) Both Catholics and Protestants believe this.

    These atrocious sins would be evidence that one is not, as I said before, "building a relationship with God through Jesus, in the company of the faithful."

    Again, what do differences matter? Differences are good, for they reflect God's expansive and inclusine nature. I've asked the following question before, and I'm really interested in your response, because I respect your faith, your opinion, and your mind. "Why can we not have unity without insisting upon uniformity?"

    BTW, I really enjoy debating with you.:camp:
     
  19. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,626
    Ratings:
    +1,275
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I see now in what context you meant it. One of the great things of dialoguing in charity is coming to clarify and understand each other....I have no qualms and agree.
    They could, but I do not see how that would help your stance either way. Either way, there is a lack of uncertainty in a person's state of Grace.
    Some Protestants, not all. Some I have spoke to do not believe it's required to respond once the process of salvation has begun. Either way they are saved, they say.

    Agreed. But I do not believe that is evidence that the individual was never in Grace or never built a relationship with God. For he/she may have been in good relationship with God and fell away.
    Sojourner, you need to understand how far people can take the answer to this question. People will attach just about anything to God and call it holy.
    I want to give this question a bit more time and thought. Also, my baby is hungry....I'll be back..:)

    Peace be with you,
    ~Victor
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. lunamoth

    lunamoth Will to love

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,871
    Ratings:
    +1,630
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    I don't want to interupt the conversation between Victor and Sojourner, but there is another aspect of this that I'd like to bring out.

    This conversation is naturally dove-tailing with carderos' thread on Who Claims Authority, which to me is about drawing lines in the sand and proclaiming who is out. This thread is about the Universal Church, which I think about as being a magnet that draws human hearts and minds in.

    One snippet of Scripture that is often used as a bludgeon in these conversations is the wolf in sheep's clothing. Those who claim to know the truth but in fact really wish to lead sheep astray. I honestly think such wolves are very few and far between. It seems to me that a wolf would have to knowingly believe that the Church is Christ's Bride and then also believe that what they are doing is to intentionally go against that. Rather than wolves, I think what we typically have are sheep who nibble themselves astray and also 'black sheep' who for whatever reason are not ready to accept some aspect of doctrine, often a very small part of it at that. But we are all still sheep.

    If the sheep dogs, those who feel it is their job to nip at the heels of the sheep and keep them in line, wrongly identify the black sheep as wolves, it is in effect their own doings that can drive those sheep away from the flock. Being humans, rather than animals, this is sadly often the case. Those black sheep can fend for themselves or start a new flock where they are accepted.

    But Christ does not act like a sheep dog, nipping at our heels to keep us in. He provides for us, and leads us to green pastuers and fresh water, and when we do nibble ourselves astray He comes to look for us, whether we are black or white or rainbow colored. He holds the Church together by His love.

    Sorry this metaphor is kind of hokey, but it illustrates somewhat how I view the Church, vs. religion.

    2 c,
    lunamoth
     
Loading...