Question for Christians

[esmith]

By the way, it is worth note that most of the content in the OT is , tradionally , attributed to Moses. While nothing in the NT was written by Jesus.

It could very well be the case that God could speak to Jesus just like he did with Moses, but given the fact that Jesus didn't write anything we will never know the content of their conversations.

Yes, but most historical biblical scholars do not attest the 5 books of Moses were written by Moses. It is highly believed that the 5 books of Moses were written by many authors.
Yes I know by saying this that I am opening myself up to criticism by conservative religious persons. As far as God speaking to Moses, for a variety of reasons one could say that this is fiction created by Israelites literati responsible for the Torah in its final form. (this I found in a book by Cyrus H. Gordon and Gary A. Rendsburg "The Bible and the Ancient Near East" feel free to look up their "pedigree") Again opening up myself to real heavy criticism.

 

[Koldo]

My personal view of Jesus is that he was a common laborer. Supposedly he was baptized by John the Baptist. At that time he had a revelation that he could teach and set about doing so. I do not believe he was the messiah referenced in the OT or that he was a prophet. I think he was no more the son of God than any other person. That's just me. So anything I say will be prejudiced by that.

If that is what you believe in then it is fine.

During this topic i have been trying to posit myself as i believe people should if they are to take the bible[OT+NT] seriously.

However, wanna know my personal opinion on this?
I abide by many spiritism teachings from Allan Kardec.
In spiritism, Jesus is seen as very developed spirit who came to Earth.
He is as much as the son of God as us.
Jesus is an example of man that humans should look towards being.

Also i, personally, believe that at least most of the stuff in the OT and NT is simply made up. The flood, adam and eve, most of the laws, and so on.

 

[esmith]

You have not read Joh.14v6 ???
' no man cometh unto the Father but by me ' says Jesus.
There is such a thing as human imagination !

I ascribe to what is written in the NT gospels as "hearsay" . To me the writings in the NT are equivalent to the game Telephone (magnified 100000 times) that children play. Thus what is written is not necessarily factual. He may or may not have said it or meant it the way it was written.

 

[Kathryn]

(The Apostle Paul writing in the first person to the church in Corinth)
14I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children.

15For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me.

Luke 16:23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

Romans 4: (talking about Abraham)
So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12 And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Acts 7:
1 Then the high priest asked Stephen, “Are these charges true?”
2 To this he replied: “Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Harran.

The verse in Matthew which says, (taken so completely out of context by so many people) "call no man father" ALSO says then to call no man rabbi or instructor either. Ever used those words when describing anyone? In context, it's clear that Jesus is speaking in hyperboles and these words are not meant to be taking legalistically or literally.

Matthew 23:8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

 

[Koldo]

(The Apostle Paul writing in the first person to the church in Corinth)
14I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children.

15For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me.

Luke 16:23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

Romans 4: (talking about Abraham)
So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12 And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Acts 7:
1 Then the high priest asked Stephen, “Are these charges true?”
2 To this he replied: “Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Harran.

The verse in Matthew which says, (taken so completely out of context by so many people) "call no man father" ALSO says then to call no man rabbi or instructor either. Ever used those words when describing anyone? In context, it's clear that Jesus is speaking in hyperboles and these words are not meant to be taking legalistically or literally.

Matthew 23:8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

You probably didn't read my previous posts. I hold the position that when there is a contradiction in the bible you are supposed to consider the person which holds the highest autorithy.

In Corinthians, Paul is making wrong use of the word father.
In Luke 16:24, the word is being used as male predecessor, so it is fine.
In Romans, Paul once again makes wrong use of the word father.
In Acts 7, the word is being used as male predecessor, so it is fine.

You are free to understand each teachings as literal or not.

 

[Koldo]

As long as you believe in the bible, Jesus did say to call no one your [religious] father.

Whether you want to understand it as literal or not is up to you.

 

[Beta]

He has all the right in the world to ignore any Jesus teaching. There is no proof that Jesus was really so special as the NT claims.
You should know that just because something is written in a book it doesn't make it true.

I look at it this way -
we either debate along scriptural foundation (which for christians is the Bible)
or we don't.
Of course people can believe or not believe as they choose.
But what we should'nt do is jump from belief to unbelief mid-stream. This can only cause confusion .The biblical God is inseparable from Jesus - they are ONE Joh.10v30. If you separate them you are talking about a different God.

 

[Beta]

You probably didn't read my previous posts. I hold the position that when there is a contradiction in the bible you are supposed to consider the person which holds the highest autorithy.

In Corinthians, Paul is making wrong use of the word father.
In Luke 16:24, the word is being used as male predecessor, so it is fine.
In Romans, Paul once again makes wrong use of the word father.
In Acts 7, the word is being used as male predecessor, so it is fine.

You are free to understand each teachings as literal or not.

Apparently Paul had the knack of using 'hard to understand language' which has totally confused christianity. I believe that was for a purpose .

 

[Beta]

I ascribe to what is written in the NT gospels as "hearsay" . To me the writings in the NT are equivalent to the game Telephone (magnified 100000 times) that children play. Thus what is written is not necessarily factual. He may or may not have said it or meant it the way it was written.

Right ...I'll leave you to your assumptions then . There will always be something new to which there is no witness .

 

[Danmac]

Since the founding of the Christian church in the early first millenium, Christianity has splintered into an almost uncountable number of different sects, dialects and beliefs, with wide-ranging ideas on the nature of Christ, the nature of the Church, the authority of the Pope, the means of being saved, the nature of God himself, etc. What I ask of Christians is this: how do you know your sect's beliefs are correct, and others are wrong? Unless you're Roman Catholic (and even that didn't exist until the 3rd-4th century AD with the rise of Constantine), there's no way you can claim that your specific sect was the one Christ himself followed, because most sects arose out of the Protestant Reformation in the 1600s.

So, explain it to me. How do you know your sect is the right one?

I believe the main thing to get right is the foundation of Christianity. That is, "what does God require for admittance into heaven"? The rest is just differences of beliefs in how to worship basically. Topics like speaking in tongues, healing, and eternal security are things that cause dissension among the ranks. The only question that really matters is"What do I need to do to get to heaven"?

 

[averageJOE]

I believe the main thing to get right is the foundation of Christianity. That is, "what does God require for admittance into heaven"? The rest is just differences of beliefs in how to worship basically. Topics like speaking in tongues, healing, and eternal security are things that cause dissension among the ranks. The only question that really matters is"What do I need to do to get to heaven"?

However even that very question is in dispute. Like: Do homosexuals go to heaven? Depending on your denomination the answer is yes and no.

 

[james2ko]

To take the question up a notch, does anyone really go to heaven after death?

Joh 3:13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the OP..

 

[Beta]

I believe the main thing to get right is the foundation of Christianity. That is, "what does God require for admittance into heaven"? The rest is just differences of beliefs in how to worship basically. Topics like speaking in tongues, healing, and eternal security are things that cause dissension among the ranks. The only question that really matters is"What do I need to do to get to heaven"?

In the OT we have Eccl.12v13 : Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter ' Fear God and keep his Commandments for this is the whole duty of man '.
Then in the NT we have JESUS as our Saviour Heb.5v9 : And being made perfect he (Jesus) became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. Of course he was/had been obedient to the Father v8. Not forgetting Joh.15v10 he kept his Fathers commandments.
So would it be a good start to keep GOD's commandments ???:yes:

 

[Danmac]

However even that very question is in dispute. Like: Do homosexuals go to heaven? Depending on your denomination the answer is yes and no.

We get back to the question, what does God require?

1)Why did God die on a cross? It couldn't have been for his own benefit, since he is already God. So why did he die on a cross? If it wasn't to benefit himself, it must have been to benefit us. At least that is the consensus of John 3:16.

2) If he died for us, the next question would be, why did he need to die for us? I believe the death penalty is given as a consequence to crimes committed. Well if God didn't die for himself it must not have been his crimes that he died for.

3)That must indicate that I am a criminal. If God died for me

4) If I am a criminal I am required to be punished in accordance to the law.

5) If God died for me, then that must mean he took my punishment.

6) If you add to that, what you are really saying is criminals can work their way out of being a criminal. Once a criminal is arraigned, he or she cannot do anything to nullify the charges. They may be sentenced to community service, but that is not the means to an acquittal, it is the sentence imposed. God does not offer community service, that is why christ died. I don't know how much simpler you can make it.

 

[Danmac]

In the OT we have Eccl.12v13 : Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter ' Fear God and keep his Commandments for this is the whole duty of man '.
Then in the NT we have JESUS as our Saviour Heb.5v9 : And being made perfect he (Jesus) became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. Of course he was/had been obedient to the Father v8. Not forgetting Joh.15v10 he kept his Fathers commandments.
So would it be a good start to keep GOD's commandments ???:yes:

I refer you to post #154

 

[Beta]

To take the question up a notch, does anyone really go to heaven after death?

Joh 3:13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the OP..

I wholly agree with you james but would keeping (obeying,observing) the commandments of God eventually lead people into eternal life ?

 

[james2ko]

I wholly agree with you james but would keeping (obeying,observing) the commandments of God eventually lead people into eternal life ?

Of course, Jesus Himself made this plain to the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18-23). I was just trying to steer the conversation back toward the OP, without much success I'm afraid :help:

 

[Beta]

So, explain it to me. How do you know your sect is the right one?

Actually no 'sect' can claim to be the right one because it is not the original in it's entirety but a sub-division or part. That is why all religious denominations have/contain only one very small part of the truth - the rest or bulk of it is ******.
Only the Word of God as AUTHOR can claim to be original !

 

[Beta]

I refer you to post #154

So are you trying to say because Jesus died for our sins we are in the clear ???
How about Rom.6 ? What shall we say then ? Shall we continue in sin ??? :no::no::no: God forbid !!!
We have to repent and change and personally stop sinning.

 

[Koldo]

I look at it this way -
we either debate along scriptural foundation (which for christians is the Bible)
or we don't.
Of course people can believe or not believe as they choose.
But what we should'nt do is jump from belief to unbelief mid-stream. This can only cause confusion .The biblical God is inseparable from Jesus - they are ONE Joh.10v30. If you separate them you are talking about a different God.

I kind of agree with you.
But the NT and the OT can be separated.
Jews only consider the OT as holy scripture.

In other words, esmith can hold that position, but it is useless to debate using that position because this topic is "Question for christians".