|
|
|
|
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/22/2008 7:30:31 PM | Consig:
Yes Hanson disagrees that they represent true christianity, and he does have an ax to grind...but that is not really an issue because Jesus also had a few ax's to grind with those who were not teaching the true representation of God's Word as well. So if Hanson is correct then I don't consider that having an ax to grind is in error. Paul spoke to Timothy in thier times of those ( Hymenaeus and Philetus ) who corrupted the word of God as being like a cancer spreading in the body...
I agree, having an axe to grind is not necessarily bad in itself. However, as far as I can see, we're talking about the Middle Ages in terms of whether it was a "dark age" in more general perspectives such as technology, human rights, and social structures, rather than one theological position over another.
As far as celibacy, you would know better than I, but I seem to think that it is or was a requirement for Catholic preists. Have there been married popes or priests after 500 AD since Augustine was leading the church? If there haven't been any married leaders in the Catholoic church then I would say that the gift of celibacy from God has been corrupted to be a tradition or legalistic requirement of the church...which imo is sure reason for rebuke as well, as it leavens the grace of Christ, and grieves the Spirit of God through a legalistic requirement of the flesh.
Certainly. It's only a matter of discipline for us, not doctrine. My own pastor is a married priest with five children. He received a dispensation to be ordained in the Latin rite because he was formerly a priest of the Church of England (this dispensation is called the "Pastoral Provision" and applies to certain Protestant denominations).
In the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church (such as Maronite, Byzantine, etc.) married men are allowed to be ordained as priests for parish communities. Bishops are drawn from the monastic orders, so they are all celibate. Same concepts apply to the whole Eastern Orthodox Church.
Also, all married men are allowed to be ordained as deacons in either rite.
The prohibition against married men becoming priests is applicable only to the Latin rite (the western rite), and this rule became absolute only at the Second Lateran Council of 1139, a very popular move at the time among both lay and ecclesiastical leaders. It should be noted that the number of married priests at this time was quite small in any case. St. Augustine has little to do with the issue either way. He wasn't the first proponent for clerical celibacy, nor was he the most important one.
I have read of these things for many years through a variety of sources and historical claims giving this account of the dark ages.....Are you saying that this is misinfo and everyone is in error who claims this as being a historical reality?
Hitler once said that if one repeats a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. I'm not challenging all popular knowledge, of course; however, the proof of this is easily demonstrated in how many people honestly believe that the people of the Middle Ages thought the world was flat. Of course, this is a 19th century lie fabricated to discredit religious authority, and all medieval scholarship demonstrates that medieval intellectuals fully knew about the earth's roundness.
When it comes to medieval history, its supposed "darkness" is taken for granted by many non-medieval historians without even thinking about it, the same way that Americans take for granted that democracy is the best form of government. If you think about it, though, you'll find that these assumptions are not necessarily true, despite how popular they are. The myth of the "dark ages" has conveniently served the arguments of Protestant and Enlightenment-era authors for centuries, so naturally these notions wouldn't be challenged in the English-speaking world until recently. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/22/2008 7:45:57 PM | | That being said, I'll state up front that I have many reasons to be biased towards the Middle Ages. If I pursue a master's degree, that will most likely be my area of concentration (either that or the Baroque). I'm a RenFest geek. Being a Catholic, I often look at the Middle Ages as a sort of golden age (I'm sure that to the non-Catholic mind that's accustomed to modern views of history, this sounds laughable). But, all that aside, I think an objective look at the medieval period will show that, far from being a "dark" age, it was like any other time, with its pros and cons. Medieval people were people, too. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/22/2008 7:51:27 PM | Consig:
Yes Hanson disagrees that they represent true christianity, and he does have an ax to grind...but that is not really an issue because Jesus also had a few ax's to grind with those who were not teaching the true representation of God's Word as well. So if Hanson is correct then I don't consider that having an ax to grind is in error. Paul spoke to Timothy in thier times of those ( Hymenaeus and Philetus ) who corrupted the word of God as being like a cancer spreading in the body...
I agree, having an axe to grind is not necessarily bad in itself. However, as far as I can see, we're talking about the Middle Ages in terms of whether it was a "dark age" in more general perspectives such as technology, human rights, and social structures, rather than one theological position over another.
As far as celibacy, you would know better than I, but I seem to think that it is or was a requirement for Catholic preists. Have there been married popes or priests after 500 AD since Augustine was leading the church? If there haven't been any married leaders in the Catholoic church then I would say that the gift of celibacy from God has been corrupted to be a tradition or legalistic requirement of the church...which imo is sure reason for rebuke as well, as it leavens the grace of Christ, and grieves the Spirit of God through a legalistic requirement of the flesh.
Certainly. It's only a matter of discipline for us, not doctrine. My own pastor is a married priest with five children. He received a dispensation to be ordained in the Latin rite because he was formerly a priest of the Church of England (this dispensation is called the "Pastoral Provision" and applies to certain Protestant denominations).
In the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church (such as Maronite, Byzantine, etc.) married men are allowed to be ordained as priests for parish communities. Bishops are drawn from the monastic orders, so they are all celibate. Same concepts apply to the whole Eastern Orthodox Church.
Also, all married men are allowed to be ordained as deacons in either rite.
The prohibition against married men becoming priests is applicable only to the Latin rite (the western rite), and this rule became absolute only at the Second Lateran Council of 1139, a very popular move at the time among both lay and ecclesiastical leaders. It should be noted that the number of married priests at this time was quite small in any case. St. Augustine has little to do with the issue either way. He wasn't the first proponent for clerical celibacy, nor was he the most important one.
I have read of these things for many years through a variety of sources and historical claims giving this account of the dark ages.....Are you saying that this is misinfo and everyone is in error who claims this as being a historical reality?
Hitler once said that if one repeats a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. I'm not challenging all popular knowledge, of course; however, the proof of this is easily demonstrated in how many people honestly believe that the people of the Middle Ages thought the world was flat. Of course, this is a 19th century lie fabricated to discredit religious authority, and all medieval scholarship demonstrates that medieval intellectuals fully knew about the earth's roundness.
When it comes to medieval history, its supposed "darkness" is taken for granted by many non-medieval historians without even thinking about it, the same way that Americans take for granted that democracy is the best form of government. If you think about it, though, you'll find that these assumptions are not necessarily true, despite how popular they are. The myth of the "dark ages" has conveniently served the arguments of Protestant and Enlightenment-era authors for centuries, so naturally these notions wouldn't be challenged in the English-speaking world until recently. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/22/2008 8:36:57 PM | Perhaps the only problem stumping you regarding your understanding of the Trinity is your presuppositions regarding God. By way of anology, its like your trying to make a Christian's large suitcase full of neatly packed clothes fit into your overnite bag. Much of it just doesn't fit. Clothes are hanging out everywhere. But the problem is not with the suitcase of the Cristian, but fitting it into the Jewish model. And it was never intended to do so.
You already understand that the very nature of God is One Being. What you don't understand is how He can be Three Persons sharing one being. Perhaps its because we are one person sharing one being. But if you look at a cube, it is by nature one sharing three distinct functions (height, width, and depth). So we already think at least sometimes in this same way. Although granted the analogy breaks down.
So how does this example assist us? While we have seen cubes and can get our minds around its nature (one) and its functions (threefold), and that we don't confuse the two, somehow we don't apply the same analogical perception to the Trinity. Jesus came to exegete (or explain) the Father. To see Him is to see the Father, similar to seeing height is to see depth in a cube. Why? Its a reference to the same nature or character. Christians believe Jesus is Yahweh, which is no different from saying that in a cube its depth viewed as a whole is still a cube.
Perhaps this is a start to explaining where your presuppositions regarding the nature of God are preventing you from seeing how the Christian understands Jesus to be God, and a Person, without being contradictory. I hope this helps! | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/23/2008 12:03:18 AM | Stinker*Belle asked:
I must ask regarding the Confirmation statement, why were you doing your confirmation at 18 or did i misread that? You read it properly. I was 18 in the USA (small university town in the state of West Virginia). If my memory serves me, it was a new tradition at the time, to confirm at 18 as opposed to 12. The thinking is/was that an 18-year-old is more mature than a 12-year-old, and so can make a more conscious decision about confirmation.
Perhaps all of the USA is still like that now? Maybe Jacobus can tell us, as I'm not involved with the church anymore since I didn't confirm. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/23/2008 12:20:51 AM | Jacobus and Dive, thank you very much for your answers!!
Jacobus, thank you for answering me about the "what happens when you convert in adult hood" thing, I hadn't thought about it until yesterday and i saw the thing about Confirmation, i was just curious.
Thank you again!!
 | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/23/2008 6:48:37 AM | The doctrine of the Trinity was not a part of Christianity until 325 AD. The Roman Emporer, Constantine, organized the Council of Nicea, where the "educated" VOTED on what books to be included in the Bible and to settle the argument as to whether Jesus was GOD or prophet (man).
Until then, the Jewish idea of Unitarianism, a unique concept ,(there is only one GOD) was held by early Chrisitians- who were Jews. As Pagans became converted into the new faith, some of their ideas were adapted into Christinaity. (One only need to look at how Christmas is celebrated to see the Pagan influence of Christinaity.)
The Celts, and others, worshipped a female GODDESS. She was often identified as revealing herself in three forms- Maiden, Mother, and Crone. The idea of a "Trinity" is not of Christian origin.
A GREAT book is "When GOD was a Woman", which will serve as a source for many of the comments I've made. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/23/2008 9:42:48 AM | Hitler once said that if one repeats a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. I'm not challenging all popular knowledge, of course; however, the proof of this is easily demonstrated in how many people honestly believe that the people of the Middle Ages thought the world was flat. Of course, this is a 19th century lie fabricated to discredit religious authority, and all medieval scholarship demonstrates that medieval intellectuals fully knew about the earth's roundness.
When it comes to medieval history, its supposed "darkness" is taken for granted by many non-medieval historians without even thinking about it, the same way that Americans take for granted that democracy is the best form of government. If you think about it, though, you'll find that these assumptions are not necessarily true, despite how popular they are. The myth of the "dark ages" has conveniently served the arguments of Protestant and Enlightenment-era authors for centuries, so naturally these notions wouldn't be challenged in the English-speaking world until recently.
Jacobus101
I understand that you believe that the Church's involvment in crimes and punishment didn't occur, however what about Luther? Was Luther not ordered to be arrested and punished as a heretic? Who would have made these accusations against Luther except the church?
I have talked to many people who deny that Hitler ever set the holocaust in motion, in fact many dent that a holocaust even happenned and consider this a fairy tale made up by TPTB to manipulate through misinformation. The holocaust was sixty years ago during WW2, and it is already in historical question by some if it is even valid....So I see how a lie if repeated enough times will cover up a attrocity.
There is no actual proof that because some medieval scholars believed the world was round that the myth that everyone thought it was flat didn't exist. I'm sure many people and scholars believed the world to be flat...and in all honesty I don't see how this has anything to do with whether the church took it upon themselves to weed out heretics through crime and punishment techniques of the age leading to many deaths. All it has to do is kill one heretic under the church's authority and they are proven as fallen into darkness and away from God. And the fact that there is nothing in the creeds regarding eternal punishment until after Augustine's reign as leader, gives strong support that it was Augustine who introduced this doctrine of devils into the church creeds, that remains a stronghold in Christiandom today.
So if I think about it, I see these accusations against the church under Augustine's reign to be quite valid, and the proof is not even necessarily needed in history, but in the destruction that continues on today in the minds and hearts of people who have been turned away from God because of fear and hate, which all revolves around the myth of the hellfire doctrine being indoctrinated into thier minds.
I know what destruction this false doctrine of hellfire and eternal damnation, that denies Christ's grace can accomplish. The evidence is not in the pages of history alone, but in the hearts and minds of those we see everyday, even on this forum, who have turned away from God because of this ridiculous doctrine.
So don't get me wrong, I am not anti catholic, I am against all organizations that teach the doctrine of eternal punishment in hellfire, and in doing research on the origens of the myth and how it was introduced into the church, well of course only the Catholic Church can be held responsible for allowing it into the church as they were the only church....but like we both know catholic only meant universal in the beginning...however the moment they took it upon themselves to divide the church with doctrines of demons, they ceased to be the church under the Spirit of God and Christ, and set the stage for a long list of denominations.
Today they are nothing more than a sect of christiiandom like every other denomination, and in all honesty I don't connect the catholic church of today to the same universal church founded by the 12 Apostles that moved in the power and love of the Holy Spirit any more than I connnect the Lutheran church to the Apostles church...or any church of today for that matter. The only connection to the universal church of the Apostles that anyone shares in this age, is Spiritual and not physical. By this I mean that thiose who are born of the Spirit are the only ones who are truly connected to the body of Christ as it has been from the beginning....and we don't become born of the Spirit through a denomination. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/23/2008 11:15:46 AM |
I understand that you believe that the Church's involvment in crimes and punishment didn't occur, however what about Luther? Was Luther not ordered to be arrested and punished as a heretic? Who would have made these accusations against Luther except the church?
The secular authorities, of course. Luther was summoned before the Diet of Worms in 1521, an assembly of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, and his estates. As far as I know, he wasn't arrested but was summoned with safe conduct, and no punishment was decreed before Luther fled before the meeting was over.
To expand on this further, the conflict ensued from Pope Leo X's response to the 95 Theses. Leo X issued a bull entitled Exsurge Domine, which demanded that Luther retract 41 out of the 95 Theses. The expiration date was December 10, 1520, on which Luther publicly burned the bull along with volumes of canon law. In response, Luther was excommunicated in Leo's bull Decet Romanum Pontificum. The effect of the bull was to remove Luther and his followers from Church functions and to shun his teachings. However, it did not have the force of any civil law to arrest or punish him. The state took that upon themselves. Considering the sheer number of deaths caused by Luther's factions in subsequent riots, revolutions, etc., I would have done exactly the same thing. Luther was not a harmless ex-monk, but was an extremely violent man who called on the German princes who sided with him to declare open war on the papal Church and bathe themselves in the blood of priests.
By the way, I didn't say that the Church was removed from all crime and punishment protocol in past times (if I did, then disregard that statement since it's erroneous). What I did say was that prosecution for religious-based crimes were not anywhere near as widespread in medieval times as they were during the Reformation and Baroque centuries (16th to 18th centuries). Contrary to the popular belief of some, Luther did not live at the tail end of the "dark ages". The Renaissance was in force for a full century before him. It is also correct to say that the Church couldn't bring forth accusations or perform arrests. Theologians and clerics were involved only so far in that they were employed by the state to make judgments about heresy cases, which were against the civil law. Clerics did not issue or oversee punishments.
There is no actual proof that because some medieval scholars believed the world was round that the myth that everyone thought it was flat didn't exist. I'm sure many people and scholars believed the world to be flat...
Actually, absolutely no medieval scholar of note believed the world to be flat. At all. Boethius, St. Isidore of Seville, St. Bede, Vergilius of Salzburg, all knew about it. They even estimated the circumference of the earth. Virtually all illustrations of the world in medieval art show it to be spherical (most notably the illustrations of Dante's Divine Comedy), and the famous crown jewel known as the "globus cruciger" (orb with cross on top) reflects the medieval knowledge of the world being round.
and in all honesty I don't see how this has anything to do with whether the church took it upon themselves to weed out heretics through crime and punishment techniques of the age leading to many deaths.
Because the offensive term "dark ages" refers to a period of intellectual, as well as social, unenlightenment.
Again, the highest amounts of religious persecutions occurred not in the Middle Ages, but during and after the Reformation. Also, contrary to popular belief, it is more likely that more Catholics than Protestants were executed in these times, mainly thanks to Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.
All it has to do is kill one heretic under the church's authority and they are proven as fallen into darkness and away from God.
Is that so? Perhaps you should do more study into medieval and post-Reformation culture. Without saying that they were right, it becomes evident that both Catholics and Protestants believed that by executing heretics (and keep in mind, these were usually active preachers who incited rebellions of some sort, not just harmless local believers), they were following the example of the nation of Israel, which proscribed death for heretics and blasphemers. Heresy was also equivalent to treason in many circumstances. For example, if you were a Catholic in Elizabethan England, you were assumed to contest the Queen's legitimacy because you would believe that Mary, Queen of Scots or Philip of Spain after her was the true ruler of England.
And the fact that there is nothing in the creeds regarding eternal punishment until after Augustine's reign as leader, gives strong support that it was Augustine who introduced this doctrine of devils into the church creeds, that remains a stronghold in Christiandom today.
Uh huh.
Just so you know, St. Augustine was not a Pope. You do know that, right? He was an influential theologian, but not the leader of the Church at that time. And which exactly is this "doctrine of devils" you speak of? The belief in eternal damnation? Augustine was most certainly not the first to teach it. If you ask me, I would say it's Christ. And even if you disagreed with my interpretation, you would find a long list of Early Church Fathers before Augustine who did teach it.
I know what destruction this false doctrine of hellfire and eternal damnation, that denies Christ's grace can accomplish. The evidence is not in the pages of history alone, but in the hearts and minds of those we see everyday, even on this forum, who have turned away from God because of this ridiculous doctrine.
That is your belief. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 5/23/2008 1:32:49 PM | jacobus thanks again for the response, and I appreciate the counter arguements that you present. And I do admit that maybe there is always a bias or slant of a historians own perspectives that can obscure the truth of the actual reality of what did happen. So ina all comments discernment should be applied of what should be considered valid testimony and what isn't. This can be difficult for us to actually see as the history is from centuries gone past, and the limited records that have been kept, need to be taken into all consideration...
By the way, I didn't say that the Church was removed from all crime and punishment protocol in past times (if I did, then disregard that statement since it's erroneous). What I did say was that prosecution for religious-based crimes were not anywhere near as widespread in medieval times as they were during the Reformation and Baroque centuries (16th to 18th centuries). Contrary to the popular belief of some, Luther did not live at the tail end of the "dark ages". The Renaissance was in force for a full century before him. It is also correct to say that the Church couldn't bring forth accusations or perform arrests. Theologians and clerics were involved only so far in that they were employed by the state to make judgments about heresy cases, which were against the civil law. Clerics did not issue or oversee punishments.
No I agree, it didn't happen over night but instead spread like a cancer through the centuries until the state of things manifested at the greatest opposition after centuries of traditions of men and false doctrines. The fact that the theologians showed up in court to make these judgments places them in the guilty seat as the persecutor...whether it be Catholic theologians or Luthern theologians...and I'm not pointing fingers to say one was right and one was wrong. It was the Roman courts who had Jesus crucified, but God placed the guilt of this upon the Jewish leaders who brought forth the judgment of heresay... Jewish law had no power to pass a sentence of death under the rulership of Rome either, but no where is Rome accused in scripture as being guilty of crucifying Christ.
Acts 2:36
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
We must remember that church and state amalgamated in the 3'rd century, so the church is just as guilty as the state when it comes to the civil law being set in place in the first place...had the church no influence in the state, then thier would have been no heresay law regarding biblical doctrine......as Ceasar was considered to be god in Rome, all laws against deity by rome would have applied only to defiance against Ceaser, and not the God of the scrirptures, unless the church influenced these heresay laws in the first place......I'm not placing all blame on Augustine either, but I would certainly hold his theology as accountable for what followed and grew into the doctrines that I am opposed against today as a chritian. The error was already in motion when the church and state amalgamated together in the 3'rd century...and imo this amalgamation of church and state is what set the stage for the fall from grace and the true gospel of Christ. What they thought to be progression for the kingdom of God by doing this, went against everything Jesus taught about being separate from the world and its political system.
Because the offensive term "dark ages" refers to a period of intellectual, as well as social, unenlightenment.
I never really thought of the 'darkness' of the age in this way, but have always considered it 'dark' because the light of the gospel was kept hidden from the world.
Perhaps you should do more study into medieval and post-Reformation culture. Without saying that they were right, it becomes evident that both Catholics and Protestants believed that by executing heretics (and keep in mind, these were usually active preachers who incited rebellions of some sort, not just harmless local believers), they were following the example of the nation of Israel, which proscribed death for heretics and blasphemers. Heresy was also equivalent to treason in many circumstances. For example, if you were a Catholic in Elizabethan England, you were assumed to contest the Queen's legitimacy because you would believe that Mary, Queen of Scots or Philip of Spain after her was the true ruler of England.
Whoever they were they should have been following Christ, instead of seeking to destroy those who they considered as enemies by use of political powers. I'm not pointing fingers either because we all have blood on our hands when it comes to defending our faith it seems.
Just so you know, St. Augustine was not a Pope. You do know that, right? He was an influential theologian, but not the leader of the Church at that time. And which exactly is this "doctrine of devils" you speak of? The belief in eternal damnation? Augustine was most certainly not the first to teach it. If you ask me, I would say it's Christ. And even if you disagreed with my interpretation, you would find a long list of Early Church Fathers before Augustine who did teach it.
Never knew that he was or wasn't a pope, actually that didn't enter into my mind, however I do understand the magnitude of the influence that he had as a theologian over the people.....and as far as his motives, well historians have different opinions....some have stated that the fear of hell was motivated as a need for control over the people because they couldn't be trusted to follow in Christ's grace and love unless this fear of judgment in the afterlife was put upon them....which is what I lean towards as truth, because it makes perfect sense to me of how this doctri9ne has controlled people even today through fear and guilt.
We won't turn this topic into a discussion on the doctrine of hellfire and whether the scriptures validate it or not, because that thread has been done as you say......however, I would like to see this evidence that you claim of this hellfire doctrine being taught as eternal punishment, prior to the amalgamation of church and state...as I have found no evidence of this teaching in any of the Apostles letters and sermons, nor in any historical documents from the first 2 centuries..
I know what destruction this false doctrine of hellfire and eternal damnation, that denies Christ's grace can accomplish. The evidence is not in the pages of history alone, but in the hearts and minds of those we see everyday, even on this forum, who have turned away from God because of this ridiculous doctrine.
That is your belief.
Not really, the proof is in the pudding. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 6/21/2008 8:20:40 AM | | The 10 commandment came from the 42 laws of Maat it's (khametic or eygptian) It's thousands of years older then the commandments. Also if you know your history the jews were never in bondage in eygpt. Thats why when you get to the new test. those jews tell jesus we have neverbeen in bondage. Jesus tell's them that they are not his father. They are seeds of the devil I belive this can be found in John. Abrahams seed and the devils seed. Not saying your father is the devil by know means. Acts states that Mosses was well learned in the wisdom of the eygtians. So it's safe to say he had the 42 laws of Maat, and made a revised version for the hebrews. My question to you is why do Jews have such a hard time with the New test? And I've only met a few who bare witness that the original hebrews were Black! Do you? If so do some research and tell me if I'm wrong. Shalom(peace) | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 6/21/2008 8:54:55 AM | | At the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. the father's of the RCC in order to placate Gnostics, who did not believe Jesus was flesh and blood as the fathers had originally proposed, decided that Jesus and God were the same. However the third leg of the trinity was not created until the Council of Chalcedon in 381 A.D. The purpose of the holy spirit was to placate another group to solidify the church's founding father's power. With the creation of the trinity the chatholic church was on it's way to religious dominance. | |
|
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 6/26/2008 3:03:34 PM | The new testament as it is now dates back to 120 AD in an other than RCC version of church history. It annoys me that every time you bring up christianity it always turns into a conversation about doctrine. The NT is a stand alone collection of writings that contain teaching/doctrines yes but many so called summary teachings are inconclusive at best. I sincerely think that to understand the nature of the Trinity one must ask first if their is a Trinity according to the New Testament and the answer is inconclusive. Now there is a Jesus Christ who said and did things but the teaching he left are hardly mentioned or given any importance in the conversations I see here in this forum and even a few church's I've been to.
It amazes me how so many are worried about explaining the nature of the Holy Spirit. It also amazes me the christian who can quote Paul at length but hardly remember the Beattitudes of the Sermon on the Mount. (wait on it... it's coming .... somebodies going to get mad about what I just said and then quote paul at me...)
I don't understand christians and I consider myself one even though some of my friends and family would take acception to that. To me a Christian is one who values, adores, abides and walks with fidelity to the words and philosophies presented by Jesus above all other written words of mankind. | |
|
Gracep
|
Joined: 4/16/2008
Msg: 189 | |
| |
| Help me understand Christians please.
Posted: 6/28/2008 11:29:47 AM |
If this is so, then why preach the name Jesus instead of God?
Yeshua is Yahweh; they're one in the same. It's an infinite concept that can't be explained by the finite mind, no one understands how it works.
What I get from this passage is "You have to go through me to be with God."
Under the Mosiac Covenant, Israel was "cursed" to keep the law of God perfectly for justification and righteousness. Which was of course impossible, and constant animal sacrifice for atonement and forgiveness of sins was needed. Israel is now under the Christian Covenant, and the only way to be justified before God is to be covered in the blood of Yeshua. This is what Yeshua was explaining to the Judahites in John 5. These Judahite Pharisees were clinging to a religion that was a combination of the Mosaic Covenant and the Tradition of the Elders (also called the oral law). The Tradition of the Elders was what the Judahite captives carried away from Babylonian captivity after being influenced by the Chaldean religious practices, and has nothing to do with the Hebrew religion of the Old Testament. The Tradition of the Elders was codified, and is called the Talmud today.
I do not understand how Christians came from monotheism to a 3-in-1 God.
Christianity is monotheistic, but again it's an infinite concept no one can explain or comprehend. Yahweh walked and talked with Adam, Abraham, and Enoch; which is no different than Yahweh coming in the flesh as Yeshua. Yahweh spoke to Moses as a burning bush. His Glory was a Pillar of Fire by day and a Pillar of Smoke by night. In order to be consistent with your thoughts, you would have to reject all of these manifestations of God as being monotheistic in the same way you reject Yeshua. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
