Why do you care if other people think you are a "christian" ? Believe what you think is most likely true.
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions becuase they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe anything because it is spoken or rumored by many. Do not believe anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not beleive in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." -Buddha
Basically you can call yourself anything you want. It seems to be a matter of defining what a Christian is. If you would use the definition of a Christian as : a person who believes that Jesus was born lived and gave his life as a sacrefice for you.
Are you then a Christian .....no.
If your definition is a person who goes to church and keeps church rules ........maybe (I dont know you)
If your definition matches your action then it is affirmative. However the definition by the vast majority is the first and then you would have to decide what you believe[:)].
Regards Mustardseed
Well technically you are Christian if you believe in Christ, but that probably wouldn't be your denomonation. Jews believe in Christ, just that He hasn't come yet, so pretty much the new testament is void to them. There are many sources for learning. God did not send us here with no resources to discover the truth. But spiritual knowledge is always a very personal thing. If you seek for the truth, the truth will find you when you are prepared to accept it. Untill then, keep searching!
Not entirely correct or....... Well how about we define believe. Tecnically as you call it the greek word translated into believe is Pisteou = to drink in. In other words to recieve (the truth that Jesus is the son of God). There are several scriptures indicating that believing has to be defined. It says "the devils also believe and they tremble" I do not think we can class demons as Christians though. One thing you can be sure of is that it has nothing to do with the physical, such as keeping church laws going to mass church deeds of goodness etc etc it has to do with your spirit and how you relate to Jesus as you know Him.
Regards Mustardseed
Muslims believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but Muslims are not considered Christians because they do not believe that he is the 'Son of God' and they do not believe he died for our sins.
So i guess that in order to be considered a Christian by most 'Christian scholars' you would have to believe that he died for your sins and that he is the begotten 'Son of God'.
Yes it would seem so.
With all due respect to Buddha ... to present a quote like that is a little misleading, imo, because it's out of the larger context (just like taking a verse from the bible to make some point). If we follow that logic to the extreme, we have no "economy" of knowlege, i.e., we can never build upon what others have learned because we are continually reinventing the wheel.
He does not say "don't believe anything that others say or what has been passed down or what is written in religious books." He is saying, listen, learn, gather the info, take others experience onto consideration, then find your own way - a balanced approach should be used. Keep what is useful and what resonates with your personality, discard that which does not move you forward.
The accumulated wealth of experience that has been written down and reflected on through the centuries has great value and merit. Reading and contemplating what others have learned through collective experience can be extraordinarily enlightening and stimulating. But one must take it and use it as a springboard into their own experience and discovery!
Regarding your question:
A "Christian" is one who follows or belongs to Christ. This means that a Christian is one who seeks to know the teachings of Christ and who seeks to know the person of Christ. His teachings can be knows through 1) the recorded words in the Gospels 2) the reflections on his teachings by his earliest and closest followers, the apostles, contained in the other letters of the New Testament, and 3) through the various Christian churches (especially, imo, those that have an unbroken succession of teaching and reflection passed down from the apostles to their successors, ie, the Roman Catholic church, the various Othodox churches.)
He can be know in his person through 1) prayer - start talking to him and ask him to reveal himself to you in a personal way, then listen and try to be aware of how he might be trying to do so, and 2) through your fellow human beings, especially other Christians who seem to have a deep peace and warmth radiating from them.
If you truly seek to know him, he will clarify these other issues for you as you learn to communicate with him and open yourself to his tender love and compassion.
Good luck and God's blessing in your journey!
Shedt,
quote:
I was wondering, what if you don't believe Jesus died on the cross, and you don't believe that the teachings in the bible are the teachings that Jesus really taught, would you be a christian ? or are you only a christian if you believe his is "christ"
Must you believe that only he can save you ?
i'm just curious, i'd like too sort out my own beliefs
I have had similar questions. I do not feel that Jesus ever intended on creating a new religion through his teachings and in fact, I beleive that Jesus meant for us to find God within. Christ refers to the lineage of the house of David; David and Joseph were also Christs. I do not believe that Jesus died for our sins... I believe the message of the resurrection was that there is no death and I believe that the word "sin" as it is commonly used today is an improper use of the original meaning. It originally meant
to miss the mark and is an archery term translated from the greek word, 'hamartia.' In other words, it is a mistake, not to be used by the church as some condemnation to be lorded over ones soul for all of eternity which would exclude one from being accepted into 'heaven" or something that would exclude a person from experiencing the Love of God. In fact, the word "repent" is derived from the greek word "metanoeo," which means
to change ones mind, a little different from the meaning most of us attribute to the word (pleading forgiveness.)
I also believe that Jesus still lives on today and the ancient texts are not the only outlet we have to his teachings. I am a student of A Course in Miracles and believe these to be a more modern, accurate account and an attempt to correct the mistakes the church has made regarding the distortions of the teachings of Jesus Christ. In fact, there are many blatant corrections within the course where there is an explanation or a clarification of mistakes within the bible as it is translated and understood today. In many ways, I consider myself a Christian (follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ,) however, I have had many debates with my husband because I believe that to live according to the "teachings" of Jesus, that makes one a Christian. My husband would argue that only one who regularly attends church and lives according to the dictates of the church (any church) would be considered a Christian since Jesus never intended to start a new religion and the term Christian is a term that the church created.
I believe God lives within all of us and Jesus was a teacher who came to teach us how to understand our true selves, our Divinity. It is also my belief that he knew who he was (That he was a Divine being)and through his teachings, was showing us that there was no difference between him and us. We have only forgotten our true nature, or divinity, where he never did.
--Kerri
thanks for the replys. I've read and heard of different things about Jesus. maybe if I have a OBE i could travel in time or something LOL.
I'd really love too hear what his message was. there seems too be so many people who are very very sure of what they think he said. but you never really know now do you ?
quote:
Originally posted by shedt
I was wondering, what if you don't believe Jesus died on the cross, and you don't believe that the teachings in the bible are the teachings that Jesus really taught, would you be a christian ? or are you only a christian if you believe his is "christ"
Must you believe that only he can save you ?
i'm just curious, i'd like too sort out my own beliefs
I believe in it because of that and other thigs. With out Jesus I think our religion would be "inferior".
quote:
I was wondering, what if you don't believe Jesus died on the cross, and you don't believe that the teachings in the bible are the teachings that Jesus really taught, would you be a christian ? or are you only a christian if you believe his is "christ"?
A Christian is someone who firstly accepts Christ as Lord and Savior and believes he died and rose for their sins (Rom. 10:9). But even more than that, someone who, in being changed by this belief, follows the teachings in the Bible. So the answer to your first question is no.
Not too sure what you are asking with that second question.
quote:
Must you believe that only he can save you ?
Yes. Jesus said so himself.
Lighthouse,
quote:
My husband would argue that only one who regularly attends church and lives according to the dictates of the church (any church) would be considered a Christian since Jesus never intended to start a new religion and the term Christian is a term that the church created.
Going to church doesn't make anyone a Christian anymore than going to McDonald's makes one a hamburger. Also, the term "Christian" was not created by the church at all, it was in fact a derogatory term used by unbelievers which believers eventually adopted.
As for Jesus never intending to start a new religion: why did he say so many times to follow him? To "deny ourselves and take up our cross daily?" To believe and follow what he taught?
quote:
I believe God lives within all of us and Jesus was a teacher who came to teach us how to understand our true selves, our Divinity.
First, even Jesus said that only those who believe in him (see Rom. 10:9) will have the Father (or, God, if you prefer). Second, to say that Jesus was a teacher is to call him a liar, or a lunatic, since he himself claimed to be God. It also completely misses the whole message of the NT and the reason he came to earth. Third, we have no divinity.
There is much more I could say in regards to your post, but I'll hold it that, for now.
No need to put a label on what you believe about Christ. Think about it, meditate on it, and pray about it. If you are confused or doubtful, just keep asking. As Socrates stated, "True wisdom comes from the knowledge of ignorance". Realize that you cannot find the answer, the answer will find you. You'll know what is true to you by what brings you peace. When you are satisfied with an answer, that will be the answer you have been seeking. God is beyond physicality, He does not need to use it to manifest His will. He does not make Himself known to you by your ears or your eyes, that is mans expectations of reality. God speaks through your heart and mind! Spirituality or non-spirituality is always a personal and individual thing. You will notice that even christians have different views of their own about what is true. Be open minded and let the inner voice, not the outer ones, guide you to your answers.
Exothen,
I suggest you read Matthew 15:9 also 1 Corinthians 1:18-21.
--Kerri
Exothen,
I meerly see things a little differently than you and was offering my insight to one who asked the question... no reason to get bent out of shape or up on your self righteous high horse. I have spent years developing my own personal belief and relationship with Jesus and am comfortable with that relationship. If something I have said makes you uneasy, you need to explore why you feel my post has attacked the core of your belief system. I live according to the dictates of my heart which is what I believe Jesus was teaching me. I do not need a church or anyone else to tell me how to do that. Jesus works and speaks through me and helps me in my work. I certainly believe in the teachings of Christ and that he was a being who knew he was God. You too are God, which to me is the basis for all of Jesus' teachings however, you believe in superiority and inferiority, in God, there is no such thing. Until you understand that you too are a child of God, (one with God) you will feel that the thoughts I express are blastphemous to your view.
--Kerri
TheAlphaOmega,
quote:
Spirituality or non-spirituality is always a personal and individual thing.
The Bible says that Christians are to be salt and light to the world. It says to let our light shine instead of hiding it. The early Christians were severely persecuted for their beliefs. Becoming a Christian is certainly a personal decision, but living the Christian life and having a set of beliefs about Christ are most certainly not individual things.
Lighthouse,
What was your point with those scriptures?
quote:
I meerly see things a little differently than you and was offering my insight to one who asked the question... no reason to get bent out of shape or up on your self righteous high horse.
To say that we see things a "little differently" is a huge understatement. We see things very differently. Whatever reason do you have for your thinking in that last sentence? I am merely defending Christ and Christianity according to what scripture says about them.
quote:
If something I have said makes you uneasy, you need to explore why you feel my post has attacked the core of your belief system.
It has "attacked" the core of my belief system because it has attacked the core of Christianity.
quote:
I live according to the dictates of my heart which is what I believe Jesus was teaching me.
No, Jesus didn't teach that. He clearly taught to live according to what he was teaching. Many people stopped following Christ for this reason; they wanted to live according to their own belief system.
quote:
I certainly believe in the teachings of Christ and that he was a being who knew he was God. You too are God, which to me is the basis for all of Jesus' teachings
He didn't "know that he was God" in the that he was enlightened. The Bible is crystal clear that Jesus was God in the flesh. The Bible is also crystal clear that we are not gods, nor will we ever be. We are beings created in God's image, but certainly not gods. To say that we are gods goes completely against Jesus's teachings.
quote:
Until you understand that you too are a child of God, (one with God) you will feel that the thoughts I express are blastphemous to your view.
I know that I am a child of God, in the full biblical sense (John 1:12; Rom. 8:12-17). Being "one with God" is a totally foreign concept to the Bible and is a result of New Age belief.
Exothen,
quote:
The Bible is crystal clear that Jesus was God in the flesh.
As are you. God is ALL, the I AM. I suggest you look a little more deeply into the meaning of the message of the sermon on the mount. The beattitudes have a clear message of what I am speaking of if you can look outside of your box. It is in the understanding of your divinity and the correction of your own misperceptions about yourself (and your fellow humans) that you will be saved... My thoughts and message in no way go against the teachings of Christ. Perhaps they go against what you have been taught, however, that does not mean that they are wrong or in conflict with his teachings. If you think I can possibly attack God or the truth, I think you need to do some self examination on your own beliefs. Do you really think I can attack the TRUTH??? Isn't only God and Love truth?? Stop listening to what your church higherarchy is telling you and ask your heart and mind (where God resides) what the truth is... it will set you free. My way of expressing the way I see Christs teachings are merely different than what you believe.
As far as my references to those scriptures, look at what you just posted then look at what I suggested you read then you tell me what the reasoning was in my writing that remark to you. Better yet, ask your heart what I meant and write down the answer you get, then you will see the correlation.
There is no prerequisite that one lives in a certain way, according to anothers dictates to know God and Christ. You do not need someone else to open your doorway to God, God is your birthright, dwells within your being and you should recognize that through Christs teachings.
--Kerri
exothen, do you read Hebrew or Greek ?
I'm not sure why some say to seek God by looking within, we are all god, etc....that is the lie of the devil.
We have an "owners manual"....it is the Bible....we are NOT supposed to do what seems right, feels good within, etc....if it contradicts the Bible. The Lord knew we would do this, and that's why He gave us the written word.
We have a built in programming to want to be as God, equal to, etc. etc. from our sinful nature.
The moslems and some other non-christian groups recognize Jesus as a prophet of God, (one of a line of prophets) but not as God. Jesus said He was God in flesh....that's why the Jews, working out God's plan, had Him crucified. He was either God, or a liar, but never just another prophet.
Lighthouse,
No, I am not God in the flesh and neither are you or anyone else. To say so is absolutely blasphemous. Not only that, it just isn't rational, at all.
quote:
God is ALL, the I AM.
Being all and I AM are not the same thing. "I AM" comes from the verb "to be" and so speaks of his eternality. Please show in scripture where it is stated that God is all.
quote:
It is in the understanding of your divinity and the correction of your own misperceptions about yourself (and your fellow humans) that you will be saved...My thoughts and message in no way go against the teachings of Christ.
This is found
nowhere in Scripture and goes completely against what Christ himself taught. Again, this type of thinking is from your New Age perception and interpretation of scripture, even then, I don't know how you can come up with that stuff.
quote:
Stop listening to what your church higherarchy is telling you
Let me guess...you are against "organized religion" and despise authority. Not that I totally blame you, but there is a reason the Church has been around for so long.
quote:
My way of expressing the way I see Christs teachings are merely different than what you believe.
Not "merely different," drastically different, unbiblical, heretical.
shedt,
Not yet. Why?
The world according to Monty Python...
What do wood and ducks have in common? They float. If witches burn then they must also be made of wood, so burn her!!!
You people make me laugh... you're right...
I must be the DEVILS SPAWN!!!! [}:)]
actually, lighthouse, some of what you are saying *is* contradictory to what the bible, and what jesus, says. i'm not saying you are the devil for that, but perhaps you should reexamine your beliefs against what jesus actually did say if you want to follow him.
~kakkarot
Onefromsomewhereelse... you say that you are not suppose to do what feels right, but what God tells you is right. Your mistake is that Gods will feels right, and any other does not. I know Hitler believed that what he was doing was right, but somehow I doubt he lived a peaceful life. It's the peace inside that you SHOULD listen to when discovering truth, because Gods will for us IS peace.
actually, to clarify my last post, everybody (myself included) should check their beliefs against what jesus said if they want to follow him.
~kakkarot
Not that I totally blame you, but there is a reason the Church has been around for so long.
You're right, its called 'force'. Is it any wonder that since the enlightenment of the 18th century and especially more recently, now that the church no longer has the power to *force* people to adhere to christianity, that its numbers are falling as people are once again free to follow their own beliefs or at least be free to *think for themselves* and explore other systems? (the 17th century, esp the witch trials was the nadir for many more enlightened thinkers)
I am quite aware of why chrisitanity has been around for so long being an ancient historian myself: it got off to a good start thanks to the Romans, as once Christinity was adopted by the Roman state the entire empire was transformed into a christian theocracy, much in the same way that fundamentalist Muslim regimes are run today.
Chistianity as you recognise it today is a legacy of the Roman empire to the modern world along with government, law and other facets; all these have survived because the Greco-Roman world is the basis for western civilisation.
It quickly became THE way to rule and back up state authority.
Religion, esp christianity in our context was (and still is in some areas) a tool used for social and political purposes and for enforcement.
To say so is absolutely blasphemous.... Not "merely different," drastically different, unbiblical, heretical.
Luckily, for the rest of us, such statements are not really very scary any more.
Judging by your use of words exothen, if you were born a few hundred years ago, you would have been quite happy to burn the 'unbelievers' at the stake! I suppose, if you had your way, you would ban all other faith systems, make paganism illegal etc?? Please let me know!
I also take it that you accept every word of the bible as absolute fact, and as Jesus originally intended, with no distortion, addition, subtractions, corruptions whatsoever? Just wondering!
I am not a christian anyway, so I shoudlnt even be reading this forum, but I like to drop in occasionally to see how your all doing and to see if the usual routine of cursing the unbelievers to burn in hell (nice) is still popular, which it still is, no wonder christianity is losing poplarity!
Regards,
Douglas
that is why I asked if they can read Hebrew or Greek Gandalf. And even if they can, do they have the original copies ? every year, how many words do you think are changed in the Bible ? I can think of a couple instances where in the translation from Hebrew things are changed, on purpose, too fit the meaning more-so of the person or group that is translating. the words don't quite fit into how they believe, so they change it. but it's still makes no difference, because it's not the same thing.
Since stories from the bible can be traced back to summerian times, with significant changes, you would have thought that people would have realised that the bible has been copied with a very large artistic license. How can anyone take it seriously without question?
Arcane,
Haha...rofl. Perhaps you would like to share which stories and then share all your sources for this assertion.
shedt,
quote:
that is why I asked if they can read Hebrew or Greek Gandalf. And even if they can, do they have the original copies ?
If you mean can
I read Hebrew or Greek, I can't, not yet. But there are many that can. As for original copies, if you mean the autographs, then no. But there are about 25,000 Greek, Latin, and other manuscripts of the NT that verify the NT's accuracy to 99+ %.
quote:
I can think of a couple instances where in the translation from Hebrew things are changed, on purpose, too fit the meaning more-so of the person or group that is translating. the words don't quite fit into how they believe, so they change it.
Well...don't leave us hanging! Please do share your evidence with us. You may also want to look at the Dead Sea Scrolls version of Isaiah which verifies the accuracy of copies that are hundreds of years newer.
See, the problem in this forum is that everyone states that truth can be found everywhere, or that all religions are true. Yet, the contradiction comes when they deny that Christianity has any truth to it. Please, someone, tell me how that works.
i was tired and annoyed when i wrote that last post (30 hours, no sleep) and wouldnt normally have bothered.
I would be happy to quote some sources, but all my books are back home.(im a uni student and am not going home till june).
I'll see if i can find something on the web, if i can manage to find time.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm
quote:
Forgeries* in the Bible
Matthew 6:13: The Lord's Prayer traditionally ends: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." This seems to have been absent from the original writings 6
Matthew 17:21 is a duplicate of Mark 9:29. It was apparently added by a copyist in order to make Matthew agree with Mark.
But Mark 9:29 also contains a forgery*; this makes Matthew 17:21 a type of double-layered forgery*. 5
John 7:53 to 8:11: One of the most famous forgeries* in the Bible is the well-known story of the woman observed in adultery. It was apparently written and inserted after John 7:52 by an unknown author, perhaps in the 5th century CE. This story is often referred to as an "orphan story" because it is a type of floating text which has appeared after John 7:36, John 7:52, John 21:25, and Luke 21:38 in various manuscripts. Some scholars believe that the story may have had its origins in oral traditions about Jesus.
It is a pity that the status of verses John 8:1-11 are not certain. If they were known to be a reliable description of Jesus' ministry, they would have given a clear indication of Jesus' stance on the death penalty.
Mark 9:29: Jesus comments that a certain type of indwelling demon can only be exorcised through "prayer and fasting" (KJV) This is also found in the Rheims New Testament. But the word "fasting" did not appear in the oldest manuscripts. 5 New English translations have dropped the word.
Mark 16:9-20: The original version of Mark ended rather abruptly at the end of Verse 8. Verses 9 to 20, which are shown in most translations of the Bible, were added later by an unknown forger*. The verses were based on portions of Luke, John and other sources.
Luke 3:22: This passage describes Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist. According to Justin Martyr, the original version of this verse has God speaking the words: "You are my son, today have I begotten thee." Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and other ancient Christian authorities also quoted it this way. 1 The implication is that Jesus was first recognized by God as his son at the time of baptism. But a forger* altered the words to read: "You are my son, whom I love." The altered passage conformed more to the evolving Christian belief that Jesus was the son of God at his birth, (as described in Luke and Matthew) or before the beginning of creation (as in John), and not at his baptism.
John 5:3-4: These verses describe how "a great multitude" of disabled people stayed by the water. From time to time an angel arrived, and stirred the waters. The first person who stepped in was cured. This passage seems strange. The process would not be at all fair, because the blind could not see the waters being stirred, and the less mobile of the disabled would have no chance of a cure. Part of Verse 3 and all of Verse 4 are missing from the oldest manuscripts of John. 3 It appears to be a piece of free-floating magical text that someone added to John.
John 21: There is general agreement among liberal and mainline Biblical scholars that the original version of the Gospel of John ended at the end of John 20. John 21 appears to either be an afterthought of the author(s) of John, or a later addition by a forger*. Most scholars believe the latter. 4
1 Corinthians 14:34-35: This is a curious passage. It appears to prohibit all talking by women during services. But it contradicts verse 11:5, in which St. Paul states that women can actively pray and prophesy during services. It is obvious that verses 14:33b to 36 are a later addition, added by an unknown counterfeiter* with little talent at forgery.* Bible scholar, Hans Conzelmann, comments on these three and a half verses: "Moreover, there are peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought. [within them]." 2 If they are removed, then Verse 33a merges well with Verse 37 in a seamless transition. Since they were a later forgery*, they do not fulfill the basic requirement to be considered inerrant: they were not in the original manuscript written by Paul. This is a very important passage, because much many denominations stand against female ordination is based on these verses.
Revelation 1:11: The phrase "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and," (KJV) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. It is also found in the New King James Version (NKJV) and in the 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) The latter are basically re-writes of the original KJV. Modern English, is used, but the translators seem to have made little or no effort to correct errors. The Alpha Omega phrase "is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation or in Bruce Metzger's definitive 'A Textual Commentary' on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994..." 7
quote:
* Note re: forged and counterfeit writings:
We are using these terms with reference to today's value systems. For example, if someone wrote in 1999 an essay in the form of an encyclical by Pope John XXIII, and attempted to pass it off as an unknown work of the Pope, then we would consider it a forgery or counterfeit. If someone write today a speech in the style of George Washington and tried to publish it as if it were written by the first President, we would also consider it a forgery.
But things were a little different in the 1st and 2nd century CE. It was quite an accepted practice at that time for followers of a great philosopher or religious thinker to write material which emulated their leader. They passed it off as if that leader wrote it. This was not considered unethical at the time. We use the term forger and counterfeiter in this essay to emphasize that the passages were written by person or persons unknown. It does not necessarily indicate that the passages are any less valid than other texts in the Bible. However, it is clear that they were not written by the original author(s).
There were dozens of gospels, large numbers epistles, and even a few books on the style of Revelation that were considered religious texts by various movements within the early Christian church. When some of these were selected to form the official canon of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), the main criteria was whether the book was written by an apostle or someone very close to an apostle. The canon was regarded as inerrant, as inspired by God; it still is by conservative Christians. Liberal theologians have reached a consensus that many books in the New Testament were not written by the authors that they claim to be written by. This puts their legitimacy in question. We also know that unknown persons later inserted their own writings into some books.
Some of the books that liberal theologians believe were not written by their original authors are:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (a.k.a. The Pentateuch, the 5 Books of Moses, the Books of the Law, the Law, the Torah). These state in numerous places that they were written by Moses. But mainline and liberal theologians have long accepted the "Documentary Hypothesis" which asserts that the Pentateuch was written by a group of four authors, from various locations in Palestine, over a period of centuries. Each wrote with the goal of promoting his/her own religious views. A fifth individual cut and pasted the original documents in to the present Pentateuch.
The authors of the gospels claim to have been eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry. Yet liberal theologians believe that the gospels were written during the period 70 to 100 CE by writers who had only second-hand knowledge about Jesus.
The text of various Pauline epistles state that they were written by Paul. However, liberal theologians believe that Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus were written by persons unknown, mostly in the 2nd century, many decades after Paul's death.
Other epistles of unknown authorship, according to religious liberals, are Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 1, 2 & 3 John, and Jude.
Religious liberals have concluded that Revelation was written by an unknown author - perhaps a Jewish Christian whose primary language was Aramaic.
shedt,
Yes, there are some discrepancies between texts. But as I stated, the Bible is still considered 99+ % accurate using textual criticism. We, unfortunately, do not have the original autographs. Why some texts say things that others do not, I don't know. While it is possible some zealous person added things in, we cannot rule out that they had access to manuscripts that we do not have. Having said that, it is important to note that none of these discrepancies contradicts the message of the Bible. And, of course, one must remember that there is a lot of scholarship floating around that isn't very good. Such as the stuff in your next post.
I seriously question Religious Tolerance's sincerity in promoting religious tolerance as they are very biased against orthodox, conservative Christianity. In your second post it is very important to note their repeated use of "liberal theologians." Do they post any rebuttals of anything you have posted from a conservative point-of-view? If I had the time I would look for information on every verse you have posted.
Most of these liberal theologians don't have a leg to stand on and their scholarship has been effectively dismantled by many a conservative theologian. Liberals use very unhistorical methods to try and arrive at the historical truth of Christ and Christianity. Many also reject orthodox teachings and beliefs that define what Christianity is and who a Christian is. In other words, many of them are not Christian. Again, if I had the time, I have a lot I could post to refute the arguments of the liberal theologians in your second post.
Be sure to check out all sources, not just the liberal ones.
you can change the whole meaning of a sentance with one word. Translating is much different and complex then this.
Liberals ?
The problem i have is with conservatives, esp. the kinds who change words and try thier hardest too cover this up.
it's like war, the winner is the one who records the history.
quote:
The problem i have is with conservatives, esp. the kinds who change words and try thier hardest too cover this up.
it's like war, the winner is the one who records the history.
It doesn't take much to see that the liberals are the ones doing very unscholarly work. It is the conservatives who are striving to keep the Bible as it has been for centuries. The liberals completely change the texts and what they mean to come up with a gospel that ignores 1800 years of church history. This is a very serious problem these days.
quote:
Originally posted by exothen
quote:
The problem i have is with conservatives, esp. the kinds who change words and try thier hardest too cover this up.
it's like war, the winner is the one who records the history.
It doesn't take much to see that the liberals are the ones doing very unscholarly work. It is the conservatives who are striving to keep the Bible as it has been for centuries. The liberals completely change the texts and what they mean to come up with a gospel that ignores 1800 years of church history. This is a very serious problem these days.
who are the "liberals"
who are the "conservatives"
which "flavour" of the Bible and Christianity is the "true" one ?
The liberals are ones who reject the historicity of the Bible, the miralces, resurrection and deity of Christ, and typically accept all the "other" writings about Christ including the gnostic gospels. This includes such groups as the Jesus Seminar and people like Bishop John Shelby Spong.
Conservatives are those who accept what the liberals reject and reject what the liberals accept. They hold to the fundamentals of the faith which have been believed for 2000 years.
quote:
which "flavour" of the Bible and Christianity is the "true" one ?
Not too sure what you mean by "flavour," but in keeping in line with the discussion, the liberals and their loose interpretations of the Bible are most certainly not the "true" ones.
i agree with exothen: too many people don't like the truth and so they try and manipulate it to something more appetizing... and making it no longer the truth.
"You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" does that apply to me? does that apply to you? can we handle the truth? if it hurts to believe at the beginning, it's more likely in line with the truth than if it feels good. cause the truth is, we aren't perfect as we are. we all have negative things about us, and that's what hurts: learning that we, you and i, suck [;)].
but as you seek to get rid of the suckiness, that's when the truth starts hurting less, because the truth shows that you care and that you are becoming a better person (which everyone likes to know [:)] ) and not just deluding yourself into thinking you are a good person [|)].
~kakkarot
You do not have to be a Christian or believe "Jesus saves you". How do you think non-christian souls survive? [:)]
Jesus was a human, just like every other human, except he was enlightened. Of course, he's a "special soul", and even though he's our brother I think he deserves alot of love and respect. He's definitely on a higher level than me! [:)] However, there's a big misconception in Christianity that will probably never be cleared up. "Jesus died for our sins. Accept him as your savior and all your sins are forgiven. Once you accept him into your heart you go to Heaven". WRONG.
Jesus came for one reason and one reason only, that was to bring the Law of Grace. Up until he was crucified, there was only Universal Law and Karmic Law. Basically stated, Karmic law is "you get what you give", "an eye for an eye", or "for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction". Thus, for example, if you had no compassion for handicapped people and constantly ridiculed and belittled them in one lifetime, you would be required by Karmic Law to live a life with some type of handicap, be ridiculed and belittled, until you learned compassion. Well, when Jesus suffered all that stuff, and then was brutally murdered, he (and this is the crucial point) hadn't done anything to "deserve" (karmically) that punishment and murder. Egads, it was karmic injustice! Impossible! Thus, he effectively "broke" the Law of Karma which introduced the Law of Grace. This is the true meaning of "he died for our sins". The Law of Grace is: (using the above example) if, during that first lifetime you realize the error of your ways and sincerely repent and try to learn compassion in that lifetime, your karmic debt is erased under the Law of Grace, and you won't receive "payback" for the things you did. Thus, in effect, a very nasty person can change their ways and have no karmic debt at the end of their life.
This was vital, because most people do things that hurt other people, even if it's inadvertant. By the time they mature and find the right path (under the old laws) there was no way to relieve the karmic burden from their younger days, so they'd have to go through life knowing that they'd get "payback" in a future lifetime, no matter how loving they were in this one. This allows us to "get back on the path of love" without fear of future reprisals.
quote:
Originally posted by kakkarot
"You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" does that apply to me? does that apply to you? can we handle the truth?
I can. I know that I am not perfect and I'm not desparetly trying to be either. But every time I do something, I think it over and sometimes I do what I have first judged wrong. But then, afterwards I judge myself and understand what I did wrong. I then see my idiotic side and try to be better.
targa,
quote:
Jesus was a human, just like every other human, except he was enlightened.
Then why did he claim to be equal with God? That isn't too enlightening. He was much more than human, he was the Spirit-filled God-man. Much more than any human could ever be.
quote:
Of course, he's a "special soul", and even though he's our brother I think he deserves alot of love and respect.
And a lot more. He demands that we give our lives to him and for him. To follow Christ is to lose your life. He deserves our fullest love and devotion, not "a lot of love and respect."
quote:
However, there's a big misconception in Christianity that will probably never be cleared up. "Jesus died for our sins. Accept him as your savior and all your sins are forgiven. Once you accept him into your heart you go to Heaven". WRONG.
How is this wrong? You are imposing your beliefs of karmic law and reincarnation on a belief systems that rejects those. You are reinterpreting Christianity through your own beliefs, something which should never be done as it leads one to false conclusions.
quote:
Jesus came for one reason and one reason only, that was to bring the Law of Grace.
Hmm...Jesus himself said that he came so that people could "have life" and live it to the fullest (John 10:10). John, in 1 John 3:8 states that "the reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work;" this in the context of sin.
I was wondering, what if you don't believe Jesus died on the cross, and you don't believe that the teachings in the bible are the teachings that Jesus really taught, would you be a christian ? or are you only a christian if you believe his is "christ"
Must you believe that only he can save you ?
i'm just curious, i'd like too sort out my own beliefs