Jesus Would Kick Your Preacher's Ass!

reply to post by Sahabi


Once again, you are saying things that are generalizations or simply aren't true. Would Christ be upset at some churches, some church leaders, and some followers? Sure. All? Certainly not. Would this be the same, whether the year is 100AD, 1000AD or 2010AD? Of course.

Doctrine is an effort to explain aspects of faith that are rooted in tradition, scripture and theology. It differs from Catholic to Protestant, from Eastern Orthodox to Anabaptists, from Calvinism to Arminianism. If one understands that Christ taught the way to eternal life is simple -- love God, love everyone else, do minor doctrinal differences matter? Probably not, but it is important for some people.

Ecumenical Councils were necessary to define the doctrine that holds the church steady. For example, if there was no Doctrine of the Trinity, we would know the nature of Christ, but have no idea how that even began to make sense. Once the church was beyond the Apostolic Age, it was critical that it centre itself, scripturally, spiritually and theologically. Had they not done that, there likely would be no Christianity today, testimony enough that this is what God expects that we'll do.

And to say that it is unreasonable that, particularly in the earliest days of the church, there would be differences of opinion, given the major foundational gulf between Jewish Christian and Greek Christian, would be naive at best.

reply to post by adjensen

Sure Jesus wouldn't be mad at every single church leader. But I believe he would be mad at many/most. Just as Muhammad would be mad at many/most of his followers. Jesus and Muhammad taught that true believers would be few and far apart. Shouldn't this be a warning against mainstream churches/beliefs that are heavily popular? The reason is people get sooooo stuck on doctrine and dogma that they lose track of the most important things of all. This includes aspects such as human-unity regardless of faith, humility, piousness, caring, love, and once again human unity.

Doctrine is an effort to explain aspects of faith that are rooted in tradition, scripture and theology. It differs from Catholic to Protestant, from Eastern Orthodox to Anabaptists, from Calvinism to Arminianism. If one understands that Christ taught the way to eternal life is simple -- love God, love everyone else, do minor doctrinal differences matter? Probably not, but it is important for some people.

Beautifully said my friend!!!

Ecumenical Councils were necessary to define the doctrine that holds the church steady. For example, if there was no Doctrine of the Trinity, we would know the nature of Christ, but have no idea how that even began to make sense.

Have you forgotten from one our previous discussions a fact that holds true today as it did in the earliest beginnings of Christianity? This being that not all followers of Jesus count him as God, nor the Son of God, nor a Trinity. I remember you saying that you MUST accept the divinity of Christ to be a true Christian. But there were in the beginning, and there are today Christians that differ on Jesus' status.

Varying Christian beliefs:

• Jesus is part of the Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit
• Jesus is God's Son, but there is no Trinity. God is God, Jesus is His son.
• Jesus is neither God, nor part of God, nor God's son. He is a prophet.
• Jesus is God in the flesh.
• Mary is the mother of Jesus.
• Mary is the mother of God. She is deified, and venerated.

And the list goes on and on. These differing concepts are not new. They are the same arguments that caused the Council of Nicea to be called. And these same arguments and sects are still here today.

What you are doing is nothing new. Your early church leaders had more power than the other sects, so they announced they are true Christians and others were not. Today you are saying one must believe in the Trinity or are not a true Christian.

But I assure you non-trinitarian Christians read the same Bible as you, follow Jesus's words literally, and pray to God. So are they going to hell?

None of us were alive to speak with Christ directly. No one wrote his speeches or life down until decades after his death. The earliest Christians argued, debated, fought, and differed. In all logic and reason, how can we say who is 100% correct and 100% wrong?

So much stuff in mainstream Christianity is easily proven false, so how can we be 100% sure of anything? Very quick examples (please research):

• When is the Sabbath? Why worship on Sunday? Where did this custom start? Hint... paganism.

• When is Jesus' birthday? How/Why was December 25 chosen? Hint.... paganism.

Simple, simple, simple aspects like this came from Roman paganism.

Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by adjensen

 

Sure Jesus wouldn't be mad at every single church leader. But I believe he would be mad at many/most. Just as Muhammad would be mad at many/most of his followers. Jesus and Muhammad taught that true believers would be few and far apart. Shouldn't this be a warning against mainstream churches/beliefs that are heavily popular?

No. Truth be told, if there is a failing in mainstream Christianity today, it is that few people who are called Christians even understand Christ's teachings, much less make an effort to follow them.

Have you forgotten from one our previous discussions a fact that holds true today as it did in the earliest beginnings of Christianity? This being that not all followers of Jesus count him as God, nor the Son of God, nor a Trinity. I remember you saying that you MUST accept the divinity of Christ to be a true Christian. But there were in the beginning, and there are today Christians that differ on Jesus' status.

Sorry, I argue with a lot of people, can't remember them all :-)

The nature of Christ is what it is. Arguing about it doesn't change it, but for those who are interested in theology, like myself, it is an interesting area to explore. Need one believe Christ to be God to be granted salvation? Probably not, as the statement made is that we are saved through grace, and belief that Christ died and was resurrected to atone for all sin. The nuts and bolts of that is where theology comes in, and, theologically, Christ MUST be God, but, like I said, if that's the only thing one doesn't accept, it doesn't seem like it would matter.

What you are doing is nothing new. Your early church leaders had more power than the other sects, so they announced they are true Christians and others were not. Today you are saying one must believe in the Trinity or are not a true Christian.

Theologically, yes, that is what makes us Christians. Followers of Christ need not be Christian, though -- as an example, it can be argued that Gandhi was a follower of Christ, though he was not a Christian.

But I assure you non-trinitarian Christians read the same Bible as you, follow Jesus's words literally, and pray to God. So are they going to hell?

As noted above, if they do, I doubt that it would be as a result of their beliefs in the nature of Christ.

• When is the Sabbath? Why worship on Sunday? Where did this custom start? Hint... paganism.

Actually, I suspect that it was more of an effort to accentuate the point that Christians were not Jews, even the Jewish Christians. The point of Sabbath is spending time with God. Which day of the week that occurs on is probably not as important as some would like to believe.

• When is Jesus' birthday? How/Why was December 25 chosen? Hint.... paganism.

Meh. Believing that Jesus was born on 25 December is a fairly immature position, akin to seeing God as a old white guy with a beard sitting on a cloud. Christmas is the festival celebrating the coming of the Christ, not his birthday party. The early church had no idea when he was born (I've heard March, but I don't remember what that is based on,) so they figured that they might as well make the date align with existing celebrations, since it's easier to get someone to give something up (pagan celebration of Winter Solstice) when you're giving them something to replace it with. That's just good sense.

reply to post by adjensen


adjensen, I enjoy speaking with you when we do, and I enjoy reading your posts in other threads. I take you as a kind and nice person. I don't want to continue this debate with you, because I see we both think differently, and we both are not going to change each other. I would like to stop here and leave you with my sincere acceptant indifference of your beliefs. "To you be your path and to me be mine."

I've always told myself that even though I left Christianity for my own understandings and reasons, I never wanted to kill anyone else's faith, especially if I can not offer them Peace of heart in return. I keep falling into the Christian debates even though I always tell myself not to, but right now I am mindful of my oath. I am happy you are strong in faith to have not let my petty arguments shake you.

I wish you nothing but Peace and success in this life as well as the hereafter.

Originally posted by Sahabi
I wish you nothing but Peace and success in this life as well as the hereafter.

And I, you. Our path though this aspect of existence is often viewed as a spiritual journey, and everyone's path is different, but that doesn't mean that they can't have a shared destination. I am a Christian apologist with an interest in theology, not an evangelist, so I'm interested in talking to others about their faith and mine, but I'm not keen on changing anyone's mind.

One's particular path is between them and God, it is not for me (or anyone) to judge, or to walk.