It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WANTED 1 intelligent educated Christian to answer some questions on faith

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Nope, it says Jesus was a Jew and His followers are Christians. His followers are not Jews or adherents to Judaism.....unless they are a Messianic Jew.




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by paranoiduser
reply to post by Akragon
 


One more reply, I missed addressing this is my previous reply.

You say Jesus did not start Christianity, who did?


His followers did, most likely paul considering be wrote a good portion of what is in the bible.

Besides they mucked it up... so few churches preach the truth of his teachings. They preach hell and being saved through his word, though most don't even understand his teachings.

Damn lucky thing we're all "saved" regardless of your knowledge of him




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by kallisti36
 


Cheers dude,

I appreciate you not getting worked up or offended while Ive had to let out the claws a little bit with your friend who just wont give up (but good on him, persistance is an awesome quality)

Im not actually an Atheist I do believe in God or as I like to call it/him/her "The Universal Consciousness" its organised religion with all its lies and blatant BS and manipulation that bothers me.

Despite what everyone has thought of me the purpose of the thread wasnt to make christians look bad (most of them do a good enough job of that themselves) but rather to see what intelligent believers like yourself made of the inconsistancies and contradictions that keep me from being a member.
Considering the subject matter and the type of people who were likely to view this thread I probably shoulda been more careful with my words, That said Ive had an absolute ball with the Fugnorant guy (even made a new word up) and the answers Ive received have been enlightening.

I have many more questions for you but If you dont mind I would prefer to post in a couple of days when this thread has gone cold as I dont want to offend people and get more hate mail LOL
Due to your level of knowledge you are alot more prepared and secure with your faith than most on this site to not be upset by it.

I hope this clears up that this thread was designed to deny ignorance as opposed to spread bigotry or negativity.

Cheers again



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by paranoiduser
reply to post by Akragon
 


Nope, it says Jesus was a Jew and His followers are Christians. His followers are not Jews or adherents to Judaism.....unless they are a Messianic Jew.


Perhaps you could show me this passage where it says this?




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Sure, would you like the passage that refers to His followers being called Christians or some context pointing to His Jewishness? Keep in mind I am not saying Jesus was an adherent to Judaismm rather He was a Jew.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by paranoiduser
 


Yes please, show me where they were called Christians




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Acts 11:26,they were called Christians.

Luke 22:15 provides some context in which Jesus was celebrating the Passover with His disciples. Only Jews celebrate the Old Testament feasts.

Hope this helps.....



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by paranoiduser
reply to post by Akragon
 


Acts 11:26,they were called Christians.

Luke 22:15 provides some context in which Jesus was celebrating the Passover with His disciples. Only Jews celebrate the Old Testament feasts.

Hope this helps.....


Right so again we return to who created Christianity... Apparently the author of Acts is thought to be luke, who was discribed as a follower of Paul.

As far as i've read Paul had no real contact with Christ, his thoughts were through "divine revelation"

So the actual creator of christianity wasn't Christ, nor was it anyone that had real contact with him




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


I am missing the logic in your argument. Paul did have an encounter with Jesus, he fell of his horse, blinded, etc....Jesus did not tell His followers to call themselves Christians, they were called Christians because of their beliefs in the person Jesus. Jesus was the founder of Christianity not in the sense that He was proclaiming "I am a Christian follow me", rather in the sense that His believers were called Christians. Just like a player on the Oakland Raiders is a Raider but not becasue they were a pirate.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by paranoiduser
reply to post by Akragon
 


I am missing the logic in your argument. Paul did have an encounter with Jesus, he fell of his horse, blinded, etc....Jesus did not tell His followers to call themselves Christians, they were called Christians because of their beliefs in the person Jesus. Jesus was the founder of Christianity not in the sense that He was proclaiming "I am a Christian follow me", rather in the sense that His believers were called Christians. Just like a player on the Oakland Raiders is a Raider but not becasue they were a pirate.


Yes i know he had a brief encounter with him.

What im trying to say is, the original teachings of Christ were "likely" corrupted. Which is one of the reasons why what we know as "christianity" today is a mess compared to what was taught by him.

Yes Jesus's teachings were supposed to be the basis of Christianity, but in reality they're not. Many who proclaim themselves as "christian" have no clue of the lessons in the book. They go to church, and get the bible preached to them, which for the most part is useless if the pastor/ minister or what have you, does not understand the messages.

In many cases they might as well be preaching The hobbit or Star wars, at least it would be entertaining to listen to




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


Looking forward to it.

I've been around the block with most of your questions anyway. I've dealt with the claims of anti-theists, raging fundies who think I'm going to hell, satanists, gnostics, astro-theologists, theosophists, and a ton of Raelian-ish types who think Zechariah Sichin's sensationalist theories are "gospel" so to speak.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 



p.s I am genuinely finding this amusing but your coming across a tad agitated, maybe you should take a break?


Sorry, I get a little perturbed at raging stubborn idiocy. It's something the Holy Spirit is working on me with, but I'll admit here to you and all others that I'm not fully sanctified in that area yet. I'm trying to be patient with fools, I really am. As far as Nicea goes, you're ignorant to history, even unbelievers in this thread/page are telling you that you're in error about Nicea. I don't really care if you admit or not that you're wrong, the other people reading this exchange are learning something. I'm sure none of them will make the error of claiming the canon of scripture was determined at Nicea in 325.

And claiming that the pro-Christian websites are "biased" and therefore untrustworthy you are committing the "Special Pleading" fallacy. See:



Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she/he has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.


Because the information you give weight to is biased against Christianity. In fact, ALL information has bias, the idea about "unbiased" information is a figment of the imagination.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



Yes i know he had a brief encounter with him.


You're forgetting in Galatians Paul said he learned directly from the Lord Jesus for 3 years while he was in Arabia. He also says he went to Jerusalem to confer with the other apostles to see if he had been teaching/preaching in vain a different gospel than they were. And in 2 Peter, Peter says Paul's teaching, while hard to be understood, is on par with the other scriptures, as well as calling Paul a "beloved brother" in Christ.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Interesting...

Could you give me the passage so i don't have to read all three chapters?

Though i'll probably end up reading them all anyways, just for fun




posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by Beavers
 


LMAO

cheers for the honest and blunt replies.

I respect that you are confident enough with your faith to not feel I was attacking you or being a troll even if I dont agree with you.

Not exactly what I was expecting but this in my book counts as an intelligent response.

The man is unimportant the message should be the focus.

Much respect, star for you


thankyouplease x



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Interesting...

Could you give me the passage so i don't have to read all three chapters?

Though i'll probably end up reading them all anyways, just for fun



I'd read all 3 anyways, it's a hilarious letter. Paul is upset that the Galatians have bowed the knee to the demands of the Judaizers who said the Christians needed to become Jews first, (circumcision), then Christians. Paul is explaining that it's just about Jesus, that Jesus + anything is a false doctrine.

My favorite verse is where Paul says that if these Judaizers are claiming that circumcision makes them more holy then they should cut the entire thing off and be really holy.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
How did Jesus get a hispanic name in Iran?

Do the peoples in this region use the names of John, Peter, Mary, Paul, Jesus to this day?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

1) without getting to deep yep thats what the council basically did, but the really sad part is they destroyed eveery non approved text they could
so much of jesus life and teaching gone, all were really left with is an incomplete shell. I accept he was a great man but I do deny his divinity and think its sad people need him to be divine in order to accept his message.

Actually, at one time I thought this was true myself. I thought that the reason Enoch wasn't in the Bible is because they burned them, because it exposed the truth of the fallen angels and their bloodline. As it turns out, many of those books just didn't have the same credibility as other texts or simply fell out of circulation (like Enoch, which was actually preserved by the Ethiopian Orthodox). Some texts were considered perfectly Orthodox and good for teaching, but were considered too questionable to be totally established as scripture such as the Didache and the Shepard of Hermas. The four traditional gospels have many early Church Fathers supporting them very early on, such as St. Ignatius of Antioch (35-117) and Polycarp (69 – 155), both of whom studied under John the apostle and likely learned under Peter as well. Other texts such as Thomas (which many people erroneously think is a purer gospel because it is only a collection of sayings and lacks the refinement of the other gospels) pop up centuries later, mostly in Syria which was the home of many early Christian heresies like Manichaeism and Nestorianism. Thomas can easily be exposed as a late Syrian gnostic text, because when it is translated into Syrian, a memnonic rythym pops up that can also be found in the Syriac Gospel Harmony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John known as the Diatessaron (mid second century). The Gnostics and Syrians were notorious for writing biblical fan fiction, none of which are supported by the Early Church Fathers of Apostollic succession. The canon was established so that spurious books wouldn't sneak into use. In fact, the first canon was promoted by Marcion who completely separated the OT and NT, because he thought the God of the Israelites was evil and not the Father of Christ. He used a number of spurious books and a heavily edited version of Luke and told his followers to read nothing else. So the Church Fathers worked out a Canon to quarantine the inspired books from myths and strange gnostic doctrines.


2) There are literally hundreds but Ive heard all the rebuttles (translation wrong, scribe made a mistake etc etc) except for one that is indisputable and have never heard any explantion for. Jesus last words... You would think someone as important as the messiah/son of god they may have been able to get that right. Check your bible dude, Its kinda freaky when you realise it.

The Bible is not a Koran, it did not drop out of the sky written by God. Quotations at the time did not have to be word for word, they just had to contain the main idea. Regardless, not including some information is not the same as a contradiction. If I have a 5, 10, and 20 dollar bill and you ask me, "Do you have 5?" and I say yes, "Do you have 10", yes, "Do you have 20?" yes, "Do you have 35?" yes, was I contradicting what was true? Now, if you ask me, "Do you only have 5" and I say yes, "Do you only have 20?" and I say yes, then I am contradicting myself. So when one Gospel contains some words of Yeshuah on the cross that others don't have, they aren't contradicting each other unless they say, "Yeshuah said this and only this on the cross". Perhaps he said everything in the gospels or maybe the apostles gave the gist. Another thought I've entertained at times is that it would be perfectly within his power to speak and give three different lessons to three different people, but that's just me being facesious.


3) Cool so you didnt just stick with what someone told you, you used some initiative and found something that fit more into your belief system. Much respect (at least thats what I thibk your saying, I have no idea what those denominations mean or there differences LOL

I take issue with this line of thought. Not believing in empirical truth is the beginning of nihilism which is incompatible with God. It also means compromising God to meet your expectations which I find to be a gross inversion of faith. In becoming Orthodox, I actually had to change my beliefs and concepts so that they matched the historic Church and the Fathers. I had to stop justifying my hedonism, change my view of sin, and develop a stronger sense of humility (not that I was super egotistical, most people could simply be humbler). It was pretty darn hard and demanding.


5) Im not to sure on that one, most christians are good people,

Or at least try to be. Thank you for your fairness.


I think he would be absolutely mortified with the Vatican though. He went into a rage at the money lenders outside the temple, I reckon hed go fricken bat crazy Hulk mad with all the vatican bank and accumulation of wealth that happened in his name.

No argument whatsoever here. Rome is clearly the Harlot Church, spiritual successor of Babylon, clothed in scarlet and fine linen in Revelations.

edit on 16-5-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

I see alot of religious threads on the site and alot more threads that have nothing to do with religion and yet still have posts by people preaching in them and its very rare any of it will be what I would call intelligent. There has been a proven link between intelligence/education and a lack of religious belief, basically the smarter you are the less religious you are.


I disagree, many higly intelligent people had faith in God:

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God is essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."



I fully believe organised religion is merely an "opiate for the masses" and MOST (not all) people who are religious are either Loopy, Dumb ( IQ quite low) or merely ignorant.

Now I know alot of people who attend church and will call themselves christian if anyone asks but I know either by asking or just observing that they arent true believers, Like the vast majority of the population they are "Culturally" christian i.e follow the holidays, espouse that general worldview, know the history/mythology of it all etc etc

What I want to do is hear from an intelligent educated christian there thoughts on the blatant contradictions and even lies that are in the bible and also put out there by the church itself.


I have been asked to join Mensa, but I declined and I also have continued my education well past school. I am a member of the Golden Key Honour Society because of my academic achievement, so I hope I qualify as an intelligent, educated Christian.

By the way, I am a "born-again" type Protestant Christian with Charismatic leanings, just so you know (There are many "flavours" and "intensities" of Christian experience just as there is great diversity in all people).

I have a book called "Alledged Discrepancies in the Bible", which is as thick as my Bible (ie: a lot of content) and I often use it as an aid when I am reading the Bible. Often, because of the vagaries of language confusion can arise to the true meaning. By looking at these alledged discrepancies you can usually see that it is a misunderstanding of, or mistranslation of wording and there is no real discrepancy.


I have a ton of questions and also what I think are some answers but I would like to hear from a few of you before I put my 2 cents in. So to get started

1) have you heard of the council of Nicea? what do you think of it?


Yes, during the early years of the Church, several heresies arose and were spreading, despite the attempts by Christians to explain the truth from the original and venerated documents. Also during this time, a trade in fake relics and texts (targums) was becoming a problem. The Nicean council was an attempt to put up a unified face against these heresies and fakes and to identify books and letters that had no shadow of doubt about their authenticity. Books and letters that did not have this degree of surety were not removed, but were classified as Apocryphal.


2) How do you rationalise the contradictions in the bible?


I haven't actually found any.


3) how old were you when you were indoctrinated or did you find God on your own? if so what brought him/her into your life?


I was brought up in a Christian household and made a commitment to Christ when I was eight, however it wasn't until I was 23 that I re-evaluated myself and became truly committed to follow "the Way".


4)what do you think of the Vatican?


Nice bit of architecture. With my Protestant background, I am not really hooked in to the whole Catholic bit but I do know many deeply religious and true Christians who are Catholic.


5) what do you think Jesus would say about the state of christianity if he were around today?


I know that exactly! Read from Revelation 1:9 to 3:21 (here's an online version). The different "churches" in this passage could be seen to be phases that the Church has gone through historically, as well as being churches in specific locations a millennia ago.


OK that should get us started

This is not a thread designed to attack anyone or their beliefs (I may have come across a tad harsh but its my honest opinion and would never hold anyones beliefs against them) so please no nasty comments from non believers and no christians jumping in and saying its all a matter of faith etc etc
Im looking for intelligent answers here

Cheers


In summary, I feel that there is too much "baggage" in discussion of Christianity (on both sides). The truth is, it is between Christ and yourself or otherwise what you think is Christianity is just a social club.

We need to remove the ismISTs, ismISM and ANITY's to get to the real truth, which ultimately is personal, not corporate.

May God bless your path.

edit on 16/5/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Galatians 1 and 2, the ESV version is the best IMHO



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join