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.

 

Why is it "so" important for Christians to confess Jesus as their Lord?

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 

They were already used to have a Pantheon of Gods comprised of "Fathers" and "Sons" etc. so it was easy for him and his disciples - they just had so switch the names - so that a pagan (roman) God became God the Father, and his son became Jesus.

Oh really?
Would you know who those gods are exactly?




posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 

They were already used to have a Pantheon of Gods comprised of "Fathers" and "Sons" etc. so it was easy for him and his disciples - they just had so switch the names - so that a pagan (roman) God became God the Father, and his son became Jesus.

Oh really?
Would you know who those gods are exactly?


Have you not learned that in school?

You will probably (as you do with every forum poster here apparently) now ask from me to provide you with "documents" about them.

There are a lot actually.

I cannot "bring" you the documents. I would have to steal some of them. And I won't.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 

Have you not learned that in school?

I can only guess that I went to a completely different sort of school than what you went to.
I went to American public school in the sixties in Southern California, where religion was not taught.

I recently got a book about Mithras and Christianity and even it can not make a direct link to Jesus from a "pagan" god.
edit on 2-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 

Have you not learned that in school?

I can only guess that I went to a completely different sort of school than what you went to.
I went to American public school in the sixties in Southern California, where religion was not taught.


If you learned history and the Roman Empire, you could have not skipped the part about Roman Gods, the Pantheon, etc.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 

Have you not learned that in school?

I can only guess that I went to a completely different sort of school than what you went to.
I went to American public school in the sixties in Southern California, where religion was not taught.


If you learned history and the Roman Empire, you could have not skipped the part about Roman Gods, the Pantheon, etc.
As a matter of fact I am currently in the midst of a personal inquiry (at some expense, as far as books and how they cost money to buy) into this very topic and so the skepticism on my part.

For example, one book that I recently purchased: Gospel of Matthew in its Roman Imperial Context (Library Of New Testament Studies)" John K. Riches
Amazon
Normally sells for $72, and if you are lucky, you can find used copies for considerably less, but when you buy a few of these academical type books at premium prices, your bill adds up pretty fast.
edit on 2-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 

Have you not learned that in school?

I can only guess that I went to a completely different sort of school than what you went to.
I went to American public school in the sixties in Southern California, where religion was not taught.


If you learned history and the Roman Empire, you could have not skipped the part about Roman Gods, the Pantheon, etc.
As a matter of fact I am currently in the midst of a personal inquiry (at some expense, as far as books and how they cost money to buy) into this very topic and so the skepticism on my part.


I really thought it's common Knowledge - just like it is the case with "Greek" (actually Pelasgian/Illyrian) Gods, like Zeus and Hera, etc.
The equivalent of those were in the Roman Empire The "main" God (Father) Jupiter and then other Gods which were his sons and daughters, etc.

Thus my premise that the gentiles in the roman empire were very familiar with concept of Gods having children and partners, etc.

THe problem was that they were utterly unfamiliar with the (jewish) concept of Jews calling themselves the "children of God" which was of course metaphorical (as in God is our Creator) - no Jew would have ever believed that God really had "begotten" Children - that would have been blasphemy.

But, when these concepts came to the Roman empire, to the gentiles - they understood that quite LITERALLY - thus Jesus being the "Son of God" meant for them LITERALLY the SON of God, as in biological/begotten Son.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 

THe problem was that they were utterly unfamiliar with the (jewish) concept of Jews calling themselves the "children of God" which was of course metaphorical (as in God is our Creator) - no Jew would have ever believed that God really had "begotten" Children - that would have been blasphemy.
Let me fill you in on a little known secret.
Hardly any Jews actually lived in Judea.
The vast majority of Jews lived in the diaspora, otherwise known as, the world.
So Judaism was not at all an unknown quantity.
edit on 2-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

First Council of Nicea

You are quoting a paragraph from Wikipedia.
I asked for documentation, as in, "Show me the documents".
What document verifies that this actually happened and that it is not just an urban legend?


Today you don't like Wikipedia? Interesting, you quoted and linked Wiki in a reply to me the day before yesterday. So today Wiki isn't reliable? Gotcha.




posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



If there was no possibility to ever end up in Hell, as in no humans will ever go to a place called Hell, why would anyone ever consider for belief in or not to believe in it?


The point I made is if a person doesn't believe in Jesus Christ then how can they have "fear" in something that individual created?

It'd be like saying:

"I don't believe in Santa Claus, he is not real but an imaginary figure. But I am terrified that I won't get any presents from him this year because I have been bad."


So, I've never said Hell was created for man, it wasn't. It was created for the devil and his angels. Men go there as a result of worshiping satan, either willfully or ignorantly.




edit on 2-1-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by sHuRuLuNi

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi
 

Have you not learned that in school?

I can only guess that I went to a completely different sort of school than what you went to.
I went to American public school in the sixties in Southern California, where religion was not taught.


If you learned history and the Roman Empire, you could have not skipped the part about Roman Gods, the Pantheon, etc.



But Christianity wasn't the official state religion of the Roman Empire until being made so by the 2nd successor to Constantine. Constantine merely legalized Christianity. So how did they (the Empire) influence the gospel accounts? If anything they could have influenced the Gnostic accounts which were penned between the 3rd - 4th century AD.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



If there was no possibility to ever end up in Hell, as in no humans will ever go to a place called Hell, why would anyone ever consider for belief in or not to believe in it?


The point I made is if a person doesn't believe in Jesus Christ then how can they have "fear" in something that individual created?


So, I've never said Hell was created for man, it wasn't. It was created for the devil and his angels. Men go there as a result of worshiping satan, either willfully or ignorantly.


I can't help but notice a contradiction in this statement. You first say that if a person doesn't believe in Jesus, then why should they "fear" going to Hell? Then you say the non-believer goes to Hell for worshipping Satan; willfully or ignorantely. How can a non-believer worship something s/he doesn't believe in and then go to Hell for it?


Maybe some clarification is needed, I don't know.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by novastrike81
 



I can't help but notice a contradiction in this statement. You first say that if a person doesn't believe in Jesus, then why should they "fear" going to Hell?


That was originally stated in a response to the claim that "people only accept Christ for fear of going to Hell." Which to me sounds absurd for the reason I stated with the example of santa claus.


Then you say the non-believer goes to Hell for worshipping Satan; willfully or ignorantely. How can a non-believer worship something s/he doesn't believe in and then go to Hell for it?


"Non-believer" as in a non-believer in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Jesus said that anyone who isn't helping to "gather" into His barn is "scattering" abroad. Or basically, any worship other that directed to the Living Savior is worship of satan by default.


Maybe some clarification is needed, I don't know.


I apologize for the earlier confusion.




edit on 2-1-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Awoken4Ever
reply to post by Frira
 



...will cause pews to empty in some churches-- or at least cause quite a bit of squirming.

Sadly, I understand very specifically what you mean in here as I am typing this....


I could be something as simple of this:
In some board room at some political party's think tank...
"We took a shellacking in the last election on FAMILY values and so I want us to change that and make it about CHRISTIAN values."

Certain nationally known preachers and certain influential Bible Belt academic institutions are consulted to under-gird each position statement of the party platform for the up-coming general election.

Money begins to flow both ways between political organization and its constituents and that non-specific church institution and its constituents-- and neither is prepared to ween itself from the other-- so the new relationship deepens every year.

From the view of the general public-- it looks like an ideology focused upon economic prosperity is THE SAME AS Christian fundamentalism. It is popular, patriotic, and in the Name of God-- and that translates into votes-- and votes translate into money-- and money is good for political campaigns and building churches-- both groups are happy with the relationship.

But there was no theology in it and no spirituality in it-- it is superficial, easy and self-justifying-- and that is its appeal. It fills pews. No one intended the political ideology and a Church movement to be married and so tightly bound, but it happened anyway.

Some theological student wrote about the details of how that came about-- of which I only give a thumbnail sketch, above. I wish I could find my copy of his research. But in 2011, for some, it is now very hard to separate the flag from the cross. Most of my life has been in the Bible Belt, but aside, not among, those changes-- I watched and I listened to it happen.

I am not political, so will add that the other major party has done much the same for decades, but at the local level-- I am not taking political sides, but I will (and must) take a theological one.




I am not the product of a church which emphasizes public declarations as a form of evangelizing. There is a very private component which is emphasized-- "work, prayer, and study" come to mind as a "rule of life" I have followed

I absolutely love this statement! Except, I would like to add to it "service and love" to the three words you have used.

Yes. "Prayer and Work" is the traditional rule of life used by the Benedictine Order. For a while, I studied among a Benedictine community and adopted the modified rule, which added "study." I just mentioned it as an example-- one that fit me and my life at the time-- and good habits are most hard to break.

"Poverty, Chastity and Obedience" are common religious vows taken by those in orders. Not surprisingly, Americans are not flocking to such orders.

But if you are not in community-- but out in the world-- "love and service" are critical.




A good teacher helps his pupils outgrow their teacher. There is no reason to be a evangelist. I think Jesus would have never wanted it to be that way, although many people perceive it that way because they can't hear, only read. When the student is ready, the teacher will appear....

...I hope many more appear.


Another perspective: I once brushed against a martyr-- an evangelical one and, briefly, my teacher.

I flew in to a city to attend a conference and arriving late sat in the very back of the packed room in the only seat left-- a window sill a man offered to share with me. At break, the man introduced himself-- an Anglican Bishop from Africa-- I do not recall his name now-- this was over two decades ago.

He told me that the reports in Africa about American Christianity startled them-- so much so that at a general church gathering the Africans discussed what part of the world was most ripe for being evangelized with the true Christian faith. He said the overwhelming response was the United States of America. He said, "You only think you are Christians; but the true faith costs you something and Americans don't want to pay-- they want easy."

He ended his work in the US and flew back to Africa a few months later. His own government set up a road block as he drove to the border from the airport-- and he was assassinated. He never knew an easy faith.

For about half an hour-- he was one my teachers. I'll not surpass him.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Awoken4Ever
 


You too have inspired me to complete a thought that has been in my head for quite some time. Amazing that God is at work through ATS. I actully thought that you and others might be able to use this post to help others who are struggling with the message. Feel free to use it however you like. Freely it was given to me freely I give it to you.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please I did not do this for Stars and Flags as I care little for them. For anyone who is intereasted in a philosophy of Christ that will make the bible more understandable, and has 5-10 min please check out this post.

With love your brother in Christ Jesus



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Gotcha.

So then you admit that there is no actual evidence that Arius was discussed at the Council of Nicaea.
If that is the case then I think it would be appropriate for you to stop making such a claim.
My conclusion being that anyone wanting to say the Bible was decided on at the Council of Nicaea has just as much right to say that as you do to make your claim the the council was about Arius.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

So, I've never said Hell was created for man, it wasn't. It was created for the devil and his angels. Men go there as a result of worshiping satan, either willfully or ignorantly.

So this is a philosophy you just invented, or is it something peculiar to your particular cult?
Hell is an invention of people's imagination, yet they could actually go there if they want, but then God will put you there, whether you like it or not? Is that what you are saying?
edit on 2-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

First Council of Nicea

You are quoting a paragraph from Wikipedia.
I asked for documentation, as in, "Show me the documents".
What document verifies that this actually happened and that it is not just an urban legend?


That is a bit like the arguments made by some regarding the moon landings-- the hoax believers must dismiss the detailed accounts found in correspondences and many documents contemporary to and following the historical event by the person participating at various levels. Far too many details for an urban legend-- or a hoax.

This is exactly what I had in mind when I said you and I do, sometimes, disagree-- and that disagreement is usually on history. Your version of the first four hundred years of the Church cannot be supported by period documents and requires belief in a huge conspiracy and thorough "cleansing" of the record. It is not proof that there is no truth to it-- but it fails on the Occam's Razor concept-- in requiring too many new theories which must first be proved... and probably cannot be.

I know you are embedded in that version of history, and I have no expectation of changing your mind-- but it is what it is from where I sit.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

So how did they (the Empire) influence the gospel accounts?

By the fact that there was a state religion of Rome, and being a religion, and the people involved in writing the New Testament lived in the Roman Empire.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

Gotcha.


So then you admit that there is no actual evidence that Arius was discussed at the Council of Nicaea.


No, where did I say that? Why do you persist in using straw man arguments against others when it's repeatedly been brought to your attention that that style of argumentation is not only disingenuous, but also a fallacy of deductive reasoning?


If that is the case then I think it would be appropriate for you to stop making such a claim.


I didn't, in this case Wikipedia made the claim. And my previous post I noted that the day before yesterday you used Wikipedia as the authoritative source in a reply to me, so my question is why Wiki is an authoritative source for information when you want it to be, but when you don't like what it says you dismiss it as unreliable source?

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.


My conclusion being that anyone wanting to say the Bible was decided on at the Council of Nicaea has just as much right to say that as you do to make your claim the the council was about Arius.


There is no evidence the books of the Bible were discussed at Nicea. There is however church historical documents and writings from early church fathers in attendance as to the discussions and the conclusions of the council of Nicea.

So the burden of proof falls on the people making the claim that the Biblical cannon was decided at Nicea. You cannot "prove" a negative.



edit on 2-1-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 

I know you are embedded in that version of history, and I have no expectation of changing your mind-- but it is what it is from where I sit.

Not sure what you are talking about in your general summary but in this specific case, it is something I came up with just recently, while responding to a thread "things you should know are true" where the original poster (Dantemustdie) was trying to dispel these theories by claiming he had original documents. When I looked into it I discovered there were none and never were any and what there was purported to be a copy of the original was obviously forged.
edit on 2-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join