Understanding Christianity - Questions for Christians

Jarod said:
I am a big picture Christian. I don't think Christ was bothered much about premarital sex, or taking the lords name in vain kinda stuff. Christ was concerned about how we treat others and how we understand ourselves.
Click to expand...

Having read the bible a number of times, I'd actually agree with this.

Jarod said:
Primarily Christ came to provide a bridge between humans and God, a way of accessing truth and spiritual deliverance without the need of a priest or what has become the "Church". It can be boiled down to the idea that while we are all human and thus make mistakes, we can access spiritual everlasting life even if you chose to live outside the governmental, societal, or even religious structure of the time.
Click to expand...

I suppose Celticguy is the one who really got to the crux of the issue by saying, "Perhaps you should first sort out why he is or is not the Messiah."

Perhaps this should have been my starting point all along, as he suggested.

So far as I am concerned, Jesus was simply not the Christ. He did not fit the prophecy of the Messiah in just about any way, and that means that while he may have been (and I think likely was) a real, historical person, I do not believe he was the son or representative of God.

I think Jesus was someone who wanted to have us all treat each other decently, to take care of each other and to enjoy peace and prosperity. In that regard, Jesus was laying on hippie stuff real heavily (and there's nothing wrong with that - anyone who says, "love each other, be kind to each other, help each other" is a BAD idea is a fairly poor example of a human, in my estimation). But I don't think he was a divine being sent so that he could by his death redeem us all from sin (which also doesn't make sense to me, but I'll save that for another time).

And maybe that means I should consider changing multiple ones into a single one, which at this time I'm debating doing (debating it, because it would be sure to turn the flames in this thread on high, and that is not my intent).
 
Stelakh said:
It doesn't really matter what I see as much as it does that the Messiah as foretold is not the same person as Jesus. The requirement of being a Scion of David isn't something I came up with, it's what was written, as is the idea that the Messiah will bring about a change that ends the oppression and persecution of the Jews.

If you are pious and righteous (and as I mentioned in my opening post, I'm a "bad Jew", because frankly the whole prohibition against bacon is ), then you live your life according to the Law. Is there free will within the confines of the Law? Good question. I'd say that if you're going to be an adherent to a strict set of codes it limits your free will.

But whether or not everyone sees it that way is up to them. Some people may say they're expressing their free will by adhering to the Law. I suppose that's as fair a statement as anything else, at least to the person that makes it.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a theme of 'lost in translation' surrounding the question of is he or not.
If one believes that true understanding of scripture is going to involve divine guidance as opposed to reading a lot then there exists the chance of some one exersizing free will on not accepting guidance. (Not saying this happened or not purely hypothetical.)
Given that this debate (if it can be called that) has been underway for a long time and between more learned people than me. Honestly I'm not seeing anything definitive in the argument. But that's just me.
It seems a bit like the evolution v intellegent design thing. I see zero conflict between the two. I'm fact I find they compliment themselves rather beautifully. (So everyone will hate me for that ! Hahahaha). Shoot, I also think the idea behind Chi blends in perfectly as well. I'm a freaking heretic !
Ok I've meandered enough.
 
Stelakh said:
Actually, if you would care to re-read the thread, it was postmodernprophet who went on the attack. Regardless of how you try to paint this, I think you'll find that I responded with fact to being called a liar by someone who was simply wrong.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you think so.....the fact remains you started this thread under the claim you wanted to discuss what Christianity believes........however, you have chosen to ignore what Christianity believes in doing so......that is a strange tactic.......

what religion is this that you have chosen to discuss instead?.......
 
The Old Testament....

The Bible was not written in one specific year or in a single location. The Bible is a collection of writings, and the earliest ones were set down nearly 3500 years ago. So let's start at the beginning of this fascinating story.

The first five books of the Bible are attributed to Moses and are commonly called the Pentateuch (literally "five scrolls").
Moses lived between 1500 and 1300 BC, though he recounts events in the first eleven chapters of the Bible that occurred long before his time (such as the creation and the flood).
These earliest accounts were handed on from generation to generation in songs, narratives, and poetry.
In those early societies there was no writing as yet and people passed on these oral accounts with great detail and accuracy.
The earliest writing began when symbols were scratched or pressed on clay tablets. The Egyptians refined this technique and developed an early form of writing known as hieroglyphics. The Bible tells us that Moses was "educated in all the learning of the Egyptians", so he would have been familiar with the major writing systems of his time. We also read that God gave Moses "two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God"(Exodus 31:18). All this leads to the conclusion that the earliest writings in the Bible were set down around 1400 BC.
The writings of the thirty or so other contributors to the Old Testament span a thousand years! They recount the times and messages from Moses' successor, Joshua, to the last of the Old Testament prophets, Malachi, who wrote his little tract around 450 BC.
Then there is a 500-year period when no writings were contributed to the Bible. This is the period between the testaments, when Alexander the Great conquered much of the world and when the Greek language was introduced to the Hebrews. Indeed, they began to use Greek so much that the Hebrew language was replaced by Greek and by another language, Aramaic, which was spoken all over that area of the world at that time.


Why is it even considered a part of the "Christian" Bible....These scrolls and other writings were the beliefs, customs, and myths of men long before Christ appeared.....
 
Stelakh said:
I grew up in a dual-faith household. My father was Jewish and my mother was Methodist. As a child I attended both Methodist church services and Jewish temple services. We celebrated both Christian and Jewish holidays.

Our parents, with a great deal of foresight, permitted us to find our own path to faith, and that meant that my twin brother was atheist, my older brother Christian, my sister (my hippie sister who is quite possibly the most giving, honest and decent person I could ever hope to meet) is Pagan, and I identify as Jewish (although I'm a "bad Jew").

One of the reasons I decided that Christianity wasn't for me was, honestly, Christians themselves.

I've read the bible cover-to-cover many times. It has in it hope and love, peace and acceptance, joy and salvation.

And then it has some other things. Magic and sorcery, war and violence, murder and rape, misogyny and bigotry, hatred and vengeance, incest and sex.

Now, the bible in its entirety is supposed to be the word of God - directly given to humans who wrote it down. And it's a done deal. We're not adding new bits here and there (unless you count the myriad books of the bible that the Church of antiquity threw out because they didn't mesh with their views; or the Mormons).

Today, the bible is viewed as "the whole of the thing." So I have some direct questions to ask Christians about their views of the bible.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I am asking these questions in the honest attempt to get my mind around what today's Christianity actually is, versus what I see in my head that it should be based on my own reading of the bible.

I'll break the questions out to make it easier to quote when answering (and no doubt there will be other questions popping up).

Is the bible in fact the hard-coded word of God that must be followed in full?

If the answer to the above question is "Yes," then why is it that only bits and pieces of the bible are followed and not all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws?

Why is it okay to move the Sabbath to Sunday when it's clearly defined as Saturday in the bible?

Does failure to follow all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws of the Old Testament condemn Christians to hell?
Click to expand...

No, did you read the New Testament?

I kind of wince when people claim the bible is 'the hard coded word of God' that needs to be taken literally to a T. There's a lot of metaphor, allegory and historical accounts in both testaments. There's still no consensus on how the first chapters of Genesis should be interpreted or if they should be interpreted literally.

What was intended to be interpreted literally are the Gospel accounts: Christ literally died on the cross and literally rose from the dead. Jesus literally raised Lazarus and etc.

Where the bible differs from the Koran is the violence occured in a historical context: for example, the command to David to smite the Philistines meant just that, and was limited to David smiting the Philitines for a singular purpose at a single point in time.

In contrast, some parts of the Koran call for the open-ended slaying of infidels. Philistines no longer exist but there are plenty of infidels still around.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
No, did you read the New Testament?

I kind of wince when people claim the bible is 'the hard coded word of God' that needs to be taken literally to a T. There's a lot of metaphor, allegory and historical accounts in both testaments. There's still no consensus on how the first chapters of Genesis should be interpreted or if they should be interpreted literally.

What was intended to be interpreted literally are the Gospel accounts: Christ literally died on the cross and literally rose from the dead. Jesus literally raised Lazarus and etc.

Where the bible differs from the Koran is the violence occured in a historical context: for example, the command to David to smite the Philistines meant just that, and was limited to David smiting the Philitines for a singular purpose at a single point in time.

In contrast, some parts of the Koran call for the open-ended slaying of infidels. Philistines no longer exist but there are plenty of infidels still around.
Click to expand...

I am well aware that the bible is not the "hard coded word of God," and asked the question in that format because I am trying to understand what it is when Christians (especially fundamentalists and/or evangelicals) say that they believe the bible is the word of God.

As leaningright said on the first page of this thread, many Christians believe that the bible is, "the infallible word of God". What I want to know is if they count the entire bible as such.

Allegory and metaphor are not alien to me, but for those who seem to believe that the bible is, in fact, "the infallible word of God," the allegorical nature of the bible seems to be lost. This is what I'm trying to understand.

Looking at it from a logical perspective, for example, there is absolutely no way that we would have had a viable human species from Adam, Eve, and their two sons. None. But there are people out there who will tell you that the story of Adam and Eve (which is clearly allegorical) is in fact 100% accurate and that we all stem from 3 men and one woman (which also means they're not actually familiar with the story because there was more to it than that).

It is this aspect, the belief of something as absolute fact when it simply could not be that I am trying to understand. It baffles me as to how that works.

Then there's the question of the Messiah, which came into the thread thanks to Celticguy, who quite rightly said, "Unfortunately that would have to serve, at least hypothetically, as the starting point. Perhaps you should first sort out why he is or is not the Messiah."

Things kind of took a turn, there, because I suppose the validity of the New Testament hinges on whether or not Jesus was, in fact, the Messiah. As I have already stated, I don't believe he was because the Messiah foretold and Jesus don't match in just about any aspect.
 
NOVA said:
Why is it even considered a part of the "Christian" Bible....These scrolls and other writings were the beliefs, customs, and myths of men long before Christ appeared.....
Click to expand...
Jesus was a Jew not Christian. There is a rather obvious connection IMO.
By the way, there is no way of knowing the accuracy/consistancy of the oral passage.
I believe it was reasonably so but that's belief not knowledge.
I can see why jews may think it odd as they don't see Jesus as Christians do.
 
Stelakh said:
I grew up in a dual-faith household. My father was Jewish and my mother was Methodist. As a child I attended both Methodist church services and Jewish temple services. We celebrated both Christian and Jewish holidays.

Our parents, with a great deal of foresight, permitted us to find our own path to faith, and that meant that my twin brother was atheist, my older brother Christian, my sister (my hippie sister who is quite possibly the most giving, honest and decent person I could ever hope to meet) is Pagan, and I identify as Jewish (although I'm a "bad Jew").

One of the reasons I decided that Christianity wasn't for me was, honestly, Christians themselves.

I've read the bible cover-to-cover many times. It has in it hope and love, peace and acceptance, joy and salvation.

And then it has some other things. Magic and sorcery, war and violence, murder and rape, misogyny and bigotry, hatred and vengeance, incest and sex.

Now, the bible in its entirety is supposed to be the word of God - directly given to humans who wrote it down. And it's a done deal. We're not adding new bits here and there (unless you count the myriad books of the bible that the Church of antiquity threw out because they didn't mesh with their views; or the Mormons).

Today, the bible is viewed as "the whole of the thing." So I have some direct questions to ask Christians about their views of the bible.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I am asking these questions in the honest attempt to get my mind around what today's Christianity actually is, versus what I see in my head that it should be based on my own reading of the bible.

I'll break the questions out to make it easier to quote when answering (and no doubt there will be other questions popping up).

Is the bible in fact the hard-coded word of God that must be followed in full?

If the answer to the above question is "Yes," then why is it that only bits and pieces of the bible are followed and not all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws?

Why is it okay to move the Sabbath to Sunday when it's clearly defined as Saturday in the bible?

Does failure to follow all of the Levitical and Mosaic laws of the Old Testament condemn Christians to hell?
Click to expand...

Since you have to ask the question about why aren't the Levitical and Mosiac laws not followed, it shows your supposed reading of the Bible produced absolutely nothing in the way of understanding. If you had read it as many times as you claim, you wouldn't have to ask such a question. The Bible would have answered it for you.

Clearly on Saturday? To YOU?

As far as your last question, same thing as the first question applies. If you've read it so many times, one would think you would have that answer. Jesus was clear as to what it took to reach heaven. There is a book in the Bible with the name of John. It's the fourth book in the NT. Try reading chapter 14. It says how one reaches the Father and it's through Jesus. Jesus didn't say by following a set of procedures on how you were to cook your food, cut your hair, wear your clothes, etc.

I would have thought someone claiming to have read it would know something about it. Apparently you don't.
 
CFM said:
Since you have to ask the question about why aren't the Levitical and Mosiac laws not followed, it shows your supposed reading of the Bible produced absolutely nothing in the way of understanding. If you had read it as many times as you claim, you wouldn't have to ask such a question. The Bible would have answered it for you.

Clearly on Saturday? To YOU?

As far as your last question, same thing as the first question applies. If you've read it so many times, one would think you would have that answer. Jesus was clear as to what it took to reach heaven. There is a book in the Bible with the name of John. It's the fourth book in the NT. Try reading chapter 14. It says how one reaches the Father and it's through Jesus. Jesus didn't say by following a set of procedures on how you were to cook your food, cut your hair, wear your clothes, etc.

I would have thought someone claiming to have read it would know something about it. Apparently you don't.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the only thing the bible answered is that no, Jesus didn't "fulfill" any laws because he's not the Messiah. So the laws are still in effect.

Yes, clearly on Saturday, because it's actually in the bible.

Oh, and you reference John.

Look, the "gospels" don't agree with each other, they're full of inter-book contradictions (do I need to get into the whole geneaology of Jesus thing and run on from there?). And then there's John.

John contradicts HIMSELF in his own "gospel." So yeah, I know something about it.
 
Rana said:
i believe that The message of Jesus is different from that of Paul. I think the author of Matthew and Paul would have had quite a debate and as we witness here, the debate continues.
Click to expand...

The Jesus we know was created by Paul, rejected by the Jews and spread among the gentiles.
 
Jarod said:
I am a big picture Christian. I don't think Christ was bothered much about premarital sex, or taking the lords name in vain kinda stuff. Christ was concerned about how we treat others and how we understand ourselves.

Primarily Christ came to provide a bridge between humans and God, a way of accessing truth and spiritual deliverance without the need of a priest or what has become the "Church". It can be boiled down to the idea that while we are all human and thus make mistakes, we can access spiritual everlasting life even if you chose to live outside the governmental, societal, or even religious structure of the time.
Click to expand...


Are you saying that people can reach heaven even if they don't follow the teachings of Christ?

Big picture Christian? One of those that has perverted the teachings of Christ to what you want it to be. Got it.
 
Stelakh said:
The problem is that the only thing the bible answered is that no, Jesus didn't "fulfill" any laws because he's not the Messiah. So the laws are still in effect.

Yes, clearly on Saturday, because it's actually in the bible.

Oh, and you reference John.

Look, the "gospels" don't agree with each other, they're full of inter-book contradictions (do I need to get into the whole geneaology of Jesus thing and run on from there?). And then there's John.

John contradicts HIMSELF in his own "gospel." So yeah, I know something about it.
Click to expand...

You know nothing. You claim to know but, as usual, you're wrong. If you claim Jesus isn't the Messiah, you would again be wrong. Just another non-Christian trying to claim you know something for which you have no clue.
 
The early Church took over the Old Testament because it contained (not very convincing) 'prophecies' to attract other Jews, and a lot of daft folklore got itself contained in the Gospels. We should read the Gospels and Acts with attention to the currently relevant bits, especially the primitive socialism recommended, and what Jesus is quoted as saying about human relationships in general, leaving Paul and the other epistles to historians and God-botherers, all the rest to whoever it may concern
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top