What would YOU want to hear at church?
- Thread starter adopted
- Start date
Ah, woodchuck day! A lot of shoe repairs may be in order.
JoeCartoon: Groundhog Day - The Reckoning - YouTube
"If he were merely healer/priest/teacher, but not "The Son of God," then he was a horrible teacher and a liar, what with claiming to be the Son of God."
You have your belief that he was "THE Son of God", I do not share that belief. I think he was a healer/priest/teacher and probably more, but that's all. I at least won't call him a Liar or horrible teacher though.
So every prophecy said to people at the Oracle of Delphi was also true? Or does that get a No because they're from the Greek mythology? If so, you're cherry picking who can "prophecy" and who can't. According to myth, the Oracles gave true prophecies, just like according to your myth, the men who gave prophecy for your God. People confirmed them, legends were made of them. One is as legitimate as the other.
Or neither are.
If you equate the stuff your version of God has done as Justice, then you've got some REALLY screwed up sense of morality and justice. A lot of stuff your God has done, if it were done now, would be seen as criminal and punishable by death in some countries. You know, since mass murder is a bad, evil thing.
You're not getting the point though. It was voted on what was GOOD to be put to the Bible and what wasn't.
"Jesus was as eternally divine as the Father, said one camp led by the Archbishop Alexander of Alexandria. Another group, named the Arians after their leader Arius the preacher, saw Jesus as a remarkable leader, but inferior to the Father and lacking in absolute divinity.
Supporters on both sides scrawled graffiti on town walls in defiance while bishops from across the empire entered into a war of words as the controversy simmered to a head in 324.
Fearing unrest in his otherwise peaceful territory, Constantine summoned the bishops to his lake house in Nicea on June 19, 325.
Savvy move
In a savvy move that would put today's shrewd politicians to shame, the compromise proffered by Constantine was vague, but blandly pleasing: Jesus and God were of the same "substance," he suggested, without delving too much into the nature of that relationship. A majority of the bishops agreed on the compromise and voted to pass the language into doctrine.
Their statement of compromise, which would come to be known as "The Nicene Creed," formed the basis for Christian ideology. The bishops also used the Council of Nicea to set in stone some church rules that needed clarification, and those canons were the reference point after which all future laws were modeled."
Why would these men need to VOTE if it was Divine word? If it was Divine word, would it not be up for discussion by mere mortals? Why wouldn't they "delve" too much into the relationship between Jesus and God? Isn't that what the whole point of the religion was supposed to be for? Jesus and God were one?
If they were all Christians, why would they be so divided? Maybe because they interpreted things different? Which meant what they read and understood wasn't Divine in nature, but Mortal?
Honestly, sounds like a huge political movement - kind'a like the crap there is today with the mud slinging and all - and a huge popularity contest.
To me, this whole thing proves that the so called "Divine Word" was not so Divine, but just cherry picked stuff that made certain people at certain levels of society all that more special.
And then King Jimmy did the same thing with his Bible; cherry picked what he wanted, discarded the rest.
It also proves that there are beyond dozens of interpretations of the Bible, and either all are legitimate, or are not. The Catholic belief is as good as the JW is as good as the Baptists is as good as Anglican is as good as Orthadox and so on, or it's all just bunk and NONE of you have any clue about your God, you just... make it up to fit your personal ideas of what would be a good God.
Really, if you'd all just admit it, things might be actually easy for you for a change.
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I'll try again... He said that he is The Son of God. You say he's a great teacher, but disagree with what he taught. So it follows that you make him out to be a liar. You call him teacher, but reject his teachings.
The prophecies about Christ were written long before he came. He came and fulfilled them. That's prophecy coming true.
No, you're missing the point. The Bible already existed, and two camps disagreed on the interpretation of the Bible. The outcome of this council and its voting was the Nicene Creed -- a decision about the proper interpretation of scripture, not a decision about what was scripture and what wasn't. The Nicene Creed is not "Divine Word," nor did the authors pretend it to be. It's a confession on what the Bible means. Everybody has a confession/creed -- some are written, others are unwritten.
Not at all. The KJV was merely another translation of what had long been accepted as the canon of holy scripture.
I agree with your first sentence, but not the second. Relevant to this conversation, you'll find that the Roman Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, and Orthodox would ALL agree that the Nicene Creed correctly interprets the Bible. The JW would not.
You are right that Christian denominations should always strive for unity. As I said before, the word "church" is sometimes used to mean different things. In the purest sense of the word, there is one church -- these are the called, the children of God, the justified in Christ -- one universal ("catholic") Christian church called out of every nation across time.
In another sense, "church" is often used to describe a particular denomination; sometimes, even a specific local congregation (and this usage is Biblical).
I am a member of the Canadian Reformed church. At various times, I find myself in fellowship with Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and sometimes even Roman Catholics. That's one form of the unity we strive for. We sit down together and confess the scriptural truths about the One we all agree is the Righteous Son of God, the Savior, and worthy to be embraced also as Master -- owner and ruler of our lives.
Another manifestation of Christians striving for unity is when you see churches joining or becoming sister churches of each other (this is sometimes called ecumenical, or ecclesiastical fellowship, and means that we agree in doctrine, and we accept each other at the Lord's table). For example, The Canadian Reformed Church finds itself in ecclesiastical harmony with the Free Church of Scotland, the Free Reformed Churches in both Australia and South Africa, the Orthodox Prebyterian Church (OPC), the Presbyterian Church in Korea, the United Reformed Churches in N.A., the RCUS, and others. Practically speaking, that means that if I visit Scotland, I walk into the Free Church on Sunday morning, and I partake of the sacraments, for I am called "brother," not stranger. They receive me with a word from my elders here in Canada.
Other churches are far more liberal about all this. Many baptist churches in America would accept me at the Lord's table without even asking who I am or where I'm from. This has potential pitfalls, because it's not healthy to partake of the sacraments while living in unrepentant sin -- and such question the particular baptist church could not answer about me by just looking at me. On the other hand, I could see it as an attempt at unity on their part.
Ah! Finally, a thinking man!
"And then King Jimmy did the same thing with his Bible; cherry picked what he wanted, discarded the rest.
Not at all. The KJV was merely another translation of what had long been accepted as the canon of holy scripture."
Nonsense. KJV left out a bunch of books from the original, which BTW is the Catholic version. Without the Catholic Church there would be no bible.
It never ceases to amaze me how convoluted and twisted the Born Again far right Christians can go to justify their belief in the unprovable and untenable. You, though, take the cake as the greatest contortion artist I have ever tangled with.
Do you think Thor will forgive them when they try to enter Valhalla?
I think he will, for I hear the gods are very merciful!
I think he will, for I hear the gods are very merciful!
Actually I may disagree with , but I don't disagree with all of it. A good teacher never wants their students to follow everything they teach, they want them to also question and learn for themselves.
So no, I'm not calling Jesus a liar; you on the other hand maybe, but not Jesus. If I ever met Jesus, I'd probably like him.
No, you're missing the point. The Bible already existed, and two camps disagreed on the interpretation of the Bible. The outcome of this council and its voting was the Nicene Creed -- a decision about the proper interpretation of scripture, not a decision about what was scripture and what wasn't. The Nicene Creed is not "Divine Word," nor did the authors pretend it to be. It's a confession on what the Bible means. Everybody has a confession/creed -- some are written, others are unwritten.
Not at all. The KJV was merely another translation of what had long been accepted as the canon of holy scripture.
I agree with your first sentence, but not the second. Relevant to this conversation, you'll find that the Roman Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, and Orthodox would ALL agree that the Nicene Creed correctly interprets the Bible. The JW would not.
You are right that Christian denominations should always strive for unity. As I said before, the word "church" is sometimes used to mean different things. In the purest sense of the word, there is one church -- these are the called, the children of God, the justified in Christ -- one universal ("catholic") Christian church called out of every nation across time.
In another sense, "church" is often used to describe a particular denomination; sometimes, even a specific local congregation (and this usage is Biblical).
I am a member of the Canadian Reformed church. At various times, I find myself in fellowship with Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and sometimes even Roman Catholics. That's one form of the unity we strive for. We sit down together and confess the scriptural truths about the One we all agree is the Righteous Son of God, the Savior, and worthy to be embraced also as Master -- owner and ruler of our lives.
Another manifestation of Christians striving for unity is when you see churches joining or becoming sister churches of each other (this is sometimes called ecumenical, or ecclesiastical fellowship, and means that we agree in doctrine, and we accept each other at the Lord's table). For example, The Canadian Reformed Church finds itself in ecclesiastical harmony with the Free Church of Scotland, the Free Reformed Churches in both Australia and South Africa, the Orthodox Prebyterian Church (OPC), the Presbyterian Church in Korea, the United Reformed Churches in N.A., the RCUS, and others. Practically speaking, that means that if I visit Scotland, I walk into the Free Church on Sunday morning, and I partake of the sacraments, for I am called "brother," not stranger. They receive me with a word from my elders here in Canada.
Other churches are far more liberal about all this. Many baptist churches in America would accept me at the Lord's table without even asking who I am or where I'm from. This has potential pitfalls, because it's not healthy to partake of the sacraments while living in unrepentant sin -- and such question the particular baptist church could not answer about me by just looking at me. On the other hand, I could see it as an attempt at unity on their part.[/QUOTE]
Actually I may disagree with , but I don't disagree with all of it. A good teacher never wants their students to follow everything they teach, they want them to also question and learn for themselves.
So no, I'm not calling Jesus a liar; you on the other hand maybe, but not Jesus. If I ever met Jesus, I'd probably like him.
Not the only prophecies that have ever come true, and again, not only Christian oriented. But then I'd always heard that divination, prophecies and other such things were against the Church. More cherry picking?
Again, you miss the point. Your own words: "The outcome of this council and its voting was the Nicene Creed -- a decision about the proper interpretation of scripture". Bolded and underlined the most important part. Mortal man deciding what is PROPER INTERPRETATION of what is supposed to be a Divine Word. If the Word was so Divine, there would have never been conflict nor would there have been a need for a "proper interpretation". So either it was not the Divine Word, OR mortal man cherry picked what they wanted and left out stuff (which we're learning is moreso truth, like the books of Mary and Judas).
Riiiiight. As if a King wouldn't order changes in this "translation" to suit him? If it was accepted as Cannon, then it wouldn't be any different than the original Bible... except that we already know, by your own admission, the original Bible was never fully the Divine Word of God, but cherry picked interpretations.
If that were true Christians would see Catholics as fellow Christians, which I have heard time and time again from Christians that they are not.
My mother is technically Baptist, my father Anglican. I suppose I would be "Welcomed" in either place. I've been to Catholic services (I was a kid, had to go to SOME sort of service and I had friends going so I went with them, don't remember much from it really, although I think I tasted the wine and tried the stale cracker things; suppose I'm really going to hell now).
Some churches are accepting of anyone of any faith, some accept only Christians, some don't accept anyone but those of their denomination and some are exclusive to select people. It's your unity over the Bible that's your downfall.
But that's your deal, not mine. I don't follow your Bible BS, or what your priests say because I don't need to. If God - whoever It/She/He/They may be - wishes to speak to me, it'll happen, all without your Bible or your middle men.
Nah; Thor might forgive but Odin might get prissy. I've heard he's an angry SOB. Kind'a like Zeus.
I'll stick with this version if it's all the same.
Joh:19:33:
But when they came to Jesus,
and saw that he was dead already,
they brake not his legs:
Joh:21:24:
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things,
and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.
The Bible the RCC accepted in 323AD is exactly the same as the 166KJV, the original Hebrew for the OT and Greek for the NT.
Every person has the privilege (and obligation?) to read the word and decide for themselves what it says. You can decide whether you agree with the Nicene Creed or not; I can decide. I'm guessing somewhere between 85% and 95% of people who call themselves Christian (including Roman Catholics) would say, if they read it, "Yes, the Nicene Creed correctly interprets the Christian scripture."
Whether the Nicene Creed exists or not, Christians are getting the truth out of scripture. I came to believe what it says before I ever even heard of the Nicene Creed.
You're saying that the existence of conflict (regarding interpretation of the Bible) proves that it's not the divine word. Are you sure about that? The fact that there is conflict shows that the AUDIENCE is not divine. We see that men and women disagree all over the place. That's what we do. It's not exactly easy reading or light subjects either; furthermore, Satan wants to get involved. Of course there is conflict and disagreement. The Word is divine, the audience is flawed.
A Christian is one who hears and embraces the teachings of Christ. It's not the laity that I have an issue with. It's the doctrines -- the teachings. What they preach -- I won't call that "Christian." But I'd be out of line to start labeling all the victims of that doctrine as "not Christian."
Why? I don't see how that, or anything you just said, or anything you've ever done, will ensure a place in hell for you. So long as you are alive, I am hopeful for you. Jesus once said, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." The first part testifies to God's sovereignty in electing certain persons for salvation. The second part answers anyone who anxiously replies, "I fear I'm not chosen for salvation!" What I mean is, if you see yourself recognizing your need and turning to Christ for the answer, you may be assured that the doctrine of election isn't going to stand against you -- in fact, if you see yourself turning, this is evidence that you are among the elect.
It depends what you mean. We must receive any who comes seeking Christ, we absolutely must, no matter who they are or their background. It is impossible for us to condemn anyone in the final judgment sense of that word. It is also a mistake to consider ourselves more or less worthy than anyone. Seeing God's mercy toward us, we must then be merciful toward others. On the other hand, we are called to discernment/judgment, particularly in (1) judging ourselves, testing ourselves whether we are in the faith; and (2) benefiting those who call themselves brother/sister by admonishing them. If we love someone, and see them walking a dangerous path, then we must rebuke them -- as, for example, a parent would not neglect to intervene when her/his child is wandering toward danger. We could not achieve this if we neglected to discern.
The Bible is rich with examples of both of these.
I don't have "priests." There is one Great High Priest. The former priests were merely a shadow of the greater Priest to come. The letter to the Hebrews explains all this quite well.
Well, this is an interesting subject. I submit to you that, at least in a general sense, He already has spoken to you, through the grand creation that you enjoy and breathe and drink from every day. It is all a testimony -- a witness -- to his invisible and eternal qualities.
In the second part, this being His creation, He uses means within this creation to speak. For example, I have eyes to read and ears to hear, and so He reaches out with a Book to read and preaching to listen to.
In fact, the existence of false teachers and heresies (and the resulting conflict and disagreements about interpretation) is a fulfillment of scripture. See, for example, 2 Peter 2:1.
And here is where our conversation is done. I'm not obligated to read anything that's falsely paraded and believed to be the word of a Sadistic Monster.
As to the rest of your post; it's just round and round and round again. You don't get my point, or you're blatantly ignoring it, that's fine.
Great conversing with you. If anything, you've helped me to see that the faith and belief I have in God, and the way I see It/She/He/Them is more correct than your own interpretations. At least it's more of a chance to be by "Divine" word or whatever than your ways.
Zhai'helleva.
As far as I have gotten studying the old time religion I can see that we have diffused so far away from the basics that we will never have a unified philosophy again. That is to say none will be available to the 99%. Just like the old masters knew and taught from the beginning. If we want to arrive we have to devote quite a bit more time than the average person is willing to or can with the pressures of the modern world and the competition for our time. No works no perks, nobody grades for free. In older days there was not so much confusing choice to draw the mind away from the real. You can understand the tower of babel by looking at this thread. And that is by design too.
But if Christ is in control, then He's not going to lose His church -- it will always remain. Others have predicted the breakdown before, and been wrong. Others have relentlessly pursued the destruction of the church, and have failed.
Not by design, it's the way Christianity evolved. Thousands of mutations along the way. I do, however, fear for its being able to adapt in a modern environment. Perhaps in a million years or so, our descendents will see traces in the sediment?
This is what I'd like to hear in church.
Judy Collins - Let It Be - YouTube
A fellow in the Palestine region worked at a technology company that employed Jews, Muslims, Christians, and Atheists. He distributed this and quizzed his colleagues on where it was from and who it was about:
More interestingly, most of his colleagues, whether they self-identified as Jewish, Islamic, Christian, or Atheist, said that this passage was from the New Testament.
But it's not. It was written by the prophet Isaiah 700 years before Jesus was born in Bethlehem -- this same Isaiah who predicted He would be born of a virgin (7:14); that he would be called "God" (9:6); and that he would be a light to non-Jewish people (42:6).
The leaders who shouted "Crucify him" were holding this scroll in their hands, and had studied it their entire lives. Here they fulfilled the prophecies of the very scriptures they claimed to be experts on.
Who has believed our message?
To whom has the LORD revealed his powerful arm?
My servant grew up in the LORD’s presence like a tender green shoot,
like a root in dry ground.
There was nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance,
nothing to attract us to him.
He was despised and rejected—
a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief.
We turned our backs on him and looked the other way.
He was despised, and we did not care. Yet it was our weaknesses he carried;
it was our sorrows that weighed him down.
And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God,
a punishment for his own sins!
But he was pierced for our rebellion,
crushed for our sins.
He was beaten so we could be whole.
He was whipped so we could be healed.
All of us, like sheep, have strayed away.
We have left God’s paths to follow our own.
Yet the LORD laid on him
the sins of us all.
He was oppressed and treated harshly,
yet he never said a word.
He was led like a lamb to the slaughter.
And as a sheep is silent before the shearers,
he did not open his mouth.
Unjustly condemned,
he was led away.
No one cared that he died without descendants,
that his life was cut short in midstream.
But he was struck down
for the rebellion of my people.
He had done no wrong
and had never deceived anyone.
But he was buried like a criminal;
he was put in a rich man’s grave.
But it was the LORD’s good plan to crush him
and cause him grief.
Yet when his life is made an offering for sin,
he will have many descendants.
He will enjoy a long life,
and the LORD’s good plan will prosper in his hands.
When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish,
he will be satisfied.
And because of his experience,
my righteous servant will make it possible
for many to be counted righteous,
for he will bear all their sins.
I will give him the honors of a victorious soldier,
because he exposed himself to death.
He was counted among the rebels.
He bore the sins of many and interceded for rebels.
All of his colleagues, whether they self-identified as Jewish, Islamic, Christian, or Atheist, knew that this was, of course, about Jesus of Nazareth, for there it is, about the Jewish rejection of him, as he was cursed by God; about his punishment in our place; about the stripes of the whip on his body; about his silence under the hand of Roman murderers; his lack of biological descendants; his death as a criminal; his burial in the tomb of the rich man (Joseph of Arimathea); the sovereign will of the LORD to crush him; that he was made to be sin who knew no sin; that he is the Lamb of God; that he would pray for sinners; his unpromising origins (like a root in dry ground -- "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"); and about his exaltation after his death.To whom has the LORD revealed his powerful arm?
My servant grew up in the LORD’s presence like a tender green shoot,
like a root in dry ground.
There was nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance,
nothing to attract us to him.
He was despised and rejected—
a man of sorrows, acquainted with deepest grief.
We turned our backs on him and looked the other way.
He was despised, and we did not care. Yet it was our weaknesses he carried;
it was our sorrows that weighed him down.
And we thought his troubles were a punishment from God,
a punishment for his own sins!
But he was pierced for our rebellion,
crushed for our sins.
He was beaten so we could be whole.
He was whipped so we could be healed.
All of us, like sheep, have strayed away.
We have left God’s paths to follow our own.
Yet the LORD laid on him
the sins of us all.
He was oppressed and treated harshly,
yet he never said a word.
He was led like a lamb to the slaughter.
And as a sheep is silent before the shearers,
he did not open his mouth.
Unjustly condemned,
he was led away.
No one cared that he died without descendants,
that his life was cut short in midstream.
But he was struck down
for the rebellion of my people.
He had done no wrong
and had never deceived anyone.
But he was buried like a criminal;
he was put in a rich man’s grave.
But it was the LORD’s good plan to crush him
and cause him grief.
Yet when his life is made an offering for sin,
he will have many descendants.
He will enjoy a long life,
and the LORD’s good plan will prosper in his hands.
When he sees all that is accomplished by his anguish,
he will be satisfied.
And because of his experience,
my righteous servant will make it possible
for many to be counted righteous,
for he will bear all their sins.
I will give him the honors of a victorious soldier,
because he exposed himself to death.
He was counted among the rebels.
He bore the sins of many and interceded for rebels.
More interestingly, most of his colleagues, whether they self-identified as Jewish, Islamic, Christian, or Atheist, said that this passage was from the New Testament.
But it's not. It was written by the prophet Isaiah 700 years before Jesus was born in Bethlehem -- this same Isaiah who predicted He would be born of a virgin (7:14); that he would be called "God" (9:6); and that he would be a light to non-Jewish people (42:6).
The leaders who shouted "Crucify him" were holding this scroll in their hands, and had studied it their entire lives. Here they fulfilled the prophecies of the very scriptures they claimed to be experts on.