NationStates Jolt Archive

...and does not forgive sins. The Bible is a book written by people who wanted others to conform with their views, and is not the word of God. Nature originally guided people, along with a belief in the Rule of Three. Wicca again allows nature to guide. Paganism is not a religion, though some people with certain beliefs claim it to be their religion.

Controversial?

And this is from someone who was not all that long ago confirmed into the Church of England.

Based on stuff on this thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511401 and on trusting my feelings. See http://www.geocities.com/pjcroad/nature (especially the first two paragraphs).

And all of it is nonsense, regardless of packaging.

And all of it is nonsense, regardless of packaging.

You mean all of religion? In essence, I'm saying that religion is NOT valid and that originally people simply trusted nature but believed in a universe-thing called the rule of Three which states that whatever energy you send out (good or bad), it will return threefold. Then people learned how to write...

You mean all of religion?

Yup.

In essence, I'm saying that religion is NOT valid

Good for you.

and that originally people simply trusted nature but believed in a universe-thing called the rule of Three which states that whatever energy you send out (good or bad), it will return threefold. Then people learned how to write...

Nonsense.

...and does not forgive sins. The Bible is a book written by people who wanted others to conform with their views, and is not the word of God. Nature originally guided people, along with a belief in the Rule of Three. Wicca again allows nature to guide. Paganism is not a religion, though some people with certain beliefs claim it to be their religion.

Controversial?

BLASPHEMY!

Bring in the comfortable chair!

Yup.



Good for you.



Nonsense.

Nah, truth.

Nah, truth.

No, nonsense. With ugly formatting and without even the pretence of cohesion or historical accuracy.

Nah, truth.

There are some truly awesome arguements in this thread.

No, nonsense. With ugly formatting and without even the pretence of cohesion or historical accuracy.

Nah, truth. With ugly formatting and without even the pretence of cohesion or recorded historical accuracy.

There are some truly awesome arguements in this thread.

Like his/hers was any better :)

I have no idea what you're on about, so I'm going to make a generic statement cursing my lot in life and blame it on The Plankton Conspiracy.

BLASPHEMY!

Bring in the comfortable chair!

Comfortable chair?

Like his/hers was any better :)

I didn't say they were.

I have no idea what you're on about, so I'm going to make a generic statement cursing my lot in life and blame it on The Plankton Conspiracy.

Good idea

I'm confused. Are you trying to make up your own religion/history of theology or something?

...and does not forgive sins. The Bible is a book written by people who wanted others to conform with their views, and is not the word of God. Nature originally guided people, along with a belief in the Rule of Three. Wicca again allows nature to guide. Paganism is not a religion, though some people with certain beliefs claim it to be their religion.

Controversial?

And this is from someone who was not all that long ago confirmed into the Church of England.


Uh?
If this comes from a person who considers himself a christian, well, it is quite funny. I'd never thought Arianism would come back after 17 centuries.

Uh?
If this comes from a person who considers himself a christian, well, it is quite funny. I'd never thought Arianism would come back after 17 centuries.

You people shoulda TGd me when I said I'd exlplain in TG what made me join C of E :-p

Is this a joke?

...and does not forgive sins. The Bible is a book written by people who wanted others to conform with their views, and is not the word of God. Nature originally guided people, along with a belief in the Rule of Three. Wicca again allows nature to guide. Paganism is not a religion, though some people with certain beliefs claim it to be their religion.

Controversial?

And this is from someone who was not all that long ago confirmed into the Church of England.

Based on stuff on this thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511401 and on trusting my feelings. See http://www.geocities.com/pjcroad/nature (especially the first two paragraphs).


There's nothing controversial about it at all, it's simply bad theology.

Jesus DOES forgive sins.

Matthew 9:2
Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."

Luke 5:20-21
20When Jesus saw their faith, he said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven."
21The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Luke 7:47-49
47Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."
48Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."
49The other guests began to say among themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?"

Case closed.

Feel free to disregard me if I'm wrong, as that seems to be the standard modus operandi for more established bloggers here, but doesn't it seem rather stupid that an omnipotent being...aka 'god'...would get pissed off when his creations didn't worship him and would then throw temper tantrums?

Come to think of it, once you disregard his rhetoric, the tantrums themselves really are more analogous to particularly small hiccups, considering his infinite power.

Sounds more like a confused five-year old than a deity to me.

The Bible is a book written by people who wanted others to conform with their views, and is not the word of God.

And how exactly did the writers of the Bible benefit from this, particularly the ones who were executed for their beliefs?

in case you missed it in the other thread:

try the pagan origns of christianity website

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/ge...rted_pocm.html

its very interesting. it goes on and on so dont stop on the start page. it has some great stuff in it.

dont miss the early christian writings if you are feeling a bit more scholarly

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

ill try to locate a couple more links that i seem to have misplaced.


***EDIT***

ahh here it is.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

scroll down a bit until you get to the blue banner section called THE JESUS PUZZLE

or if you are too lazy to do that

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm

I don't get it.
Wicca "allows nature to guide"? And since the earliest form of religion "allowed nature to guide" as well, that means that Wicca is good?
I don't see how that adds any credibility to Wiccanism.
What does "allowing nature to guide" even MEAN?

You people shoulda TGd me when I said I'd exlplain in TG what made me join C of E :-p

was it for the cake?

[/izzard]

...and does not forgive sins. The Bible is a book written by people who wanted others to conform with their views, and is not the word of God. Nature originally guided people, along with a belief in the Rule of Three. Wicca again allows nature to guide. Paganism is not a religion, though some people with certain beliefs claim it to be their religion.

Controversial?

And this is from someone who was not all that long ago confirmed into the Church of England.

Based on stuff on this thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511401 and on trusting my feelings. See http://www.geocities.com/pjcroad/nature (especially the first two paragraphs).

Hence this:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/12/18/7_virginia_parishes_vote_to_quit_us_episcopal_church/

I don't get it.
Wicca "allows nature to guide"? And since the earliest form of religion "allowed nature to guide" as well, that means that Wicca is good?
I don't see how that adds any credibility to Wiccanism.
What does "allowing nature to guide" even MEAN?

I would presume it would mean following your most base, animalistic instincts, or, as Terry Pratchett puts it, "Listening to the monkey, not the man". So if you don't like your boss, fight him and kill him to inherit the position of alpha male. If you see an attractive female, remember that it's what you want that you should be worrying about, not what she wants.

Apparently, Wiccans think it was all so much better before we became self-aware.

Given an A/B choice, I'm going with the Abrahamics.

Anyway, compared to most other Christian branches, Arianism sucks, or at least the Goths converting to it did. Sure, I can understand going from the divine equivelant of a soap-opera to a respectable monotheistic tradition, but when you flay the hides of your foes as an offering to Tyz, why switch to a sect which contradicts every other teaching in that religion?

There's nothing controversial about it at all, it's simply bad theology.

Jesus DOES forgive sins.

Matthew 9:2
Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."

Luke 5:20-21
20When Jesus saw their faith, he said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven."
21The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Luke 7:47-49
47Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."
48Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."
49The other guests began to say among themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?"

Case closed.

Quoting from a book of which you can not prove the source is not a case, it's a statement of opinion - "In my opinion this book is factual"

Jesus was the Son of God, and since that entails that he carries some DNA of God, (I'm going out on a limb I know) then in some way he really is God in human form.

Jesus was the Son of God, and since that entails that he carries some DNA of God, (I'm going out on a limb I know) then in some way he really is God in human form.

If God has DNA, he must be tangible. Ergo, he cannot be omnipresent. If he isn't omnipotent, he can't be omnipotent. If he isn't intangible, isn't omnipresent, and isn't omnipotent, he isn't God.

Jesus was the Son of God, and since that entails that he carries some DNA of God, (I'm going out on a limb I know) then in some way he really is God in human form.

That's IF it's at all true that Jesus was/is the Son of God, and even then not necessarilly as God is God so may have been able to help create Jesus without God's DNA.

Besides that, Christianity generally (though not always) claims a belief in the trinity - that is that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are 3 distinct persons who make up the same God, in other words, they're all God.

was it for the cake?

[/izzard]

But there might be a rush on cake and they could be all out. Then it would be death I was never willing to take that risk so I just make my own cake :D

Wicca, the lets-pretend religion for kids and weirdos.

In the decades since wicca was concocted, it has never ammounted to anything worth even one tenth of what wikipedia accomplishes in one day.

Wiki. Not wicca.

Quoting from a book of which you can not prove the source is not a case, it's a statement of opinion - "In my opinion this book is factual"

If you don't believe Jesus' words are his own from the Bible, why believe in Jesus at all? You said in your OP and title that you think Jesus dispels evil spirits, what is your source for this belief?

If you don't believe Jesus' words are his own from the Bible, why believe in Jesus at all? You said in your OP and title that you think Jesus dispels evil spirits, what is your source for this belief?

I merely said what I'd come up with. Did I claim it was factual? (And the belief in Jesus is based on personal experience)

Frankly I think Wicca was something that was made up during the 70s, during the D&D/cult years.

Comfortable chair?

The Spanish Inquesition (according to Monty Python) use comfortable chairs to force heretics to confess to blasphemy.

The Spanish Inquesition (according to Monty Python) use comfortable chairs to force heretics to confess to blasphemy.

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/diabolical2.jpg
Been waiting for an excuse to use this.

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/diabolical2.jpg
Been waiting for an excuse to use this.

Good man.

And all of it is nonsense, regardless of packaging.

Hence the link in my post, which I shall now post whenever I see one of these threads, just because I find it funny and threads like these could use humor.
http://unfunnytruthjesus.ytmnd.com/

There's no such thing as sin. Any religion based on the fear of being tortured for eternity because of some godling's displeasure is psychologically diseased.

Wicca, the lets-pretend religion for kids and weirdos.
Dude, show some respect. This is so typical of christians..."My religion rules, all other religions are for posers". I'm not a wiccan myself, actually, i don't think that i'd fit into any religion, but i do identify with many of their beliefs, so please, respect other religions and yours will be respected too.

Paganism is a catch all term for a huge mishmash of pre christian/non mainstream beliefs.

It covers everything from the Aztec beliefs through to modern day Wicca

Wicca however was an attempt by Gardenerians and Alexandrians (mainly) to form a consistent belief system from pagan beliefs.

if someone wants to tell me that they are pagan then thats fine by me. It tells me that they follow one of the many many Earth Mother beliefs. I think Pagan can be considered a religion by todays standards in the same way that "Christian" covers Catholic, Church of England, Lutheran, Baptist, Mormon, Jehova's Witness etc etc etc etc.. many of which are quite different.

having said all this I dont get what the OP is aiming at.

Bolding by me for emphasis.

There's no such thing as sin. Any religion based on the fear of being tortured for eternity because of some godling's displeasure is psychologically diseased.

You make a statement of your negative opinion of Christianity. Okay fine.

Then you say this...


Dude, show some respect. This is so typical of christians..."My religion rules, all other religions are for posers". I'm not a wiccan myself, actually, i don't think that i'd fit into any religion, but i do identify with many of their beliefs, so please, respect other religions and yours will be respected too.


By the sequence of events in your very own post, you've disproved your own assumption.

A religion is a comprehensive belief system that usually requires a particular supernatural force or forces as the guiding beings behind the beliefs within the religion. Paganism fits this entirely, so it is a religion; it's a broader term for a group of beliefs much like how Christianity or Islam are broader terms for the denominations and sects within them.

Obviously, it would be more accurate to list a pagan's beliefs according to their path, but using "pagan" to describe beliefs is identical to using "Hindu", "Buddhist", "Christian", or any of the other religions today.

... I think Pagan can be considered a religion by todays standards in the same way that "Christian" covers Catholic, Church of England, Lutheran, Baptist, Mormon, Jehova's Witness etc etc etc etc.. many of which are quite different.

having said all this I dont get what the OP is aiming at.


In fact, I'd argue that Christianity does NOT cover all of those things except to non-Christians, which would be like a non-Muslim saying there is no different between radical fundamentalist Islam and the Mosque down the street. There IS a difference between sects.

If a Christian church cannot recite the Nicene creed, then they aren't really Christian, they're simply hijacking some of the same names. For example, the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses do not think Jesus and God are made of the same material, one and the same, and thus, they do not believe in the same religions, one from the others, they simply use the same names. But a name is only as good as its meaning, the name identifies the meaning you imply when you use it, ergo, if the meaning is different when you use it than when someone else uses it then the shared name is irrelevant, you aren't talking about the same thing.

Fore example: If I am talking about Suzie my neighbor and your are talking about Suzie your neighbor, it does not mean that my Suzie is your Suzie.

In fact, I'd argue that Christianity does NOT cover all of those things except to non-Christians, which would be like a non-Muslim saying there is no different between radical fundamentalist Islam and the Mosque down the street. There IS a difference between sects.

If a Christian church cannot recite the Nicene creed, then they aren't really Christian, they're simply hijacking some of the same names. For example, the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses do not think Jesus and God are made of the same material, one and the same, and thus, they do not believe in the same religions, one from the others, they simply use the same names. But a name is only as good as its meaning, the name identifies the meaning you imply when you use it, ergo, if the meaning is different when you use it than when someone else uses it then the shared name is irrelevant, you aren't talking about the same thing.

Fore example: If I am talking about Suzie my neighbor and your are talking about Suzie your neighbor, it does not mean that my Suzie is your Suzie.

Ummmm did I not mention that many of the sects were ineed quite different?

As for the Nicean Creed, that's your opinion not a definition. Ask any of those sects and they will say they are Christian. In fact many of them will say that significant others are NOT true Christian for various reasons. So that is simply YOUR definition of Christianity.
But this is the whole point. The religion is Christianity in that they (and possibly you), believe that Christ was the son of god and the Messiah phrophesied in the Old Testamant. The variations on the theme are merely SECTS.

ergo your argument falls flat.

Your "example" using neighbours holds no water at all.

I enjoy the fact that you have no veritable evidence for any of your claims except for linking to other speculative threads and a horrible MS Paint image that anyone could of made.

Ummmm did I not mention that many of the sects were ineed quite different?

As for the Nicean Creed, that's your opinion not a definition. Ask any of those sects and they will say they are Christian. In fact many of them will say that significant others are NOT true Christian for various reasons. So that is simply YOUR definition of Christianity.
But this is the whole point. The religion is Christianity in that they (and possibly you), believe that Christ was the son of god and the Messiah phrophesied in the Old Testamant. The variations on the theme are merely SECTS.

ergo your argument falls flat.

Your "example" using neighbours holds no water at all.

The Nicene creed IS a definition, that was the point. It specifically defines the meaning of the name.

As to my argument falling flat, you obviously made a mistake, because you yourself said, “believe that Christ was the son of god and the Messiah phrophesied in the Old Testamant” thus YOU TOO defined what is and what is not Christianity. If they do NOT believe any of that, but call themselves Christians anyway, then they share the name but not the meaning, as I said before, and they are not Christians. There is a Christian type A and a Christian type B to be reckoned with. They do not believe in the same theology. If they are the same, then ALL religions are the same.

My point still stands.

I enjoy the fact that you have no veritable evidence for any of your claims except for linking to other speculative threads and a horrible MS Paint image that anyone could of made.

Yeah ... better basing a belief off of a much older book which many many more people had a hand at making/translating ?

Edit because apparently I was misunderstood

What exactly qualifies as substantial evidence for you? that was the question I meant to spawn. Is it the age or the amount of believers? There are many other religions with large number of believers. Some are older some are not, some have existed in the past pre Christianity some have died out long ago...

Then by even your argument I defined it correctly so what are you talking about?

I think you're just (poorly) bandying semantics to be irritating.

If they do NOT believe any of that, but call themselves Christians anyway, then they share the name but not the meaning, as I said before, and they are not Christians.

So how many christian sects in your opinion do NOT believe that christ was the son of god and that he was not the messiah? Please name them, I'd like a chance for them to see this and speak for themselves.

There is a Christian type A and a Christian type B to be reckoned with. They do not believe in the same theology. If they are the same, then ALL religions are the same

That doesnt even make sense.

Wait a second, Roman Catholics, and Mormons, have a differing theology and Both see Christ as the the son of god and the messiah. So we have our Type A christian and Type B. Nope.. still don't follow you.

Yeah ... better basing a belief off of a much older book which many many more people had a hand at making/translating ?

You would equate a belief in a badly made .pdf file with a forum thread back-up against a several thousands of year old, peer reviewed document, reviewed and analyzed and critiqued, by literally millions of the best minds (Pro and Con) the world has ever produced... But you think it is equally logical to base a belief on a general forum and a .jpg picture of someone’s bad handwriting with a mouse against it, the scripture...

I propose that your analytical aptitude in regards to the field and study of scripture is pre-dispositioned towards the negative (negative in the extreme mind you) towards anything scriptural and thus reduces the value of your opinion to the point of nil because your opinion would be negative regardless of content, or so it would seem.

You would equate a belief in a badly made .pdf file with a forum thread back-up against a several thousands of year old, peer reviewed document, reviewed and analyzed and critiqued, by literally millions of the best minds (Pro and Con) the world has ever produced... But you think it is equally logical to base a belief on a general forum and a .jpg picture of someone’s bad handwriting with a mouse against it, the scripture...

I propose that your analytical aptitude in regards to the field and study of scripture is pre-dispositioned towards the negative (negative in the extreme mind you) towards anything scriptural and thus reduces the value of your opinion.

Ok ... Fine with me, actually rather on par to my view of your pre-disposition towards the positive in the extreme.

Specially with your view of my question ... I was not actually making a value judgment on the file but rather trying to prompt thinking on what basis they are making that value judgment ... I apologize if it came out wrong I am on about half a bottle of niquil right now so it is possible, but that was not the end I was going for.

Edit:

I edited it to reflect more the line of questioning I hoped sorry if there was confusion

Then by even your argument I defined it correctly so what are you talking about?

I think you're just (poorly) bandying semantics to be irritating.

So how many christian sects in your opinion do NOT believe that christ was the son of god and that he was not the messiah? Please name them, I'd like a chance for them to see this and speak for themselves.

You see, that's just it, you have to define what "Christianity" is and then determine who meets that requirement.

If the definition is, Jesus is God, then go by that. If the definition is, Jesus was a good teacher, then go by that. The definition must be defined before you can say who is or who is not, something.

That doesnt even make sense.

Wait a second, Roman Catholics, and Mormons, have a differing theology and Both see Christ as the the son of god and the messiah. So we have our Type A christian and Type B. Nope.. still don't follow you.

The Roman Catholics and the Mormons don't even agree on who and what God is, how do you propose that they can agree that these two different things had the same son?

Ask either one and they will both tell you that they believe that Jesus was the Son of the god of abraham.

How they view the nature of said god is irrelevant. THAT is why you end up with different sects. They're still all forms of christianity though.

Which sect of christianity do you subscribe to? I'm curious now.

SNip


The Roman Catholics and the Mormons don't even agree on who and what God is, how do you propose that they can agree that these two different things had the same son?
Multi faceted god?

How can the Son the Father and the Holy ghost be same being?

Personally I don't think they are but if the Two different beings as one god thing is not valid how is the three is really one god more so?

Ask either one and they will both tell you that they believe that Jesus was the Son of the god of abraham.

How they view the nature of said god is irrelevant. THAT is why you end up with different sects. They're still all forms of christianity though.

WHO they view God as, WHO they worship defines themselves. IF I use the name Adam, and they Use the name Adam, again it does NOT mean that we are talking about he same person named Adam. You have NOT produced any evidence that only one Adam is possible. The evidence dictates that there is more than one Adam being talked about.

The God that demands you worship no other gods besides him would say it IS possible to worship false gods, and calling them god does not change the fact that it is not him you are talking about when you say the word god.

Multi faceted god?

How can the Son the Father and the Holy ghost be same being?

Personally I don't think they are but if the Two different beings as one god thing is not valid how is the three is really one god more so?

One triangle has three sides. Take any one side away and you don't have a triangle anymore. Add even just one more side and again you don't have a triangle anymore. A triangle is three sided, it is what it is to be a triangle.

God is like that. You can’t add to him or take anything away.

WHO they view God as, WHO they worship defines themselves. IF I use the name Adam, and they Use the name Adam, again it does NOT mean that we are talking about he same person named Adam. You have NOT produced any evidence that only one Adam is possible. The evidence dictates that there is more than one Adam being talked about.

The God that demands you worship no other gods besides him would say it IS possible to worship false gods, and calling them god does not change the fact that it is not him you are talking about when you say the word god.

I get it, any form of christianity that does not meet the definition given to you by your church is not a true form of christianity and is therefore worshiping a false god.

Youre a fundamentalist. At least I know now and I can quit wasting my time.

I get it, any form of christianity that does not meet the definition given to you by your church is not a true form of christianity and is therefore worshiping a false god.

Youre a fundamentalist. At least I know now and I quit wasting my time.

If so, then you too are a fundamentalist. You define what you think is right and close your mind to everything else...

Interesting that you name call though, that's too bad, you won't progress too far with that close-mindedness.

One triangle has three sides. Take any one side away and you don't have a triangle anymore. Add even just one more side and again you don't have a triangle anymore. A triangle is three sided, it is what it is to be a triangle.

God is like that. You can’t add too him or take anything away.

So you say ... but what are you BASING that on ... one is not inherently any more logical then the other.

You are basing it on faith, just like every one else

Fine

But in the end saying a two faceted god or a 10 faceted god is any less logical is false as it is not based on logic any more then your tri faceted god is.

Thats fine

Thats part of faith

But your original line of questioning needs no more explanation then you have provided for your three sided god, both are about on par logically.

Dude, show some respect. This is so typical of christians..."My religion rules, all other religions are for posers". I'm not a wiccan myself, actually, i don't think that i'd fit into any religion, but i do identify with many of their beliefs, so please, respect other religions and yours will be respected too.

Christians? Huh?

And "respect?" Puh-leez.

You see, that's just it, you have to define what "Christianity" is and then determine who meets that requirement.
i have to disagree with that. most people do not require the definition of something in order to say they are one. the amount of people who use terms that they don't necessarily know the exact meaning of is huge.
anyway, are you saying that when people from other christian sects say that they are christian, they are lying? while each sect identifies itself as separate, they all still claim to be christian.

...and does not forgive sins. The Bible is a book written by people who wanted others to conform with their views, and is not the word of God. Nature originally guided people, along with a belief in the Rule of Three. Wicca again allows nature to guide. Paganism is not a religion, though some people with certain beliefs claim it to be their religion.

Controversial?

And this is from someone who was not all that long ago confirmed into the Church of England.

Based on stuff on this thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511401 and on trusting my feelings. See http://www.geocities.com/pjcroad/nature (especially the first two paragraphs).

And all of it is nonsense, regardless of packaging.

You mean all of religion? In essence, I'm saying that religion is NOT valid and that originally people simply trusted nature but believed in a universe-thing called the rule of Three which states that whatever energy you send out (good or bad), it will return threefold. Then people learned how to write...

Yup.



Good for you.



Nonsense.

You are both very wrong. Jesus most certainly IS God, and He DID (and still DOES) forgive sins.

Furthermore, Jesus was (and is) NOT a spirit. Jesus is the FLESHY manifestation of God. God has three parts to Him:
1. A body (Jesus Christ, God the Son)
2. A soul (God the Father)
3. A spirit (the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost)

Instead of rejecting the Bible without reading it, why don't you READ it and see if I'm right?

...and does not forgive sins. The Bible is a book written by people who wanted others to conform with their views, and is not the word of God. Nature originally guided people, along with a belief in the Rule of Three. Wicca again allows nature to guide. Paganism is not a religion, though some people with certain beliefs claim it to be their religion.

Controversial?

And this is from someone who was not all that long ago confirmed into the Church of England.

Based on stuff on this thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511401 and on trusting my feelings. See http://www.geocities.com/pjcroad/nature (especially the first two paragraphs).

Mystic mumbo-jumbo.

Go see the witch doctor, he'll tell you what to do.

You are both very wrong. Jesus most certainly IS God, and He DID (and still DOES) forgive sins.

Furthermore, Jesus was (and is) NOT a spirit. Jesus is the FLESHY manifestation of God. God has three parts to Him:
1. A body (Jesus Christ, God the Son)
2. A soul (God the Father)
3. A spirit (the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost)

Instead of rejecting the Bible without reading it, why don't you READ it and see if I'm right?
one question then: if jesus was just the flesh of god, then wouldn't it be far more appropriate to give praise to one of the other 2 facets, as they have more meaning being his spritual aspects?

If so, then you too are a fundamentalist. You define what you think is right and close your mind to everything else...

Interesting that you name call though, that's too bad, you won't progress too far with that close-mindedness.

"Fundamentalist" describes a movement to return to what is considered the defining or founding principles of the religion. It has especially come to refer to any religious enclave that intentionally resists identification with the larger religious group in which it originally arose, on the basis that fundamental principles upon which the larger religious group is supposedly founded have become corrupt or displaced by alternative principles hostile to its identity.

From your posts this is clearly what you believe so it's not name calling and wasn't intended as such. I merely acknowlege that I will be totally unable argue with you because of the strength of your belief and that to continue to do so would be a waste of my and your time.

So you say ... but what are you BASING that on ... one is not inherently any more logical then the other.

You are basing it on faith, just like every one else

Fine

But in the end saying a two faceted god or a 10 faceted god is any less logical is false as it is not based on logic any more then your tri faceted god is.

Thats fine

Thats part of faith

But your original line of questioning needs no more explanation then you have provided for your three sided god, both are about on par logically.

Your point is well made. But you must remember my point in this thread and keep it in context or else you are just playing word games.

My point was the example that if a person that worships a 2 faceted god, meets a person that worships a seven faceted god, I say that they do NOT worship the same god. But your argument is from the outsiders point of view, the third party. The outsider goes into both houses and says, YOU worship my god but you call my god a two faceted god and you call my god a seven faceted god, but the truth is I say you are both worshiping different aspects of MY god…

When in reality, all three of the people are worshiping different gods and they are all trying to one up each other.

"Fundamentalist" describes a movement to return to what is considered the defining or founding principles of the religion. It has especially come to refer to any religious enclave that intentionally resists identification with the larger religious group in which it originally arose, on the basis that fundamental principles upon which the larger religious group is supposedly founded have become corrupt or displaced by alternative principles hostile to its identity.

From your posts this is clearly what you believe so it's not name calling and wasn't intended as such. I merely acknowlege that I will be totally unable argue with you because of the strength of your belief and that to continue to do so would be a waste of my and your time.

You just keep telling yourself that, you already believe it so there is nothing I can do to change it.... No insult intended, but you've shown yourself to be closed minded and beyond my ability to help.

Your point is well made. But you must remember my point in this thread and keep it in context or else you are just playing word games.

My point was the example that if a person that worships a 2 faceted god, meets a person that worships a seven faceted god, I say that they do NOT worship the same god. But your argument is from the outsiders point of view, the third party. The outsider goes into both houses and says, YOU worship my god but you call my god a two faceted god and you call my god a seven faceted god, but the truth is I say you are both worshiping different aspects of MY god…

When in reality, all three of the people are worshiping different gods and they are all trying to one up each other.
(btw glad I am making sense too damn sick)

Or maybe they are worshiping different groups of facets from the same god and neither has the full view.

You view them as different as you both have faith that yours is a complete view of a particular being fine. But that is based in faith not NESSISARILY reality.

My point DOES come from a third party point of view that there is no logical superiority of either of your views or a combined view. AS such your original line of questioning is really moot and frankly as un provable as your view.

Taking that into account requiring an explanation of how different facets of a god is possible while maintaining that your god as well has multiplie facets seems rather silly.

i have to disagree with that. most people do not require the definition of something in order to say they are one. the amount of people who use terms that they don't necessarily know the exact meaning of is huge.
anyway, are you saying that when people from other christian sects say that they are christian, they are lying? while each sect identifies itself as separate, they all still claim to be christian.

Okay, lets change examples.

Lets say "Christianity" equates to General Motors.

IF you drive a Chevrolet, a Pontiac, a Cadillac, a Buick, a Saturn, or even a Subaru or a Saab, then you drive a GM car, no mater how different or alike you are.

But if you drive a Ford or a Toyota, you are NOT in the same family anymore. You are still driving a car, but it's not a General Motors vehicle and you can't really claim any allegiance to it.

You just keep telling yourself that, you already believe it so there is nothing I can do to change it.... No insult intended, but you've shown yourself to be closed minded and beyond my ability to help.

Likewise ;)

(btw glad I am making sense too damn sick)

Or maybe they are worshiping different groups of facets from the same god and neither has the full view.

You view them as different as you both have faith that yours is a complete view of a particular being fine. But that is based in faith not NESSISARILY reality.

My point DOES come from a third party point of view that there is no logical superiority of either of your views or a combined view. AS such your original line of questioning is really moot and frankly as un provable as your view.

Taking that into account requiring an explanation of how different facets of a god is possible while maintaining that your god as well has multiplie facets seems rather silly.

It is YOUR faith that tells you that they are both worshiping different aspects of what YOU call God. But how can YOU determine what is their belief? You cannot. You can claim to be right, but only YOUR faith in your belief confirms it.

I have no idea what you're on about, so I'm going to make a generic statement cursing my lot in life and blame it on The Plankton Conspiracy.

Now there's something we can work with.
*nods*

Okay, lets change examples.

Lets say "Christianity" equates to General Motors.

IF you drive a Chevrolet, a Pontiac, a Cadillac, a Buick, a Saturn, or even a Subaru or a Saab, then you drive a GM car, no mater how different or alike you are.

But if you drive a Ford or a Toyota, you are NOT in the same family anymore. You are still driving a car, but it's not a General Motors vehicle and you can't really claim any allegiance to it.
exactly. everyone has a car (a religion (people who don't are atheist)) and there are a group of people who define themselves as GM car drivers (christians) and they may specify that they drive a specific brand (sect).
i think you just proved the point of all the sects still being christians

Okay, lets change examples.

Lets say "Christianity" equates to General Motors.

IF you drive a Chevrolet, a Pontiac, a Cadillac, a Buick, a Saturn, or even a Subaru or a Saab, then you drive a GM car, no mater how different or alike you are.

But if you drive a Ford or a Toyota, you are NOT in the same family anymore. You are still driving a car, but it's not a General Motors vehicle and you can't really claim any allegiance to it.
True but in your analogy you are defining the classifications by ownership ... clear and traceable

Beliefs like many human things are a lot harder to go black and white with ... what are the guidelines for determining

If we make too harsh of a guidelines it is a possibility that every single individual has a slightly different faith in the details. Categorizing like that is useless to us. And creating the guidelines too broad is equally useless ... if everyone is Christian how does the guidelines help?

You are both very wrong. Jesus most certainly IS God, and He DID (and still DOES) forgive sins.

Furthermore, Jesus was (and is) NOT a spirit. Jesus is the FLESHY manifestation of God. God has three parts to Him:
1. A body (Jesus Christ, God the Son)
2. A soul (God the Father)
3. A spirit (the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost)

Instead of rejecting the Bible without reading it, why don't you READ it and see if I'm right?

I did, and my experience tells me you're not right.
But that's okay, since this is a forum, and whether you're actually right or not is little if any impediment to the flow and livelihood of our mutual experience here.

BTW, there's a few other people you might consider asking about this particular subject matter with the same attitude.

tah

God is big, he's very very big.

And shiny.

exactly. everyone has a car (a religion (people who don't are atheist)) and there are a group of people who define themselves as GM car drivers (christians) and they may specify that they drive a specific brand (sect).
i think you just proved the point of all the sects still being christians

No, because Islam and Buddhist (and every other creed) drive too. Not every car is Christian.

God is big, he's very very big.

And shiny.
i think you've made the most sense of all posters to this thread so far... :D

God is big, he's very very big.

And shiny.

Shiny, like +1?
Or shiny, like clearly caucasian-complexion and blue eyed like so many optimistic depictions?

It is YOUR faith that tells you that they are both worshiping different aspects of what YOU call God. But how can YOU determine what is their belief? You cannot. You can claim to be right, but only YOUR faith in your belief confirms it.

True ...

So?

We have finally boiled it down to faiths telling each individual what is true in an unfalsifiable situation such as exists with god.

Good ... Now I ask you what your basis for disbelieving in the proposition that the poster your originally quoted's belief that they were actually worshiping the same god.

No, because Islam and Buddhist (and every other creed) drive too. Not every car is Christian.
the having a car is the equivalence to having a religion, islam and buddhist fit in that category by not having GM cars, but still having a car

Shiny, like +1?
Or shiny, like clearly caucasian-complexion and blue eyed like so many optimistic depictions?
42

No, because Islam and Buddhist (and every other creed) drive too. Not every car is Christian.

Correct ... as addressed in my post how do you set up the definitions of what is Christian. Unlike cars company ownership is not quite as clear cut.

You seem to be deriding other peoples apparently reasonable classifications without backing yours up any more

42

Ah.






;)


EDIT: Which one of us all is likely to disappear in a puff of logic?

True but in your analogy you are defining the classifications by ownership ... clear and traceable

Beliefs like many human things are a lot harder to go black and white with ... what are the guidelines for determining

If we make too harsh of a guidelines it is a possibility that every single individual has a slightly different faith in the details. Categorizing like that is useless to us. And creating the guidelines too broad is equally useless ... if everyone is Christian how does the guidelines help?

That's why I say that we need to define what it is BEFORE we say who does or does not meet that criteria.

IF our very salvation depends on it, then being lax on defining it would be irresponsible, at best, on our part, and reprehensible at worse.

iCorrect ... as addressed in my post how do you set up the definitions of what is Christian. Unlike cars company ownership is not quite as clear cut.

You seem to be deriding other peoples apparently reasonable classifications without backing yours up any more

I haven't tried to defend mine over the others. My point was in making the distinction that they are not all one and the same. That one should measure and guage, one should look and take to heart, the different meanings between the faiths.

I only argue against the blending of the faiths into a conglomerate paste of wishy washy nonsense. There IS a real faith and I think each of you should pursue that goal. God can argue for himself when it comes time for that.

That's why I say that we need to define what it is BEFORE we say who does or does not meet that criteria.

IF our very salvation depends on it, then being lax on defining it would be irresponsible, at best, on our part, and reprehensible at worse.

True ... but speaking personally if god plays that sort of semantic or language definition game he or she is not very much worth respect.

Personally if our salvation depended on it the guidelines could have been better distilled for the masses. Maybe a lot less background noise with the equally believable religions as well.

As our salvation apparently depends on a clear and informed understanding of a peculiar religon and its interpretation.

i
God can argue for himself when it comes time for that.
So long as it doesn't involve iron and chariots.

i

I haven't tried to defend mine over the others. My point was in making the distinction that they are not all one and the same. That one should measure and guage, one should look and take to heart, the different meanings between the faiths.

I only argue against the blending of the faiths into a conglomerate paste of wishy washy nonsense. There IS a real faith and I think each of you should pursue that goal. God can argue for himself when it comes time for that.

True but in my post with the car definitions over classification becomes useless as well. At least by us mere humans ... we have to receive SOME benefit and clarification

To bring it back to your car analogy it would be a little difficult to keep track if every single option choice on a car had a separate names. They group some together just for ease of classifications

They are ALL silveraudos even if one is red and one is blue ... giving each a separate name leads to useless confusion.

True but in my post with the car definitions over classification becomes useless as well. At least by us mere humans ... we have to receive SOME benefit and clarification

To bring it back to your car analogy it would be a little difficult to keep track if every single option choice on a car had a separate names. They group some together just for ease of classifications

They are ALL silveraudos even if one is red and one is blue ... giving each a separate name leads to useless confusion.

Agreed.


Again, though, I reiterate, IF we have a definition of what we are looking for (i.e., this is a Christian, this is not., etc.,), then when we find it, we know it, AND when we find something that does not fit it, we know that as well.



EDIT: but bedtime for bonzo here... until tomorrow...

Agreed.


Again, though, I reiterate, IF we have a definition of what we are looking for (i.e., this is a Christian, this is not., etc.,), then when we find it, we know it, AND when we find something that does not fit it, we know that as well.



EDIT: but bedtime for bonzo here... until tomorrow...

Same here GF calling me to bed ... good discussion btw I normally get frustrated but this one was solid.

Goodnight all, I've bowed out but continued to read the debate. Sleep well all of you.

exactly. everyone has a car (a religion (people who don't are atheist)) and there are a group of people who define themselves as GM car drivers (christians) and they may specify that they drive a specific brand (sect).
i think you just proved the point of all the sects still being christians


Does that mean that atheists are environmentally friendly?? :-)

As to the part about whether jesus forgives sins or not, is there anything that says for sure that he does, without any possible alternate meaning. All the other examples where Jesus tells people they are forgiven, could it not be god speaking through Jesus? Anyways, I'm no biblical scholar, nor am I a Christian, just figured I'd pitch in those 5 cents.

And I didn't understand the original post about how the earliest humans believed in the rule of three. I know that they believed similarly, such as breaking set taboos would equate in the wrath of ancestral spirits, or even totems, but nothing about receiving in threefold.

Anyways, not to try to discredit Wiccanism with an argument that is regretibly poor, but here's my reason for not believing in the rule of three. There is one assumption that I make: The only requirement for partaking in a religion is to believe in that religion. If the earliest humans were to partake in a belief of the rule of three, they would have to understand the numeric concept of three. Maybe they were when they first began shamanic practices, but I have to hold both sides of the fence on this one.
I hold similar beliefs in all religions as a whole. If a religion was correct, why hasn't it existed since the beginning of homo sapiens sapiens, when a species of animal capable of understanding the abstract and supernatural came to be.

My standpoint on religion is that its just a social mechanism, one that meets certain requirements/needs of certain groups of people. I don't believe that any of them hold absolute religous truth, although some may have some fractals of truth. Why don't I believe in any religion? Because no religion meets my requirements or needs, I don't need religion. Religion will just place me in groups that I don't belong in/ want to be in.

was it for the cake?

[/izzard]

There's no Church of England fundamentalism. We can't have Church of England fundamentalism. You know, like they have Islamic fundamentalism. Jihad! … Ah ha … Church of England fundamentalism is impossible because you can't have:

"You must have tea and cake with the vicar or you die!" Tea and cake or death!

Students with beards, "Tea and cake or death! Tea and cake or death! Little Red Cookbook! Little Red Cookbook!"

Ca – you know, 'cause, "Cake or death?" That's a pretty easy question. Everybody – anyone could answer that.

"Cake or death?"

"Uhh, cake please."

"Very well! Give him cake!"

"Oh, thanks very much. It's very nice!"

"You! Cake or death?" "

Uh, cake for me, too, please!"

"Very well! Give him cake, too! We're gonna run out of cake at this rate. You! Cake or death?"

"Uh, death, please. No, cake! Cake! Cake, sorry. Sorry …"

"You said death first, ah-ha, ah-ha, death first!"

"Well, I meant cake!"

"Oh, all right. You're lucky I'm Church of England! Cake or death?"

"Uh, cake please."

"Well, we're out of cake! We only had three bits and we didn't expect such a rush! So what'll it be?"

"What, so my choice is 'or death?' Well, then I'll have the chicken, please."

There's no Church of England fundamentalism. We can't have Church of England fundamentalism. You know, like they have Islamic fundamentalism. Jihad! … Ah ha … Church of England fundamentalism is impossible because you can't have:
..."

You simply refuse to call it fundamentalism, but there IS a distinctive group of conservatives and a different more liberal group within what you call a single entity. There ARE different types of CoE congregations and they seem to disagree with each other enough to believe the differences are irreconcilable...

http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=293760


As to your joke story though, yes, that was funny :p

The Nicene creed IS a definition, that was the point. It specifically defines the meaning of the name.

As to my argument falling flat, you obviously made a mistake, because you yourself said, “believe that Christ was the son of god and the Messiah phrophesied in the Old Testamant” thus YOU TOO defined what is and what is not Christianity. If they do NOT believe any of that, but call themselves Christians anyway, then they share the name but not the meaning, as I said before, and they are not Christians. There is a Christian type A and a Christian type B to be reckoned with. They do not believe in the same theology. If they are the same, then ALL religions are the same.

My point still stands.

the nicean creed spells out the basic christian beliefs. those christians who dont believe in each and every point of the creed are heretics. that doesnt mean they arent christians. many many early chirstians held beliefs that disagree with the nicean creed which would come later. they were still christians.

Correct ... as addressed in my post how do you set up the definitions of what is Christian. Unlike cars company ownership is not quite as clear cut.

You seem to be deriding other peoples apparently reasonable classifications without backing yours up any more

people who drive saturns are heretics.

The Nicene creed IS a definition, that was the point. It specifically defines the meaning of the name.

As to my argument falling flat, you obviously made a mistake, because you yourself said, “believe that Christ was the son of god and the Messiah phrophesied in the Old Testamant” thus YOU TOO defined what is and what is not Christianity. If they do NOT believe any of that, but call themselves Christians anyway, then they share the name but not the meaning, as I said before, and they are not Christians. There is a Christian type A and a Christian type B to be reckoned with. They do not believe in the same theology. If they are the same, then ALL religions are the same.

My point still stands.

However, Christians existed before the creed and not all Christians agreed with the creed. Just because it was popular does redefine a faith that existed prior to it. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

Can I define NS as a place where conservatives masturbate and as long as I get the majority to agree then it is so? Or perhaps NS is defined by its creator, no? Much like Christianity is defined by the teachings of Jesus not some creed issued by a political entity 300 years later.

The only person who has ever lived who may define or redefine Christianity is Jesus Christ and last I checked you aren't him and neither were any of the people writing and re-writing and re-writing the Nicene Creed.

A Christian is one who believes in the teachings of Christ by clear definition. Anything else is trying to make your particular beliefs about what Christiantiy SHOULD be Law.

You simply refuse to call it fundamentalism, but there IS a distinctive group of conservatives and a different more liberal group within what you call a single entity. There ARE different types of CoE congregations and they seem to disagree with each other enough to believe the differences are irreconcilable...

http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=293760


As to your joke story though, yes, that was funny :p

Then you should take a look at more Eddie Izzard standup I think that one might have been dressed to kill. Also apparently God sounds like James Mason.

"And if you've never seen an elephant skie, then you've never been on acid"

WHO they view God as, WHO they worship defines themselves. IF I use the name Adam, and they Use the name Adam, again it does NOT mean that we are talking about he same person named Adam. You have NOT produced any evidence that only one Adam is possible. The evidence dictates that there is more than one Adam being talked about.

The God that demands you worship no other gods besides him would say it IS possible to worship false gods, and calling them god does not change the fact that it is not him you are talking about when you say the word god.

Christianity is defined by following the teachings of Christ. EVERYTHING else is secondary. That's not a disagreeable definition like you're trying to impose, but a definition based on the very origins of the word. Many Christians would disagree with your definition and there have always been these Christians even in the earliest churches but none would disagree that the teachings of Christ are the very foundation of what makes one Christian.

To take something created long after Christ lived and taught and claim it as a fundamental requirement for attaching the name of Christ to your beliefs is quite simply blasphemy.

By the way, Joseph Smith taught that Jesus was the Son of God and taught of the trinity. It's clear Mormons believe in the divinity of Jesus despite your claims to the contrary.

Christianity is defined by following the teachings of Christ. EVERYTHING else is secondary. That's not a disagreeable definition like you're trying to impose, but a definition based on the very origins of the word. Many Christians would disagree with your definition and there have always been these Christians even in the earliest churches but none would disagree that the teachings of Christ are the very foundation of what makes one Christian.

To take something created long after Christ lived and taught and claim it as a fundamental requirement for attaching the name of Christ to your beliefs is quite simply blasphemy.

By the way, Joseph Smith taught that Jesus was the Son of God and taught of the trinity. It's clear Mormons believe in the divinity of Jesus despite your claims to the contrary.


yeah. if you look at the gospels, jesus never taught his disciples any of the details of the nicean creed. he never said "you must believe that i am the son of god and god at the same time, fully human and fully god". he said things like "the meek will inherit the earth" and "love thy neighbor as thyself"

seems to me that the more important aspect of being a christian is taking the teachings of jesus seriously enough to follow them


mormon belief has jesus as the son of god but not part of god. they also believe that satan is the son of god. its heretical but so what? if its not true, they'll have a bit of a laugh about it in heaven.

Okay, lets change examples.

Lets say "Christianity" equates to General Motors.

IF you drive a Chevrolet, a Pontiac, a Cadillac, a Buick, a Saturn, or even a Subaru or a Saab, then you drive a GM car, no mater how different or alike you are.

But if you drive a Ford or a Toyota, you are NOT in the same family anymore. You are still driving a car, but it's not a General Motors vehicle and you can't really claim any allegiance to it.

However, in this case, we are talking about a GM that was taken over by a group after three centuries that suddenly declared that Cadillacs were not GM cars. However, 1700 years later people are still driving those same Cadillacs and no amount of complaining will change the fact that Cadillacs were made by GM.

Christianity did not have the creed until three centuries and many Christians, recognized Christians since they were at the council, did not agree with the creed when it was made. No matter how you slice it, the creed has NEVER been univerisally accepted even by those invited to the council as leaders of the Christian movement. You have to simply ignore the history of the creed to not recognize that it redefined Christianity and attempted to claim the definition of Christianity only applied to a subset of Christians. The name was not the majority of the council's to redefine. The belief system belongs to Christ and unless He says that someone is not a Christian then it is not for you to determine.

yeah. if you look at the gospels, jesus never taught his disciples any of the details of the nicean creed. he never said "you must believe that i am the son of god and god at the same time, fully human and fully god". he said things like "the meek will inherit the earth" and "love thy neighbor as thyself"

seems to me that the more important aspect of being a christian is taking the teachings of jesus seriously enough to follow them


mormon belief has jesus as the son of god but not part of god. they also believe that satan is the son of god. its heretical but so what? if its not true, they'll have a bit of a laugh about it in heaven.

Yes, some people seem to forget that it is the teachings of the Christ that define Christianity not the teachings of man. I see this constant claim by Christians that unless one accepts some man teaching or another then one is not a 'True' Christian. It's simply absurd. There is only one set of teachings I care about and it's not those of a Roman Emperor or those of random men who think they have the right or the power to change the teachings of the Christ.

As to Mormons, exactly. They believe in the divinity of Christ as do Jehovah's witnesses, they simply regard that divinity slightly differently. In PW's example, they truly regard the triangle as a triangle instead of claiming that all three sides are the same side.

...
mormon belief has jesus as the son of god but not part of god. they also believe that satan is the son of god. its heretical but so what? if its not true, they'll have a bit of a laugh about it in heaven.

I said, the Mormon church does not even recognize the same God as Christianity, you can quote how many times they claim to be Christians by using Jesus name all you want but you can’t change the fact that they disagree on what and who Jesus was the son of…


“I wish to declare I have always an in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods.”
Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 6, p. 306

"This was the calling of Joseph Smith. He taught anew that God was in the form of man; that man was made in the image of God; and he taught the principles of justice, mercy, charity, and forgiveness. ... He taught the truths that the Prophets before him had taught; and he went beyond them. ... Joseph Smith taught men to look up to heaven and conceive of a God in the form of man. He taught them that they could become like their Father and God, who was 'an exalted Man.' And what is more simple and reasonable? Don't you parents expect your children to become like you? Or do you expect your children to be something else than men and women? No. You men will see your sons become men; you women will see your daughters become women. Then God our Father--yes, and our Mother--in heaven, looking down upon this world-- this school house in which their children are being educated--expect, and Joseph Smith taught it as a truth, that their children will be exalted, if they pursue the proper course, until they shall become divine beings themselves, worthy to stand upon that plane where stand their Father and their Mother in heaven. Like begets like; and the principle of eternal progress will make of man a God. (LDS Apostle Orson F. Whitney, Collected Discourses, Vol.5, May 8, 1898, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM)

"Intelligent beings are organized to become Gods, even the Sons of God, to dwell in the presence of the Gods, and become associated with the highest intelligences that dwell in eternity. We are now in the school, and must practice upon what we receive." (LDS President Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, p.245, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM)

“Each God, through his wife or wives, raises up a numerous family of sons and daughters.... [E]ach father and mother will be in a condition to multiply forever. As soon as each God has begotten many millions of male and female spirits... he, in connection with his sons, organizes a new world... where he sends both the male and female spirits to inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones.... The inhabitants of each world are required to reverence, adore, and worship their own personal father who dwells in the Heaven which they formerly inhabited.”
Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, v. 1, p. 37

If you two want to argue about Mormon theology and Christian theology more you should start a specific thread about that, I'll be happy to participate. The topic here was definitions of sects though. If sect A says "This is Christianity" and then someone meets that credential, then that is a Sect A person. But if the person does not meet that previously determined credential then the person is not Sect A, they are Sect B or Sect C, etc.

But what you and Jocabia are doing is arguing about what should be in the definition, not about the fact that the definition exists, or not.

And I thought Mormonism was bat shit nuts when I was one...and I didn't know about that.

I said, the Mormon church does not even recognize the same God as Christianity, you can quote how many times they claim to be Christians by using Jesus name all you want but you can’t change the fact that they disagree on what and who Jesus was the son of…


“I wish to declare I have always an in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods.”
Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 6, p. 306

"This was the calling of Joseph Smith. He taught anew that God was in the form of man; that man was made in the image of God; and he taught the principles of justice, mercy, charity, and forgiveness. ... He taught the truths that the Prophets before him had taught; and he went beyond them. ... Joseph Smith taught men to look up to heaven and conceive of a God in the form of man. He taught them that they could become like their Father and God, who was 'an exalted Man.' And what is more simple and reasonable? Don't you parents expect your children to become like you? Or do you expect your children to be something else than men and women? No. You men will see your sons become men; you women will see your daughters become women. Then God our Father--yes, and our Mother--in heaven, looking down upon this world-- this school house in which their children are being educated--expect, and Joseph Smith taught it as a truth, that their children will be exalted, if they pursue the proper course, until they shall become divine beings themselves, worthy to stand upon that plane where stand their Father and their Mother in heaven. Like begets like; and the principle of eternal progress will make of man a God. (LDS Apostle Orson F. Whitney, Collected Discourses, Vol.5, May 8, 1898, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM)

"Intelligent beings are organized to become Gods, even the Sons of God, to dwell in the presence of the Gods, and become associated with the highest intelligences that dwell in eternity. We are now in the school, and must practice upon what we receive." (LDS President Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, p.245, LDS Collectors Library '97 CD-ROM)

“Each God, through his wife or wives, raises up a numerous family of sons and daughters.... [E]ach father and mother will be in a condition to multiply forever. As soon as each God has begotten many millions of male and female spirits... he, in connection with his sons, organizes a new world... where he sends both the male and female spirits to inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones.... The inhabitants of each world are required to reverence, adore, and worship their own personal father who dwells in the Heaven which they formerly inhabited.”
Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, v. 1, p. 37

If you two want to argue about Mormon theology and Christian theology more you should start a specific thread about that, I'll be happy to participate. The topic here was definitions of sects though. If sect A says "This is Christianity" and then someone meets that credential, then that is a Sect A person. But if the person does not meet that previously determined credential then the person is not Sect A, they are Sect B or Sect C, etc.

But what you and Jocabia are doing is arguing about what should be in the definition, not about the fact that the definition exists, or not.

We're not denying the definition, we're simply suggesting that a definition exists that centers around Christ, not certain teachings that you happen to agree with. The divinity of Christ is not part of the definition of Christianity no matter how much you complain. It simply isn't a requirement to believe that to be Christian. Christian by definition means and always has meant one who follows the teachings of Christ. Period. Some people want to make the definition more specific to apply to their sect, but the FACT is that the definition of Christianity came about 2000 years ago and you don't have the power to change it nor does anyone save the subject of that belief system.

Meanwhile, your claims are not validated by those quotes. No matter how you slice it, Joseph Smith clearly stated that he believed in Jesus as the Son of God. The fact that he tacked other beliefs on that is quite frankly not for you to judge. You don't have to agree with them, but you're quite simply not in a position to decide whether or not they are Christian. There is a reason why sweeping definitions like Catholic or Protestant exist. Because they give you amount of exclusion you seem to require for your Christianity. However, it's not for you decide for Jesus who His followers are. You're simply not that important.

EDIT: I've noticed that majority of the threads I see you in consist of you telling others they are wrong because you have some special definition of a term that they are required to abide by. The 'True' Scotsman fallacy abounds. The last one I saw you in you were telling GnI he must be wrong because he uses the common definition of communism instead of the one for Marxism because YOU say that once again if people don't follow your very particular and exclusive definitions then they are not 'real' x-ists or x-ers or x-ians or whatever hot topic you feel you're qualified to define. The arrogance of such behavior isn't lost on me.

We're not denying the definition, we're simply suggesting that a definition exists that centers around Christ, not certain teachings that you happen to agree with. The divinity of Christ is not part of the definition of Christianity no matter how much you complain. It simply isn't a requirement to believe that to be Christian. Christian by definition means and always has meant one who follows the teachings of Christ. Period. Some people want to make the definition more specific to apply to their sect, but the FACT is that the definition of Christianity came about 2000 years ago and you don't have the power to change it nor does anyone save the subject of that belief system.

Meanwhile, your claims are not validated by those quotes. No matter how you slice it, Joseph Smith clearly stated that he believed in Jesus as the Son of God. The fact that he tacked other beliefs on that is quite frankly not for you to judge. You don't have to agree with them, but you're quite simply not in a position to decide whether or not they are Christian. There is a reason why sweeping definitions like Catholic or Protestant exist. Because they give you amount of exclusion you seem to require for your Christianity. However, it's not for you decide for Jesus who His followers are. You're simply not that important.

EDIT: I've noticed that majority of the threads I see you in consist of you telling others they are wrong because you have some special definition of a term that they are required to abide by. The 'True' Scotsman fallacy abounds. The last one I saw you in you were telling GnI he must be wrong because he uses the common definition of communism instead of the one for Marxism because YOU say that once again if people don't follow your very particular and exclusive definitions then they are not 'real' x-ists or x-ers or x-ians or whatever hot topic you feel you're qualified to define. The arrogance of such behavior isn't lost on me.


I just wanna say that following Christ's teachings does NOT make a person Christian - it means they think that what he apparently/supposedly said makes sense and is a good way to live life. Muslims think Jesus was a great teacher, so logic assumes that they would have no problem adhereing to the bits of his apparent teachings that do not conflict with Islam (don't judge others, do forgive people, love God, etc) but they are certainly not Christian - one can believe in the exitence of Jesus and do what they think is right by him without being Christian, just as many people believe in God and try to do what's right by God without being religious... to be Christian, one has to accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour (that's one definition, but there are are about as many different definitions as there are questions about Christian beliefs)

Yes, some people seem to forget that it is the teachings of the Christ that define Christianity not the teachings of man. I see this constant claim by Christians that unless one accepts some man teaching or another then one is not a 'True' Christian. It's simply absurd. There is only one set of teachings I care about and it's not those of a Roman Emperor or those of random men who think they have the right or the power to change the teachings of the Christ.The teachings of Jesus are unknown. He wrote no books. And those who wrote books about him are not reliable.

all the people here who are saying reasons that makes god/allah/whatever doesnt exsist i say shut the fuck up:upyours: atleast we try to make an idea that isnt solid fact!

The teachings of Jesus are unknown. He wrote no books. And those who wrote books about him are not reliable.

Why? Most of the material in the Gospels is consistent with the teachings in the books that are not included in the canon.

Why? Most of the material in the Gospels is consistent with the teachings in the books that are not included in the canon.1. No, that's essentially why there are not included in the "canon". 2. What would consistency prove?

I just wanna say that following Christ's teachings does NOT make a person Christian - it means they think that what he apparently/supposedly said makes sense and is a good way to live life. Muslims think Jesus was a great teacher, so logic assumes that they would have no problem adhereing to the bits of his apparent teachings that do not conflict with Islam (don't judge others, do forgive people, love God, etc) but they are certainly not Christian - one can believe in the exitence of Jesus and do what they think is right by him without being Christian, just as many people believe in God and try to do what's right by God without being religious... to be Christian, one has to accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour (that's one definition, but there are are about as many different definitions as there are questions about Christian beliefs)

moslems dont follow jesus. they follow the teaching of mohammed. thats why they arent christians.

mormons follow the teachings of jesus, thus they ARE christians.

did you see that i responded to your original question (or was it the one on the other thread) back somewhere on or near the first page?

The teachings of Jesus are unknown. He wrote no books. And those who wrote books about him are not reliable.

Socrates wrote no books either. I'm quite certain you're not protesting that people learn his teachings. You say this in every thread Jesus is mentioned in. There are a number of historical figures whose teachings are sought and found who never wrote anything themselves. What that person actually said or if they even existed is immaterial to the FACT that there are mutually agreed up teachings attributed to those people and those teachings are studied and followed.

I just wanna say that following Christ's teachings does NOT make a person Christian - it means they think that what he apparently/supposedly said makes sense and is a good way to live life. Muslims think Jesus was a great teacher, so logic assumes that they would have no problem adhereing to the bits of his apparent teachings that do not conflict with Islam (don't judge others, do forgive people, love God, etc) but they are certainly not Christian - one can believe in the exitence of Jesus and do what they think is right by him without being Christian, just as many people believe in God and try to do what's right by God without being religious... to be Christian, one has to accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour (that's one definition, but there are are about as many different definitions as there are questions about Christian beliefs)

I'm sorry, but the definition of the word is the definition of the word. Pick up a dictionary. They're sold at EVERY bookstore and they're available for free on the net. Muslims don't follow the teachings of Jesus. As you said anything they follow that resembles the teachings of Jesus is first screened through other teachings. That makes it coincidence more than anything.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Christian
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Now there are more specific definitions but when talking about whether someone qualifies or not as Chrisitan one must choose the broadest definition.

moslems dont follow jesus. they follow the teaching of mohammed. thats why they arent christians.

mormons follow the teachings of jesus, thus they ARE christians.

did you see that i responded to your original question (or was it the one on the other thread) back somewhere on or near the first page?

IF you method holds true for Muslims, then Mormons don't follow Jesus they follow Joseph Smith. That's why they aren't Christians.

HOWEVER; Muslims DO say that they follow Jesus. AND they say that Jesus was a Muslim. They even call him the Messiah, only they mean something different than the Messiah the Christian mean when they say it. Muslims believe in the virgin birth, they believe that Jesus performed miracles in the name of Allah, AND they believe that Jesus rose into heaven unkilled, and that he will return and be a worshiper of Allah and will bow down and be led in prayer by Mohamed.

So under yours and Jocabia’s definition, Muslims ARE Christians. But you are both mistaken, and Jocabia plays with dictionaries. Neither Muslims nor Mormons believe in the same God or salvation as Christians. Using the name of Jesus or any other prophet does not equate to sameness with Christianity.

... Muslims don't follow the teachings of Jesus. As you said anything they follow that resembles the teachings of Jesus is first screened through other teachings. That makes it coincidence more than anything.
...

The exact same thing can be said about Mormons.

Muslims claim to believe the Bible, but they say, "insofar as it has not been corrupted." They say the Bible had been changed, was altered, erroneous or is corrupted etc.,, every time the Bible does not teach what the Qur’an teaches, they say the Bible was changed. They even claim that because the Bible does not teach that Jesus was a Muslim, it is proof that the Bible was changed, it explains to them why Mohamed was visited by an angel with the assignment to record the Qur’an, to “fix” the Bible and older scriptures.

Mormons claim the Bible as the word of God, however, Joseph Smith taught that the translations we have do not show all off the message anymore NOR accurately tells us the supposed original word of their God, or even the original biblical writers original intent (just like the Muslims say). He said, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly" And, “There is a grand distinction between the actual meaning of the prophets and the present translation." They claim that Joseph Smith was visited by an angel to "Fix" the Bible and the older scriptures.

Both see the Bible as right but only when screened through their own books.

The exact same thing can be said about Mormons.

Muslims claim to believe the Bible, but they say, "insofar as it has not been corrupted." They say the Bible had been changed, was altered, erroneous or is corrupted etc.,, every time the Bible does not teach what the Qur’an teaches, they say the Bible was changed. They even claim that because the Bible does not teach that Jesus was a Muslim, it is proof that the Bible was changed, it explains to them why Mohamed was visited by an angel with the assignment to record the Qur’an, to “fix” the Bible and older scriptures.

Mormons claim the Bible as the word of God, however, Joseph Smith taught that the translations we have do not show all off the message anymore NOR accurately tells us the supposed original word of their God, or even the original biblical writers original intent (just like the Muslims say). He said, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly" And, “There is a grand distinction between the actual meaning of the prophets and the present translation." They claim that Joseph Smith was visited by an angel to "Fix" the Bible and the older scriptures.

Both see the Bible as right but only when screened through their own books.

However, the teachings of Jesus are not the Bible and the Bible is not the teachings of Jesus. Catholics do the same thing. Catholics follow the teachings of Jesus as long as they appear in the Bible. You, yourself, claim that only the ideas that survived in the Nicene Creed and as a result of the Nicean conference count, but the fact is that Christians existed before that conference and the Bible. For my money, the teachings of Jesus are MORE important than the Bible or the Pope or any man or anything voted on or compiled by man. You don't believe that. To you, the teachings of Jesus are secondary and your beliefs are first subject to a vote by a majority of bishops and whatnot. That's your choice, but don't get upset that some Christians choose a different path not driven by politics.

Muslims do not see the Bible as right and if asked would tell you that they don't fit the definition. They do not profess a belief in the teachings of Jesus. They simply agree with Jesus at times.

IF you method holds true for Muslims, then Mormons don't follow Jesus they follow Joseph Smith. That's why they aren't Christians.

HOWEVER; Muslims DO say that they follow Jesus. AND they say that Jesus was a Muslim. They even call him the Messiah, only they mean something different than the Messiah the Christian mean when they say it. Muslims believe in the virgin birth, they believe that Jesus performed miracles in the name of Allah, AND they believe that Jesus rose into heaven unkilled, and that he will return and be a worshiper of Allah and will bow down and be led in prayer by Mohamed.

So under yours and Jocabia’s definition, Muslims ARE Christians. But you are both mistaken, and Jocabia plays with dictionaries. Neither Muslims nor Mormons believe in the same God or salvation as Christians. Using the name of Jesus or any other prophet does not equate to sameness with Christianity.


hey if a moslem ever tells me that he is a christian who follows the teachings of jesus, then i will consider him a christian. maybe they do that all the time, i wouldnt know, i have few islamic aquaintences.

IF that were the case, they would indeed be analagous to the mormons.

IF you method holds true for Muslims, then Mormons don't follow Jesus they follow Joseph Smith. That's why they aren't Christians.

HOWEVER; Muslims DO say that they follow Jesus. AND they say that Jesus was a Muslim. They even call him the Messiah, only they mean something different than the Messiah the Christian mean when they say it. Muslims believe in the virgin birth, they believe that Jesus performed miracles in the name of Allah, AND they believe that Jesus rose into heaven unkilled, and that he will return and be a worshiper of Allah and will bow down and be led in prayer by Mohamed.

So under yours and Jocabia’s definition, Muslims ARE Christians. But you are both mistaken, and Jocabia plays with dictionaries. Neither Muslims nor Mormons believe in the same God or salvation as Christians. Using the name of Jesus or any other prophet does not equate to sameness with Christianity.

No, ask them if they fit the definition I gave, the definition by the formation of the word and by the dictionary, and they will say they do not. They do not profess a belief in the teachings of Jesus. They profess a belief in the teachings of Muhammed and only agree with Jesus when He agrees with Muhammed. They are not followers of Jesus. They say it. We say it. Their belief system says it.

However, Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses are followers of Jesus. They say it. We say it. Their belief system says it. You can keep shake your fist at the dark and hoping it will suddenly become lights or you can reach out your hand and hit the switch. Seems to me that shaking your fist isn't working.

hey if a moslem ever tells me that he is a christian who follows the teachings of jesus, then i will consider him a christian. maybe they do that all the time, i wouldnt know, i have few islamic aquaintences.

IF that were the case, they would indeed be analagous to the mormons.

Yes, exactly. I can't wait to meet the Muslim who claims to be a follower of Christ. PW is making a ridiculous argument.

Yes, exactly. I can't wait to meet the Muslim who claims to be a follower of Christ. PW is making a ridiculous argument.

You obviously have NO idea what you are talking about.


In order to avoid misunderstanding, it should be clarified that when Muslims criticize the Bible or the teachings of Christianity, they are not attacking "God's Word" or Jesus Christ, peace be upon him. From the Muslim point of view, they are defending Jesus and God's Word --- which they have in the form of the Qur'an. Muslim criticism is targeted at writings that some people claim are God's word, but Muslim's simply don't accept their claim that they are really God's word in toto.


And…

In this way, Muslims are the true followers of Jesus, peace be upon him, because they defend him from the exaggerations of the Christians and teach the Pure Monotheism that Jesus himself followed.
link (http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MSC01&articleID=MSC010007&articlePages=1)


It's not my fault you don't understand Mormanism, Islam nor Christianity doctrines...

You obviously have NO idea what you are talking about.


In order to avoid misunderstanding, it should be clarified that when Muslims criticize the Bible or the teachings of Christianity, they are not attacking "God's Word" or Jesus Christ, peace be upon him. From the Muslim point of view, they are defending Jesus and God's Word --- which they have in the form of the Qur'an. Muslim criticism is targeted at writings that some people claim are God's word, but Muslim's simply don't accept their claim that they are really God's word in toto.


And…

In this way, Muslims are the true followers of Jesus, peace be upon him, because they defend him from the exaggerations of the Christians and teach the Pure Monotheism that Jesus himself followed.
link (http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MSC01&articleID=MSC010007&articlePages=1)


It's not my fault you don't understand Mormanism, Islam nor Christianity doctrines...

Amusingly, the page you linked clarifies what they mean by followers of Jesus though you excluded that explanation from your quotes. It says clearely "IN THIS WAY, Muslims are the true followers of Jesus". This suggests that they are using a very narrow definition of the word follower and intentionally so. Because they don't want to be confused with someone who ACTUALLY follows Christ's teachings as the primary teachings about God. They go on to clarify that they are talking about only that they believe in the same things as Jesus and that worship the same God in the same way as Jesus, clearly stating that their beliefs are not because of Jesus but because of Muhammed and the consistency between the two prophets. The explanation given there says that they are ONLY followers of Jesus ("IN THIS WAY") in that they worship the same God in the same way as Jesus. Jesus is a sidenote, a prophet who happens to exist, but nothing suggests that their teachings or way of life is any way formed by the teachings of Jesus.

Second of all, I never suggested that they dislike Jesus or that they are against his teachings. Here is the very easy question, if the teachings of Christ or the teachings of Muhammed disagree in any place which would they take first and foremost (assuming it was assured that both teachings were accurate accounts of the teachings of those messengers and that they clearly contradict). The answer is obvious in Islam. They believe Muhammed is primary which is why they believe Jesus would bow down to Muhammed. They believe all other prophets are equal.

However, Mormons believe that Joseph Smith is subservient to Jesus. Jesus is the primary. That's clear, too.

You've said both of these things yourself. In Mormonism and all of Christianity, Jesus's teachings are second to none. If you ask any Christian the teachings they follow first and foremost are those of Jesus, including Mormons. The teachings of Jesus are second to none.

Follow means - 2 a : to engage in as a calling or way of life : PURSUE

Muslims do not engage in the teachings of Jesus as a calling or a way of life. They engage in the teachings of Muhammed who they believe to be below Jesus but who agreed with much of the teachings of Jesus and who is a prophet of the same God as Jesus. However, they believe Jesus is below Muhammed and that the teachings of Muhammed are second to none.

The difference is obvious and clear.

And it's also clear to everyone but you. You think that Christianity can be redefined to exclude the some of the first Christians. The premise is ridiculous. You believe that communism can be redefined to exclude some of the first communists. The premise is ridiculous.

There is a reason it's called the "true" Scotsman FALLACY.

Try to exclude Christians all you like, but if you think any book, any teachings, anyone's thoughts or beliefs are more important than the teachings of the Christ, himself, then it's you who don't know what a Christian is.

Jesus was the son of God. HE established the Catholic Church. He said that whatever it says is right is right. The end.

Jesus was the son of God. HE established the Catholic Church. He said that whatever it says is right is right. The end.

thank you for those words of wisdom

I should clear somthing up here. I respect all religious views, and I would hope everybody respects mine. This forum is not known for being particularly tolerant of the religious.

Jesus was the son of God. HE established the Catholic Church. He said that whatever it says is right is right. The end.

Except he didn't. The Catholic Church was established by Constantine as any Catholic can tell you. Christianity was much more diverse and much more flat until the Nicean Council. Not all Christians, and again these were people recognized as Christians by other members of the Council and invited to attend and vote, agreed with the content of the Bible or the Nicene Creed. Not all Christians agreed with the establishment of Easter and Christmas (which essentially is responsible for bring pagan practices to the modern day and for the survival of those forms of worship, the egg, the easter bunny, the Christmas tree, gift giving on Christmas, etc.). Not all Christians agreed with the divinity of Christ.

It is they who composed Christianity and they have every right to be called Christians. No redefinition will take away their place in our history and their responsibility for the surviving beliefs of Christianity. To suggest that one must accept the beliefs of the Catholic Church and, thus, that the earliest Christians and, in fact, Jesus Christ do not qualify as part of the faith is quite simply absurd.

I should clear somthing up here. I respect all religious views, and I would hope everybody respects mine. This forum is not known for being particularly tolerant of the religious.

No one disrespected your view. Your permitted to your views, but don't expect people to let your glaring historical inaccuracy pass without inspection and correction.

Some on this forum are not known for being particularly tolerant of views that are not their own, and that lands in every area of the religious color wheel. Just as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell don't speak for all Christians, the few Atheists who call religious individuals crazy don't speak for all Atheists.

Except he didn't. The Catholic Church was established by Constantine as any Catholic can tell you. Christianity was much more diverse and much more flat until the Nicean Council. Not all Christians, and again these were people recognized as Christians by other members of the Council and invited to attend and vote, agreed with the content of the Bible or the Nicene Creed. Not all Christians agreed with the establishment of Easter and Christmas (which essentially is responsible for bring pagan practices to the modern day and for the survival of those forms of worship, the egg, the easter bunny, the Christmas tree, gift giving on Christmas, etc.). Not all Christians agreed with the divinity of Christ.

It is they who composed Christianity and they have every right to be called Christians. No redefinition will take away their place in our history and their responsibility for the surviving beliefs of Christianity. To suggest that one must accept the beliefs of the Catholic Church and, thus, that the earliest Christians and, in fact, Jesus Christ do not qualify as part of the faith is quite simply absurd.

My that way a long winded way to say nothing.

If Constantine founded Catholicism how come the line of Popes goes back directly to Saint Peter?

I don't think you know as much as you say you do.

My that way a long winded way to say nothing.

Amusing. Weren't you talking just a moment ago about respect. Okay, here's the short version.

1. No Catholic Chuch till the Nicean Council in 325 AD.

2. This was about ~300 years after the death of Jesus.

3. A large minority of Christians did not agree with the formation of the Catholic Church, the establishment of the holidays or the content of the Bible.

4. Thus the Catholic Church was established by a majority vote of Christians, not Christ.

5. These Christians were much closer to the direct teachings of Jesus Christ than you or I could possibly be.

6. Easter, established by the Nicean Council, was a pagan holiday celebrating the resurrection of the son of a pagan God, that pagan God's name was *gasp* Easter (or earlier, Samiramis).

7. The Bible added teachings that were not of Jesus which many Christians did not agree with and rejected many teachings of Jesus that were very prevalent because they did not agree with the way the majority wanted Christianity to move.

These are facts. Feel free to dispute them with your own facts and establish that you have some knowledge here. Or admit that you cannot do so. So far it seems like you've come here to preach and you're angry that the people you are preaching to are more knowledgeable on this subject than you are.

My that way a long winded way to say nothing.

A Lincoln quote comes to mind.

He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know. - Abraham Lincoln

If Constantine founded Catholicism how come the line of Popes goes back directly to Saint Peter?

I don't think you know as much as you say you do.

Are you telling me you're not aware of the Nicean Council? If the Popes who ruled before Constantine, who was a pagan to his very death bed where he was first baptised, had the power you claim then why couldn't they form the Bible, the teachings and the creed rather than relying on a vote? Because until Constantine there was no papacy with any real power in Christianity. Christians were as varied then as they are today. The Council sought to narrow the scope of Christianity and the beliefs of Christians, but you cannot deny that even the Council accepted Christians into their midst that did not agree with this.

A Lincoln quote comes to mind.

He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know. - Abraham Lincoln

Good thing you're above personal attacks. Tell me what of what I said was not true. Some of us choose to back up our statements with evidence. That evidence require *gasp* words. You'll notice that every one of those sentences introduced or explained a fact. Your post was exclusively designed to insult me. Mine was responding to the post of another with ideas and evidence for those ideas. Hodl yourself to your own standards and concentrate on the arguments and not on posts that are exclusively designed to insult me.

The smallest of nuances seem to send you for a loop that misdirects the rest of you analyses of a problem.
.... They believe Muhammed is primary which is why they believe Jesus would bow down to Muhammed. They believe all other prophets are equal.
....
Here we see that you think Muslims somehow condone bowing down to Mohamed. They disagree with you. They say, no one is but a slave to Allah, including Mohamed and Jesus. They say Jesus' message and Mohamed's message is one and the same, not one subservient to the other.

BTW: you mention believing in the teachings of Jesus, but you haven't mentioned where you think these original teachings of Jesus can be found. Like a Muslim and a Mormon you have said that you don't believe in the Bible as being credible for teaching us what the first Christians believed, but you sure go around telling us what they believed and did without telling us where you are getting this information from. Are you someone like Joseph Smith or Mohamed and you have your own angel in a cave somewhere telling you what is right and what is not? Do you too feel the need to "Fix" the Bible and older scriptures?

Are you telling me you're not aware of the Nicean Council? If the Popes who ruled before Constantine, who was a pagan to his very death bed where he was first baptised, had the power you claim then why couldn't they form the Bible, the teachings and the creed rather than relying on a vote? Because until Constantine there was no papacy with any real power in Christianity. Christians were as varied then as they are today. The Council sought to narrow the scope of Christianity and the beliefs of Christians, but you cannot deny that even the Council accepted Christians into their midst that did not agree with this.

They meant to codify what they already believed. They codified something that you now don't like so you attempt to attack their conclusions. However, their beliefs were the same BEFORE the council was convened. Perhaps you would like to show us how you know what you know about what they believed before this? We can start comparing notes until we find the oldest Christian documents and see what they say, hmm?

They meant to codify what they already believed. They codified something that you now don't like so you attempt to attack their conclusions. However, their beliefs were the same BEFORE the council was convened. Perhaps you would like to show us how you know what you know about what they believed before this? We can start comparing notes until we find the oldest Christian documents and see what they say, hmm?

I'm not attacking them. Yes, many already believed it. But not all. That's the point. Even people the Council recognized as Christian bishops did not agree with the conclusions. Of course, the majority did, but to suggest that there are no Christians but those that agreed with the Council is a conclusion that can't even be found in the Council's actions. Were that conclusion true, then it wouldn't have been a majority vote, but a unanimous vote, which we know it wasn't. I actually agree with much of what they codified. Most of disagreement with the Church is that they don't even follow their own dogma. But that's not germaine to the discussion we're having. The point is that you know, KNOW, that there was not homogeny among early Christians and that much of what was decided by the Council was not universal among Christians at the time. Are you denying this?

The beliefs of those who agreed with the council never changed, no doubt. However, it cannot be argued that the face of Christianity was changed by that Council and that a large minority of the people who were closest to the teachings of Christ did not believe what the Council concluded.

I'll make it simple. Did everyone in the Council agree on doctrine, on all of the beliefs, practices and Dogma that were concluded to be Christian by the Council votes? If they didn't agree coming through the door on the divinity of Christ, on which Gospels should be taught, on the holidays, on many of the current tenets of Christianity, then it's clear that what came out of that Council was not what went in. How could you possibly deny that?

If I pull together a council of four people who are all Jocabians. All agree that we are all Jocabians and that is why were invited to the Council. The Council's purpose is to codify our beliefs. If we perform our first vote and it is not unanimous, then can you honestly deny that there was some disagreement as to what our beliefs entail? The lack of unanimity is all the proof I need. Are you suggested that every vote was unanimous or even close?

They meant to codify what they already believed. They codified something that you now don't like so you attempt to attack their conclusions. However, their beliefs were the same BEFORE the council was convened. Perhaps you would like to show us how you know what you know about what they believed before this? We can start comparing notes until we find the oldest Christian documents and see what they say, hmm?

yeah they all had their own writings. various groups believed various things. the early christian churches held all the varities of heresy that exist today (with the exception of mormonism of course). when the council under constantine decided just what the official beliefs would be, they supressed the rest, in some cases violently.

some of these writings are the gnostic gospels, check out the "early christian writings" webpage. some are lost forever. the gospel of judas was recently found and translated (remember there was a big thing about it earlier this year?) it contains ideas that are specifically denied in the bible.

yeah they all had their own writings. various groups believed various things. the early christian churches held all the varities of heresy that exist today (with the exception of mormonism of course). when the council under constantine decided just what the official beliefs would be, they supressed the rest, in some cases violently.

some of these writings are the gnostic gospels, check out the "early christian writings" webpage. some are lost forever. the gospel of judas was recently found and translated (remember there was a big thing about it earlier this year?) it contains ideas that are specifically denied in the bible.

Yes, exactly. It's bizarre to claim that a council that was convened because they wanted to get rid of all the variety in Christianity didn't do exactly that. He is actually trying to claim that it's necessary to prove that the people who disagreed with the conclusions of the Bible actually believed something different. It cannot be denied that the votes were not all unanimous or even close and that everyone invited was a prominent Christian leader of the time.

why do people insist on caring what other people believe. some atheist are just as damn pushy if not more then christian missionaries. and yet they complain "these christians are pushing their religion onto us" and those damn christians that complain that america is becoming more and more of an atheist state.

if christians want to have their buildings where they go and pretend to be good christians for an 1 hour every week, thats great.

and if atheist want to do the same, thats also cool.



how about this for a religion. one that teaches you to mind your own damn business.

What I find interesting is that every time someone points out the history of the Church, evidenced, factual history, they act as if it's an attack on the Church. Christianity is not about the Catholic Church, the Bible, the Nicene Creed, the Nicean Council or anything created or codified by man. It's about the teachings of Christ and living by them. Now, if we wish to discuss which teachings should be followed and which shouldn't, that's a whole other thing, but to pretend like any speaking out about what the Council did or the Church has done is an attack on Christianity is to completely miss the point.

When Jesus lived, there was no Bible. It cannot be argued that Jesus never commanded us to follow the New Testament because it didn't exist. It cannot be argued that Jesus never commanded us to celebrate Easter or Christmas, because they were pagan holidays at the time, and any celebration of his life or resurrection did not exist in his lifetime. Jesus never commanded us to adhere to the Nicene Creed, because it didn't exist either.

Does anyone dispute this? So why is it that anytime anyone tries to analyze the history of these things, how they were formed, where they come from, etc. they are labeled has attackers of Christianity. Anyone who thinks that we as Christians should not try our absolute hardest to get to the truth of what Jesus taught and wanted us to believe is missing the point in entirely.

Jesus instructed Saint Peter to create a church and said that what that church deemed correct was what was bound in heaven. Peter was the first Pope.

i think the study of the early church and its various beliefs is as important as the study of the bible. how else can we truly understand what jesus was saying?

i think the study of the early church and its various beliefs is as important as the study of the bible. how else can we truly understand what jesus was saying?

Very true. That is vital.

Very true. That is vital.

But I pointed out a lot of facts about the ancient church and you chose to insult me rather than address them.

She is right, but you've refused to any analysis choosing instead to ignore what we know about the ancient church.

Jesus instructed Saint Peter to create a church and said that what that church deemed correct was what was bound in heaven. Peter was the first Pope.

Peter's church was very flat and held many different beliefs. Peter's church did not codify the teachings. Peter's church did not put forth the holidays nor many of the Christian beliefs of today. Constantine did that. And this was much later and went against how Peter formed the church or it would not have been necessary for Constantine to do it.

But I pointed out a lot of facts about the ancient church and you chose to insult me rather than address them.

She is right, but you've refused to any analysis choosing instead to ignore what we know about the ancient church.

Well sorry if you were insulted, but to claim that the line of Popes does not go directly back to Saint Peter is inaccurate. To say that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist pre-Constantine is not backed by fact.

Peter's church was very flat and held many different beliefs. Peter's church did not codify the teachings. Peter's church did not put forth the holidays nor many of the Christian beliefs of today. Constantine did that. And this was much later and went against how Peter formed the church or it would not have been necessary for Constantine to do it.

True that Constantine influenced a lot, but so have many people. You cannot deny that the origins of the Catholic Church lie with Saint Peter.

Well sorry if you were insulted, but to claim that the line of Popes does not go directly back to Saint Peter is inaccurate. To say that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist pre-Constantine is not backed by fact.

The current Church didn't. They had to codify everything and set everything forth because Peter didn't. Peter didn't feel it was necessary. I didn't claim the line was broken. I claim the Council changed the Church in very obvious and definitive ways. You're arguing a strawman. The papacy did not have the power they have today until under Constantine it was taken. It was not designed to have this level of power.

True that Constantine influenced a lot, but so have many people. You cannot deny that the origins of the Catholic Church lie with Saint Peter.

I can deny that the origins of the current Church lie with Peter. I most certainly can and I can provide evidence for it. Constantine was a pagan. It should be embarrassing to suggest that the church was influenced by the political needs of a pagan, especially in such extensive ways.

The current Church didn't. They had to codify everything and set everything forth because Peter didn't. Peter didn't feel it was necessary. I didn't claim the line was broken. I claim the Council changed the Church in very obvious and definitive ways. You're arguing a strawman. The papacy did not have the power they have today until under Constantine it was taken. It was not designed to have this level of power.


Oh, now I see what you were trying to say. That is very true.

Except that Jesus did say that the Church founded by Peter would be infallible.

Except that Jesus did say that the Church founded by Peter would be infallible.

Even if it says at one time that some teachings ARE the teachings of Jesus and then later declares them heresy? How is that possible?

Except that Jesus did say that the Church founded by Peter would be infallible.

oh really. what book chapter and verse would that be?

Even if it says at one time that some teachings ARE the teachings of Jesus and then later declares them heresy? How is that possible?

The Church changes over time according to the plan God has.

oh really. what book chapter and verse would that be?

Matthew 16:16-19

" Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God
And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. "

The Church changes over time according to the plan God has.

That's not the point. The Church at one time said things were the teachings of Jesus that it now says are not the teachings of Jesus. That's not a change. That's a contradiction. They either were the teachings of Jesus or weren't. It cannot be both and it cannot change unless Jesus came and taught twice. Now they may not be teachings we follow but they CANNOT be heresy without saying the ancient Church was wrong. To claim otherwise is counter to logic.

Meanwhile, you quoted a verse that says that what Peter bound on earth is bound in heaven. PETER created a church that was altered by Constantine. Last I checked, Jesus gave no direction that Constantine can bind anything on earth or heaven. Peter created a Church that you should be defending. You're not. You're defending the drastic change of that Church as created by Peter by a pagan political figure looking to quiet the Christians.

Matthew 16:16-19

" Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God
And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. "

yeah im familiar with that quote.

what does it have to do with being infallible?

That's not the point. The Church at one time said things were the teachings of Jesus that it now says are not the teachings of Jesus. That's not a change. That's a contradiction. They either were the teachings of Jesus or weren't. It cannot be both and it cannot change unless Jesus came and taught twice. Now they may not be teachings we follow but they CANNOT be heresy without saying the ancient Church was wrong. To claim otherwise is counter to logic.

Meanwhile, you quoted a verse that says that what Peter bound on earth is bound in heaven. PETER created a church that was altered by Constantine. Last I checked, Jesus gave no direction that Constantine can bind anything on earth or heaven. Peter created a Church that you should be defending. You're not. You're defending the drastic change of that Church as created by Peter by a pagan political figure looking to quiet the Christians.

Well if you look hard enough you can sort of miss the big picture I guess.

yeah im familiar with that quote.

what does it have to do with being infallible?

Peter and all the Pope's after him are infallible in matters of doctrine. I don't know why Jacobia keeps making odd claims about the Teachings of the Church......of course they can change over time. Interpretation changes by God's will.

Matthew 16:16-19

" Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God
And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. "

Doesn't this verse argue more for the Church Peter created to be the Church of today, that Church being on where the power was spread out rather than concentrated in the Papacy? A church that was not political nor involved in the politics of man? A church that rendered unto Caesar what was Caesar's?

Peter and all the Pope's after him are infallible in matters of doctrine. I don't know why Jacobia keeps making odd claims about the Teachings of the Church......of course they can change over time. Interpretation changes by God's will.

I'm not talking about the teachings of the Church. I'm talking about the teachings of Jesus, which cannot change since Jesus is not here.

Meanwhile, what you said is false. Jesus said nothing about any pope being infallible. He only said Peter could create the church and that it would be bound. It said nothing about anyone after him doing any such thing.

Well if you look hard enough you can sort of miss the big picture I guess.

Yes, I've noticed that you're doing exactly that. Peter did bind a church which was changed by someone outside of that church with political intentions and no care for the beliefs and structure set forth by Peter. Peter may have been infallible, but Constantine was not.

Peter and all the Pope's after him are infallible in matters of doctrine. I don't know why Jacobia keeps making odd claims about the Teachings of the Church......of course they can change over time. Interpretation changes by God's will.

but that verse didnt say anything about infallibility.

...
Does anyone dispute this? So why is it that anytime anyone tries to analyze the history of these things, how they were formed, where they come from, etc. they are labeled has attackers of Christianity. Anyone who thinks that we as Christians should not try our absolute hardest to get to the truth of what Jesus taught and wanted us to believe is missing the point in entirely.

Analyze the history of these things? You have produced ZERO history evidence to support your claims thus far...

But lets address your accusations. One is that the Nicene creed was somehow controversial because it was not !00% approved by over three hundred people... Okee dokee then, you claim that the 2 or 3 votes out of 318 votes constituted a significant differing opinion, a group with a noteworthy judgment on why Christianity’s belief about the Nicene creed should be withheld, that we should question the divinity of Jesus because of this group you keep mentioning?

And yet, you produce not a single source that says what YOU say about the early church founders beliefs, no proof that what you say about them is actually true, not one source that is older than the gospels themselves, or the canonized gospels... It’s obvious that you believe what you say is true, but it’s not obvious that you can produce any evidence for us to think what you think.

Heres some evidence of what we do know:
Of the 318 assembled, only two did not vote to accept the creed. What was the debated issue? There was no debate about whether Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth, working in conjunction with God the Father. There was no debate about whether Jesus was the “only begotten Son”, meaning uniquely and singularly the Son of God - the only one of his kind. The debate was on a technical issue of whether “begotten” meant “conceived” by God the Father, or “created” by God the Father.
http://www.jesus-institute.org/lands/nicenecouncil.shtml

In spite of his sympathy for Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea adhered to the decisions of the council, accepting the entire creed. The initial number of bishops supporting Arius was small. After a month of discussion, on June 19, there were only two left: Theonas of Marmarica in Libya, and Secundus of Ptolemais.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

The evidence I see suggests that your group of dissenters is nothing more than the group of people that won’t agree to anything in any group discussion, they represent 1% or LESS, of the total opinions at the council, and yet you adhere to them even though you have produced nothing of what they actually believed.

Lets see some evidence of these ‘first Christian’ beliefs that have been lost, that say Jesus is Not divine, for example…

Doesn't this verse argue more for the Church Peter created to be the Church of today, that Church being on where the power was spread out rather than concentrated in the Papacy? A church that was not political nor involved in the politics of man? A church that rendered unto Caesar what was Caesar's?

No.
No.
No.

I'm not talking about the teachings of the Church. I'm talking about the teachings of Jesus, which cannot change since Jesus is not here.

Meanwhile, what you said is false. Jesus said nothing about any pope being infallible. He only said Peter could create the church and that it would be bound. It said nothing about anyone after him doing any such thing.

Oh so I guess he meant for Peter to found a church that had no leaders after he died. That makes sense.

Yes, I've noticed that you're doing exactly that. Peter did bind a church which was changed by someone outside of that church with political intentions and no care for the beliefs and structure set forth by Peter. Peter may have been infallible, but Constantine was not.

The Church is infallible. That is why it is the largest upon the Earth.

but that verse didnt say anything about infallibility.

Sure it did. Read it again.

Yes, I've noticed that you're doing exactly that. Peter did bind a church which was changed by someone outside of that church with political intentions and no care for the beliefs and structure set forth by Peter. Peter may have been infallible, but Constantine was not.

if you look at the book of act, peter WASNT the boss of the church and his word was NEVER law. when they had the dispute over whether or not a new christian had to become a jew and follow jewish laws and customs, peter LOST the fight to paul.

Sure it did. Read it again.

it cant have meant that. peter was never the undisputed boss of the church.

if you look at the book of act, peter WASNT the boss of the church and his word was NEVER law. when they had the dispute over whether or not a new christian had to become a jew and follow jewish laws and customs, peter LOST the fight to paul.

First of all can you source that

Second of all who says it was a "fight" and not a discussion?

it cant have meant that. peter was never the undisputed boss of the church.

Nobody ever is. Not even Venerable Pope Pius XII.

Nobody ever is. Not even Venerable Pope Pius XII.

There you've lost me. The quote you are using to prove the infallibility of the Church rests upon the fact that Peter could set the rules, which would then become Truth.

If Peter did not set the rules, and was in fact a 'disputable' leader, than how does that mesh with the meaning of the quote you are championing?

First of all can you source that

Second of all who says it was a "fight" and not a discussion?

no i cant be bothered. it would take me too long. its right there in the book of acts. its a hugely famous dispute in the early church. peter was on the side of christians needing to be jews, paul was on the side of being christian being enough. paul won. that is why you didnt celebrate the high holy days this year.

There you've lost me. The quote you are using to prove the infallibility of the Church rests upon the fact that Peter could set the rules, which would then become Truth.

If Peter did not set the rules, and was in fact a 'disputable' leader, than how does that mesh with the meaning of the quote you are championing?

Nobody who disputes it is correct, but plenty do, then and now.

no i cant be bothered. .

Then neither can I.

Analyze the history of these things? You have produced ZERO history evidence to support your claims thus far...

But lets address your accusations. One is that the Nicene creed was somehow controversial because it was not !00% approved by over three hundred people... Okee dokee then, you claim that the 2 or 3 votes out of 318 votes constituted a significant differing opinion, a group with a noteworthy judgment on why Christianity’s belief about the Nicene creed should be withheld, that we should question the divinity of Jesus because of this group you keep mentioning?

And yet, you produce not a single source that says what YOU say about the early church founders beliefs, no proof that what you say about them is actually true, not one source that is older than the gospels themselves, or the canonized gospels... It’s obvious that you believe what you say is true, but it’s not obvious that you can produce any evidence for us to think what you think.

Heres some evidence of what we do know:
Of the 318 assembled, only two did not vote to accept the creed. What was the debated issue? There was no debate about whether Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth, working in conjunction with God the Father. There was no debate about whether Jesus was the “only begotten Son”, meaning uniquely and singularly the Son of God - the only one of his kind. The debate was on a technical issue of whether “begotten” meant “conceived” by God the Father, or “created” by God the Father.
http://www.jesus-institute.org/lands/nicenecouncil.shtml

In spite of his sympathy for Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea adhered to the decisions of the council, accepting the entire creed. The initial number of bishops supporting Arius was small. After a month of discussion, on June 19, there were only two left: Theonas of Marmarica in Libya, and Secundus of Ptolemais.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

The evidence I see suggests that your group of dissenters is nothing more than the group of people that won’t agree to anything in any group discussion, they represent 1% or LESS, of the total opinions at the council, and yet you adhere to them even though you have produced nothing of what they actually believed.

Lets see some evidence of these ‘first Christian’ beliefs that have been lost, that say Jesus is Not divine, for example…

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/Nicene_Intro.htm

The new emperor soon discovered that "one faith and one church" were fractured by theological disputes, especially conflicting understandings of the nature of Christ, long a point of controversy. Arius, a priest of the church in Alexandria, asserted that the divine Christ, the Word through whom all things have their existence, was created by God before the beginning of time. Therefore, the divinity of Christ was similar to the divinity of God, but not of the same essence. Arius was opposed by the bishop, Alexander, together with his associate and successor, Athanasius. They affirmed that the divinity of Christ, the Son, is of the same substance as the divinity of God, the Father. To hold otherwise, they said, was to open the possibility of polytheism, and to imply that knowledge of God in Christ was not final knowledge of God.

The divinity of Christ was part of a major rift in the Church. It was hardly accepted as fact at that time. YOU are talking about the FINAL vote, not the initial votes. It was clear that walking in the door many Christian leaders believed and were teaching things that were in line with the Nicene Creed. This is precisely what created the need for a Council and for a Creed.

No matter how you slice it, if EVERY vote was not unanimous then some of what came out of that Council was not what went in. To deny that is to deny logic.

EDIT: Meanwhile, you're doing what you always do, trying to claim this is about me. I'm not denying the divinity of Jesus. I'm pointing to history to show that Christians do not all accept the Creed, and these people were accepted as Christian leaders by the very Council you are defending. According to them, these people and there followers were Christian. Who are you to claim otherwise?

Then neither can I.

you mean you have so little knowlege of the time period we are discussing, the new testament, and the history of the churcht that you dont even know that there was a dispute over the need for christians to be jews?

why are you bothering at all?

The Church is infallible. That is why it is the largest upon the Earth.

Okay. The Church said the sun revolves around the earth. Now it says the earth revolves around the sun. Are you suggesting that when they switched their declaration that's when the earth started it's revolution of the sun?

And if the Church at one time taught a gospel as the word of Jesus that it now claims is heresy? How is that possible? Did the word of Jesus become heresy? Did Jesus come back and retract what he said? Don't you see that if the church, the church in the form Peter created, says that some teachings are of Jesus and teaches them, that if someone later declares them not of Jesus that cannot be anything but wrong or the original church was. It's very simple. Two opposite things cannot both be true.

No.
No.
No.

So Peter was wrong when he created the church. I see. Kind of hurts your infallible argument, doesn't it?

See, I thought that Jesus said:

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

How does that hold with the Law changing at the whim of the Church?

you mean you have so little knowlege of the time period we are discussing, the new testament, and the history of the churcht that you dont even know that there was a dispute over the need for christians to be jews?

why are you bothering at all?

no.

I am right.

Okay. The Church said the sun revolves around the earth. Now it says the earth revolves around the sun. Are you suggesting that when they switched their declaration that's when the earth started it's revolution of the sun?

And if the Church at one time taught a gospel as the word of Jesus that it now claims is heresy? How is that possible? Did the word of Jesus become heresy? Did Jesus come back and retract what he said? Don't you see that if the church, the church in the form Peter created, says that some teachings are of Jesus and teaches them, that if someone later declares them not of Jesus that cannot be anything but wrong or the original church was. It's very simple. Two opposite things cannot both be true.

no.
It has.
God's will changes over time.
No, interpretation of the Word changed.
No.
Things change over time.

So Peter was wrong when he created the church. I see. Kind of hurts your infallible argument, doesn't it?

Perhaps you are confusing the yes (affirmative) with the no (negative) response.

no.
It has.
God's will changes over time.
No, interpretation of the Word changed.
No.
Things change over time.

Not according to Jesus. Jesus said that the Law will never change. Apparently, you claim differently. Hmmm... I wonder to whom I will defer.

no.

I am right.

right about what?

Perhaps you are confusing the yes (affirmative) with the no (negative) response.

I get it. You're not really here for a debate. You have nothing to base your argument on, so you're putting out vague, nonsensical answers.

I'll make this clear. Is it possible for the teachings of Jesus to become heresy?

Not according to Jesus. Jesus said that the Law will never change. Apparently, you claim differently. Hmmm... I wonder to whom I will defer.

Now don't try to spin this. Look at the quote from Jesus that you used. Look at the commandments that he was referring to, and you will see that the Catholic Church has never taught anything but them.

I get it. You're a troll. You have nothing to base your argument on, so you're putting out vague, nonsensical answers.

I'll make this clear. Is it possible for the teachings of Jesus to become heresy?

No. It is possible for interpretation to change. I am no troll, but you are so filled with hate I can see it dripping off of whatever you right.

Now don't try to spin this. Look at the quote from Jesus that you used. Look at the commandments that he was referring to, and you will see that the Catholic Church has never taught anything but them.

Okay, good. So you are claiming that the scripture is not the Law and that Jesus only said the commandments were Law. Good. I'm glad that's clear.

Meanwhile, can the teachings of Christ become heresy?

Well, being that the Catholic Church has doubled its membership in its most recent 1/40th of its existance, I am not worried by people like you.

Okay, good. So you are claiming that the scripture is not the Law and that Jesus only said the commandments were Law. Good. I'm glad that's clear.

Meanwhile, can the teachings of Christ become heresy?


I already answered with a "no" a "no" and a....."no" but I guess you were too angry to read it. Well,you have taken out of context quotes without sources to warp the record, I find that to be very lame indeed.

No. It is possible for interpretation to change. I am no troll, but you are so filled with hate I can see it dripping off of whatever you right.

Really? I don't hate you. I think it's sad you know so little about your faith. I'm a Christian who finds it deeply necessary to explore my faith and its origins. I believe we were commanded to have a personal relationship by the Christ. I don't defer to ANY earthly body before the Christ. Do you?

Meanwhile, the interpretation didn't change. They originally taught scripture that is not included in the Bible as the teachings of Christ. Later, the church declared these same teachings heresy. That's not a change of interpretation. That's saying at one time it is the teachings of Christ and later that those same teachings are heresy. This all according to the infallible church. These are contradictions. They didn't change the interpretation, they took the same text and taught it at one time and said anyone who believes it is a heretic at another. How can both of these be correct?

Try something more than yes or no and actually demonstrate how the teachings of Jesus according to the early Church can become heresy in an infallible Church.

Analyze the history of these things? You have produced ZERO history evidence to support your claims thus far...

…

you know all those books of apocrypha?

the gospel of thomas, the gospel of mary magdalene, the gospel of peter, the acts of peter, the gospel of judas? the list of them is pretty long...

those are ALL texts that were used by various christian groups that existed pre-nicea. they were rejected by the council because they contained heretical ideas--doctrines that were held to be true by the various groups that used them.

arianism, manicheaism, the ebionites, the gnostics, the docetes, priscillianism, many others, all existed pre-constantine and were purged after roman (pauline) christianity became official.

Really? I don't hate you. I think it's sad you know so little about your faith. I'm a Christian who finds it deeply necessary to explore my faith and its origins. I believe we were commanded to have a personal relationship by the Christ. I don't defer to ANY earthly body before the Christ. Do you?

Meanwhile, the interpretation didn't change. They originally taught scripture that is not included in the Bible as the teachings of Christ. Later, the church declared these same teachings heresy. That's not a change of interpretation. That's saying at one time it is the teachings of Christ and later that those same teachings are heresy. This all according to the infallible church. These are contradictions. They didn't change the interpretation, they took the same text and taught it at one time and said anyone who believes it is a heretic at another. How can both of these be correct?

Try something more than yes or no and actually demonstrate how the teachings of Jesus according to the early Church can become heresy in an infallible Church.

Of course not. Can you give an example for your claim?

I already answered with a "no" a "no" and a....."no" but I guess you were too angry to read it. Well,you have taken out of context quotes without sources to warp the record, I find that to be very lame indeed.

I'm not angry. Your answers are vague, intentionally. You haven't demonstrated how "no" was possible, and you've answered yes or no to questions that need clarification. I don't hate you for a bad argument. I think it's unfortunate. Now can we stop talking about me and talk about your argument or mine. Your ad hominems are not helpful.

you know all those books of apocrypha?

the gospel of thomas, the gospel of mary magdalene, the gospel of peter, the acts of peter, the gospel of judas? the list of them is pretty long...

those are ALL texts that were used by various christian groups that existed pre-nicea. they were rejected by the council because they contained heretical ideas--doctrines that were held to be true by the various groups that used them.

arianism, manicheaism, the ebionites, the gnostics, the docetes, priscillianism, many others, all existed pre-constantine and were purged after roman (pauline) christianity became official.

OH, all of the books written centuries later that were not relevant?You have to draw the line somewhere, the Bible cant include everybody.

I'm not angry. Your answers are vague, intentionally. You haven't demonstrated how "no" was possible, and you've answered yes or no to questions that need clarification. I don't hate you for a bad argument. I think it's unfortunate. Now can we stop talking about me and talk about your argument or mine. Your ad hominems are not helpful.

You asked yes or no questions. Sorry if you did not get the kind of response that you intended. Give and example of a teaching of Jesus that was declared a herasy.

Of course not. Can you give an example for your claim?

The Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Philip. Any of the other noncanonical gospels taught by the early church as the teachings of Jesus that are now considered heresy or claimed to NOT be the teachings of Jesus.

How about that Peter claimed that all Christians should first be Jews and claimed this as a teaching of the Christ? How about the fact that current church claims Christ did not require that all Christians be Jews first? Christ didn't contradict himself so the Church must have.

OH, all of the books written centuries later that were not relevant?You have to draw the line somewhere, the Bible cant include everybody.

According to the early church they were relevant. They were being taught by Christian leaders who were invited to the conference. How is that not relevant? The Bible certainly could include everything that was being taught as Christian doctrine by the early Church. Why couldn't it?

You asked yes or no questions. Sorry if you did not get the kind of response that you intended. Give and example of a teaching of Jesus that was declared a herasy.

I got exactly the response I was expecting, however, in a debate you're expected to support your answers. I'm sorry if you've not come here hoping for a debate. This is a debate forum.

OH, all of the books written centuries later that were not relevant?You have to draw the line somewhere, the Bible cant include everybody.

my post was in response to pootwaddles assertion that there wwas no dispute in doctrine in the early church and that jocabia hadnt provided any proof of it.

Well, being that the Catholic Church has doubled its membership in its most recent 1/40th of its existance, I am not worried by people like you.

Really? So all that matters is that it be popular? You're not concerned with learning the teachings of Christ and trying to find out about your faith? How sad that is. After you claimed that analyzing the history of your faith was of such importance.

The Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Philip. Any of the other noncanonical gospels taught by the early church as the teachings of Jesus that are now considered heresy or claimed to NOT be the teachings of Jesus.

How about that Peter claimed that all Christians should first be Jews and claimed this as a teaching of the Christ? How about the fact that current church claims Christ did not require that all Christians be Jews first? Christ didn't contradict himself so the Church must have.

Well no shit, at the time all new Christians had to be Jews because the Jewish prophesy was being fulfilled. What does that have to do with a teaching of Jesus that is now considered heresy? Nothing.

According to the early church they were relevant. They were being taught by Christian leaders who were invited to the conference. How is that not relevant? The Bible certainly could include everything that was being taught as Christian doctrine by the early Church. Why couldn't it?

Because the theology needed to be refined, obviously.

my post was in response to pootwaddles assertion that there wwas no dispute in doctrine in the early church and that jocabia hadnt provided any proof of it.

Yes, PootWaddle is playing ignorant. He does that. Apparently, I have to re-establish known fact in every thread. He knows that the council was convened to end the diversity of the early church because there were several major rifts. The council would not have been necessary if there was homogeny. They could have simply codified what everyone was already teaching.

Because the theology needed to be refined, obviously.

So the early church was wrong? If they were right why would it need to be refined?

I got exactly the response I was expecting, however, in a debate you're expected to support your answers. I'm sorry if you've not come here hoping for a debate. This is a debate forum.

I answered your yes or no questions with a yes or a no. Don't blame me for your poor phrasing.

Really? So all that matters is that it be popular? You're not concerned with learning the teachings of Christ and trying to find out about your faith? How sad that is. After you claimed that analyzing the history of your faith was of such importance.

Yes.
No.
No.

I do not analyze things by taking out of context quotes and irrelevant to be more important than two thousand years of doctrine.

So the early church was wrong? If they were right why would it need to be refined?

They were right at the time but later things needed to be refined. The will of God was at play.

Well no shit, at the time all new Christians had to be Jews because the Jewish prophesy was being fulfilled. What does that have to do with a teaching of Jesus that is now considered heresy? Nothing.

See, you're avoiding the point. Jesus said that his teachings were for the Jews and that one must first be a Jew in order to be subject to them. Peter, who you said was infallible, upheld this belief and established it as a part of his early church. The current church believes the claim that Christians must first be Jews to be heresy. That is a teaching of Jesus that is now considered heresy.

See, you're avoiding the point. Jesus said that his teachings were for the Jews and that one must first be a Jew in order to be subject to them. Peter, who you said was infallible, upheld this belief and established it as a part of his early church. The current church believes the claim that Christians must first be Jews to be heresy. That is a teaching of Jesus that is now considered heresy.

But at the time Jesus was fulfilling Jewish prophesy, not anybody elses. He never said that it always had to be just Jews who become Christians.

Yes.
No.
No.

I do not analyze things by taking out of context quotes and irrelevant to be more important than two thousand years of doctrine.

See, that's the point. We are trying to put these things in context. See the doctrine needs history for context. Where did it come from? Why did it change? That's context. You're the one washing away context, claim all context is 'irrelevant'.

And, again, you refuse to clarify your responses. This is just sad.

Yes, PootWaddle is playing ignorant. He does that. Apparently, I have to re-establish known fact in every thread. He knows that the council was convened to end the diversity of the early church because there were several major rifts. The council would not have been necessary if there was homogeny. They could have simply codified what everyone was already teaching.

it is rather obvious. even if you havent studied any of it, its kinda the POINT of having that kind of conference eh?

even paul talked about correcting the beliefs and practices of christian groups in his epistles.

See, that's the point. We are trying to put these things in context. See the doctrine needs history for context. Where did it come from? Why did it change? That's context. You're the one washing away context, claim all context is 'irrelevant'.

And, again, you refuse to clarify your responses. This is just sad.

I answer your questions as you state them. If you asked better questions you might get better answers.

But at the time Jesus was fulfilling Jewish prophesy, not anybody elses. He never said that it always had to be just Jews who become Christians.

You don't get it. The Catholic Church claims Jesus never taught such a thing, that the suggestion that Christians be Jews first is heresy. It doesn't matter if he said ALWAYS. He said. The Church claims he didn't. You can't have it both ways. He either said it and it's not heresy or he didn't and it is. You're trying to avoid addressing the obvious point that Jesus did say it and it cannot be heresy without claiming Jesus was a heretic.

You don't get it. The Catholic Church claims Jesus never taught such a thing, that the suggestion that Christians be Jews first is heresy. It doesn't matter if he said ALWAYS. He said. The Church claims he didn't. You can't have it both ways. He either said it and it's not heresy or he didn't and it is. You're trying to avoid addressing the obvious point that Jesus did say it and it cannot be heresy without claiming Jesus was a heretic.

Source your claim.

I answer your questions as you state them. If you asked better questions you might get better answers.

Okay, from now on I'll add to every question (and please explain and support your answers.) I assumed you understood debate. I won't make that assumption again.

So when Peter established a non-political church that was relatively flat was that church infallible (and please explain and support your answers)? When Peter said that ALL Christians must first be Jews was Peter infallible (and please explain and support your answers)? If Peter said this and was infallible then how could someone who contradicted him later be claimed to have been right, as Paul was (and please explain and support your answers)?

Source your claim.

Which claim?

Source your claim.

psst! hey kid, want to buy a source? ONly been used once.

*opens trenchcoat*

well, used more than once, but it's not worn out yet. I promise.
Don't need a source eh?


I know what YOU need. You need an argument.

*reaches into coat*

heres a fine one. Only been used once, written by the Right Rev. Jerry Falwell. It's got something to do with intelligent design and watches. I can never figure it out but I am sure YOU can...To sweeten the deal I can throw in this watch that never needs winding...

*shakes watch*
that's funny. It was right in 1608...

Okay, from now on I'll add to every question (and please explain and support your answers.) I assumed you understood debate. I won't make that assumption again.

So when Peter established a non-political church that was relatively flat was that church infallible (and please explain and support your answers)? When Peter said that ALL Christians must first be Jews was Peter infallible (and please explain and support your answers)? If Peter said this and was infallible then how could someone who contradicted him later be claimed to have been right, as Paul was (and please explain and support your answers)?

The Church was infallible when Jesus founded it according to him. Yes, Peter was infallible when he agreed with Jesus on the Jews to Christians thing. The "teaching" that you are talking about is somthing that can change over time. Jesus never said it was permanent ( despite your out of context quote that was unsourced and talking about somthing else).

Which claim?

"The Catholic Church claims Jesus never taught such a thing"

psst! hey kid, want to buy a source? ONly been used once.

*opens trenchcoat*

well, used more than once, but it's not worn out yet. I promise.
Don't need a source eh?


I know what YOU need. You need an argument.

*reaches into coat*

heres a fine one. Only been used once, written by the Right Rev. Jerry Falwell. It's got something to do with intelligent design and watches. I can never figure it out but I am sure YOU can...To sweeten the deal I can throw in this watch that never needs winding...

*shakes watch*
that's funny. It was right in 1608...

1) lame insult
2) I disagree on many issues with Falwell

1) lame insult
2) I disagree on many issues with Falwell


i didn't say anything inulting. that was HUMOR. LOOK: everybody else is lauging...

Falwell is a bright guy. You should listen to him. It'll help your argument. well, no it won't. but we'll have fun.

The Church was infallible when Jesus founded it according to him. Yes, Peter was infallible when he agreed with Jesus on the Jews to Christians thing. The "teaching" that you are talking about is somthing that can change over time. Jesus never said it was permanent ( despite your out of context quote that was unsourced and talking about somthing else).

Amusing. The teachings of Jesus can change over time. How interesting? So what Jesus taught at one time or another can actually change from what He taught then to something we claim He taught now? How does that happen? Does history somehow change so that the Church is never wrong?

Meanwhile, if Peter was right then how can Paul's claims that Jesus's teachings were for Gentiles also be correct? They were in direct and obvious contradiction.

i didn't say anything inulting. that was HUMOR. LOOK: everybody else is lauging...

Falwell is a bright guy. You should listen to him. It'll help your argument. well, no it won't. but we'll have fun.

:p Guess so.

Amusing. The teachings of Jesus can change over time. How interesting? So what Jesus taught at one time or another can actually change from what He taught then to something we claim He taught now? How does that happen? Does history somehow change so that the Church is never wrong?

Meanwhile, if Peter was right then how can Paul's claims that Jesus's teachings were for Gentiles also be correct? They were in direct and obvious contradiction.

He never meant for it to be permanent. That would not make sense. That would be like saying the US Constitution requires that all American citizens must be British citizens first.

"The Catholic Church claims Jesus never taught such a thing"


http://www.catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp

The Circumcisers (1st Century)

The Circumcision heresy may be summed up in the words of Acts 15:1: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’"

Many of the early Christians were Jews, who brought to the Christian faith many of their former practices. They recognized in Jesus the Messiah predicted by the prophets and the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Because circumcision had been required in the Old Testament for membership in God’s covenant, many thought it would also be required for membership in the New Covenant that Christ had come to inaugurate. They believed one must be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law to come to Christ. In other words, one had to become a Jew to become a Christian.

But God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians—to areas where the Circumcision heresy had spread.

Like I said, this is your faith, too. You should really learn it.

On that page you'll also find the claim that many early Christians that were part of the early Church were heretics. Again, please, open a book and read it for yourself instead of letting people tell you what's true and what's not.

He never meant for it to be permanent. That would not make sense. That would be like saying the US Constitution requires that all American citizens must be British citizens first.

Amusing. Where in the Constitution did it claim that one must first have British citizenship first?

Peter said it was a requirement. He certainly meant for it to be permanent. Paul said he was wrong and insulted him for believing it.

And once again you avoided answering my questions. Did you come to actually make an argument or simply preach your misunderstanding of the history of the Church?

He never meant for it to be permanent. That would not make sense. That would be like saying the US Constitution requires that all American citizens must be British citizens first.

where does it say that it wasnt meant to be permanent?

http://www.catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp

The Circumcisers (1st Century)

The Circumcision heresy may be summed up in the words of Acts 15:1: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’"

Many of the early Christians were Jews, who brought to the Christian faith many of their former practices. They recognized in Jesus the Messiah predicted by the prophets and the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Because circumcision had been required in the Old Testament for membership in God’s covenant, many thought it would also be required for membership in the New Covenant that Christ had come to inaugurate. They believed one must be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law to come to Christ. In other words, one had to become a Jew to become a Christian.

But God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians—to areas where the Circumcision heresy had spread.

Like I said, this is your faith, too. You should really learn it.

On that page you'll also find the claim that many early Christians that were part of the early Church were heretics. Again, please, open a book and read it for yourself instead of letting people tell you what's true and what's not.
That passage contradicts everything you have said. Peter and Paul agreed. Nothing their mentions Jesus. It talks about "many Christians" but nothing uniform. That is a weak argument indeed.

Amusing. Where in the Constitution did it claim that one must first have British citizenship first?

Peter said it was a requirement. He certainly meant for it to be permanent. Paul said he was wrong and insulted him for believing it.

And once again you avoided answering my questions. Did you come to actually make an argument or simply preach your misunderstanding of the history of the Church?

"God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians"

sounds like they hated each other.
Your source tells the opposite story of your argument.

That source said nothing about Jesus and said that Peter and Paul agreed. You have nothing to stand on.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp

The Circumcisers (1st Century)

The Circumcision heresy may be summed up in the words of Acts 15:1: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’"

Many of the early Christians were Jews, who brought to the Christian faith many of their former practices. They recognized in Jesus the Messiah predicted by the prophets and the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Because circumcision had been required in the Old Testament for membership in God’s covenant, many thought it would also be required for membership in the New Covenant that Christ had come to inaugurate. They believed one must be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law to come to Christ. In other words, one had to become a Jew to become a Christian.

But God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians—to areas where the Circumcision heresy had spread.

Like I said, this is your faith, too. You should really learn it.

On that page you'll also find the claim that many early Christians that were part of the early Church were heretics. Again, please, open a book and read it for yourself instead of letting people tell you what's true and what's not.

this quote MUST mean that the catholic church does not consider that jesus proclaimed peter to be INFALLIBLE since peter was wrong in his doctrine that christians neeeded to be circumcized.

if the cahtolic church doesnt believe it, why does pius?

That passage contradicts everything you have said. Peter and Paul agreed. Nothing their mentions Jesus. It talks about "many Christians" but nothing uniform. That is a weak argument indeed.

The point is that the Catholic Church claims that such beliefs are heresy. Now, when did Jesus say such a thing - well, hmmm...

21Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

In case you're wondering the lost sheep of Israel are the Jews and dog is a gentile insult. Jesus said plainly that he was sent to the Jews and ONLY the Jews. Was he wrong?

this quote MUST mean that the catholic church does not consider that jesus proclaimed peter to be INFALLIBLE since peter was wrong in his doctrine that christians neeeded to be circumcized.

if the cahtolic church doesnt believe it, why does pius?

He was infallible in his teachingat the time. Times change.

But at the time Jesus was fulfilling Jewish prophesy, not anybody elses. He never said that it always had to be just Jews who become Christians.

But he did tell his followers to remain preaching to Israel until 'he returns'.

Now, if you are a Jehovah's Witness, you might believe Jesus secretly 'returned' in 1914... but most Christian denominations seem to think it will be a little more obvious. Thus - one has to assume that the command to preach to Israel still stands.

this quote MUST mean that the catholic church does not consider that jesus proclaimed peter to be INFALLIBLE since peter was wrong in his doctrine that christians neeeded to be circumcized.

if the cahtolic church doesnt believe it, why does pius?

Yes, it very clearly says that Peter was wrong and that Paul corrected him. That clearly claims that Peter was NOT infallible.

The Church was infallible when Jesus founded it according to him. Yes, Peter was infallible when he agreed with Jesus on the Jews to Christians thing. The "teaching" that you are talking about is somthing that can change over time. Jesus never said it was permanent ( despite your out of context quote that was unsourced and talking about somthing else).

There can be no teaching that is different to what is laid down in scripture, because the closing verses of Revelation forbid altering the message.

Thus - if Jesus taught 'x' in 34 C.E., it still must hold true in 2034 C.E.

He was infallible in his teachingat the time. Times change.

He was still alive when Paul corrected him. He rebuked Peter, in fact. How could Paul possibly rebuke someone who is infallible? And, again, please expand on your answer, support and explain it.

But he did tell his followers to remain preaching to Israel until 'he returns'.

Now, if you are a Jehovah's Witness, you might believe Jesus secretly 'returned' in 1914... but most Christian denominations seem to think it will be a little more obvious. Thus - one has to assume that the command to preach to Israel still stands.

do the jws believe that? i missed that one.

"God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians"

sounds like they hated each other.
Your source tells the opposite story of your argument.

I have to point out - "Acts" is the work of a different 'missionary' than Jesus.

The point is that the Catholic Church claims that such beliefs are heresy. Now, when did Jesus say such a thing - well, hmmm...

21Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

In case you're wondering the lost sheep of Israel are the Jews and dog is a gentile insult. Jesus said plainly that he was sent to the Jews and ONLY the Jews. Was he wrong?

Well nice change of subject from your earlier source that told the opposite story of your argument. But as far as this goes, of course Jesus was only their to help Jews, they were the ones who he was the prophet of. Nobody else. That in no way means that today only Jews can become Catholic. It meant that at the time only those who already believed in the God of Jesus would be "helped" by him. Nothing about conversion. You made that part up.

do the jws believe that? i missed that one.

Apparently so - I was discussing it with the Witnesses who arrived on my doorstep yesterday. Apart from fudging the numbers in Daniel, I see little reason to place much faith in their numbers. :)

"God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians"

sounds like they hated each other.
Your source tells the opposite story of your argument.

Only if you didn't read it. The source, a catholic source, Catholic.com, says that Peter was wrong and that Paul corrected him, that Peter was preaching the direction of Jesus as I quoted you and that those who agree with such teachings are heretics.

But he did tell his followers to remain preaching to Israel until 'he returns'.

Now, if you are a Jehovah's Witness, you might believe Jesus secretly 'returned' in 1914... but most Christian denominations seem to think it will be a little more obvious. Thus - one has to assume that the command to preach to Israel still stands.

Yes, the person whos name is PIUS XII is a "Jehovah's witness". LOL.

Yes, it very clearly says that Peter was wrong and that Paul corrected him. That clearly claims that Peter was NOT infallible.

"God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians"

it says very clearly that they AGREED. You have it backwards. Didnt you READ it?

There can be no teaching that is different to what is laid down in scripture, because the closing verses of Revelation forbid altering the message.

Thus - if Jesus taught 'x' in 34 C.E., it still must hold true in 2034 C.E.

Source.

Well nice change of subject from your earlier source that told the opposite story of your argument. But as far as this goes, of course Jesus was only their to help Jews, they were the ones who he was the prophet of. Nobody else. That in no way means that today only Jews can become Catholic. It meant that at the time only those who already believed in the God of Jesus would be "helped" by him. Nothing about conversion. You made that part up.

Ha. You are squirming so hard, it's hard to not laugh. He said He was sent ONLY to the Jews. That can't change because it would defy the meanings of the word SENT (in past tense, thus it already happened and cannot rehappen) and ONLY. Unless resent he cannot be sent for anyone BUT the Jews. The Catholic Church claims that his teachings were not meant for Jews and that suggesting otherwise is heresy. Okay, now, dance, my friend, dance.

Yes, the person whos name is PIUS XII is a "Jehovah's witness". LOL.

Is there a reason why that shouldn't be so? My name contains the word "grave", but I'm not dead.

I was merely pointing out that there are some 'christian' groups that believe Jesus has already returned. Most - however, maintain that he hasn't.

Which means that the message of what the faithful should do UNTIL he returns... still stands, no?