Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
markdohle

Doubt and faith

151 posts in this topic

name='Almagest' timestamp='1380026250' post='4926774']

[/font][/size]

T

This is supposed to be the most perfect and moral being ever to exist, and he still wishes his followers to kill their own children. The practise being common at the time does not remove the troublesome dilemma of an Objectively Moral Supreme Being changing his mind about human sacrifice.

Here is a site that gives one way of looking at the Old Testament. Not trying to change your mind, but Christians and Jews after all read the OT and may have some reactions, but they do not lead away form faith and love in the God revealed both in the Old and New Testament. Scoll down the page to find the parts you are most interested in reading, if in fact you are.

http://carm.org/god-of-old-testament-a-monster

Peace

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the link, Mark, but it seems to contain a lot of mental gymnastics. The stories of the old testament make sense if Yahweh is a tribal god, and not the creator and sustainer of the world. You can compare the wars of the Israelites to the Illiad, except from one perspective. In the OT we generally only see the champion of Yahweh, where the Illiad features the whole Greek Pantheon and their specific champions. It's strange that he wishes the Israelites to wipe out the Hittites, but I think that is an aspect of jealousy. After all, the Hittites gave the world Steel, what did the Israelites have? I think the OT should be viewed through the lens of a tribal God and his chosen people, not as the creator and maintainer of the universe.

I also find it troublesome that the article seems to suggest that sexual perversion is worse than murder.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the link, Mark, but it seems to contain a lot of mental gymnastics. The stories of the old testament make sense if Yahweh is a tribal god, and not the creator and sustainer of the world. You can compare the wars of the Israelites to the Illiad, except from one perspective. In the OT we generally only see the champion of Yahweh, where the Illiad features the whole Greek Pantheon and their specific champions. It's strange that he wishes the Israelites to wipe out the Hittites, but I think that is an aspect of jealousy. After all, the Hittites gave the world Steel, what did the Israelites have? I think the OT should be viewed through the lens of a tribal God and his chosen people, not as the creator and maintainer of the universe.

I also find it troublesome that the article seems to suggest that sexual perversion is worse than murder.

In the beginning the Jews were not monotheistic, they believed in other tribal gods. The Ark was carried into battle, for that way they took their god with them. By the time of Jesus,this was no longer the case, Jews were staunch believers in One God. There is history-lived out and recorded, mixed in with the early concept of God. The OT is a collection of books, not one book. In any case, I did not send you to that web page to convince, to just show you that their are other ways to read scripture. Each will bring with him his or her own beliefs or lack thereof. Also issues as well. For me the scriptures are the "Word of the God", I believe that the Bible is inspired, but it is not channeled, it is just shows that God reveals himself, slowly over time through our cultures. God and the gods are different. God is not part of nature, like the sea god for instance, but the creator, but one with yet apart from creation. If the revelation of Jesus Christ happened in the time of Abraham, no one would have understood it, it had to happen when it happened, after man centuries of slow growth and understanding. This is still going on I believe. That is why I stay in my faith, it is not static, but maturing again slowly over time. I know that you don't believe that, OK with me, just trying to bring some understanding into the conversation.....not sure how well I am doing LOL.

Peace

mark

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that our religious texts are a succession of attempts to explain life and the universe. The NT has more advanced morals than the OT, but its still 2000 years old, society has changed a lot since then. The same goes with its science and history, our understanding has advanced significantly, and the Israelite perspective doesn't paint a complete picture of either. That doesn't mean it's useless, though. It is however, a biased source, as all sources are, since it is the product of humans. And since religious texts are human products, and part of a progression of morality and understanding, shouldn't science and philosophy be considered as part of that continuum?

I do appreciate other perspectives of things, but I have to admit I don't really like apologetics. I find they try to stretch things too far to make them fit one particular narrative. You could say the same thing about the scientific narrative if you were so inclined, it is reliant on fundamental truths which might be wrong. For instance our estimations for the age and size of the universe rely on the speed of light being constant. Some physicists have even suggested such a thing. The difference is internal consistency and mathematics to back it up. Apologetics have little more than opinion to argue their case.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always looked at apologetics as starting out with a set of beliefs and then trying to show that they are true -- not quite the same as genuinely looking for the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have learned when it's healthy and when to throw the whole question out and ask why I need to know in the first place. Not just in spiritual things but any excessive doubt can be crippling, you know? But that's my approach to religious stuff lately. I just don't need to know and I wasted way too much time thinking about it anyway. I guess that is not a very religious stance :yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have learned when it's healthy and when to throw the whole question out and ask why I need to know in the first place. Not just in spiritual things but any excessive doubt can be crippling, you know? But that's my approach to religious stuff lately. I just don't need to know and I wasted way too much time thinking about it anyway. I guess that is not a very religious stance :yes:

I think it is better to admit we don't know something than to pretend we do know something we don't know, or get massive headaches trying to figure out a problem that can never be answered. Spiritual life is an everyday process, not a final answer to an unanswerable question. We pick up strategies and knowledge on the way, but even that can change as life goes on. That's why religion is based on faith. The longer I walk in Faith the more I can trust in it and see it working. I don't know how it will work out and at times I even get doubtful, but applying faith has worked so far, enough that I know to continue with that formula.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is better to admit we don't know something than to pretend we do know something we don't know, or get massive headaches trying to figure out a problem that can never be answered. Spiritual life is an everyday process, not a final answer to an unanswerable question. We pick up strategies and knowledge on the way, but even that can change as life goes on. That's why religion is based on faith. The longer I walk in Faith the more I can trust in it and see it working. I don't know how it will work out and at times I even get doubtful, but applying faith has worked so far, enough that I know to continue with that formula.

That's cool. A lot of times I wish I had faith in something too. Actually, I love the people around me, so I would say I have faith in them!

...Mostly, hahah.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubt and faith

Doubt and faith go together, an inner tension that allows choice and seeking.

I have found that those who are sure of themselves, without doubt, come across as angry, myopic and fearful of other ways of thought. Eric Hoffa said that the sign of a fanatic is one who can't abide anyone believing or thinking differently than them. A fanatical Christian for instance, if he or she loses their faith will become a fanatical atheist, and vise-verse of course.

How do you deal with doubt? I am speaking to both atheist and believers. Even though I am not an atheist, I do believe that 'truth' is something we all seek at ever deeper levels. To stop seeking truth, is to I believe becoming a fanatic of some sort. Both fundamentalism and atheism are for me too simplistic an answer to the complexity and mystery of our existence. The big questions can't be answered by science, though without science we would be worse off than we are now. I believe that both science and religion as well as philosophy are equally important for mankind. PeaceMark

Hi Mark, I do not agree that doubt and faith go together. IMHO, doubt goes together with curiosity which are both the daughters of knowledge. Real faith cannot doubt. No wonder that the founder of Christianity aka Paul preferred that Christians walked by faith and not by sight. (II Cor.5:7) The reason is that those who walk by faith need a guide, a cane or a dog and Paul wanted to be that... well, guide. He hated people who walk by sight. These usually have a mind of their own and Paul did not want that for his followers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...due to my budding reasoning,and sought out my own answer.

That's great!

I do not consider it faith to believe in the Law of Gravity,because if a more sensible explanation backed by evidence comes forth I would not hold onto old ideas that hypothetically left obsolete by the new.

I'm all for that, and I'm a good example. I was Kundalini channeler, and now, I'm a Christ follower. I'm in with the "new" that's given me the result that my heart sincerely wanted. Mind you, I'm not saying that Kundalini Yoga is not real...

Why is faith such a good thing especially if tactics of punishment vs reward is involved which leads to the logic inclined to be suspicious of such said faith?

I call myself a Christian because I know that Jesus Christ is real, and I feel that Spirit in my heart; however, the stories about Him are something else. Everything we have about Him is hearsay and interpretation and manipulation. Before I converted back to Christianity, if I had based my life on the Bible, I would have checked myself as the most sinful person in the world for worshiping the force inside of me, as in apotheosis. Stranger than fiction, Jesus took me out of that Void, as I've mentioned to you before. I think that says a lot. He either keeps His salvation promise seriously...or the Bible should be treated as a mere collection of fairy tales because one doesn't need the Bible to see Jesus, in the end. I certainly didn't bug my eyes while reading the Bible before my Void experience. Unless, I did something wonderful to deserve the meeting? True, I have always believed in karma (as in patterns), and I'm naturally kind, relatively honest, and all the "good" things that go with being me, living in this complex (spiritual, of the "spirit") world, and experiencing the afterlife 3 times in one lifetime alone.

"...punishment vs reward..." Sounds human-centric to me, and it reeks of manipulation or human control. In the end, we really don't know EXACTLY what Jesus or God said. On the other hand, hearsay "is always a good read," as I always say. Alas, I love to read and do research, in spite of everything...for I have all the time in the world.

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mark, I do not agree that doubt and faith go together. IMHO, doubt goes together with curiosity which are both the daughters of knowledge. Real faith cannot doubt. No wonder that the founder of Christianity aka Paul preferred that Christians walked by faith and not by sight. (II Cor.5:7) The reason is that those who walk by faith need a guide, a cane or a dog and Paul wanted to be that... well, guide. He hated people who walk by sight. These usually have a mind of their own and Paul did not want that for his followers.

That is not true. You cannot get away from doubt, if someone says they don't have it, then they do in fact become hard and angry when challenged. There are many books written about doubt by Christians, it is expected. St. Paul had a powerful experience, that is what he went by,he shared it, others pass on their experience and it is presented with certain language. The Risen Lord, the reality of the experience is the reason people follow Christ Jesus. No one thinks for himself, there is always a thread followed, ways of thought read and then experience will make how they present their beliefs in a unique way.

Peace

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubt and faith

Doubt and faith go together, an inner tension that allows choice and seeking.

I have found that those who are sure of themselves, without doubt, come across as angry, myopic and fearful of other ways of thought. Eric Hoffa said that the sign of a fanatic is one who can't abide anyone believing or thinking differently than them. A fanatical Christian for instance, if he or she loses their faith will become a fanatical atheist, and vise-verse of course.

How do you deal with doubt? I am speaking to both atheist and believers. Even though I am not an atheist, I do believe that 'truth' is something we all seek at ever deeper levels. To stop seeking truth, is to I believe becoming a fanatic of some sort. Both fundamentalism and atheism are for me too simplistic an answer to the complexity and mystery of our existence. The big questions can't be answered by science, though without science we would be worse off than we are now. I believe that both science and religion as well as philosophy are equally important for mankind.

Peace

Mark

These days I don't doubt as much as I used to. I always felt guilty that I doubted God and this went on for years. I felt like the Isrealites in the wilderness sometimes but one of my main prayers was that I would never forget the things that God has done for me and that God would never leave me and guess what, he never has. :) more and more I can hear, feel, know him/her/it and really understand what it means to trust god. I pray that I will never return to my doubtful years. I will not say I never have doubts, but if I really think about it I will know for sure that I can (trust God). After making that decision time after time I can truly say God has never failed me yet.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SpiritWriter, :yes: it's been a long time. I believe that one should pray for revelation and discernment, and stay vigilant to receive such.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not true. You cannot get away from doubt, if someone says they don't have it, then they do in fact become hard and angry when challenged. There are many books written about doubt by Christians, it is expected. St. Paul had a powerful experience, that is what he went by,he shared it, others pass on their experience and it is presented with certain language. The Risen Lord, the reality of the experience is the reason people follow Christ Jesus. No one thinks for himself, there is always a thread followed, ways of thought read and then experience will make how they present their beliefs in a unique way.

Peace

Mark

I am glad you said "The risen Lord is the reason people follow Christ Jesus." You are right because Paul declared to his disciple Timothy that both: Jesus as Christ and that he had resurrected was according to his own gospel. (II Tim. 2:8) It means that there was another gospel that preached about Jesus differently from the gospel of Paul. When he came to Jerusalem and listened to the Apostles he was impressed by the idea that they were preaching a different Jesus. He had found the other gospel. Hence he considered them as false apostles. (II Cor. 11:3-6,13) Therefore the contradiction of your words is that the gospel of Jesus and that of Paul were opposite to each other. Sounds like a paradox, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad you said "The risen Lord is the reason people follow Christ Jesus." You are right because Paul declared to his disciple Timothy that both: Jesus as Christ and that he had resurrected was according to his own gospel. (II Tim. 2:8) It means that there was another gospel that preached about Jesus differently from the gospel of Paul. When he came to Jerusalem and listened to the Apostles he was impressed by the idea that they were preaching a different Jesus. He had found the other gospel. Hence he considered them as false apostles. (II Cor. 11:3-6,13) Therefore the contradiction of your words is that the gospel of Jesus and that of Paul were opposite to each other. Sounds like a paradox, doesn't it?

Paul and the Apostles worked together. The differences had to do with the law, not with the reality of Jesus Christ, if that were true, I am sure that would have been a real problem.

Peace

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul and the Apostles worked together. The differences had to do with the law, not with the reality of Jesus Christ, if that were true, I am sure that would have been a real problem.Peace Mark

Would you please quote to me where Paul and the Apostles worked together? If they did how could they preach different gospels? (II Cor.11:4) Furthermore, if they did work together how could the Apostles have rejected Paul as a disciple?(Acts 9:26) And about the difference that had to do with the Law, I agree with you 100%. That's why the Apostles had no problem with the local Jews in Jerusalem and Paul almost got killed as he would preach against the Law. (Acts 21:21) And indeed that was real problem not only between Paul and the Apostles but also between Paul and the Jews in general.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that St. Paul is part of the Canon points to the reality that he was accepted by the early church and that his letters where not in conflict with the 4 Gospels or with the Apostles. When he came to Jerusalem he presented his case, his call to preach to gentiles, he was accepted. The Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the same author. Below deals with the short lived controversy about the place of the law in the life of Christians.

15:19 “Therefore my judgment is that we don’t trouble those from among the Gentiles who turn to God, 15:20 but that we write to them that they abstain from the pollution of idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood. 15:21 For Moses from generations of old has in every city those who preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

15:22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole assembly, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brothers. 15:23 They wrote these things by their hand:

“The apostles, the elders, and the brothers, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: greetings. 15:24 Because we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, ‘You must be circumcised and keep the law,’ to whom we gave no commandment; 15:25 it seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 15:26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15:27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves will also tell you the same things by word of mouth. 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden on you than these necessary things: 15:29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality, from which if you keep yourselves, it will be well with you. Farewell.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that St. Paul is part of the Canon points to the reality that he was accepted by the early church and that his letters where not in conflict with the 4 Gospels or with the Apostles. When he came to Jerusalem he presented his case, his call to preach to gentiles, he was accepted. The Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the same author. Below deals with the short lived controversy about the place of the law in the life of Christians.

Paul was never accepted by the Nazarenes disciples of the Apostles. He tried to join the Sect of the Nazarenes yes, but because of his history as persecutor of the New Way aka the Nazarenes, the Apostles did not believe he could be a disciple. Barnabas also a bachelor like Paul for some weird reason fell for him and put a good word with the Apostles in his favor so that Paul could stay on a trial basis. After listening for a while to the gospel preached by the Apostles he concluded that they were preaching a different Jesus, took them as false apostles and went ahead with his own gospel in Jerusalem. He caused such a havoc in Jerusalem that he was almost killed by the local Jews for preaching idolatry in Jerusalem. (II Cor.11:3-6,13) It was then that James helped him to escape back to Tarsus where he belonged.(Acts 9:26-31) The help was granted not for Paul but for the credibility of the Sect of the Nazarenes headquartered in Jerusalem. It didn't work though because 14 years later Paul returned, was arrested, taken to Court and connected by Tertullus the Attorney as a ringleader to the Sect of the Nazarenes because of those 15 days he was allowed on a trial basis and because James had helped him escape justice. (Acts 24:1-5)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul was never accepted by the Nazarenes disciples of the Apostles. He tried to join the Sect of the Nazarenes yes, but because of his history as persecutor of the New Way aka the Nazarenes, the Apostles did not believe he could be a disciple. Barnabas also a bachelor like Paul for some weird reason fell for him and put a good word with the Apostles in his favor so that Paul could stay on a trial basis. After listening for a while to the gospel preached by the Apostles he concluded that they were preaching a different Jesus, took them as false apostles and went ahead with his own gospel in Jerusalem. He caused such a havoc in Jerusalem that he was almost killed by the local Jews for preaching idolatry in Jerusalem. (II Cor.11:3-6,13) It was then that James helped him to escape back to Tarsus where he belonged.(Acts 9:26-31) The help was granted not for Paul but for the credibility of the Sect of the Nazarenes headquartered in Jerusalem. It didn't work though because 14 years later Paul returned, was arrested, taken to Court and connected by Tertullus the Attorney as a ringleader to the Sect of the Nazarenes because of those 15 days he was allowed on a trial basis and because James had helped him escape justice. (Acts 24:1-5)

True Paul was a colorful character an in some parts of the early church he had little influence. Yet he was put in the canon and I for one love him and read him just as much as I do the Gospels. The early church was really a sect of the Jewish faith, they worshiped with the Jews, but had their own liturgy in their homes. Paul was given the task of opening up their narrow understanding of salvation, that was based on the belief that one had to be Jewish first and follow the law. Paul had the insight that Salvation was a gift, and in fact the law would only get in the way of grace. Actually this still going on today ;-0. In any-case, St. Paul is very important for the church today. Things have to be worked out over a period of time, just like how the Church looks on Jesus and the Trinity., that took generations of thought.

There are many Christians who don't like St. Paul, but again, I for one, believe he put back bone into the Church. Just as the other epistles of Peter, James, John did as well.

Peace

mark

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad you said "The risen Lord is the reason people follow Christ Jesus." You are right because Paul declared to his disciple Timothy that both: Jesus as Christ and that he had resurrected was according to his own gospel. (II Tim. 2:8) It means that there was another gospel that preached about Jesus differently from the gospel of Paul. When he came to Jerusalem and listened to the Apostles he was impressed by the idea that they were preaching a different Jesus. He had found the other gospel. Hence he considered them as false apostles. (II Cor. 11:3-6,13) Therefore the contradiction of your words is that the gospel of Jesus and that of Paul were opposite to each other. Sounds like a paradox, doesn't it?

If Christ existed and was truly the Son of God and established his Church on earth, he would hardly have allowed a false church to rise and prevail over the true one, surely?

If you believe the Church is not ordained by God, then why doesn't Jehovah of the Old Testament strike it down? The Church has prevailed for 2,000 years. When is Jehovah going to intervene to elevate the Jewish religion, instead of punishing their followers for the past 2,000 years? When is he going to part the Red Sea to destroy Israel's enemies?

Yes, Paul had a big influence on the development of Christian teaching, but don't forget that the Catholic Church goes back to St Peter, to whom Christ said, 'Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church'. The Petrine apostolic succession continues to this day through the Popes.

There were many varying ideas and beliefs of exactly who Jesus was. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit (according to Christians), helped consolidate those ideas into a unified belief system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True Paul was a colorful character an in some parts of the early church he had little influence. Yet he was put in the canon and I for one love him and read him just as much as I do the Gospels. The early church was really a sect of the Jewish faith, they worshiped with the Jews, but had their own liturgy in their homes. Paul was given the task of opening up their narrow understanding of salvation, that was based on the belief that one had to be Jewish first and follow the law. Paul had the insight that Salvation was a gift, and in fact the law would only get in the way of grace. Actually this still going on today ;-0. In any-case, St. Paul is very important for the church today. Things have to be worked out over a period of time, just like how the Church looks on Jesus and the Trinity., that took generations of thought.

There are many Christians who don't like St. Paul, but again, I for one, believe he put back bone into the Church. Just as the other epistles of Peter, James, John did as well.

Peacemark

The early church was the church of Paul and he had all the influence he needed. He was put into the Canon because the Fathers of the Church could not approve any of the other writings which were not according to the gospel of Paul. The Sect that became Jewish in the First Century was the Sect of the Nazarenes. Christianity was never considered a Jewish church and they never worshiped with the Jews. They couldn't because they preached against "Moses" a word symbolical for the Law.(Acres 21:21) The Nazarenes yes, their place of prayer was Jewish and they gathered in the synagogues of the Jews. (Acts 9:1,2) Then the fact that one was to be Jewish first and follow the Law was with reference to become a Nazarene which was the same as to become a Jew by conversion. But Paul made an end of that when he would overturn the Nazarene synagogues into Christian churches wherever he visited one.

There is no connection between Jesus and the trinity. The attempt is tantamount to deny Jesus' Jewishness. There is nothing in the whole of the NT written by a Jew or the Apostles or any of the Nazarenes. It would be akin to make of the whole NT an encyclopedia of contradictions.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Christ existed and was truly the Son of God and established his Church on earth, he would hardly have allowed a false church to rise and prevail over the true one, surely?

If you believe the Church is not ordained by God, then why doesn't Jehovah of the Old Testament strike it down? The Church has prevailed for 2,000 years. When is Jehovah going to intervene to elevate the Jewish religion, instead of punishing their followers for the past 2,000 years? When is he going to part the Red Sea to destroy Israel's enemies?

Yes, Paul had a big influence on the development of Christian teaching, but don't forget that the Catholic Church goes back to St Peter, to whom Christ said, 'Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church'. The Petrine apostolic succession continues to this day through the Popes.

There were many varying ideas and beliefs of exactly who Jesus was. Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit (according to Christians), helped consolidate those ideas into a unified belief system.

Christ never existed as an individual. The title was conferred upon Jesus in order to project himself as the one. And Jesus was not the son of God as an individual because he was a Jewish man and not Greek.

God has nothing to do with the things of man. Man was granted free will and he does what he pleases. The Church was not ordained by God because it does not preach the Truth according to the Law and the Prophets. (Isaiah 8:20) In a word, according to Judaism. On the contrary it picked up a Jew to preach against his Faith.

This that the Church has prevailed for 2000 years says nothing of the truth. Islam has prevailed almost the same time and grows faster than Christianity. What do you say now, is it the work of God? I don't think so. Peter never had anything to do with the RCC and as a Jew he could have never been a Pope. It is even a joke to think so.

The Holy Spirit would never inspire a man to preach against "Moses" which is a symbol for God's Law. That's exactly what Paul used to according to Acts 21:21.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ never existed as an individual. The title was conferred upon Jesus in order to project himself as the one. And Jesus was not the son of God as an individual because he was a Jewish man and not Greek.

God has nothing to do with the things of man. Man was granted free will and he does what he pleases. The Church was not ordained by God because it does not preach the Truth according to the Law and the Prophets. (Isaiah 8:20) In a word, according to Judaism. On the contrary it picked up a Jew to preach against his Faith.

This that the Church has prevailed for 2000 years says nothing of the truth. Islam has prevailed almost the same time and grows faster than Christianity. What do you say now, is it the work of God? I don't think so. Peter never had anything to do with the RCC and as a Jew he could have never been a Pope. It is even a joke to think so.

The Holy Spirit would never inspire a man to preach against "Moses" which is a symbol for God's Law. That's exactly what Paul used to according to Acts 21:21.

It is Christian belief that Jesus, the Christ, was the Son of God.

How can you say, 'God has nothing to do with the things of man', when the OT is littered with accounts of his intrusions into men's affairs?

Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, i.e. the first Pope.

It is Christian belief that the Church is the embodiment of Christ on earth. He will always protect it and it will never be destroyed - weakened, crucified, yes, but not destroyed.

Do you believe that God has been protecting Israel/the Jewish religion for the past 2,000 years? Why doesn't he intervene now to rescue his chosen people as he did on various occasions in the OT?

Israel has only existed as a state since 1948, and that was only because of a UN resolution endorsed by a British mandate.

Edited by Philangeli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ never existed as an individual. The title was conferred upon Jesus in order to project himself as the one. And Jesus was not the son of God as an individual because he was a Jewish man and not Greek.

God has nothing to do with the things of man. Man was granted free will and he does what he pleases. The Church was not ordained by God because it does not preach the Truth according to the Law and the Prophets. (Isaiah 8:20) In a word, according to Judaism. On the contrary it picked up a Jew to preach against his Faith.

This that the Church has prevailed for 2000 years says nothing of the truth. Islam has prevailed almost the same time and grows faster than Christianity. What do you say now, is it the work of God? I don't think so. Peter never had anything to do with the RCC and as a Jew he could have never been a Pope. It is even a joke to think so.

The Holy Spirit would never inspire a man to preach against "Moses" which is a symbol for God's Law. That's exactly what Paul used to according to Acts 21:21.

I am fine with what you think is the truth, for me Jesus is Lord and the NT gives witness to the Risen Lord, and how the early church experience that reality. As well as the Church Fathers. If you choose to not believe that, good. Though I have no idea what you believe.

Peace

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is Christian belief that Jesus, the Christ, was the Son of God.

Yes, but Jesus was a Jew and the Christian idea of being son of God on an individual basis is not Jewish. Therefore it is wrong.

How can you say, 'God has nothing to do with the things of man', when the OT is littered with accounts of his intrusions into men's affairs?

Pious attributes with the intent to acquire divine credit for the words of the teacher.

Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, i.e. the first Pope.

Wish fulfilling! Peter was a Jew and Jews cannot be popes in the RCC.

It is Christian belief that the Church is the embodiment of Christ on earth. He will always protect it and it will never be destroyed - weakened, crucified, yes, but not destroyed.

That's only verbal juggling that makes no sense.

Do you believe that God has been protecting Israel/the Jewish religion for the past 2,000 years? Why doesn't he intervene now to rescue his chosen people as he did on various occasions in the OT?

Because we have acquired enough know-how to fend for ourselves. Don't forget that 2,000 years is enough time for intellectual evolution.

Israel has only existed as a state since 1948, and that was only because of a UN resolution endorsed by a British mandate.

Wrong! If we depended on the UN and British mandate we would never have the State we have today. The Lord in His way has armed ourselves to be independents.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.