And I would disagree with your comment about it not being important. It is. Belief in Christ's divinity is what separates Christians from unitarians or other theists, and as such, its pretty important to the belief, if not the most important thing.
I would think it'll probably be important to you, but not that important, and I really find it odd you'd think it's the most important. Do you believe the importance of your identity outweighs the importance of the message that is key to the core of that identity?
Rather than "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you," I'd say the focus should be on:" 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Actually, "takes away" is probably a poor translation. The word literally means "lifts." This certainly could mean be removes, but likely does not. It probably means that He takes them up of the ground and provide them with the support (in that region and time the supports would be cords tied to stakes in the ground) they need in order to have the right amount of sunlight in order to bear fruit. The branches that remain in Him but have not yet born fruit will be given the support and put into a position to facilitate fruit bearing, while those already bearing fruit will be subjected to the hardships of pruning to make them bear more, and those which fall away will die on their own before their remains are destroyed.
Hell is not a significant part of his message, but but his past resurrection and our future resurrection which it foreshadows are. Paul said the faith was meaningless and Christians the most pitiful people on Earth if our hope for the coming resurrection is false. There does not seem to have been much talk of heaven or hell back then. The scripture seems to better fit the notion that there is not an immaterial soul that lives on after us consciously in some spirit world, good or bad, but rather that all who have ever lived will take part in a bodily resurrection and that those who remain in Christ will live forever in their incorruptible new bodies whereas the rest will pass away again after facing judgment for the deeds they did in this life..
Serious question: Isn't that sentiment exclusive to Protestants? I seem to recall the Catholics being pretty big on good works being sufficient to get you to heaven.
The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church."
Rather than "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you," I'd say the focus should be on:" 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
I disagree with that focus. I interpret that as he was just charming the Pharisees and showing off his knowledge of the law, not preaching to love the alien.
I would think it'll probably be important to you, but not that important, and I really find it odd you'd think it's the most important. Do you believe the importance of your identity outweighs the importance of the message that is key to the core of that identity?
Yes, because in all of Christs messages he is clear that the core of his message is attributed to his identity via his father, God. Without God, there is no message, and without Jesus being devine, the entire thing falls flat. Without divinity, he just becomes some 2000+ year old version of Tony Robbins...and I think he was much more than just that. Another 2000 years from now no one is going to remember who Tony Robbins was, but they will still know about Jesus. The guy has a lot of staying power.
Quite simply, if you dont believe that Jesus is divine and holy (the way, the light and the truth), your're not a Christian. Its completely integral to the belief.
All right, if you all think so. Lets say that in my opinion the message should be far more important regardless.
Still, if I'm preaching the second most important part of Christianity I'm still preaching Christianity. And not referring to God or any specifics, atheists and other non-Christians will be more willing to hear the message. And once they like that message I'll have to leave the other part to you guys.
Except thats simply starting a belief on a false pretense right off the bat. Why not be honest with them about the source of it all, and have genuine believers instead of trying to trick them into it?
The goal isnt to have people more willing to listen to a watered down version, the goal is to have people willing to listen to the true version.
And once they like that message I'll have to leave the other part to you guys.
I think my method is more effective.
Except thats simply starting a belief on a false pretense right off the bat. Why not be honest with them about the source of it all, and have genuine believers instead of trying to trick them into it?
Funny how you said that, for there is a section in the Bible about how Jesus went into his Father's Temple and saw that it became a market, and drove the merchants out with a whip made of cords. A sure showing of God's wrath.
Is it possible to state an atheist(etc.) message without basing it on a falsehood?
What you believe is false doesn't mean it's false to all others. It's called "faith" to us.
Funny how you said that, for there is a section in the Bible about how Jesus went into his Father's Temple and saw that it became a market, and drove the merchants out with a whip made of cords.
No he wasn't OK with it , remember him hiding ...
Empathy such a hard word for so many people , Just like "who is my neighbour"... people don't really get who the Samaritans were to the Jews, nowadays we would say the good Afghan or the good Iranian to put it in a modern context, maybe even the good illegal immigrant
thinking out side the square... if one makes a single fold you have a square piece of paper, one just has to adjust ones thinking from inherited traditions slightly
I'm very, very, very insulted by that. Now, you probably don't care about my feeling but that sort of rhetoric is no way to have an actual dialogue about Christianity. It is neither clever nor particularly persuasive.
Is it possible to state an atheist(etc.) message without basing it on a falsehood?
What you believe is false doesn't mean it's false to all others. It's called "faith" to us.
I'm very, very, very insulted by that. Now, you probably don't care about my feeling but that sort of rhetoric is no way to have an actual dialogue about Christianity. It is neither clever nor particularly persuasive.
I'm sorry, I didn't intend it to be rhetoric, though I might have been playing with the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Thanks for expressing your offense, I appreciate the feedback.
Ziggy brought up the 'true Christian teachings' and said that it was "the Golden Rule". I insisted that it's also "love God". Is this the end of the Christian teaching, is this sufficient? Or is this only 'part' of the 'true Christian message' (especially as conceived of by Christ)?
We've got Christians who believe that the 'true Christian messages' requires Adam's existence (these Christians include Paul and the author of Jude). We've got Christians who believe that the existence of Noah is required as part of the 'true Christian message' (including the authors of the two books of Peter and the book of Hebrews).
We have very many Christians who think that the 'laws of Moses' are an essential component of the 'true Christian message', but this message is incoherent if Moses didn't exist. I'd be so bold as to include Jesus in this list, though I understand that it's tough to call Jesus a 'Christian'.
Christ's two rules ("love God and others") survive the loss of these figures; handily so. It's quite possible to "love God" if you find out that the Plagues weren't real. Can the rest of Christianity survive the loss? Or does preaching Christianity require teaching people falsehoods, first?
If Christianity doesn't need to be taught on falsehoods, why are so many children under the impression that Noah really existed? Do you know of any churches whose children don't? And how can a Christian be "loving God" if they're blithely ignoring such libel, anyway?
what i find odd, if you say you agree with the whole of one of Jesus' many different teachings, you are somehow wrong due to some line in some other ancient text, i just don't think Jesus wasted his time during his short mission, teaching the multitudes, even suggesting how one should word thier prayers to their god, then to be told I'm missing the point of his message due to a previous ancient prophet, i don't follow moses teachings , i not a mosian or biblicists or a johnwainianoligist or Noahorian, I'm concerned with Jesus' teachings
I don't find what he preached(said) hard to follow, except in the actual practice of his teachings, to me he seemed articulate and intelligent , so i presume he knew what he was saying
I bolded a part there because that is actually the only thing I can see that has impact on the teachings of Christ. Being the son of God lends him credibility. Fulfilling prophecies, his resurrection etc really are irrelevant to the message. On to the issue of his credibility.
I think that it's all important. Christianity is very complex and has many aspects that people devote their entire lives to studying and still don't understand. That's certianally something that we're not going to understand on an internet forum, but I'll give it a shot at addressing what you're saying. The ressurection is important, and fulfilling the prophecies is a way to prove that he really is the Son of God. If he wasn't the Son of God, then his death on the Cross wouldn't have meant anything and he would just be another victim of mob mentality and the Roman Justice System. He was the Son of God, so his death meant that everyone can be forgiven of thier sins. The ressurection also proves that he is the Son of God. See 1 Corinthians 3-19 (sorry for the little letters in the middle of the text)
Spoiler:
3For (F)I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died (G)for our sins (H)according to the Scriptures,
4and that He was buried, and that He was (I)raised on the third day (J)according to the Scriptures,
5and that (K)He appeared to (L)Cephas, then (M)to the twelve.
6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some (N)have fallen asleep;
7then He appeared to (O)James, then to (P)all the apostles;
8and last of all, as to one untimely born, (Q)He appeared to me also.
9For I am (R)the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I (S)persecuted the church of God.
10But by (T)the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I (U)labored even more than all of them, yet (V)not I, but the grace of God with me.
11Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
12Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there (W)is no resurrection of the dead?
13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;
14and (X)if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
15Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He (Y)raised [a]Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.
16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; (Z)you are still in your sins.
18Then those also who (AA)have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are (AB)of all men most to be pitied.
I can actually be very short about it. The message should sell itself. The teachings should sound true even if it was preached by a numbnuts like me. The one carrying the message in this one is of less significant than the message itself. And seeing that Christ himself also preaches to be humble, I bet he would agree with me.
Why can't he be just another good person? What makes the message have less value when a lowlife like me is promoting it?
I don't consider you a numbnut or a lowlife. You seem to have a good grasp on the core values. I just don't fully agree with everything. But, using your arguement, if someone that wasn't a Christian tried to preach Christianity, they could make it unappealing. If I worked for Ford as a car salesman, I could go to a GM lot and make a free GM car sound like a bad idea.
I appretiate the chance to discuss this with someone else. This is a good thread.
Actually, "takes away" is probably a poor translation. The word literally means "lifts." This certainly could mean be removes, but likely does not. It probably means that He takes them up of the ground and provide them with the support (in that region and time the supports would be cords tied to stakes in the ground) they need in order to have the right amount of sunlight in order to bear fruit. The branches that remain in Him but have not yet born fruit will be given the support and put into a position to facilitate fruit bearing, while those already bearing fruit will be subjected to the hardships of pruning to make them bear more, and those which fall away will die on their own before their remains are destroyed.
I'd never looked into it that much. I'm just using a free online Bible I found, so I won't vouch for the accuracy of the translation. That is an interesting way of looking at it.
You learn something everyday.
Hell is not a significant part of his message, but but his past resurrection and our future resurrection which it foreshadows are. Paul said the faith was meaningless and Christians the most pitiful people on Earth if our hope for the coming resurrection is false. There does not seem to have been much talk of heaven or hell back then. The scripture seems to better fit the notion that there is not an immaterial soul that lives on after us consciously in some spirit world, good or bad, but rather that all who have ever lived will take part in a bodily resurrection and that those who remain in Christ will live forever in their incorruptible new bodies whereas the rest will pass away again after facing judgment for the deeds they did in this life..
Define pass away. Besides that one part, I agree with what you say here. In Revelation, it talks about everyone not chosen, those who have their name written in the "Lambs Book of Life", being thrown into a lake of burning sulfur.
It's not putting the quote you had in this quote block, but I disagree with that. I think that you have to be a Christian. I don't know much about Catholicism, but is that an official view of the Catholic Church?
Yes, because in all of Christs messages he is clear that the core of his message is attributed to his identity via his father, God. Without God, there is no message, and without Jesus being devine, the entire thing falls flat. Without divinity, he just becomes some 2000+ year old version of Tony Robbins...and I think he was much more than just that. Another 2000 years from now no one is going to remember who Tony Robbins was, but they will still know about Jesus. The guy has a lot of staying power.
Quite simply, if you dont believe that Jesus is divine and holy (the way, the light and the truth), your're not a Christian. Its completely integral to the belief.
All right, if you all think so. Lets say that in my opinion the message should be far more important regardless.
Still, if I'm preaching the second most important part of Christianity I'm still preaching Christianity. And not referring to God or any specifics, atheists and other non-Christians will be more willing to hear the message. And once they like that message I'll have to leave the other part to you guys.
But Christ being the Son of God is critical. See what I said above. There are places in the Bible (see the end of Revelations) where it warns against only giving part of the message of the Gospel. I agree that getting into deep theological stuff isn't the best with people that have never heard of Jesus, but leaving out things like God, or Christ's ressurection, or umm... God out of the Gospel really isn't the Gospel. It's also manipulative to try to trick people into thinking that Christianity is atheistic. It's kinda a "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth thing" , but you also have to include the way, the truth, and the life into that.
Ziggy brought up the 'true Christian teachings' and said that it was "the Golden Rule". I insisted that it's also "love God". Is this the end of the Christian teaching, is this sufficient? Or is this only 'part' of the 'true Christian message' (especially as conceived of by Christ)?
We've got Christians who believe that the 'true Christian messages' requires Adam's existence (these Christians include Paul and the author of Jude). We've got Christians who believe that the existence of Noah is required as part of the 'true Christian message' (including the authors of the two books of Peter and the book of Hebrews).
We have very many Christians who think that the 'laws of Moses' are an essential component of the 'true Christian message', but this message is incoherent if Moses didn't exist. I'd be so bold as to include Jesus in this list, though I understand that it's tough to call Jesus a 'Christian'.
Alot of those books that you're saying reference Old Testament figures were written to Jews who were very familiar with those people. (Especially Hebrews, written especially to the Hebrews aka Jews). I don't know that it ever says that you ahve to believe in those people to be a Christian. I think that if you are a Christian, you will come to believe in them (through the Holy Spirit, but that's a whole different debate) if you didn't when you became a Christian.
Christ's two rules ("love God and others") survive the loss of these figures; handily so. It's quite possible to "love God" if you find out that the Plagues weren't real. Can the rest of Christianity survive the loss? Or does preaching Christianity require teaching people falsehoods, first?
That's assuming that all the Old Testament is a falsehood. If you're saying that the entire Old Testament isn't true, then you're a little off. Much of it is well documented, especially the history of Isreal. I understand why people don't always believe the Creation story, and thus Adam, but what's wrong with Moses, Noah, the Plauges on Egypt, or anyother of the prophets or kings of Isreal?
If Christianity doesn't need to be taught on falsehoods, why are so many children under the impression that Noah really existed? Do you know of any churches whose children don't? And how can a Christian be "loving God" if they're blithely ignoring such libel, anyway?
Why is the story of the Great Flood a falsehood? If you look, almost every culture has a story of a great flood wiping out everything and only a few people surviving on a boat. The Greeks, Egyptians, Aztecs, Jews, Babylonians, and many others all have similar myths.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
I'll just hit some high points from the past 2 pages.)
