Archer 007
Rebirth
Yes, the extra two. Love God and love your neighbor. He said all the rest could be compressed into those two.
True cristhianity
- Thread starter Saga of Gemini
- Start date
But this does not challenge my reasoning because I did accepted that, if there were objective means to determine what is the best interpretation of Christ's commands, than they could be used to separate true Christians from false ones.
Hence, as demons are described as those who refuse to follow Christ, we can clearly set than apart, even without such clarification.
Not quite the same about people who claim to follow Christ, and most likely sincerely believe that is doing exactly that, only through an interpretation that differs from your own.
There are relevant dissimilarities between the two example, see?
Regards
.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
I don't believe in christ - so that must make me pretty low on the christian party invitation list!
I think the bottom line is that every religious person has their own ideas about the issue.
It is not for one human being to dictate the policy.
Yes, it's just that, Curt.
Not something that everyone can - or wants - to understand, though.
Regards.
Not something that everyone can - or wants - to understand, though.
Regards
.
Saga of Gemini
Golden Saint Overlord
I never used MY criteria, you assumed I did.
I didnt made up any of the texts I Quoted everything I said is backed up, not by "rituals" or "teachings" of my own or any religion, they are rigth there on the bible ( wich I didnt wrote BTW). So I dont see why u see its MY criteria, when its the one that matters and counts the Bible.
Saga of Gemini
Golden Saint Overlord
Originally posted by FredLC
Let me try saying it one more time. The list you posted is your list, and these are your words, not the words written in the bible. They are nothing but one reading of the bible, one of many possible. A Christian of different denomination could come up with a different list of principles, and just as easily judge you a false Christian, case in which our hypothetical friend will be just as wrong as you are now.
You have no mandate to rule on how to interpret that book, my friend. Can you grasp that?
Regards
ITS NOT MY LIST, I didnt put the interpretation, I just looked at the texts ( wich are rather specific) its easy to know, even christ himself said one could see wich were his true followers.
Like Ive said before: EVERYTHING I SAID ITS BACKED UP I didnt made it up, or got it form a "JW manual".
Yes I have no mandate but rather the bible rigth? Thats what Ive been saying.
Syterion
Voodoo Economist
Well, if #7 is true,then I guess we can eliminate Catholicism from the list of true believers. 
Disclaimer: No offense intended to any Catholics, just pointing out that over the centuries it is quite clear the Catholic church was very involved in world politics in general.
Disclaimer: No offense intended to any Catholics, just pointing out that over the centuries it is quite clear the Catholic church was very involved in world politics in general.
I tought of asking saga for the specific un-edited quotations that support each of the items on his list, but I tought I may regret the likely flooding that will follow... 
First you didn't even notice how 1 timothy 2:6 was wriiten . " There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all." you done a lot of studing but fail to even notice there is a difference between Jesus Christ and Christ Jesus. there is a good reason why these verse says Christ Jesus and NOT Jesus Christ.
You have misunderstood the reason why Jesus asked this question. " Why do you call me good? noone is good but God alone." He was actually asking him "Do you see me as God?" Of course this man didn't even though he had morals.
Also the scriptures makes it very plain that the Jews understood what Jesus was claiming in John 10:30 -34
" I and my Father are one." THEN the JEWS took up stones again to stone him (Jesus)
when asked for what works do they stone him for they answer him " For good work we stone thee not: but for blasphemy; and because that thou,being a man, makest thyself God.
now you can claim you don't believe Jesus is God but you can't honestly claimed that the bible doesn't teach this. Also the revelation of the name of Jehovah was given to Moses in Exodus 3:14 " I AM THAT I AM ...I AM .."
Jesus is the great I AM . I AM the bread of life , I AM the light of the world, I AM the good shepherd, I AM the resurrection, I AM the true vine, I AM the truth , I AM the life ,I AM Alpha and Omega, I AM the first and last . even "Before Abraham was I AM." Jesus is Jehoveh ( the forever present one)
P.S. I forgot verse John 5 :18 " ...but also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." also Philippians 2:6 "Who (Christ Jesus) being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." But what about John 14: 28 "...I go unto the Father: For my Father is greater than I." this is answered in Hebrews 2:9 " But we see Jesus , who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death..." So Jesus was not yet glorified when he was down on earth but humble himself to be submit to the Father will (which Satan tempted him to act outside the Father). In 2Corinthians 5:16 " ... though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now thereforth know we him no more . when John saw Christ glorified in Revelation "he fell at His feet as dead." So in Revelation Jesus Christ was no longer in "lower than angels" position.
IT IS said that some Bible texts offer proof in support of the Trinity. However, when reading such texts, we should keep in mind that the Biblical and historical evidence does not support the Trinity.
Any Bible reference offered as proof must be understood in the context of the consistent teaching of the entire Bible. Very often the true meaning of such a text is clarified by the context of surrounding verses.
Three in One
THE New Catholic Encyclopedia offers three such "proof texts" but also admits: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]. In the N[ew] T[estament] the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor 13.13 [verse 14 in some Bibles], and 1 Cor 12.4-6. In the Gospels evidence of the Trinity is found explicitly only in the baptismal formula of Mt 28.19."
In those verses the three "persons" are listed as follows in The New Jerusalem Bible. Second Corinthians 13:13 (14) puts the three together in this way: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." First Corinthians 12:4-6 says: "There are many different gifts, but it is always the same Spirit; there are many different ways of serving, but it is always the same Lord. There are many different forms of activity, but in everybody it is the same God who is at work in them all." And Matthew 28:19 reads: "Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
Do those verses say that God, Christ, and the holy spirit constitute a Trinitarian Godhead, that the three are equal in substance, power, and eternity? No, they do not, no more than listing three people, such as Tom, Dick, and Harry, means that they are three in one.
This type of reference, admits McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, "proves only that there are the three subjects named, . . . but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honor."
Although a supporter of the Trinity, that source says of 2 Corinthians 13:13 (14): "We could not justly infer that they possessed equal authority, or the same nature." And of Matthew 28:18-20 it says: "This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity."
When Jesus was baptized, God, Jesus, and the holy spirit were also mentioned in the same context. Jesus "saw descending like a dove God's spirit coming upon him." (Matthew 3:16) This, however, does not say that the three are one. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned together numerous times, but that does not make them one. Peter, James, and John are named together, but that does not make them one either. Furthermore, God's spirit descended upon Jesus at his baptism, showing that Jesus was not anointed by spirit until that time. This being so, how could he be part of a Trinity where he had always been one with the holy spirit?
Another reference that speaks of the three together is found in some older Bible translations at 1 John 5:7. Scholars acknowledge, however, that these words were not originally in the Bible but were added much later. Most modern translations rightly omit this spurious verse.
Other "proof texts" deal only with the relationship between twothe Father and Jesus.
''I and the Father Are One"
THAT text, at John 10:30, is often cited to support the Trinity, even though no third person is mentioned there. But Jesus himself showed what he meant by his being "one" with the Father. At John 17:21, 22, he prayed to God that his disciples "may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, . . . that they may be one just as we are one." Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were.See also 1 Corinthians 1:10.
Jesus prayed to God that his disciples might "all be one," just as he and his Father "are one"
At 1 Corinthians 3:6, 8, Paul says: "I planted, Apollos watered . . . He that plants and he that waters are one." Paul did not mean that he and Apollos were two persons in one; he meant that they were unified in purpose. The Greek word that Paul used here for "one" (hen) is neuter, literally "one (thing)," indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at John 17:21, 22. So when he used the word "one" (hen) in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose.
Regarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: "The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father."
Right in the context of the verses after John 10:30, Jesus forcefully argued that his words were not a claim to be God. He asked the Jews who wrongly drew that conclusion and wanted to stone him: "Why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, 'I am God's son'?" (John 10:31-36, NE) No, Jesus claimed that he was, not God the Son, but the Son of God.
ANOTHER scripture offered as support for the Trinity is John 5:18. It says that the Jews (as at John 10:31-36) wanted to kill Jesus because "he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God."
But who said that Jesus was making himself equal to God? Not Jesus. He defended himself against this false charge in the very next verse (19): "To this accusation Jesus replied: . . . 'the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing.'"JB.
By this, Jesus showed the Jews that he was not equal to God and therefore could not act on his own initiative. Can we imagine someone equal to Almighty God saying that he could "do nothing by himself"? (Compare Daniel 4:34, 35.) Interestingly, the context of both John 5:18 and 10:30 shows that Jesus defended himself against false charges from Jews who, like the Trinitarians, were drawing wrong conclusions!
''I Am"
AT JOHN 8:58 a number of translations, for instance The Jerusalem Bible, have Jesus saying: "Before Abraham ever was, I Am." Was Jesus there teaching, as Trinitarians assert, that he was known by the title "I Am"? And, as they claim, does this mean that he was Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the King James Version at Exodus 3:14 states: "God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM"?
At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase "I AM" is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: "To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, 'Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.' Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] 'I will be what I will be.'"
The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58
1869: "From before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.
1935: "I existed before Abraham was born!" The BibleAn American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1965: "Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am." Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.
1981: "I was alive before Abraham was born!" The Simple English Bible.
1984: "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that God's created "firstborn," Jesus, had existed long before Abraham was born.Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation 3:14.
Again, the context shows this to be the correct understanding. This time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to "have seen Abraham" although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (Verse 57) Jesus' natural response was to tell the truth about his age. So he naturally told them that he "was alive before Abraham was born!"The Simple English Bible.
I'll continue tomorrow.
Any Bible reference offered as proof must be understood in the context of the consistent teaching of the entire Bible. Very often the true meaning of such a text is clarified by the context of surrounding verses.
Three in One
THE New Catholic Encyclopedia offers three such "proof texts" but also admits: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]. In the N[ew] T[estament] the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor 13.13 [verse 14 in some Bibles], and 1 Cor 12.4-6. In the Gospels evidence of the Trinity is found explicitly only in the baptismal formula of Mt 28.19."
In those verses the three "persons" are listed as follows in The New Jerusalem Bible. Second Corinthians 13:13 (14) puts the three together in this way: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." First Corinthians 12:4-6 says: "There are many different gifts, but it is always the same Spirit; there are many different ways of serving, but it is always the same Lord. There are many different forms of activity, but in everybody it is the same God who is at work in them all." And Matthew 28:19 reads: "Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
Do those verses say that God, Christ, and the holy spirit constitute a Trinitarian Godhead, that the three are equal in substance, power, and eternity? No, they do not, no more than listing three people, such as Tom, Dick, and Harry, means that they are three in one.
This type of reference, admits McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, "proves only that there are the three subjects named, . . . but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honor."
Although a supporter of the Trinity, that source says of 2 Corinthians 13:13 (14): "We could not justly infer that they possessed equal authority, or the same nature." And of Matthew 28:18-20 it says: "This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity."
When Jesus was baptized, God, Jesus, and the holy spirit were also mentioned in the same context. Jesus "saw descending like a dove God's spirit coming upon him." (Matthew 3:16) This, however, does not say that the three are one. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned together numerous times, but that does not make them one. Peter, James, and John are named together, but that does not make them one either. Furthermore, God's spirit descended upon Jesus at his baptism, showing that Jesus was not anointed by spirit until that time. This being so, how could he be part of a Trinity where he had always been one with the holy spirit?
Another reference that speaks of the three together is found in some older Bible translations at 1 John 5:7. Scholars acknowledge, however, that these words were not originally in the Bible but were added much later. Most modern translations rightly omit this spurious verse.
Other "proof texts" deal only with the relationship between twothe Father and Jesus.
''I and the Father Are One"
THAT text, at John 10:30, is often cited to support the Trinity, even though no third person is mentioned there. But Jesus himself showed what he meant by his being "one" with the Father. At John 17:21, 22, he prayed to God that his disciples "may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, . . . that they may be one just as we are one." Was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were.See also 1 Corinthians 1:10.
Jesus prayed to God that his disciples might "all be one," just as he and his Father "are one"
At 1 Corinthians 3:6, 8, Paul says: "I planted, Apollos watered . . . He that plants and he that waters are one." Paul did not mean that he and Apollos were two persons in one; he meant that they were unified in purpose. The Greek word that Paul used here for "one" (hen) is neuter, literally "one (thing)," indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at John 17:21, 22. So when he used the word "one" (hen) in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose.
Regarding John 10:30, John Calvin (who was a Trinitarian) said in the book Commentary on the Gospel According to John: "The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is . . . of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father."
Right in the context of the verses after John 10:30, Jesus forcefully argued that his words were not a claim to be God. He asked the Jews who wrongly drew that conclusion and wanted to stone him: "Why do you charge me with blasphemy because I, consecrated and sent into the world by the Father, said, 'I am God's son'?" (John 10:31-36, NE) No, Jesus claimed that he was, not God the Son, but the Son of God.
ANOTHER scripture offered as support for the Trinity is John 5:18. It says that the Jews (as at John 10:31-36) wanted to kill Jesus because "he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God."
But who said that Jesus was making himself equal to God? Not Jesus. He defended himself against this false charge in the very next verse (19): "To this accusation Jesus replied: . . . 'the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing.'"JB.
By this, Jesus showed the Jews that he was not equal to God and therefore could not act on his own initiative. Can we imagine someone equal to Almighty God saying that he could "do nothing by himself"? (Compare Daniel 4:34, 35.) Interestingly, the context of both John 5:18 and 10:30 shows that Jesus defended himself against false charges from Jews who, like the Trinitarians, were drawing wrong conclusions!
''I Am"
AT JOHN 8:58 a number of translations, for instance The Jerusalem Bible, have Jesus saying: "Before Abraham ever was, I Am." Was Jesus there teaching, as Trinitarians assert, that he was known by the title "I Am"? And, as they claim, does this mean that he was Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures, since the King James Version at Exodus 3:14 states: "God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM"?
At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase "I AM" is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: "To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, 'Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.' Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] 'I will be what I will be.'"
The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58
1869: "From before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.
1935: "I existed before Abraham was born!" The BibleAn American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1965: "Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am." Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.
1981: "I was alive before Abraham was born!" The Simple English Bible.
1984: "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been." New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that God's created "firstborn," Jesus, had existed long before Abraham was born.Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation 3:14.
Again, the context shows this to be the correct understanding. This time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to "have seen Abraham" although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (Verse 57) Jesus' natural response was to tell the truth about his age. So he naturally told them that he "was alive before Abraham was born!"The Simple English Bible.
I'll continue tomorrow.
There is a reason why the Holy Spirit not mention here and why Jesus didn't come out and say clearly I'm God ( even though his actions spoke louder than his words). the whole temption of Satan in Matthew 5-7 was for Jesus to glorify himself instead letting the Father glorify Him ( this is also he told his disciples not to tell anyone He was Christ until AFTER He was glorified). Only a true believers know the Holy Spirit so I wonder if someone who doesn't know anything about the Spirit even knowd the Lord since Jesus only reveal the Spirit to those who belong to Him. ( the Spirit is unknown to the world. .Also the Spirit won't speak of itself but take the things of Christ and make them real unto us.
Also the Jews know their messiah is Immaneul ( God with us) . the FIRST christians would rather died than to deny Jesus is less than God. So even though the word "Trinity" wasn't used until later doesn't mean they didn't believe Jesus is God in the first church.( it was later the Romans started to learn the "christian language" ) Jesus ( 100% man ) Christ ( 100% God) . Did you know that the types of the Father , Son and Holy Spirit and the church in even in the book of Genesis? ( even in Genesis, Holy Spirit is a unnamed servent ) You got to attack a lot of scriptures and changes them in order to deny the Bible doesn't claim Jesus is God in flesh. I Know about there is a website the tries to attack over 100 verses trying to deny the scriptures. personally If I had to attack over 100 verses and uses 10 different versions ( God isn't the auther of confusion) to deny a doctrine, I would throw my bible in the trash and be an atheist. But I rather be like those first Christians who would rather die than make Jesus Christ less than God and bring Him down on our level. ( p.s. one of the Holy Spirit's job is the reveal to true believers who Jesus Christ is.)
When it comes down to it , it goes back to the questions Jesus ask his disciples " But whom say ye that I am? "
" Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. " Amen . But i know there is cults who has learned the christian language but doesn't mean the same thing as a true believer. Jesus told Peter "for fresh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but my Father which is in Heaven." That the difference between a true believer and a make-believer : a make-believer because some man only has taught them( they just learn the doctrine of christianity) and while a true Christians , Lord Jesus Christ is reveal by the Father.
Ah, and here we have it, different people interpreting the bible differently.
I love when I am right. Only it's more fulfilling when it happens in a less obvious thing.
Regards.
I love when I am right. Only it's more fulfilling when it happens in a less obvious thing.
Regards
.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
1. Jesus started one true Christian religion. So today there must be just one body, or group, of true worshipers of Jehovah God. (John 4:23, 24; Ephesians 4:4, 5) The Bible teaches that only a few people are on the narrow road to life.Matthew 7:13, 14.
Yes. All the divisions of Christianity are silly and trivial anyway.
2. The Bible foretold that after the death of the apostles, wrong teachings and unchristian practices would slowly come into the Christian congregation. Men would draw away believers to follow them instead of Christ. (Matthew 7:15, 21-23; Acts 20:29, 30) That is why we see so many different religions that claim to be Christian. How can we identify true Christians?
Despite what you would think, I think the false religious leaders aren't hard to discover. Upon close examination you can usually tell when someone makes a religious movie or builds a mega-church to tie in to a book deal.
3. The most outstanding mark of true Christians is that they have real love among themselves. (John 13:34, 35) They are not taught to think that they are better than people of other races or skin color. Neither are they taught to hate people from other countries. (Acts 10:34, 35) So they do not share in wars. True Christians treat one another as brothers and sisters.1 John 4:20, 21.
Yes.
4. Another mark of true religion is that its members have a deep respect for the Bible. They accept it as the Word of God and believe what it says. (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17) They treat God's Word as being more important than human ideas or customs. (Matthew 15:1-3, 7-9) They try to live by the Bible in their everyday life. So they do not preach one thing and then practice another.Titus 1:15, 16.
Yes. The Bible has just about all you need to live a good life.
5. The true religion must also honor God's name. (Matthew 6:9) Jesus made God's name, Jehovah, known to others. True Christians must do the same. (John 17:6, 26; Romans 10:13, 14) Who are the people in your community that tell others about God's name?
Well, sorta. I wouldn't necessarily advocate out-and-out missionary work, but seeing someone with a destructive lifestyle and trying to stop them is always important.
6. True Christians must preach about God's Kingdom. Jesus did so. He always talked about the Kingdom. (Luke 8:1) He commanded his disciples to preach this same message in all the earth. (Matthew 24:14; 28:19, 20) True Christians believe that only God's Kingdom will bring true peace and security to this earth.Psalm 146:3-5.
Yes.
7. Jesus' disciples must be no part of this wicked world. (John 17:16) They do not get involved in the world's political affairs and social controversies. They avoid the harmful conduct, practices, and attitudes that are common in the world. (James 1:27; 4:4) Can you identify a religious group in your community that has these marks of true Christianity?
I don't think so. If you see a problem in the world, you should still try to solve it.
Remember when, after Jesus died, people stopped working and feeding their families to wait for Christ to return? We can't do that. We have to address poverty and war and disease. We can't totally alienate ourselves from the problems of the world.
Yes. All the divisions of Christianity are silly and trivial anyway.
2. The Bible foretold that after the death of the apostles, wrong teachings and unchristian practices would slowly come into the Christian congregation. Men would draw away believers to follow them instead of Christ. (Matthew 7:15, 21-23; Acts 20:29, 30) That is why we see so many different religions that claim to be Christian. How can we identify true Christians?
Despite what you would think, I think the false religious leaders aren't hard to discover. Upon close examination you can usually tell when someone makes a religious movie or builds a mega-church to tie in to a book deal.
3. The most outstanding mark of true Christians is that they have real love among themselves. (John 13:34, 35) They are not taught to think that they are better than people of other races or skin color. Neither are they taught to hate people from other countries. (Acts 10:34, 35) So they do not share in wars. True Christians treat one another as brothers and sisters.1 John 4:20, 21.
Yes.
4. Another mark of true religion is that its members have a deep respect for the Bible. They accept it as the Word of God and believe what it says. (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17) They treat God's Word as being more important than human ideas or customs. (Matthew 15:1-3, 7-9) They try to live by the Bible in their everyday life. So they do not preach one thing and then practice another.Titus 1:15, 16.
Yes. The Bible has just about all you need to live a good life.
5. The true religion must also honor God's name. (Matthew 6:9) Jesus made God's name, Jehovah, known to others. True Christians must do the same. (John 17:6, 26; Romans 10:13, 14) Who are the people in your community that tell others about God's name?
Well, sorta. I wouldn't necessarily advocate out-and-out missionary work, but seeing someone with a destructive lifestyle and trying to stop them is always important.
6. True Christians must preach about God's Kingdom. Jesus did so. He always talked about the Kingdom. (Luke 8:1) He commanded his disciples to preach this same message in all the earth. (Matthew 24:14; 28:19, 20) True Christians believe that only God's Kingdom will bring true peace and security to this earth.Psalm 146:3-5.
Yes.
7. Jesus' disciples must be no part of this wicked world. (John 17:16) They do not get involved in the world's political affairs and social controversies. They avoid the harmful conduct, practices, and attitudes that are common in the world. (James 1:27; 4:4) Can you identify a religious group in your community that has these marks of true Christianity?
I don't think so. If you see a problem in the world, you should still try to solve it.
Remember when, after Jesus died, people stopped working and feeding their families to wait for Christ to return? We can't do that. We have to address poverty and war and disease. We can't totally alienate ourselves from the problems of the world.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
If 'their' outline comes from the Bible, and the Bible is Jehovah's Word, how can an outline that comes from the Bible be anyone's but Jehovah's? Further, who better than Jehovah to decide what is and is not true Christianity? Still, He knew that His people would need some means of identifying those who would come amongst them as destroyers, so He gave us this advice:
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Marvellous!
Also pointless.You equate someone poring over the Scriptures and finding substantive declarations by it that support their beliefs to some guy just pulling stuff out of his butt.
What's the name of the fallacy where you compare two things that have no basis in comparision? Like when you say 'An apple pie made with oranges wouldn't taste right, so you're totally wrong.'
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
A question that has little to no bearing whatsoever on the authority of his arguments, as he has not quoted a Watchtower or Awake magazine once, and has in fact stuck strictly to the Bible and secular sources.
But how many can offer proof like Saga did?
And in how many religious communities can we observe true brotherhood and love on a world-wide scale?
So you have no answer to these arguments...
Did Christ order his followers to make the world a better place, or to spread his Father's teachings to its farthest corners, and pray for his Father's Kingdom to come and make it a better place for them? Did Christ tell his followers to invovle themselves in politics, or did he remind them that his kingdom was '...no part of this earth.'?
Is that your answer to 4-6? Your opinion that the points are wrong? Against his stack of Scriptural evidence? You'll excuse me if I take God's Word over yours...
Apples and oranges. We're not talking about making humans into better humans. We're talking about telling true Christians from false Christians.
In ONE of them, huh? Well, it's a good thing that Saga didn't use ANY of them then, isn't it?
Seems to me like Saga's points stand firm.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
What authority WOULD you appeal to then? Santa Claus? Perhaps the Easter Bunny? Honestly, if you're going to toss out the Bible, you may as well toss the baby(Christianity) out with it...So there it is: either Christianity based on the Bible, or find a new religion. Maybe the Jews or the Muslims will take you, but you better show some respect for the Talmud or the Q'u'uran... If not, then perhaps the I Ching? Voodoo? Zen Bhuddism?
Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Marvellous!
You equate someone poring over the Scriptures and finding substantive declarations by it that support their beliefs to some guy just pulling stuff out of his butt.
What's the name of the fallacy where you compare two things that have no basis in comparision? Like when you say 'An apple pie made with oranges wouldn't taste right, so you're totally wrong.'
It's called False Analogy.
Nevertheless, not the case in here.
The fallacy of the "No True Scotsman" applies when one adds caractheristics of his own selection to a given group, in order to alienate elements that he do not like/desire/accept that belong to the given group. And that is the case in here.
As proposed by the fallacy structure:
A) A True Scotsman never beats in a woman.
B) But Angus was born in Scotland... and he kicks the hell out of his wife at least once a week.
C) He may be born in Scotland, but he is not a TRUE Scotsman.
Same in here:
Saga: A True Christian accepts that the true interpretation of the bible is X.
Fred: But John Doe believes and follows Christ. Only that he thinks that the true interpretation of the bible is Y.
Saga: He may believe and follow Christ, but he is doing it wrong, so he is not a TRUE Christian.
As you can see, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy fits like a charm.
Regards
.Edit: Are you a Jehova Witness, FL2? Though we have surfed these waters many times, I never really got to know your denomination.
Mescalhead
Vincebus Eruptum
I would prefer to call someone who doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ, but looks to him as a paragon of what human action should be, a Christian.
Unfortunately, the word Christianity is a proper noun, so for the sake of semantics, I would only consider a proper Christian to be one that simply professes to believe in Jesus as their deity of choice.
Unfortunately, the word Christianity is a proper noun, so for the sake of semantics, I would only consider a proper Christian to be one that simply professes to believe in Jesus as their deity of choice.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Nice try, but Saga's not interpreting anything, he's quoting, without modification, and applying that to the subject. There is no 'interpretation', just what is written.
With your base premise failed, the whole argument fails.
I suppose I am, but I'm a terrible example of one. Been too depressed for too long now to keep my eyes on the prize. Just can't believe that I'm worth saving to God. Still, it's a worthy cause, and I'll stand up for it, FWIW.
